GRA Reform, Legal Self Declaration, has no effect on access to spaces

[ool0n]

I'm wondering given the recent convincing defeat of gender critical ideology in the high court vs EHRC - if the Mumsnet gender critical people finally accept the fact that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces?

People on the other side of the debate like myself have been explaining to GC people on Twitter for years that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces so their objection to GRA reform is/was unfounded. I/we based this on -

1. English government legal analysis that stated having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces
2. Scottish government legal analysis ... ditto ...
3. The EA 2010 and GA 2004 text
4. The practical impossibility that a BC (Not an ID document) could be of any use in deciding access

now we have

1. Gender critical crowdfunded challenge to EHRC guidance that says having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces. Comprehensively lost, not even passed the very low bar to even be considered for a Judicial Review.

Given this is the case will gender critical people be reevaluating their assertion "Self ID", as in GRA Reform, must be opposed as it effects access to spaces? Trans people have always been able to "Self ID", in the colloquial sense, into men's and women's spaces. So making it easier for trans people to change their birth certificates only helps them, has no effect on GC feminists, and/or cisgender women and spaces.

(I also wonder if there'll be any introspection as to why an obviously incorrect interpretation of the law was able to become so prevalent in gender critical circles. Maybe listen to groups outside of GC circles a bit more?)

Phrenology? Isn't that how many lumps on a man's head determine if he's a serial killer?

@R0wantrees

No, that would be the claim of someone who says "sex" is "produces eggs", or "produces sperm" and that is intrinsically linked to genders of man/woman (enby probably doesn't exist in their worldview).

Noone says "produces eggs" as defining sex. Otherwise all girls would be sexless before menarche and likewise women post menopause would cease to be female.

See Nettie project statement linked previously.

I was replying to someone who said exactly that, if you define it differently then fair enough but you can't claim "no one says" that when it was said on this thread.

I was replying to...

What characteristic of sex?

"The characteristic that you can either produce eggs ... or you can produce sperm"

i’ll happily buy him some flowers and grapes for when he's lying in bed in the male hospital ward, healing from his beating by women.

Should clarify this is a quote from the woman-identifier, who thinks women would beat up to the point of hospitalisation a man who went into the women’s changing rooms.

[quote spoonrider]@ifiwereanandroid

"No need to test it. I have the proof for you.

Women have reported going into the ladies changing room at their gym, only to find a naked, fully intact male there, sometimes more than one. I've seen many reports of this, from the UK & abroad. Often, the women say they won't use the showers/changing room/gym any more. Is this what you want to happen?

I've seen a report this week of male students hanging around the women's bathrooms of a university's student accommodation, & telling any young woman who objects that they're trans & can't be thrown out."

Could you post a link to these, please? I'm genuinely interested in seeing them.[/quote]
Oh, I really don't think you are.

I have a feeling that we might be here until women admit that we’ve all been very silly and it’s time to stop our nonsense about wanting single sex spaces and other such notions, and get back to far more important things (not sure what they are, so await further instruction).

Nope.

So the law and the guidance regarding the Equality Act is not to be changed at the moment. Fine. Yet organisations have been encouraged, by Stonewall and others, to get ahead of the law.

Our job now is to ensure that organisations realise that they are able to use the existing single sex exceptions and that they will be enthusiastically supported by women for doing so.

From the EHRC website:

Circumstances when being treated differently due to gender reassignment is lawful

A difference in treatment may be lawful if:

an organisation is taking positive action to encourage or develop transsexuals to participate in a role or activity in which they are under-represented or disadvantaged

the circumstances fall under one of the exceptions to the Equality Act that allow organisations to provide different treatment or services

competitive sports: a sports organisation restricts participation because of gender reassignment. For example, the organisers of a women’s triathlon event decide to exclude a trans woman. They think her strength gives her an unfair advantage. However, the organisers would need to be able to show this was the only way it could make the event fair for everyone

a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment
Last updated: 15 May 2019

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination#:~:text=The%20Equality%20Act%202010%20says

One does have to wonder why on earth did Stonewall ever bother campaigning to remove the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act, if their existence has no relevance to people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as is being claimed?

Because removing single sex spaces on behalf of L, G or B people would not seem to make any logical sense...

Can you imagine! it's going to be great

There we will all be, drinking and laughing, and macraméing.

@allmywhat

i’ll happily buy him some flowers and grapes for when he's lying in bed in the male hospital ward, healing from his beating by women.

Should clarify this is a quote from the woman-identifier, who thinks women would beat up to the point of hospitalisation a man who went into the women’s changing rooms.

Oh dear. I missed that. I do tend to skim over some posters, to be honest.

Honestly. It's like a parallel universe.

@TinselAngel

Can you imagine! it's going to be great

There we will all be, drinking and laughing, and macraméing.

You spell it, I'll knit it.

Weave it?

😁

The difference is my post and experience is based in science, reality, not ideology.

@Sophoclesthefox

I have a feeling that we might be here until women admit that we’ve all been very silly and it’s time to stop our nonsense about wanting single sex spaces and other such notions, and get back to far more important things (not sure what they are, so await further instruction).

Nope.

I think it might be something to do with making sammiches and stuff

Dr Katie Alcock, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Lancaster University.
Dec 18, 2019

But HOW CAN YOU TELL
(extract)
"So, how do we tell whether someone is male or female? Well, we are very good at it and — like a lot of human cognitive skills — we base it on a number of cues (pieces of information). In fact, we’re very good at it from the time we are tiny babies.
One of the best ways to tell a male body from a female body is gait — how you walk. You don’t need a whole body in front of you, or even the outline of a body, to tell male from female bodies. A nice little point light display will do the trick. Adults and babies aged 4 months or older can tell male from female in this type of video (first image shows a still, second is a video like the ones used in this type of experiment).

Next up, we can tell the difference between male and female faces. Just as with gait, both infants and adults can do this.
For babies, we usually work out what they can distinguish by finding out what they prefer to look at and what they prefer to look at when we’ve bored them into submission which is technically known as “habituation”. If a baby sees something that looks the same to them, after a while, they will stop looking (I imagine them saying “OK, stop now, I’ve seen that, show me something NEW and EXCITING). This means if we switch in a new picture or sound and they now pay attention, we usually decide they can tell the difference between the old (BORED NOW MUMMY) picture or sound and the new (WOW THAT’S EXCITING) picture or sound. But babies also like to look at some things more than others. Babies who spend more time with Mum or a female caregiver can tell the difference between male and female, and prefer female. But babies who spend more time with Dad or a male caregiver can also tell the difference, but prefer male." (continues)

...As I said above, the difference between male and female voices is not simply pitch, but we use pitch a lot to distinguish them, so it’s unlikely that a person wanting a more “feminine” voice who doesn’t alter pitch will be mistaken for a woman. You might want to have a look at the segments of walking, too, to see what a biological man walks like, except of course… you already knew — you’ve known since you were a baby."
medium.com/@katieja/but-how-can-you-tell-7901324d0919

@Sophoclesthefox

I have a feeling that we might be here until women admit that we’ve all been very silly and it’s time to stop our nonsense about wanting single sex spaces and other such notions, and get back to far more important things (not sure what they are, so await further instruction).

Nope.

That's a nope from me as well.

Trying to dictate what women talk about: dear, oh dearie me.

Wow, you haven't hung around many tough women have you?

Haha!! That's the comment of the day!

Should clarify this is a quote from the woman-identifier, who thinks women would beat up to the point of hospitalisation a man who went into the women’s changing rooms.

As if women would ever ask a male friend to go into the womens and scare women just to prove a point. Goes to show how different women are wired than transwomen on here, that we would never see other women as props in our debate. It is as if these posters don't see women as human beings or something.

Shame, they could learn from us about being nice and thinking of others.

I'm confused why gender critical people would both criticise trans women for conforming to stereotypical views of what it means to be a woman. And criticise specific women like Alex Drummond, and Danielle early on in transition, who don't.

I can only answer this from my perspective. I have experienced male violence, and men really scare me. It's a fact that violence and harassment are commonplace and a natal woman was murdered every three days (equivalent to) through 2020.

I can't tell which men are predators because they come from all walks of life.

But if a person who looks like a man walks into a women's toilet, I would leave fast. I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt by dropping my knickers behind a flimsy door. I would immediately assume he had ulterior motives by being there, because he shouldn't be. It's a useful clue to intent.

I don't doubt hardcore male predators wouldn't try to pass as a woman to gain access to these spaces and, in fact, a friend of mine had that happen to her. However, if we say that people who look like men, but identify as women are ALLOWED to walk into loos (for example), it makes life very difficult and damn scary. It becomes EASY to hurt women.

I am not saying that "transgender people hurt woman" (although there are actually transgender people in jail for sex crimes against women and children, so that does happen).

But sex predators are sex predators, and ignoring male physical characteristics just makes it a LOT easier for them to be predators if women are accused of being transphobic when a man who looks like a man walk into safe places.

Without some kind of boundary, it creates a loophole for awful men to either hurt women, or just troll them for shits and giggles by piggybacking their abuse on the safety net afforded them by making it 'hateful' for a woman to respond to her fear by reacting to a male presence.

I don't understand why people don't get this? And it distresses me enormousness that no one seems to care.

@TheWeeDonkey

Cuppa tea be nice, darlin'.

Having a late lunch here and scrolling through this thread. Almost choked on my sandwich at spoonrider's post on page 2

The trans woman will be (because if you've clocked her she's likely an older transitioner) dressed overly feminine. She'll be doing her utmost to not draw attention. She'll not be making trouble.

Made me think of this

In answer to the OP's original goady question, it's a no from me.

Without some kind of boundary, it creates a loophole for awful men to either hurt women, or just troll them for shits and giggles by piggybacking their abuse on the safety net afforded them by making it 'hateful' for a woman to respond to her fear by reacting to a male presence.

I don't understand why people don't get this? And it distresses me enormousness that no one seems to care.
smellycats

A lot of us care a lot.