So 20xx: Self ID has passed. What next?

[MiladyBerserko]

What happens after the legal definition of woman has changed so that any male can say they are one?

Will this be the end game and what on earth will Stonewall do then?

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it already, but Exulansic suggested women say they are a disabled group due to the aberrant extra portion on the Y chromosome.

“You'll start finding kids being taught that Cleopatra was trans, Marie Curie was trans, Jane Austen was trans, or Alice in Wonderland was a metaphor for being trans or whatever bollocks it takes to steal real females from history as well as guaranteeing them a future of misery.”

This! It’s already happening, but we’ll see it on a larger scale. Women will be told we owe our rights to trans women.

There’s one thing I can see coming, which will be more high profile court cases of detransitioners who felt pushed into transition by professionals or were too young to understand the consequences like Kiera. That will open the floodgates for many. I foresee lawyers specialising (and advertising it openly) in these cases as it will be so lucrative.

Detransitioners will be common and harder to shut up.

@Linearpark

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it already, but Exulansic suggested women say they are a disabled group due to the aberrant extra portion on the Y chromosome.

Obviously this is not a good move for anybody who is actually disabled (does to that group what the trans movement is doing to women).

However, if that could be got around, it is absolutely genius.

@Waitwhat23

Maya's opinions were deemed legally equivalent to homophobia

For any lurkers who are wondering about this comment, the following information may give better insight -

'Religion or belief is a protected characteristic, in accordance with Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, and Tribunals must apply five criteria (known as the Grainger criteria) when establishing whether a belief is capable of protection:

• the belief must be genuinely held
• it must be a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
• it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.'

Maya Forstater's appeal was upheld. GC views are a protected belief because they meet all the criteria.

I think it would amaze people to know that stating the established fact that the human species cannot change sex has had to be established as a protected belief so that women cannot be forced out of employment.

I think you need to re-read criteria number two there. "it must be a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available"

NOT based on present state of information available. So if it qualifies as protected belief, it isn't 'established fact' as you claim. If it was based on fact it wouldn't be a protected belief.

You can't have it both ways. Either GC views are protected belief OR they are fact.

The human species is a dimorphic species. That is a fact.

The moon orbits the earth. That is a fact.

The earth is not flat. That is a fact.

An ideology which insists that the first statement is not a fact (despite no credible evidence to the contrary) has lead to a situation where a fact has to be designated as a protected belief in order to appease those with no critical thinking capacity. And actually the bit you've quoted doesn't actually mention the word fact - 'it says it must be a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available'.

Belief not an opinion or viewpoint

So actually, using the wording of the criteria, it can stand as both a fact and a belief.

An ideology has brought us to this point. Rational people know that human beings cannot change sex.

And by those with no critical thinking capacity, I am referring to those who are trying to force women from employment for daring to state that there are only two sexes (obviously).

'a viewpoint based on the present state of information available' is literally the definition of 'fact'. So while 'fact' is not explicitly stated, it is still mentioned.

Also, your 3 examples of facts you gave there...guess what, none constitute protected beliefs. BECAUSE they are based on fact.

Finally, human beings CAN change sex. Not biologically, no, but legally. That's literally what the GRA does. Unless of course you believe that biology trumps law?

The definition of fact as stated in the Cambridge English Dictionary is -

'something that isknownto havehappenedor toexist,especiallysomething for whichproofexists, or about which there isinformation.'

So....

'Legally' changing sex is a legal fiction. It means that sex markers can be changed on documents but doesn't actually change someone's sex. Single sex spaces shouldn't be removed on the basis of a legal fiction.

@Waitwhat23

And by those with no critical thinking capacity, I am referring to those who are trying to force women from employment for daring to state that there are only two sexes (obviously).

GC beliefs are protected, sure. But harassing co-workers over protected beliefs is not. It doesn't matter what belief. For example, if a conservative Christian was to constantly tell gay colleagues they were 'going to hell for their sinful lifestyle' they could be fired for harassment. If it was some random person who believed people with brown hair were helping space squirrels steal peoples pockets, constantly telling people they are evil for helping space squirrels would be harassment.

People can believe whatever they like. They are not however free to act upon those beliefs as they see fit.

@Waitwhat23

'Legally' changing sex is a legal fiction. It means that sex markers can be changed on documents but doesn't actually change someone's sex. Single sex spaces shouldn't be removed on the basis of a legal fiction.

So on that basis you believe adoptive parents are not parents, that their parenthood is legal fiction too? After all it doesn't actually change the fact that they didn't create that child.

Or does law in fact trump biology?

Maya didn't harass anyone, @anadulthumanfemale. Careful, now.

So, then we agree. Biology = sex. The legalese and terms or conventions describing and sex as a concept can change, but as sex is immutable then it doesn't really matter.

The law can say what it likes, but if you've got a Y chromosome then you are male and will be for life.

Biology trumps law.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Maya didn't harass anyone, *@anadulthumanfemale*. Careful, now.

Never said she did. I merely said that having protected beliefs doesn't allow you to use those beliefs to harass people. I at no point claimed that was what Maya had done.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

So, then we agree. Biology = sex. The legalese and terms or conventions describing and sex as a concept can change, but as sex is immutable then it doesn't really matter.

The law can say what it likes, but if you've got a Y chromosome then you are male and will be for life.

Biology trumps law.

So you would therefore claim that adoptive parents are not really parents, seeing as biology trumps law?

Your "adoptive parents v birth parents" analogy is a straw man.

Both terms have descriptors in law to clarify the rights and protections of both parties in law.

Just as "woman" means "adult human female" and "trans woman" means "male person with a gender difference who is transitioning in some way"

Finally, human beings CAN change sex. Not biologically, no, but legally. That's literally what the GRA does. Unless of course you believe that biology trumps law?

The GRA lets people change the sex marker on their birth certificate, but the law still allows for circumstances in which that person should be treated as their actual sex, not their legally 'acquired gender'. Because biology is real and people can't change sex.

Well, that's another straw man then, isn't it?

We agree that no one should be harassing trans people on account of their trans status - as per the law.

As you don't think that's what Maya was doing it's probably best not to link her name with discriminatory behaviour which could well be a hate crime. Defamation and all that, even on an anonymous forum, it's not very nice.

@OldCrone

Finally, human beings CAN change sex. Not biologically, no, but legally. That's literally what the GRA does. Unless of course you believe that biology trumps law?

The GRA lets people change the sex marker on their birth certificate, but the law still allows for circumstances in which that person should be treated as their actual sex, not their legally 'acquired gender'. Because biology is real and people can't change sex.

Wrong. Once the sex marker is change that person is legally the other sex, with all the rights and protection therein. No exclusions are allowed at that point

What do adoptive parents have to do with a law which would allow a man to be legally recognised as female just because he said he was a woman?

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Well, that's another straw man then, isn't it?

We agree that no one should be harassing trans people on account of their trans status - as per the law.

As you don't think that's what Maya was doing it's probably best not to link her name with discriminatory behaviour which could well be a hate crime. Defamation and all that, even on an anonymous forum, it's not very nice.

I never linked her name to that. You were the one who brought it up, not me.

Wrong. Once the sex marker is change that person is legally the other sex, with all the rights and protection therein. No exclusions are allowed at that point

There are exceptions regarding primogeniture and also some religious exceptions. Read the legislation.

So you would therefore claim that adoptive parents are not really parents, seeing as biology trumps law?

Straw feminist.
So if my adopted family member needs a kidney transplant, you think we should pretend her adoptive mother is a suitable donor?

In the English language as it is spoken today, "parent" means the biological mother/father or someone who performs the social role of parent to a child. The verb "to parent" is a meaningful term about what it is to take responsibility for a child and bring them up.

Man is a noun. It is a word for adult male human being. There is not a verb "to man" and if there were, it would be founded on sexist stereotypes on what it is to live a male life.