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?

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

Just utter nonsense.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1

@OldCrone

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 then biology only trump law in cases or royalty or church then. Congratulations on that.

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?

But laws aren't permanent, they can change. Some laws are ridiculous. Laws that called Australian Aborigines "fauna" instead of human beings didn't trump biology either. They were just shit laws. The Turkmen dictator who changed the names of days of the week to references from his autobiography made shit laws. Laws aren't carved in stone to exist forever.

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

I love how some people just love to lie on the internet

Those were just some examples anadult. Have a look at Waitwhat's links.
This is from one of them:

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

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

So following this logic you can believe humans can change sex, but you can't force me to believe it, right? And you can't harass me for not believing it either. Your words, anadult

Correct, I cannot force you to believe it, and I cannot harass you over it. Good thing I am doing neither.

Jesus, @anadulthumanfemale...you are a testy wee thing, aren'tcha?

You brought up Maya and harassment in your post. I pointed out that defamation is a thing. I'm trying to be helpful.

Wrong....No exclusions are allowed at that point

Nope. I work in healthcare. A TW who presents with prostate cancer would not be denied treatment because they had a birth certificate which said F. Women don't get prostate cancer, the TW has prostate cancer, ergo, the TW is not female.

Trans people deserve to have treatment for health issues in exactly the same non judgemental way as any other population.

Welcome to Mumsnet anadulthumanfemale There's quite an influx of a few posters determined to share with us their flawed understanding of the law (according to Stonewall?)

Thank you for posting as it gives so many highly knowledgable women opportunities to share expertise about the fight to retain women's rights and child safeguarding.

Goodness me, this thread has taken an interesting turn.

The adoption bit - I'm sure we've covered that before. Adopted people aren't demanding their birth certs are changed to put their adoptive parents in as their biological parents; quite the contrary. Care is taken that adoption certificates reflect the truth.

No adoptive parent tries to get everyone else to believe they are their children's biological parent. That would be ridiculous.

A transman and a transwoman (maybe one or both under self-id legally registered as the opposite sex to their birth sex) are stranded on a desert island with just the clothes they stand up in.

A year later, when they are discovered, one of them is pregnant.

I can say with 100% certainty, sight unseen/legal status unknown, which one is pregnant and which one isn't, based purely on biological sex, it being immutable.

Can't you, anadult?

Gender ideology myth number 20

Because humans can parent a child that isn't biologically theirs, that means humans can change sex.

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.

Not likely, there are so few young people who actually have treatment and the detransition rate so low it's unlikely there will be anyone who attempts to sue. The Detransition Advocacy Network appears to disappeared, the first wave of detransitioners are retransitioning and if Keira really attempts to go after Gillick Competence then it's hard to imagine a more divisive strategy that will completely alienate the vast majority of feminists.

But more importantly you don't seem to have realised the significance of the Bell case. This treatment has been found legal, and equally it has been ruled that under 16s are capable of understanding the risks and able to provide consent. A separate court has ruled their parents can also consent. That pretty much scuppers any future court cases no matter what happens.

21:04barleybadminton

You simply don't live in the real world.

Almost every sentence written there is easily countered.

And you're creepily keen on child sterilisation.

@Linguini

21:04barleybadminton

You simply don't live in the real world.

Almost every sentence written there is easily countered.

And you're creepily keen on child sterilisation.

Counter it then. How successful do you think someone who tried to sue would be after they legally consented to a legal treatment but then regretted it? People regret medical procedures all the time, but if they were able to consent they have no grounds to sue. These young people are able to legally consent, that has been established by the courts and it's further strengthened by their parents also giving consent. As long as that consent is correctly sought then the Bell verdict pretty much indemnifies clinicians from any future legal action.

Oh, they've given their consent so they can just suck it up, can they? You sound lovely.

Many people in their teens and twenties think they will live perfectly happily with no children. I think the realisation will come in their thirties when their peers are all parents and they discover the high price they have paid for an ideology

I'm also interested in how you know that detransitioners are retransitioning (and indeed that their numbers are going down) when no research is allowed in the area.

Interestingly, there was a study released recently that showed that detransitioner rates may well be being minimised when groups are saying ‘too miniscule’ to measure.

Although a very small study of 67 people treated for gender dysphoria in the UK, nearly 10% had detransitioned.

This is actually close to European study tracking a group of transitioners which found 8.3% of females at the time had detransitioned and 8.8% of males. That study did not contain any of the rapid increase of patients since around 2016-7 though.

I would suggest detransitioner figures are indeed higher than many activists like to tell us.

How successful do you think someone who tried to sue would be after they legally consented to a legal treatment but then regretted it? People regret medical procedures all the time, but if they were able to consent they have no grounds to sue. These young people are able to legally consent, that has been established by the courts and it's further strengthened by their parents also giving consent. As long as that consent is correctly sought then the Bell verdict pretty much indemnifies clinicians from any future legal action.

Considering this recent UK study also discovered that the average number of appointments it took was just 2.7 appointments to get hormone treatment.

The entire point of the study was that trans health care is not up to standard and does not seem to be adequately following the published guidelines.

I would say that consent given for poor quality health care will probably be little defence against that poor quality care.

I'm also interested in how you know that detransitioners are retransitioning (and indeed that their numbers are going down) when no research is allowed in the area.

Sorry but that's a ridiculous thing to say. Of course research in this area is permitted, the reason there isn't much is because there are so few detransitioners that no-ones ever been able to get a decent sample size together.

Considering this recent UK study also discovered that the average number of appointments it took was just 2.7 appointments to get hormone treatment.

You'll be posting a link to this and the other research I presume?

I'm also interested in how you know that detransitioners are retransitioning

I would suggest that those figures come from a self selected survey run by the Trevour project. It was basically run like a marketing research quantitative survey.

Several other ambiguous claims from that survey have been argued over the past year. And it relates to the US not the UK.

If this is not the study you are talking about, better link it up because it seems to contradict some peer reviewed and published research. If it exists, maybe we need to let the authors of the just released study so they can consider their own findings. Because maybe they need to re-revaluate their data.

@Helleofabore

I wasn't talking about published research I was talking about the previously high profile detransitioners who have now retransitioned and condemned the GC detransition movement as abusive.

Any chance of those links now?

@barleybadminton

Considering this recent UK study also discovered that the average number of appointments it took was just 2.7 appointments to get hormone treatment.

You'll be posting a link to this and the other research I presume?

Really? You haven’t seen it?

You speak with so much authority on detransitioners barley just like all your posts. Many of which are then shown to be overstated or just plain wrong.

So, are you using that Trevor Project survey from the US that was fully self selected with a reward incentive for participating as your authority on detransitioners retransitioning?

The survey that had little relevance to the UK?

[quote barleybadminton]@Helleofabore

I wasn't talking about published research I was talking about the previously high profile detransitioners who have now retransitioned and condemned the GC detransition movement as abusive.

Any chance of those links now?[/quote]
You first barley.

Who are you talking about? Please tell us who and not just a handwave of ‘people’.

And please explain the relevance of those transitioners to the current cohort of teenage and young adult transitioners who are in the majority female.

So, are you using that Trevor Project survey from the US that was fully self selected with a reward incentive for participating as your authority on detransitioners retransitioning?

No, I've just said I wasn't.

And no I haven't seen the study that showed it takes an average of 2.7 appointments to be proscribed hormones, although I'm not entirely sure what that's got to do with under 16s being proscribed puberty blockers. Perhaps you'd be able to provide a link.