When the GRA was passed, it was meant to cater for a tiny minority of people, around 5,000, and about a third of them biologically female. So only about 3,333 biologically male people involved.
Some foresighted people raised objections at the time. These were waved away, and one of the (supposed) justifications for so doing was the tiny numbers involved, how the numbers of biologically male trans people were too small to have any impact on the day to day lives of women.
Fast forward less than two decades and look where we are now. Exponentially greater numbers of biologically male people identifying as trans and demanding access to women’s spaces and services, most of them still clearly and visibly male. The impact on women grows daily, from the shift to “gender neutral” toilets that most women really, really don’t want, to the lack of single sex provision for rape survivors, with so much else in between. The landscape has shifted in ways that weren’t imagined by the lawmakers at the time, and everybody on every side of this issue knows this.
And yet, despite this clear and obvious precedent, we are supposed to believe that we can trust trans rights activists when they say that because there are currently no biologically male people who “identify as” female working as medical examiners, that means there never will be at some point in the future?
It’s preposterous and absolutely mired in misogyny. Women don’t have the right to ask for a cast iron safeguard that female means female, for their peace of mind, because it makes some male people feel bad. Women’s needs are on a scale of priority many orders lower than male people’s feelings.
Oh barley. Are you so convinced of your moral rectitude that you really don’t see how you give yourself away with every post you make? Haranguing women over and over again for our supposed misdemeanours, whether “transphobia” or racism or whatever other mud you want to sling at us, all the while so blithely, supremely ignorant of the crushing weight of bigotry that informs every single one of your views?
You are not a crusader against oppression. You are the oppressor. You are actively perpetuating the oldest, most deeply rooted form of oppression there is: that of the female sex by the male sex. You want to curb our human rights, our right to name and organise against our oppression; you want to demonise and criminalise us for standing up against the endemic abuse we suffer.
You are the apartheid government calling the ANC “terrorists”. You are the fat cat bosses banning trades unions. You are the white supremacist demanding black people sit at the back of the bus. [All these are analogies, just for the sake of clarity. I’m not suggesting you actually would have sided against Rosa Parks, just that you are, perhaps unwittingly, on a par with those who did, in your role in the sex-based axis of oppression.] You want us outlawed, prevented from organising, confined to the back of the bus.
Perhaps that’s why you’re so inexplicably, shockingly bristling with rage at us. Perhaps because you know deep down that what you’re doing doesn’t sit well with your supposed world view, your supposed image of yourself as a noble warrior on the side of social justice and freedom.
Perhaps that’s why you hate us so much, because in speaking truth we reveal to you the truly viscerally unpleasant, unjust, male supremacist oppressor side of your nature, a side you really don’t want to acknowledge, don’t want to have to deal with the existence of. Far easier to demonise the women who show up your failings than address those awkward, embarrassing failings, that sit so badly with the image you want to present to the world, and to yourself.
How tragic to think yourself a strident voice in the movement for social progress, only to be actually on a par with those fine men of the Spanish Inquisition and their determination to root out “heresy” (in terms of attitude only, obviously; not the torturing and murdering part, again, just to be clear).
Men/male people like you hate women because we are a constant reminder of your own lack of humanity towards us. You hate us particularly when we challenge you by wanting to be seen as full human beings, in the face of your desire to treat us as service humans, or subhumans. So you scapegoat us, just as men have been doing since the myths of Eve and Pandora were created. Tell us we’re the problem to make yourself feel better about your own appalling treatment of us.
You might con yourself, barley, but you don’t con us.