Scotland GRA

[Cismyfatarse]

Can I ask people to fill this in? Scotland is probably going to vote against the needs of women and girls. We will then need to raise money for the court battles.

https://yourviews.parliament.scot/ehrcj/gender-recognition-reform-bill/?utmsource=twitter&utmmmedium=spehrcj&utmmterm=&utmcontent=38d44a5a-ba1c-4271-b2ce-b222beca97b8&utmm_campaign=ongoing

in your example, they were still boys, just lying and cheating.

Are you suggesting that people might lie to get a GRC @CatherinaJTV? Surely that would never happen.

[quote ElaineFuchs]@Rainbowshit

This governmental report seems to suggest that trans kids are protected from discrimination in schools by the 2010 Equality Act, not by virtue of having a gender recognition certificate: researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9078/CBP-9078.pdf[/quote]
Indeed, trans children are protected by the characteristic of gender reassignment. You cannot treat a child differently than other children just because they are transgender. So if male children are not allowed in the toilets for female children, neither are male children who have the characteristic of gender reassignment.

I don't think that a boy would lie to get a GRC, but I know they'll lie.

Boys will lie, but they won't lie to get a GRC? Are you sure?

Because the GRA only affects trans people

How does the GRA affect trans people? What is it for?

Self-ID doesn't only affect trans people, because it allows anyone to change their legal sex, trans or not.

*no, I don't think that a boy would lie to get a GRC, but I know they'll lie.

The GRA is not materially changing that.*

So boys will lie. The GRC will not stop boys from lying. So boys will lie to get a GRC because let's face it, who knows if you are lying when you state something about yourself. So boys lie, can lie to get a GRC but nothing bad will ever happen because boys who lie to get a GRC are the deniest males in the planet... or something.

It is like some posters have this strong belief men will never lie or abuse legal loopholes for their advantage. And this is such a massive loophole a dinosaur can walk through it.

Deniest... that was supposed to read nicest

@OldCrone

in your example, they were still boys, just lying and cheating.

Are you suggesting that people might lie to get a GRC @CatherinaJTV? Surely that would never happen.

Several countries have already passed self-id gender reform. In any of these countries, can you point to a significant (or any, in fact) rise in crime which would have been prevented by a more invasive gender recognition process.

I am confident that you are not able to, because no such increase exists. This is because people lying to get a GRC is a GC fiction, invented to prop up a transphobic ideology.

Because the GRA only affects trans people

Having a fiction written into law, however well intentioned and I'd question even that tbh, to facilitate pseudo realities absolutely does affect other people.

Wrt the GRA this was known at the time the law was being passed but concerns were hand waved away because who cares if it affects women and girls negatively and it was all done on the hush hush QT so Joe Public weren't made aware of the full implications.

We know now, and it can't be whitewashed away no matter how much some would try.

Self ID means any man can change his legal sex without even having to claim a trans identity, with all that entails.

Coming to FWR to piss down our backs and tell us it's raining isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.

The article linked above states a reliability of 85% of correct sexing using one method and discusses the reliability (or not) of different methods of sexing and the usefulness of the 'bias' of a researcher knowing the population which they are working in. It also seems to hint at doubt of sexual dimorphism, doubt of which has no scientific basis.

If we're linking research articles, here's a couple more -

"The reliability of sex determination of skeletons from forensic context in the Balkans - PubMed" pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15567621/

"Researchers Accurately Estimate the Sex of Skeletons Based on Elbow Features | School of Medicine" www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2019/10/23/researchers-accurately-estimate-the-sex-of-skeletons-based-on-elbow-features/

At least the men's rights activists on the thread show the lurkers just how easily they dismiss the effects of men being allowed to appropriate our sex class.

Still no logical, provable definition of what a 'gender' actually is, and why the fuck it should be in any legal policy.

Transwomen already have the exact same human rights as every other man. They don't need access to women's spaces, sports and services, they just want it, and their male entitlement thinks they can simply take it.

Demanding the removal of the exemptions in the equality act that allow for male free spaces, sports and services, then pretending women won't be affected.

@Whatsnewpussyhat

At least the men's rights activists on the thread show the lurkers just how easily they dismiss the effects of men being allowed to appropriate our sex class.

Still no logical, provable definition of what a 'gender' actually is, and why the fuck it should be in any legal policy.

Transwomen already have the exact same human rights as every other man. They don't need access to women's spaces, sports and services, they just want it, and their male entitlement thinks they can simply take it.

Demanding the removal of the exemptions in the equality act that allow for male free spaces, sports and services, then pretending women won't be affected.

GRA reform doesn't touch the equality act.

Of course the GRA impact the EA and vice versa. This is why the EA explicitly talks about people with GRCs. It is just plain lying to deny this.

It can also be agreed that the EA protects spaces, services and sports meant for female human beings only and these excemptions can be applied without transpeople throwing tantrums at the thought of being excluded. But that solution is never acceptable and is always followed with 'women don't have the right to single sex spaces' and what is sex anyway.

the scandal is that the hospital is unsafe, this case has NOTHING to do with GRA reform.

Scandal Part 1 is that a rape ocurred in a hospital.

Scandal Part 2 is the staff response to the woman when she reported the rape.

A normal, compassionate human's response to a rape is to offer sympathy and to try and make them feel safe. Under gender ideology, the correct approach is to deny it happened because that would mean acknowledging that transwomen are male. The additional distress to the rape victim by this is a DIRECT result of the nonsense that the words "women" and "females" must now include men and males, and the elaborate pantomime that must be performed to accommodate fantasists. A ludicrous fiction that Scotland now want to make law.

Anyone who doesn't support the clear legal separation of sex and gender is a rape apologist. Do not underestimate the anger women feel about this.

@ElaineFuchs , no you're wrong, saying "I'm not heterosexual I'm normal" would be heterophobic not homophobic. Just a small point on language accuracy you might think but you have repeated the same error twice now and the sloppy thinking on your part is getting really annoying.

Oh and I haven't once seen anyone say "I'm not cis I'm normal." What they have said is "I'm not cis I'm a woman."

No qualifier needed. An adult human female is a woman end of. Why do you insist on applying the offensive qualifier "cis" to biological women while self identifying males are proclaimed to be women, no qualifier needed? I think we all know the answer to that one.

@OldCrone

in your example, they were still boys, just lying and cheating.

Are you suggesting that people might lie to get a GRC @CatherinaJTV? Surely that would never happen.

no, I am not suggesting they would lie to get a GRC. I am suggesting that someone who is willing to lie and cheat will not get a GRC to commit a crime, they'll find quicker and easier ways. That has nothing to do with trans people and it would be so nice if we could have discussions about GRC or other trans related issues without descending into violent [sexual] fantasies.

At least the men's rights activists on the thread show the lurkers just how easily they dismiss the effects of men being allowed to appropriate our sex class.

I am a women's rights activist. There is nothing feminist about the genital policing mindset that underlies anti-GRC reform activism. Already, women are being challenged/assaulted for not presenting "feminine" enough.

Of course the GRA impact the EA and vice versa. This is why the EA explicitly talks about people with GRCs. It is just plain lying to deny this.

It is.

The more trans people expect acceptance into the opposite sex spaces the easier it becomes for others to lie. Unisex becomes the default with the known quantifiable impact on women

And there is absolutely no evidence that transwomen are more like women than men meaning that even if we could keep the bad men somehow separated out, there is no evidence that attacks on women would not increase , that women would not find themselves pushed out of society like they are already being pushed off the podium

Coming to FWR to piss down our backs and tell us it's raining isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.

Quite, but still they do, as if we've never once heard their arguments before.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Coming to FWR to piss down our backs and tell us it's raining isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.

Quite, but still they do, as if we've never once heard their arguments before.

To be fair, we had a dose of that from both Dominic Lawson and Seb Coe yesterday.

Blundering into an area to which they'd assigned 2 mins thought and no awareness that maybe they should consult with people who'd been in this arena for a long time and had insights to share on the current state of play and table stakes arguments.

Helen Joyce warned us to expect this, of course. They can't hear women's high, squeaky voices so have no way to be aware of what women have done and just assume that we've done nothing.

I see we have reached the 'men will rape women anyway so why put any safeguarding in place' part of the argument.

Well, Catherine, to keep women safe we want to make it as difficult and socially unacceptable for men to get into womens spaces as possible. We want women to be able to ask them to leave/get security involved/complain/scream as much as they want to when encountering a man in womens spaces. That is safeguarding and whilst not perfect, 100% better than saying 'men are dangerous so we will let them say they are a transwoman and give them access anyway'

GRA reform doesn't touch the equality act.

And

*GRA reform only affects trans people

appear to be the new mantras, along the lines of 'no debate'. And as pp's have said, both statements are completely incorrect.

*I am a women's rights activist. There is nothing feminist about the genital policing mindset that underlies anti-GRC reform activism.

A woman is an adult human female.
Not a man with dysphoria.
Not a man who performs femininity.
Not a man with a special certificate of 'gender'

You do not advocate for women. You advocate for men who claim to be women.

No feminist would ignore the facts that men and men's genitals are responsible for 98% of all sex offences, regardless of any chosen identity.
No feminist would wave away women's legal protections to spare the feelings of men.

[quote WifeOfTiresias]@ElaineFuchs , no you're wrong, saying "I'm not heterosexual I'm normal" would be heterophobic not homophobic. Just a small point on language accuracy you might think but you have repeated the same error twice now and the sloppy thinking on your part is getting really annoying.

Oh and I haven't once seen anyone say "I'm not cis I'm normal." What they have said is "I'm not cis I'm a woman."

No qualifier needed. An adult human female is a woman end of. Why do you insist on applying the offensive qualifier "cis" to biological women while self identifying males are proclaimed to be women, no qualifier needed? I think we all know the answer to that one.[/quote]
What?

The first quote is implying that "hetero" is the norm, it's inherently homophobic to suggest that homosexual people aren't normal.

People are saying "I'm not cis I'm a woman who needs no qualifier". It's normalizing being cisgender to suggest that all women are cis, again, inherently transphobic.

People are saying "I'm not cis I'm a woman who needs no qualifier". It's normalizing being cisgender to suggest that all women are cis, again, inherently transphobic.

No, it means you are both assuming someone's sex as well as their gender. I am always told it is impossible to guess someone's sex, so how do you know who are women? And it is offensive to dictate someone's gender so you can never call anyone cis. Besides, cis and trans is just binary and binary is too restrictive.