Trans-identifying people seeking extra rights

[SimpleName83]

Just that, really, Most people accept their sex, date of birth, place of birth. It is an historical, factual document of their birth.

Trans-identifying people seek to change a factual documentation of their birth.

That's not equality. That is transpeople being given extra rights to rewrite history.

And they are they ones saying they're oppressed??!!

When I joined my teen child up for sport, we had to provide ID. A passport or birth certificate. Imagine if that was for the under 18 and in Scotland, how would that club deal with a post pubertal male transitioner when their ID all says ‘female’ and they have signed that they are female, but they suspect or can see that this is a male.

What is the club to do? They don’t demand testing at that level or age.

What about at sixth form, one that is single sex? ID still needs to be provided with a sex mentioned for new enrollment. If there is no passport, and just a changed birth certificate, how does the school know.

What about at university? If the student Union chooses (don’t I wish all Student Unions would!) to ask for a birth certificate to prove sex of a Women’s officer role candidate under the exemption of the law, how will they be able to assess the candidate’s validity when the sex has been changed.

What do they do then? They rely on honesty? Do you think all transitioned males with legal fiction behind them is going to admit they are male?

We already know of one male who doesn’t have a GRC but successfully gained employment in a role supposedly using the exemption clause. A male with a history of not admitting they were male until they started their activist career. And was in a role caring for traumatised women.

Not sure why the importance of maintaining the factualness of a birth certificate is so hard to understand.

I don't see why this has to have anything to do with what trans people are allowed to do with their BCs.

Its everything to do with that, the transpersons right to privacy and the organisations attitude to sex as declared or sex as reality, and the consequences of declining a hcp.

If I wanted a female to perform my smear test, what language do I use? I can't say woman if TWAW, I can't say female if men can change their sex to female. If someone is not aware if these issues and asks for a women HCP, the first clue would be when the meet the HCP for the first time.

In reality I'm relying on the organisations and the TW to understand but it's obvious given that they put TW on female wards that either we don't speak the same language or they think not believing TWAW is bigoted.

If its no big deal what sex is on someone's birth certificate, why have a law allowing people to change it?

about to give me an ultra sound that I could ask for someone else

And of course, I am referring to an internal ultrasound here. Legs spread and everyone watching having had the situation sprung on me at the appointment. No warning.

There was (presumably still is) a transitioned male doctor in the UK, London I think, who declared they would not disclose their sex to anyone. I remember the outrage when I read this person’s statements.

This is happening already, this is not make believe.

So, yes! There are ways to ‘force’ a transitioned male onto traumatised women in many situations.

Perhaps stop pushing your belief that all transitioned males are not going to be the ones ‘forcing’ their presence onto posters who already have read and disseminated the too many discussions of males doing just that.

I suggest you read the threads about Mridul Wadhwa as a start.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4471645-mridul-wadwha-and-the-thought-police?reply=114796737

And threads about medical examiners for rape victims in Scotland.

They are a logical place to start.

This is happening already, this is not make believe.

Quite.

This is not a 'this will never happen' situation: it has happened. Repeatedly. To many females. And who always gets the shitty end of the stick in these situations?

I'll give you a clue. It's sex based.

The cases which are known involve the females able to deal with the bitter fury and punishment of daring to stand up for themselves. No one is measuring the females who will just quietly vanish from wards, healthcare, stop presenting for examinations, quit reporting rapes, stop trying to use toilets and changing rooms and women's groups. Or the vulnerability of the groups that they come from. Or the parts of society where services have stopped being 'hard to reach' and become 'totally inaccessible'. The impact on those females will be considerable as a population, some are going to die without refuges, breast exams, that health care, but hey, less than 1% of males get to feel happier and to self actualise, so what the fuck, eh? Couldn't possibly ask those males to give a bit and tolerate a sex based female only service being permitted to exist in the name of inclusion alongside the TQ+ accessible ones. God the horror and suffering that would cause them.

I fully understand and appreciate that the scenarios people are putting forward here are a cause for concern. I definitely don't agree that women who feel uncomfortable in such scenarios should be gas lit and have their concerns dismissed.

So say you deny transgender people the right to change their BC. The hospital ward you speak of changes their policy so that you are allocated a space based on chromosomes. XX or XY. The same vulnerable woman is now sharing a ward with Buck. She feels uncomfortable and voices this but theres nothing the staff can do as Buck is female. The woman still feels uncomfortable. Heck, I bet half the staff and Buck themselves do too. The fact that Buck is biologically a woman and therefore not capable of rape in the eyes of the law is of no comfort to the woman who is afraid of men because her perception is unconscious here.

If you are asking me if I think that its okay for a middle aged man to tweak the M on his BC to an F whenever they fancy without any checks in place, the answer is no. I don't think people should be able to self declare themselves into single sex spaces. I support people being able to change their BC against criteria such as having had SRS , a certain amount of time on hormones, that sort of thing.

How do you reconcile the fact that perception of biological sex is possibly more relevant than real biological sex in these instances? Without policing what people can do with their bodies or resorting to intrusive checks on everyone?

And threads about medical examiners for rape victims in Scotland.

I've mentioned the six words amendment at least twice on this thread. That particular poster seems to have entirely overlooked those (and other posts) to reiterate several times that they think the scenario of women being unable to request examinations by female examiners unlikely.

I've only had a quick look but I find this horrifying.

Reposting my earlier reply for you

I listen to the Transparency podcast, I heard it said on there, by a passing transman, that those born male and passing transmen should keep out of women’s spaces, not impose themselves on women and I agree with this. Testosterone is a powerful substance and in my opinion women who take it and have had a mastectomy can “pass” effectively as men, thing is they often seem to understand this and have the empathy with their sisters which means that they wouldn’t want to make us uncomfortable or anxious.

Where have I said that I think this is right?

I think women should be able to refuse care from whomever they like for whatever reason they like without shame or judgement.

I find the situations where women have been gas lit into putting up with this as disgraceful as you do.

How do you reconcile the fact that perception of biological sex is possibly more relevant than real biological sex in these instances? Without policing what people can do with their bodies or resorting to intrusive checks on everyone?

Look.

This wangling has been tried. It was called the GRA.

What has happened, is that it's demonstrated this can never work as it will be exploited to the nth degree to enable males fuck over females.

Experiment has failed.

No BCs should be permitted to be falsified. Perception is a red herring - as you say, it's been proved, you can't do checks or gatekeep so there is no practical difference between Susan who is a TW who had full SRS 20 years ago, and Bill who just feels like making females uncomfortable today for a laugh. None. All either has to say is 'I identify as'.

There can be a capacity for people to change their paperwork to TW or TM if wanted, alongside their sex. Sex is a fixed fact. Female only services must be sex based not to exclude or harm females. Third spaces and additional services can be supplied. I honestly don't care how Susan or Bill perceive themselves at this point: I do not agree that either of them and their preferred choices matter more than excluding females from the female only spaces and services those females need. And Susan and Bill are going to have to realise that not every female on the planet revolves around them.

The question should be 'how have institutions protected vulnerable groups'.

Currently men can and do access everywhere and if they are blocked they say words and the women are removed. It's magic.

You haven't said it was right. You've just ignored it and kept repeating that it's unlikely.

It's not even a case of gaslighting individual women in specific scenarios. This was members of the Scottish Government, elected representatives and in some cases entire political parties, arguing that women in Scotland should not be allowed to request a female examiner. That's denying the entire female population of a country the mere option to request that they be examined by a female after they have been raped.

And if males are allowed to falsely change documents to show that they are 'female' - how do women then request a female examiner? Particularly given that the Scottish Government are so determined to erode the language which women can use that they have tried to change the actual definition of women and (thankfully) been denied in court.

You try reading the quote, I ACTUALLY SAID THAT I HAVE RECIEVED THEM. SO are you just nasty or did you net read my post?

I'll copy and paste for you @Shakenotslurred

I have. And rape threats. And it's not just a threat, 2 women a week are killed because they are women, show me a single trans woman who has been murdered?

How the hell do you get something so wrong?

So say you deny transgender people the right to change their BC. The hospital ward you speak of changes their policy so that you are allocated a space based on chromosomes. XX or XY. The same vulnerable woman is now sharing a ward with Buck. She feels uncomfortable and voices this but theres nothing the staff can do as Buck is female. The woman still feels uncomfortable. Heck, I bet half the staff and Buck themselves do too. The fact that Buck is biologically a woman and therefore not capable of rape in the eyes of the law is of no comfort to the woman who is afraid of men because her perception is unconscious here

Third spaces.

Sorry pressed post too soon.

I am sorry but why should women have to pander to anyone's gender identity.

"The reality and limitations of our sexed bodies are real and are what puts us at risk of male violence.

Men who present as women and women who take testosterone to present as men are really not our problem to fix.

We are too important. Women matter.

I support people being able to change their BC against criteria such as having had SRS , a certain amount of time on hormones, that sort of thing.

How do you reconcile the fact that perception of biological sex is possibly more relevant than real biological sex in these instances? Without policing what people can do with their bodies or resorting to intrusive checks on everyone?

And I too have posted on this thread that many more transitioned females post here and other sites that they understand women’s distress that their presence in single sex spaces cause. They avoid causing other females distress so will seek other solutions.

I believe the situation is not symmetrical. That males feel entitled and need the validation. Let’s face it, you cannot unboil an egg when it comes to the testosterone effect. Whereas, female transitioners will often take on enough male cues to trigger distress in others. They understand why and seem much less inclined to demand actions that cause distress in others.

In fact, it has been said by transitioned female posters and elsewhere that very few of these transitioners believe that they ‘become male’ because they might have the ‘look’ but admit they are never quite treated as males. Or they understand and admit to those who will not vilify them, that they don’t actually ‘feel’ male enough, and that despite great results with testosterone, they never will be.

Of course, those vocal transitioned female activists will not discuss this. But more and more others will.

So, please stop creating an ‘absolute’ situation leveraging in Buck Angel. Maybe, if no transitioned male had ever demanded access to female single sex spaces, traumatised females would understand even subconsciously and trust that those females presenting with testosterone effects were still females. Maybe. but still elements could trigger retraumatisation.

Allowing a legal fiction has not worked. And discussing ‘passing privilege’ is unfair and transphobic. Therefore who does it benefit to allow an immersive fiction to be enacted by changing a sex marker?

Because that is what is demanded. Full immersion that that person can believe and force others to believe they are the opposite sex.

‘How do you reconcile the fact that perception of biological sex is possibly more relevant than real biological sex in these instances’

What other aspect of life do we allow such a fiction to be officially documented and allow laws to fully reflect that change? Why is this one so different?

The hospital ward you speak of changes their policy so that you are allocated a space based on chromosomes. XX or XY.

The hospital doesn't need to change their policy. Hospital wards are meant to be single sex (apart from exceptional circumstances) and up until Covid, Hospital wards were fined if they breached this legal requirement.

Because of the deliberate conflation of sex and gender, women have been harmed on what should be a single sex ward because NHS Trusts have insisting that males are in fact females.

This is the result of institutional capture. See also strip searching of females by male Police officers if that particular male Police officer claims to be transgender.

The same vulnerable woman is now sharing a ward with Buck.

Buck could go on the male ward, it's women who need single sex spaces.

But the reality is, not all TM look like buck. And where else would a pregnant TM go but on the maternity ward?

If the health service was truthful, women will trust that everyone on the ward is female, and have as much safeguarding as possible. If the NHS lie and assume that a male can pass as a women, so no harm if he's on the female ward, there's no truth and trust in the NHS. Women shouldn't be lied to to keep up a fantasy that humans can change sex, or that women have to look a certain way.

Agree with third spaces of course.

But where it isn't an option, are passing transwomen that have had all the surgery, hormone treatment etc supposed to use the mens loos and changing rooms under all circumstances?

Well, that's not a problem for women to sort out, is it?

The same vulnerable woman is now sharing a ward with Buck.

No, they are not.

Buck can negotiate with the staff for inclusion arrangements that work with Buck's personal choices about the extreme adaptations they have chosen to make to their body which will have an impact on others in sexed situations of undress.

What Buck cannot do is force non-consenting others to collude in an illusion that Buck wishes for the meeting of Buck's personal needs and wishes. Particularly not non consenting others that are ill, in need of care, and not in the situation to provide services and therapy to anyone else. And frankly I'd think Buck would have more class than to wish for this anyway.

TQ+ people need accessible provisions. No one's arguing that. They just cannot in the process use non consenting others and deprive them of accessible provisions. It's not difficult.

Oh I know this one.

It's the 'but there's no perfect third spaces right now this minute so they can fuck over women until women have sorted all this out for them'.

No.

Go campaign for it. Set those incredibly well funded charities on it. If this was the goal this lobby could get it in minutes.

But in actual fact even when there are fully accessible third space provisions the TQ+ lobby fight to prevent there being any accessible female only provision in addition for the inclusion of females who can't now use the mixed sex colonised and hostile take-overed 'women's' facility. See Sarah's court case.

So at this point, I have no sympathy. Women have done all the accommodating, all the compromising, the GRA demanded it of women from the start. It was male people and the TQ+ political lobby who pushed until it broke.

So yes. Go make male spaces more inclusive, females are not a resource to therapise males.