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??!!

But another person could not get their birth certificate changed so that it said they were born in a different place? What if, for example, someone was born in the UK to Irish parents who moved back to Ireland when that person was a baby. That person grew up in Ireland, with Irish family, with no real connection to the UK. They are Irish. They would not be allowed to change their birth certificate to say they were born in Ireland because that's not what happened. It would be a lie, a fiction.

Yes, this, entirely. A birth certificate is not meant to represent your life story - it's a record of the facts of your birth. You can't claim to have been born in a different place or on a different date or to a different mother* so why can you change the material fact of your sex at birth?

I've never yet seen an acceptable answer as to why you we all agree it would be impossible and absurd to try to change your race or age, but when it comes to gender - which is frequently blurred as one into 'sex' nowadays, it's not just entirely possible, but that those who have any doubt that it is possible are hateful and in need of education!

Even if your ideology believes that gender and sex are the same thing and/or that you have truly 100% transitioned, what have you transitioned FROM, if you expect your BC to state what you identify as NOW? Surely, insisting that TWAW and TMAM and that a BC should reflect your 'transitioned' identity is actually seeking to deny and erase the experiences of trans people - if anything, that is clearly 'transphobic'.

Why don't we go further and put occupations on BCs (as in, the baby's - not the parents')? If you study hard at medical school and end up spending 40 years at the top of your career, why wouldn't you want 'Doctor' to be proudly shown on your BC? Why should damehoods, knighthoods and the like not be retro-recorded in an update of your BC?!

*I know the Guardian TM journalist did try to fight to do this, but they were rightly prevented from legally being recognised as the 'father' of the baby whom they had pushed out of their vagina - believing (correctly) that men can only be fathers but quite happily ignoring the fact that an actual biological man could never do what they had just done, which has been recognised since the beginning of time as the very action that makes you a baby's biological mother.

Personally, I think that goes one step further in the whole sphere of controlling doublethink: using somebody else's BC to validate your beliefs for yourself. How can a BC not have the mother's name on it? How is the baby meant to process the idea for the rest of their life that, although they have obviously been born and exist, officially, nobody ever gave birth to them? It would be like having the official authorised title deeds to a house, but without any address or location-marker on them!

I see the #bekind squad are out in force today.

What a nasty post. The po-faced referenced (to be taken at face value of some insinuation) to a presumed sacred caste. And, then the complete change of, and dismissive, tone when talking about women. Sure, who do those women think they are?

”women saying no” isn’t discrimination though, that’s women exercising their rights.

Can you describe what ‘discrimination’ you then see on this board when you said:

I have unfortunately seen many posts that have discriminated against trans people on this forum.

Or is this another comment about bad faith posts that are deleted rather than a generalisation about this board?

I’ve thought this previously too.

Surely it would be transphobic to not note a trans person is trans. Give that being trans means they have specific medical needs for one. By erasing that part of their identity and pretending they were really born as whichever sex they are now identifying as the gender stereotype of, isn’t that more offensive?

It’s like how you would be crucified for pointing out how someone who has lived as a straight white male for 50 years before deciding to transition, as benefited from their male privilege for the vast majority of their life and that entitlement doesn’t go away!

Give me a break. Oppressed. That is laughable.

Because if males can get a GRC and change their sex on their birth certificate really easily, it makes it much more difficult for women to defend their single sex spaces. For example, in a public toilet no one checks your birth certificate. But if we live in a society where everyone knows that any man could have easily 'changed their legal sex' and is now 'legally a woman', it is going to make it so much harder to for women to challenge any man who comes in. They could just say 'how dare you challenge men, I'm legally a woman, bigot!' Etc.

I'm not sure, but I believe that as it stands at the moment, a male convicted of a crime who has a GRC is automatically allowed to go to a female prison if that's where they want to go.

There are single sex exemptions in the EA which mean that even if someone has a GRC they could still be excluded from certain single sex provision, but the idea of 'legitimate ends' or whatever it says on the EA is quite subjective.

But it's about the societal concept of what being a woman is as well isn't it? If being a woman is 'it says F on your birth certificate', and any man can change their birth certificate simply by filling in a form with no gatekeeping at all, where does that leave women? Isn't it much easier to say if you were born male, you are male in law and vice versa, and then take it from there?

I don't understand why anyone that isn't trans would give a shit about this. Who cares what it says on someone else's birth certificate?

It's a legal document - and used collectively by many government departments when planning policy and provision for the population of a country. It's about you, but it doesn't only belong to you - in the same way that my driving licence only allows me to drive, but I can't dictate any of the recorded details on it, nor can I just award myself the right to drive a lorry or a bus without doing what the government demands by way of proof of training and ability, before they authorise it to be recorded on my driving licence.

When was the last time you had to show your birth certificate to access a changing room or sports team? I dont even know where mine is frankly.

Is it that unfathomable that it might just make someone feel better about themselves?

Absolutely. And just think, what other group besides men could demand to rewrite history, force the use of certain words and language upon others and infringe on women’s rights?

I read something recently “Only a man could look a woman in the eye and tell them without sarcasm that he was the most victimised in society”

So if transpeople are so oppressed how come for example, if a woman objects to a TW being in a single sex space, she is vilified. Society will believe a male saying he has a right to be in a female space before a woman saying he has no right. Tell me again who is oppressed?

No because I’m not discriminatory to women because of an abusive few.
Don’t accuse me of things I have not said.

So what was your point?

It might make someone feel better to have their birth date changed to a date which would make them 17 again. Are we all on board with people being able to change their birth certificate to make themselves feel better?

Why discriminate against people who want to change their other facts to fiction; to make themselves feel better.

Thats the argument?

Ignore all the posts that tell you why it’s a problem and your rebuttal is that it doesn’t matter as someone feels a bit better?

Even though it’s at the expense of women?

Because it’s not simply about the birth certificate, which has been explained over and over

I don’t know any that do. If you’re referring to trans people, they don’t.
A small number (by comparison to the whole community) might, but you cannot judge a whole community by the abusive behaviour of a small few.

If that were the case, surely all men would be abusers?

On the deleted posts thing:

Mumsnet is a completely public forum which does not vet posters who register with them. Absolutely anyone can post on this website, and they do (especially on FWR!). All Mumsnet can do is delete transphobic and abusive posts, which is what they do.

You can't take posts that were deleted by Mumsnet and say 'that's what it's like on Mumsnet' - it's the exact opposite, it's not what it's like here, because they were deleted!

And that's before we consider the fact that we know that certain people post horrible posts on here and then screenshot them to Twitter to show how awful Mumsnet is.

Well, to be honest I never gave had to prove my right to access female spaces, what with being female. But how can you deny an obvious male access to female spaces if their birth certificate states they are female? They now have ‘proof’ they are female and therefore rights to access those spaces.

What doesn't make me feel better is the thought of some scumbag wanking in the next cubicle to me listening to me having a piss.

So all that abuse and threats to women is not transpeople then? So who is doing it?

Erm....why do you think we have single sex provision in certain situations in the first place?

It's precisely because in certain situations we do 'tar all men with the same brush'.

My husband is a lovely man who would never hurt anyone and is not a danger to women. On that basis should he be allowed in women's changing rooms?

“I don't understand why anyone that isn't trans would give a shit about this. Who cares what it says on someone else's birth certificate?”

I care! Because it’s not just a piece of paper, is it? It’s the ability to change documented fact to suit themselves, to force others around them to deny reality and play along with their AGP larp fest.

It’s being told the language used to describe real biological women is worthless. It’s having a midwife refer to me as a birthing person, chest feeder or cervix haver. It’s being told I am “cis” having my womanhood reduced to an afterthought whilst the original term is handed on a silver platter to a man who has never had to face the struggles women do.

It’s having to explain to my daughter why there is a man in the swimming pool changing rooms, it’s having to reassure her that no it’s not ok, and that until it changes we have to put up with it. Then having to tell her we won’t be going back to that pool for a while.

It's having MEN as a period ambassador.

Its having MEN as leads in a women’s refuge for domestic violence.

Its having MEN, convicted rapists, being placed in women’s prisons.

It’s having MEN commit heinous crimes and them being documented as being women’s crimes.

It’s spending considerable time searching for period product companies that still use the term woman and not bleeder.

It’s ensuring my money isn’t going to a supermarket that disregards women’s safety to have “inclusive” changing areas.

It’s making sure companies I buy from don’t donate to stonewall.

It is EVERYWHERE, it’s not about a bloody birth certificate it’s about being attacked on every bloody front!!!

Exactly, you don't show your birth certificate to get into a changing room.

So, in a society where everyone knows that any man, whether they 'live as a woman' (whatever that means) or not, can change his legal sex with the flick of a pen with no gatekeeping at all, it will be much easier for predatory men to access women's spaces.

They wouldn't even have to go to the trouble of filling in the form because, as you say, you don't bring your birth certificate to a public changing room. They could just say 'how dare you question me, of course my birth certificate says I'm female, you transphobic bigot' if challenged. And what could a woman say in reply?

Pretty sure trans women can already use womens loo's under the equality act tho regardless of what their BC says.

I understand the concerns around self ID and women's spaces etc, I really do. But this just doesn't feel like an issue.

This is a brilliant point. And I think some posters have misunderstood me highlighting that these posts exist to mean that mumsnet is full of hate and abuse and generally abusive.
Its not and they are brilliant at removing abusive posts, I have seen some disgusting content and each time it has been removed within minutes.
I still think it’s important to highlight that it happens - not that it’s synonymous with mumsnet users as a group, it often is bad faith posters.
I wasn’t highlighting it to vilify posters on the board. I was highlighting it to recognise that it does happen. And even if it’s coming from bad faith posters, that doesn’t mean we should pretend it doesn’t happen.

If this is about the GRA bill, it isn't about "extra rights" for transpeople and doesn't take any rights away from women or anyone. Nicola Sturgeon helpfully explained all this and what it does and doesn't do.