GC Feminists- what do you want to achieve?

[Faffertea]

I posted this on the David Blunkett thread but since I watched the clip of him I have been mulling over what he said, and the then Labour government’s role of bringing in the GRA and it has lead me to really think about my own position and what I want the end point of this to be. It’s sort of crystallised into the following…

The thing that bothers me is that Labour brought in the GRA with no consideration for women. Wasn’t DB part of the upper echelons of Labour at the time?

I can’t help but feel that for all his welcome talk today DB was presumably happy enough with the original GRA not to resign over it so does he really mean ‘women’s equality above all else’ or does he mean ‘women’s equality above else except for the small number of men we (politicians) feel are ok to be included in women’s spaces’? Are we really just back to males can be women but only the right sort of males.

And I don’t know about anyone else but for me that is not acceptable. It has to be no males in female spaces. No exceptions. No ‘but these males are harmless’ or ‘these males have radically changed their bodies and are distressed by being males’ or ‘these males have paperwork that says they’re really female’ so they’re ok.

No one who is male, in any shape, form or identity in female spaces at all. For those males unhappy with that they need to find an alternative that doesn’t involve co-opting female spaces.

This and stop allowing 'gender identity ideology' in schools. It is not the same as Section 28 in the 1980s.

Not difficult. Self-contained single-user spaces can be open to both sexes, since they're intended for one user at a time. If a small business has two separate single-user toilets, it should be fine for these to be unisex as well, so you don't have a line of 6 women while every man just breezes in and out. Easy enough to make distinction between these and unisex multi-user areas with cabins opening out into one room.

for all his welcome talk today DB was presumably happy enough with the original GRA not to resign over it so does he really mean ‘women’s equality above all else’ or does he mean ‘women’s equality above else except for the small number of men we (politicians) feel are ok to be included in women’s spaces’?

It's a good distinction to make and not a bad question in general. The proponents of laws and changes that got us here shouldn't just be able to bat that away and pretend they had no role to play and no responsibility. But it is better they consider and step away now than that they never do and carry on with 'gender'-based policies. The best time for DB to realise this would have been before the original GRA. The second best time would have been sometime in the interval. The third best time is now.

I want at least everything females had prior to 2014 (and the equality act modified to clarify this)
Single (biological) sex spaces
Single (biological) sex choice of care
Recording of crimes/statistics according to (biological) sex
The word woman to mean adult human female
To not have people be able to change their sex legally and cause confusion/legal loopholes
For trans people to fight for their rights that enhance the equality act without diminishing other protected characteristics.

And JKR to be first minister of Scotland or PM of UK whichever she fancies.

I was reading as I scrolled and got to this and was trying to work out why you wanted to abolish Wimbledon.

I must learn to scroll. Stop. Then read.

But totally agree Abolish the GRA or rather...

REPEAL THE GRA 2004

This, pretty much. If gender identity is a concept some who believe in it desire, then they should create new terms for various identities, not demand that everyone in the whole world suddenly agrees that 'woman' means all sorts of sexist stereotypes and that there is now no word allowed to describe people who are female.

Leave our words and our spaces and our sports and our scholarships alone, in other words. Create your own system if you think you need one, don't steal all the hard-won rights from feminism and so on.

Amend the 2010 Equality Act to remove 'gender reassignment'. WTF is it even doing in there? Imagine mandating non-discrimination for any other nebulous process - "I am getting my hair done so won't be coming to work. You can't sack me". Ridiculous.

Well, the EA2010 is of course listing things that are supposed to be trivial. That's the point. You shouldn't be treating people badly because of things that shouldn't matter. If religion can be in there, then in principle no problem with "gender identity" (or indeed star sign).

The main issue is locking down the comparator, which eliminating the GRA would do. You shouldn't be treating a man who thinks of himself as a woman any worse than any other man.

It does need to be made symmetrical though. At the minute gender people can get special privileges because you can't discriminate against people for believing in their opposite-sex-identity, but you can discriminate against people for not believing they have an opposite-sex-identity.

(Whereas I believe it's symmetrical for religion - atheists get the same protection as believers).

Having that symmetry would have potentially cut short some of the intrusion into female spaces sooner - men in general could have claimed discrimination for not being allowed into female spaces/sports/whatever - lack of ladybrain should not be an impairment to getting the same rights other males are getting. Could have driven us to the ridiculous "stop this!" point sooner.

I want differences due to biology to be recognised where they are relevant to fairness, safety and dignity. I want equality and equitability for the two sexes.

I want 'gender' to be seen for what it is - just part of the diversity of characteristics individual humans can exhibit. I want an end to gender stereotypes.

I was skeptical about the PPs who said cancel the EA but actually why not have separate discrimination laws for race, belief, age, sex etc. They are not all the same thing and they have different requirements.

One of the worst aspects of DEI is stirring every characteristic into one inclusive soup.

As you say, OP. Reality, not kindness that disadvantages women WITHOUT EVER FUCKING ASKING THEM IF THEY MIND.

I said specific instances where sex/safeguarding are important: schools, hospitals, sports, prisons - not small businesses like cafes.

Maybe they should just found The Church of Transgenderism. Get it registered. They can call their buildings ‘safe spaces’, they can observe ‘pronoun rounds’, they can work on their official texts, have confirming ceremonies where they ‘come out’, share their new name, pronoun and made-up identity. They can believe what they like and do what they like- even think of us all as heretics and unbelievers who are going to hell, etc, they can get paranoid and imagine they are persecuted as a way of bonding.

Just leave the rest of us out of it.

Get rid of the GRA.
No males in female spaces - toilets, changing rooms, prisons, refuges and rape crisis centres etc - with no exceptions.
No males (including transwomen who have been through male puberty) in womens sport.
Gender ideology out of schools and the public sector.
Sex as a protected characteristic properly upheld by the law every time.
The importance of single sex spaces, particularly for girls, to be included in safeguarding guidance - KCSIE etc.

The madness to stop.

I want it to be made clear that woman means adult human female.
I want single SEX spaces to remain single sex. This means toilets, wards, prisons, changing rooms, sports teams, rape crisis centres.
Girl guiding needs to stay for girls (the female ones) only

There's nothing wrong with being a trans woman is if that's what you believe you are. But trans women are male.

If there is a need for mixed sex facilities then they need to be offered alongside single sex. Sadly some males need rape support, so they can have their own.

If boys want to join brownies/Guides then a mixed sex version can be started, or they can join cubs/scouts. If a transwoman wants to join the WI then they should start their own mixed sex version.

They need to stop recording rapists as women. Rape is a male crime. Women can commit sexual assault, not rape.

It has to be no males in female spaces. No exceptions.

100%.

Sex is immutable; sex matters.

Women need, deserve and have rights to spaces free of men, whatever their inner feelings, whatever plastic surgery they've had done.

That's it.

All of the brilliant, important stuff already said.

And then, also, a real concerted effort to end sex / gender stereotyping, especially of children. If we'd achieved this better, gender ideology would never have taken off in schools. People would have just given it a funny look. As it is, schools seem to be full of princesses and footballers with very little in between.

I was wondering, as the new name suggests, about sex on identification documents. I think, I don't have a problem with sex being removed from most identification documents - if it bothers trans people to have the disfavoured sex on passports and driving licences, it doesn't bother me if those are changed to have no sex on them, and that should solve that problem. Biometrics have gone a long way past where having sex on those things is actually helpful for any legitimate purpose relating to international travel or driving, I think. There should be one way of proving what sex you are, which you can show if you want access to a woman-only space, and it should be unfalsifiable. I was thinking, maybe a new "NHS card", since healthcare is the obvious place where unfalsified sex is likely to be important?

If we could have all that, and it was made clear that the Equality Act refers to biological sex, then I think it would no longer bother me if someone gets a piece of paper to recognise their new "gender", because we'd be in the state we should always have been in, where someone's gender is no business of the law. The law shouldn't be concerned with stuff in someone's head that's unverifiable.
It doesn't bother me too much if we keep the EA's "gender reassignment", because it could be seen as just a kind of religion, and seen as part of a generic "don't discriminate against people for stuff you disapprove of but that is irrelevant", which I think is good to have.

Should say: but the conflation of gender with sex, and the idea that anything in the law can allow you to change sex, absolutely must go, so the GRA still has to be repealed!

I don’t think the word ‘gender’ should be in any law since there is not a clear and consistent definition of what it is.

I think it's important to know the actual sex of the person that something happens to. It can show trends. Things that affect men and women differently because of their biology, the bits that hormones and surgery can't change.

I mean the GRA suddenly slips in that a man’s ‘sex’ is now female. WTF?

It should be called the Sex Falsification Act.

And worst of all they never bothered telling us women that that was what they had done

Protect children from damaging genderist propaganda in school.
Yes to teaching respect, consent, boundaries, self acceptance and human biology.

No males in female spaces, non negotiable.

Clear definition of sex and gender. Sex is observed and cannot be changed on official documents. All data is collected around sex eg voting, prison population. Single sex spaces, services and sport.

If individuals want to transition they can have their gender recorded. Personally I only feel sex is needed on my details as I don't believe in or have a gender but would not have a problem with my passport stating my sex and a default 'gender' matching my sex. Trans people can have their gender marker in the one they want which seems to be a massive number now.

It's important to me that the very start point here is that there are 2 sexes and you cannot change sex. If a male has a medical transition they do not become a woman neither do they have female organs eg a vagina.

Lastly I really really want someone to tell me what 'living as a woman' means.

The protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' might usefully be reformulated to protect all people from discrimination due to the application of gender stereotypes.

Why not just include that is sex discrimination?