Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Thread gallery
13
SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 09:59

Slothtoes · 30/07/2023 09:47

Theireminence I think that’s a partial account of how GRA happened, it’s just a more complex situation than that. You’re also applying a modern lens of gender identity politics that wasn’t even visible far and away over the horizon for lawmakers of any party in 2004. It really wasn’t a long held Labour project to bring in any form of what we now have as GRA. It wasn’t on anyone’s radar for statutory attention.

GRA didn’t come out of long held political aspirations by any party to create a means of legal sex change. GRA in fact came out of a requirement from the European Court of Human Rights during the lifespan of the Labour government of the day that demanded legally (and rightly I would say) that the UK government respond to a legal case called Goodwin. This case challenged the UK government over the fact that a man couldn’t marry his male partner who had had a ‘sex change’ operation and that people who wished to ‘live as the opposite sex’ were discriminated against because there was a different state pension age etc.

This genesis via ECHR requirement and the lack of real care for same sex couples to be able to marry and lack of real thought for the needs of people who might transition is really a tragic missed opportunity by the Labour government of the day. So that much I do agree with you on.

The government could have gone in a different direction with their response to ECHR. It is directly traceable back to the collective homophobia and misogyny of the day because the GRA is so completely written as a law for middle age male transitioners who have had their family already that GRA doesn’t even mention pregnancy or fertility issues. )So hence we recently had the TT case about wanting to be a dad or parent (not mother) on their child’s BC brought by transman with a GRC, Freddie McConnell, who carried and birthed a baby, and who remains at the end of the failed challenge, despite a GRC, the child’s mother legally on the BC.)

The GRA is a terrible piece of lawmaking and it’s drafting by the civil servants involved betrays their own sexism and homophobia. It was also achieved pretty undemocratically in terms of Parliamentary support through covert lobbying by Press for Change et al with no real public discussion, hardly any press campaign, just quiet lobbying of all sides in Parliament to get it through.

The tragedy is that we could have made same sex marriage and equal pension age law there and then in 2004 and avoided any concept of ‘legal sex change’ but the government did not want to do that. And neither- key point to remember- did the socially conservative politicians who questioned the GRA. They did not offer a socially equitable alternative, they just (rightly!) didn’t want the GRA. That something actually fair and careful and respectful of women was not on anyone’s proposals is the tragedy. The ECHR wanted a solution from the UK gov to Goodwin, they in no way said what the solution should be. We fucked that one up all by ourselves.

In 2004 the Christian church whether Catholic or CofE held much more sway than it does now and so the reasoning would have been that same sex marriage would never have got through Parliament. All that upset for a tiny minority of unhappy men. Same with messing with pension ages- a huge social change. So instead we got the GRA. The magic solution whereby people can change their sex on paper. I really hope the misogyny, sexism and homophobia and lack of principle in that choice of making a GRA, which completely throws out safeguarding for women and children, is clearly evident to everyone by now.

Lots of MPs (again deep in their sexism and homophobia) would have thought GRCs would only ever apply to a few desperate men who had had a sex change. Because what man would voluntarily want to live without a penis, they must have thought, only those pitiable ‘tr*nnies’ that we can acceptably laugh at, or at best pity.

So in that social and Parliamentary context as legislation had to be made to respond to the European Court of Human Rights, this shambles of a GRA is what the government came up with. It was linked to supporting gay rights, even though the principle of legal sex change is antithetical to same sex attraction, and would have been linked to not upsetting the church and presumably not rocking the Northern Ireland peace process by applying any ACTUALLY socially liberal law to the whole UK.

So the social conservatives of the day from religious and right-wing backgrounds sometimes asked the right questions, for which I am grateful but they didn’t offer a compelling alternative. Something had to be done. And so their rightful flagging of the impact on women was not looked at too closely and GRA was born with the expectation it didn’t really matter anyway because only tiny numbers of desperate men would use it. You can see the socially ‘beyond the pale’ aspects of GRA in the requirement for two doctors’ views in it- as applied to that other group socially beyond the pale at the time the law was framed in 1967-women who want an abortion.

I just don’t think anyone can credibly claim a clear thread of rightful political party thinking for any political party around the birth of the GRA.

Surely the party who brought about the GRA is the responsible party?

The other issue being parties tend to and have stated they want to ‘defend’ legislation they instigated, even if at another time.

ArabeIIaScott · 30/07/2023 10:17

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · 30/07/2023 08:14

I want to believe Labour have woken up but, after the last few years, I find it impossible to trust them. I still don't hear them making unequivocal promises to protect single-sex spaces. "Adult human female" is not enough: many TW claim to be female.

Also, as PPs have said, even if Streeting & co have now seen the light, they still believed something incredibly stupid and self-evidently untrue for years, and silenced people who tried to point this out. I don't want someone like that in government.

You can change your mind on policies and still retain credibility as a politician. But if you spent most of the last decade proclaiming that the Earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, or that humans can change sex through the power of thought, I am going to struggle to believe you should be in charge of packing a lunchbox, let alone governing a country.

😆

SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 10:26

This was posted by Hepwo on another thread It’s so clear and well said it deserves repeating.

“All that has happened is that he's said the words adult human female and clarified that you can buy an adult human female certificate from a doctor.”

It’s not a ‘u turn’.

ScrollingLeaves · 30/07/2023 10:58

SunnyEgg · Today 10:26
This was posted by Hepwo on another thread It’s so clear and well said it deserves repeating.

“All that has happened is that he's said the words adult human female and clarified that you can buy an adult human female certificate from a doctor.”

It’s not a ‘u turn’

I missed that. That is most likely absolutely spot on!

And that might be the compromise that no one may really like but we can all live with ( my paraphrase) Wes Streeting was talking about.

ArabeIIaScott · 30/07/2023 11:01

For a fiver.

You can buy a 'female' certificate for a fiver.

Sure that will be an adequate safeguard, Wes?

LoobiJee · 30/07/2023 11:13

“And that might be the compromise that no one may really like but we can all live with ( my paraphrase) Wes Streeting was talking about.”

The Y chromosome individuals purchasing adult human female certificates for a fiver and accessing teenage girls changing rooms will really like it.

fdgdfgdfgdfg · 30/07/2023 13:23

I don't think Streeting ever believed that transwomen were really women, just like I don't think Starmer ever did. In fact I'd go as far as saying that noone ever has thought that transwomen are really women, including the transwomen and TRAs. Hell, especially the transwomen and TRA. And that's the route cause of all this mess.

People who know a fact is true don't need external validation. I know the sky is blue, my reality doesn't fall apart of someone tells me otherwise. But for a trans person, they need that external validation. "If other people say I'm a woman, if other people treat me as a woman, the more other men believe they're a woman, the more we validate kids feelings that they're the wrong sex. If all these things happen, if all these people believe, then maybe I'll truly believe it too."

It's the Emperor's new clothes, but it's happening because a few people are trying so very hard to believe it into existence, but can't unless everyone else believes it too.

And the left have bought into it. (And I'm not disparaging the left here, I'm very left leaning). They've gone, we're the progressive ones, and we know where this ends. Racism, homophobia, all end up with acceptance, (mostly, in the UK at least). Acceptance is the end game, so let's just skip straight to that.

They've tried to do the right thing, not realising the one huge difference, that trans ideology is a fiction, and believing in a fiction is harmful.

Accepting gay people harms noone, because being gay is fact. Men can love men, women can love women, believing and accepting that harms noone.

Accepting people of different colours and races harms noone. They exist, they are not lesser because they are different. Believing and accepting that harms noone.

So, progressive people think, believing and accepting trans people must also harm noone. But it's different, because it's a fiction. Believing that fiction does harm people, female athletes, children, women who just want to pee without a man in the room.

But now the fiction is accepted. Noone can dissent, call out that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, for fear that they're the only one who sees it, for fear that they're wrong.

Except for the few, the small children from the story, the JK Rowlings of the world in real life. And it takes time, but they make it OK for a few more people to say it, and then a few more, and a few more, until it snowballs and we're all pointing at the Emperor.

That's where we're getting to now, and it's why I didn't believe Starmer believed what he said when he said some men had penises, and why I believe he's telling the truth now.

teawamutu · 30/07/2023 13:25

LoobiJee · 30/07/2023 11:13

“And that might be the compromise that no one may really like but we can all live with ( my paraphrase) Wes Streeting was talking about.”

The Y chromosome individuals purchasing adult human female certificates for a fiver and accessing teenage girls changing rooms will really like it.

As long as Wes now understands that 'compromise' does not mean 'him and other men telling women which rights they need to give up in the interests of not making other men sad '.

I hope, but I have my doubts.

SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 13:27

fdgdfgdfgdfg · 30/07/2023 13:23

I don't think Streeting ever believed that transwomen were really women, just like I don't think Starmer ever did. In fact I'd go as far as saying that noone ever has thought that transwomen are really women, including the transwomen and TRAs. Hell, especially the transwomen and TRA. And that's the route cause of all this mess.

People who know a fact is true don't need external validation. I know the sky is blue, my reality doesn't fall apart of someone tells me otherwise. But for a trans person, they need that external validation. "If other people say I'm a woman, if other people treat me as a woman, the more other men believe they're a woman, the more we validate kids feelings that they're the wrong sex. If all these things happen, if all these people believe, then maybe I'll truly believe it too."

It's the Emperor's new clothes, but it's happening because a few people are trying so very hard to believe it into existence, but can't unless everyone else believes it too.

And the left have bought into it. (And I'm not disparaging the left here, I'm very left leaning). They've gone, we're the progressive ones, and we know where this ends. Racism, homophobia, all end up with acceptance, (mostly, in the UK at least). Acceptance is the end game, so let's just skip straight to that.

They've tried to do the right thing, not realising the one huge difference, that trans ideology is a fiction, and believing in a fiction is harmful.

Accepting gay people harms noone, because being gay is fact. Men can love men, women can love women, believing and accepting that harms noone.

Accepting people of different colours and races harms noone. They exist, they are not lesser because they are different. Believing and accepting that harms noone.

So, progressive people think, believing and accepting trans people must also harm noone. But it's different, because it's a fiction. Believing that fiction does harm people, female athletes, children, women who just want to pee without a man in the room.

But now the fiction is accepted. Noone can dissent, call out that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, for fear that they're the only one who sees it, for fear that they're wrong.

Except for the few, the small children from the story, the JK Rowlings of the world in real life. And it takes time, but they make it OK for a few more people to say it, and then a few more, and a few more, until it snowballs and we're all pointing at the Emperor.

That's where we're getting to now, and it's why I didn't believe Starmer believed what he said when he said some men had penises, and why I believe he's telling the truth now.

I don't think Streeting ever believed that transwomen were really women, just like I don't think Starmer ever did.

The crucial question isn’t really what do these men believe when it comes to biology, it’s what will these men write into law.

Do males get access to single sex spaces or not?

Imnobody4 · 30/07/2023 13:29

And then the Isla Bryson case comes up in Scotland and lots of people mself included say ‘Oh goodness, this is a bit of a problem, isn’t it?’

From the Times interview. After pondering this for a few days, I'm unconvinced but in 'listening mode'. It's all about the optics. There have been other cases before IB but they were all dismissed IB simply couldn't be side stepped.

I need to see clear distancing from Stonewall and the full inclusion of GC women. I also need GC labour women to stay strong and not make compromises. It's not that I'm against attempting a concensus but warm words of reassurance don’t cut it. That's what landed us with the GRA in the first place.

SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 13:31

And are children protected from indoctrination or do they get access to certificates?

I’d say politicians need to be explicit on the reality before you give them your vote.

As for telling the truth now, what have they actually said?

GailBlancheViola · 30/07/2023 13:32

As long as Wes now understands that 'compromise' does not mean 'him and other men telling women which rights they need to give up in the interests of not making other men sad '.

I hope, but I have my doubts.

I have my doubts too, serious doubts.

fdgdfgdfgdfg · 30/07/2023 13:33

SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 13:27

I don't think Streeting ever believed that transwomen were really women, just like I don't think Starmer ever did.

The crucial question isn’t really what do these men believe when it comes to biology, it’s what will these men write into law.

Do males get access to single sex spaces or not?

Show quote history

A couple of months ago, I'd be just as worried as you, but I think the snowball has gone too far now. The fiction has failed, and people can see it for what it is. I think we're seeing the death gasps of this movement now, at least in the UK.

SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 13:35

fdgdfgdfgdfg · 30/07/2023 13:33

A couple of months ago, I'd be just as worried as you, but I think the snowball has gone too far now. The fiction has failed, and people can see it for what it is. I think we're seeing the death gasps of this movement now, at least in the UK.

Show quote history

To quote my favourite post again. I don’t see a gasp yet.

“All that has happened is that he's said the words adult human female and clarified that you can buy an adult human female certificate from a doctor.”

ArabeIIaScott · 30/07/2023 13:43

I don't want gasps, I want solid legal change. Whether that's scrapping the ridiculous GRA altogether or fixing the blurred and confused and contradictory legislation, we can't take this shit on trust.

We know what happens when loopholes remain, and like FUCK women are doing to trust men making soothing noises about how people are unlikely to abuse them.

WhereAreWeNow · 30/07/2023 13:45

I wonder if people like Stella Creasy will realise which way the wind is blowing and try to do a reverse ferret.

SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 13:46

We’re only just starting to see a glimmer.

Look how captured institutions are, we also have the ECHR to contend with, schools too, this runs so deep a male flashing his political and metaphorical eyelashes ain’t going to cut it.

No way do I trust them.

RealityFan · 30/07/2023 13:53

fdgdfgdfgdfg · 30/07/2023 13:23

I don't think Streeting ever believed that transwomen were really women, just like I don't think Starmer ever did. In fact I'd go as far as saying that noone ever has thought that transwomen are really women, including the transwomen and TRAs. Hell, especially the transwomen and TRA. And that's the route cause of all this mess.

People who know a fact is true don't need external validation. I know the sky is blue, my reality doesn't fall apart of someone tells me otherwise. But for a trans person, they need that external validation. "If other people say I'm a woman, if other people treat me as a woman, the more other men believe they're a woman, the more we validate kids feelings that they're the wrong sex. If all these things happen, if all these people believe, then maybe I'll truly believe it too."

It's the Emperor's new clothes, but it's happening because a few people are trying so very hard to believe it into existence, but can't unless everyone else believes it too.

And the left have bought into it. (And I'm not disparaging the left here, I'm very left leaning). They've gone, we're the progressive ones, and we know where this ends. Racism, homophobia, all end up with acceptance, (mostly, in the UK at least). Acceptance is the end game, so let's just skip straight to that.

They've tried to do the right thing, not realising the one huge difference, that trans ideology is a fiction, and believing in a fiction is harmful.

Accepting gay people harms noone, because being gay is fact. Men can love men, women can love women, believing and accepting that harms noone.

Accepting people of different colours and races harms noone. They exist, they are not lesser because they are different. Believing and accepting that harms noone.

So, progressive people think, believing and accepting trans people must also harm noone. But it's different, because it's a fiction. Believing that fiction does harm people, female athletes, children, women who just want to pee without a man in the room.

But now the fiction is accepted. Noone can dissent, call out that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, for fear that they're the only one who sees it, for fear that they're wrong.

Except for the few, the small children from the story, the JK Rowlings of the world in real life. And it takes time, but they make it OK for a few more people to say it, and then a few more, and a few more, until it snowballs and we're all pointing at the Emperor.

That's where we're getting to now, and it's why I didn't believe Starmer believed what he said when he said some men had penises, and why I believe he's telling the truth now.

One of the strongest takes I have (other than the realisation that TRA = MRA) is Joyce's downbeat assertion that the sunk costs on TRA is of such a fundamental kind that to even begin to atone or repent or confess is so painful and humiliating, that the last people who will come around are the managerial Left crowd, they types fully represented in the Labour movement and at the top table in the party.

Starmer and Streeting were likely never at all, or fully in that group, but spent the last decade more and more absorbed into a culture where dissent was impossible.

Imagine Starmer addressing his shadow cabinet. Yvette Cooper son a full fledged queer TQ+ activist, Stephen Kinnock has a daughter fully transitioning surgically and pharmaceutically, and I believe a handful more shadow ministers fully imbibed of the Kool Aid. Every meet with activists and unions, he's fully reminded of "the most persecuted group on the planet, Labour must mean trans liberation if it's to mean anything, the kids are killing themselves!", and everyone he meets will have/have someone in the family who is/work or study with others who are/...a trans kid, or parent of trans etc etc.

Starmer would have more chance surviving if he decried going green or being pro bosses than if he showed weakness on the TRA message.

The whole modern Left is now predicated on TRA...a false phenomenon, a misleading premise, and the most sacred of sacred cows in a movement that has lost its way in its original purpose to redistribute wealth, bring people out of poverty and fight society's ills centered on class based analysis.

I believe Starmer capitulated to the unrelenting pressure to start, but the clash of material reality in his head with this fairytale politics, and the real politik of the abject horror of TRA politics in Scotland leading the SNP to enthusiastically permit a violent man in a woman's prison, has moved his hand.

The Q now is...does he think this important but small step is enough, or will he be emboldened to go further. Kinnock certainly did with his barnstorming anti Militant speech at conference in Liverpool in the late 80s. Starmer/Streeting will have to find their own way fwds to front up the the pro trans pushback coming their way, and revert to a small c conservative reappraisal of the whole area ahead of the GE.

This change has got me reconsidering voting Labour, but Starmer/Streeting need to show me, us, they really get the anger out here, and their previous adherence to magical thinking.

ScrollingLeaves · 30/07/2023 13:57

SunnyEgg· Today 13:27

I don't think Streeting ever believed that transwomen were really women, just like I don't think Starmer ever did.

The crucial question isn’t really what do these men believe when it comes to biology, it’s what will these men write into law.

Do males get access to single sex spaces or not?

The great obstacle to changing the law in order to protect women is the fear that they, those in power, will be accused of acting as though transwomen are capable of causing harm.

Transwomen are incapable of this. It is only the biological and legal species called Men, and the biological species called Rapists who are capable.

As for dignity, privacy, fairness, and, in some cases, religion being a consideration, that is only for so called pearl clutchers or bigots.

Manderleyagain · 30/07/2023 14:42

I listened to the clip that times radio put out - it cuts out the questions I think (?) but I would recommend listening as well as reading quotes. I believe him when he says he's changed his views & describes how he used to think (twaw, tmam and its just a moral panic) and the process of realising there's more to it. I am sure the pink lycra leggings were very influential on him, but everyone who holds his original dismissive position has to go through this process if we are to get anywhere.

I take what a pp says about the environment they have been in - with parents of 'trans kids' everywhere and the sense that you have to believe in the most oppressed minority. I am not under the impression that his take on specific policy questions would satisfy many people here but what he has done is still really important and necessary. In every institution in the country, before sensible policies and practices can return we need these things

  • acceptance that there's something important to discuss
  • acknowledgment that there's a conflict of rights
  • women's involvement as a group with huge interest in how gender id & sex are balanced
  • varying opinions welcomed without bullying, ostracising, hr processes used against us
  • basically the norms of democracy applied to this issue

This is a necessary base layer.

Thankfully - and I'm sure because of the work done by labour womens declaration & others in the party - it looks like the future government might be moving that way. He has made a start by recognising most of these points. It has to be repeated in every civic institution. Yes that's a mad state of affairs but that's where we are.

Once this can be properly discussed we will win.

TheirEminence · 30/07/2023 15:00

Slothtoes My account of the GRA was quite a bit shorter than yours, so naturally it does not provide the full picture. If the climate in 2004 was as homophobic and misogynistic as you suggest (and I don’t disagree), then a ‘better’ GRA was not possible and we really are dealing in counterfactuals. Goodwin, if I understand correctly, was the result of strategic litigation. Do you think the outcome might have been different if the Tories had been in power then? And what would it take to overturn Goodwin? (IANAL, so not sure if that is even possible.)

What would a ‘good’ GRA look like anyway? To my mind, issuing wrong-sex certificates to individuals addresses a bundle of broader social issues in an individualistic fashion, which seems misguided.

We’ve discussed the different manifestations of ‘trans’ at length here and right now, in 2023, for some people it’s a trendy identity, for others it seems to be linked to mental health issues, then there are those for which it is a way to permanently immerse themselves in a fantasy that they might have cultivated online … and then we still have a tiny number of those formerly known as transsexuals - but what does this mean anyway?

At the moment, it seems to me that there are more socially conservative politicians that have an accurate understanding of the complexity of all these manifestations than progressives. To be clear, I also think that this goes way beyond party politics and that we need women and men in all parties to fight for women’s rights. But social conservatives (and there used to be quite a few of those in Lab and LD) tend to be more suspicious of free sexual expression and I’m afraid at least some of the issues we are seeing with the TQ movement are linked to individuals’ strong desire for unfettered sexual expression, no matter how it might disturb or inconvenience others.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · 30/07/2023 18:51

I don't think Streeting ever believed that transwomen were really women, just like I don't think Starmer ever did.

I agree, but that makes their behaviour so much worse. They have bullied, silenced and excluded women, when they knew damn well that the women were correct. They threw away women's rights for a lie. * *

dcbc1234 · 30/07/2023 19:53

SunnyEgg · 30/07/2023 13:35

To quote my favourite post again. I don’t see a gasp yet.

“All that has happened is that he's said the words adult human female and clarified that you can buy an adult human female certificate from a doctor.”

Show quote history

Yes I agree. All trust has gone for me (being called a bigot for accepting biology will do that) and there is no reason to assume they are not still just using 'weasel words', because they realise they could do with the votes of a few of the 51% population born women.
Labour has still said nothing about child safeguarding and the Cass Review that I can see. When will they speak out for the need for children to be protected and why are they putting zero pressure on the Tories to quickly issue the guidelines for schools? It is almost as though they still want Stonewall doctrine in all schools like in Wales under Labour.
I still think the Labour Party are very dangerous.

Swipe left for the next trending thread