GC views not valid because the majority are "bad actors"

[BigTubOfLard]

First time posting on this board.
Male friend and me were chatting last night and when he asked who I voted for in the UK elections I said I couldn't vote green because they don't know what a woman is. He said, "Oh you are one of those".

This lead to a loooong discussion of why I held my GC views. We had to agree to disagree, but his main argument for why I was wrong was that "the vast majority" of people who hold my view believe that trans people should not even exist. I could not sway him on this point - didn't matter that I argued that no, the vast majority of GC people are probably women, we don't believe that trans people should not exist, but we have very valid reasons for opposing transwomen in our exclusive space.

So basically my view is wrong because "bad actors" believe trans people should not exist. Any idea how to counter this? I did think of pointing him directly at this forum, but doubt he'll take time to look.

What do you mean people like your friend? What exactly are you trying to protect?

Check his hard drive.

@Zita60 you've said your friend doesn't have gender dysphoria because your friend doesn't need the protections of that disability. So it must be something else.

We don't "all know what being trans" means, it means whatever people want it to mean to suit their argument in the moment.

If you mean your friend wants to be know by a different name that's trivial to change.

If you mean wear different clothes, challenge dress codes on the basis of sex discrimination.

If you mean make people pretend he's really a woman, to deny the evidence of our eyes? Then no, people shouldn't have that right.

There is a national (federal) law on marriage equality in the US. Respect for Marriage Act was passed in 2022 to codify recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages by the federal government and all US states and territories.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=old%20foreign%20spouse.-,U.S.%20territories%20and%20states,Idaho%2C%20Indiana%2C%20and%20Minnesota

Since 2000 there are 6 twelve year olds who legally married in the USA.

Yes you read that right.

A man who is really a woman does not in fact exist and can't exist.

Arguing over whether he "should" exist is therefore pointless. It is like saying people shouldn't be allowed to go to Narnia.

Some men just love an excuse to wind-up women. If you've never been in an abusive relationship it's hard to recognise.

I didn't say she didn't have gender dysphoria, I said that she did, that was in my first post about it. She had struggled with it for many years, and finally transitioned so she was living as a woman.

(This isn't a friend, by the way, simply a colleague who I only met a couple of times when she came to my office. We'd interacted over email, as our work was related. When she transitioned, our manager emailed to everyone a statement in which she explained why she had transitioned, the name she had chosen etc. After that, she just got on with her job and I don't think it was ever mentioned again.)

Gender dysphoria isn't a disability per se, under the Equality Act. It only becomes a disability if it prevents the person from carrying out day-to-day activities.

The Equality Act doesn't force us to pretend that someone who claims to be the opposite sex actually is the opposite sex. It stops us discriminating against them in employment, housing etc.

Do you think it should be legal to sack someone like my colleague, simply on the grounds that they are trans, and are living as the opposite sex?

Being trans is a person saying that they are the opposite sex. Why they're doing that can vary - dysphoria that means they genuinely think their body is the wrong sex, a male sexual fetish about dressing up as a woman, a fear of being a young woman because of how they are treated, a fear of being gay and therefore preferring to live as the opposite sex because that would make them straight etc. And the extent to which someone pursues this varies - cross-dressing, hormones, surgery etc.

If it doesn't disrupt your colleague's life then it doesn't deserve protection.

Of course it forces people to pretend. It is a legal fiction.

It deserves no more protection than a belief in fairies.

The Equality Act doesn't force us to pretend that someone who claims to be the opposite sex actually is the opposite sex.

A lot of businesses seem to think it does.

Do you think it should be legal to sack someone like my colleague, simply on the grounds that they are trans, and are living as the opposite sex?

Why would they be sacked if they're doing their job effectively?

And how does someone live as the opposite sex?

Being trans is a person saying that they are the opposite sex.

Which means they're lying. Either deliberately or because they're suffering from a delusion.

Returning to the OP's interlocutor. To be a GQ feminist has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of trans people. GQ feminists regard gender as a social construct which is designed to place women as an underclass. Full stop
End of.

If trans people can only define themselves through a social construct that I reject, then that isn't my problem.

He's basically saying that anyone who says they're a woman is thereby a woman. And on top of this unique truth claim he warns that to disbelieve it is to deny the very existence of that person. Which is obviously absurd. And, ironically, actually does deny the 'lived reality' of women.

Has he ever reflected on why it's women who are concerned about self-id?

Well said. I used to direct people to those board; not any more as unfortunately there is an increasing risk they will see a thread that lives up to the stereotypes :(

And this is what people mean when they say GC people don't think trans people should exist.
Not that the person vanishes. But the "trans" bit of their experience doesn't exist.

People can't change sex, so anyone who believes they can is deluded or lying, and forcing everyone around them to lie too.

Is it though?
"GC people think trans people shouldn't exist." would be a very peculiar way to express, "GC people think the trans bit of your experience doesn't exist".

I think really you're just searching around for a way to rationalise one of the many baseless accusations TRAs routinely throw at GCs, and attempting to make it sound 20% less insane.

Some men just love an excuse to wind-up women. If you've never been in an abusive relationship it's hard to recognise.

This. So true.

Who says there's a growing number of GC who believe that? I don't. But there is is a growing number of GC women who are now speaking out about wanting female spaces preserved.

It's the person that deserves protection, not their belief.

In the past, a man could be sacked if his employer found out he was gay. A gay man deserves employment just as much as anyone else, so that is now illegal.

A person who thinks they are the opposite sex also deserves employment, and cannot be discriminated against purely because they think they are the opposite sex.

The Equality Act doesn't say whether or not the person really has changed sex, it simply says that if they have undergone "gender reassignment" they cannot be sacked for that reason alone.

You've twice avoided answering this question directly, but I'll ask it again. Do you think it should be legal for me to sack a person, simply because I don't like the fact that they say they are trans? If I'm a council housing officer, do you think it should be legal for me to refuse them housing simply because I don't like the fact that they say they are trans?

The Equality Act isn't about a legal fiction. It doesn't say the rest of us have to agree that someone has changed sex, simply that we are not allowed to discriminate against someone purely on those grounds.

A GRC does create a legal fiction, because it says the person should be treated as the other sex - whether for all purposes (including entry to single-sex spaces of the opposite sex) or for some purposes is still to be clarified by the courts.

I used to think the GRA was a good idea for the small number of people who genuinely couldn't stand living as their own sex. I'm now wondering if this is the case, and whether it should be repealed. But I still agree with the Equality Act that no-one should be discriminated against in housing, employment or public services purely because they think they are trans.

I may not like gender ideology, but I don't think people should be discriminated against for thinking they have changed sex.

It deserves no more protection than a belief in fairies.

I could say exactly the same thing about religion. For example, I think belief in the existence of the christian god is no more valid than a belief in fairies. But I should not be able to sack a person simply because they believe in the christian god, even if I don't believe in their god. The Equality Act doesn't make me believe in their god.

A lot of businesses seem to think it does.

Yes, thanks to Stonewall a lot of businesses do think that.

Why would they be sacked if they're doing their job effectively?

Why did gay people used to be sacked? Because some employers didn't like gay people, thought they were perverted etc, and so would sack them. The same used to happen to trans people. Whatever one's belief about their claims to be the opposite sex, they deserve employment just as much as anyone else.

And how does someone live as the opposite sex?

Dressing as the opposite sex, taking an opposite sex name, using medical/surgical interventions to appear more like the opposite sex. Whether that means they should be treated entirely as if they actually are the opposite sex, for all purposes, is another matter. The law on this needs clarifying. Modifying the Equality Act to clarify that sex means biological sex would help.

Which means they're lying. Either deliberately or because they're suffering from a delusion.

If a person genuinely thinks they are the opposite sex, they're not lying, as I understand the meaning of the word. Either way, I don't believe what they are saying is true. But I still think they should have the right not to be discriminated against because of that.

You've twice avoided answering this question directly, but I'll ask it again. Do you think it should be legal for me to sack a person, simply because I don't like the fact that they say they are trans?

Stupid question as I'm not very sure of employment law. Even if gender reassignment wasn't a PC, would it really be legal to sack someone for "being trans"? If I sacked someone for being ginger or having an annoying laugh, I would expect that to be challenged even though those aren't PCs.

Do you think it should be legal for me to sack a person, simply because I don't like the fact that they say they are trans?

No, as long as they don't force you to play along.

If they're prepared to work without you pretending they're the opposite sex and without any disruptive behaviour then there's no beef.

Once trans people realise that other people are not compelled to pretend they're the opposite sex, then they will be in line with other religions, who realise they can't compel other people to cover their hair or eat kosher food or whatever.

The problem is that trans people currently are getting more protection than other people, because people are being punished by low level courts for not pretending.

So in the event that someone decides to kick up a stink because their employer is not going along with their beliefs, then I think the employer could be absolutely justified in sacking them for disruption/non-performance/whatever, and defending that in court on the basis of their own freedom of speech and belief rights. And fights like this need to be dragged into higher courts as necessary.

(And this extends to non-"trans" people who are part of this belief too - like that book-destroying bookseller woman. The problem is the authoritarian behaviour, not the actually being "trans", so the "trans" PC shouldn't be a cover for that sort of behaviour).

Employment law does allow for "reasonable accommodations" of beliefs; a man wearing clothes you would let a woman wear is reasonable (just as vice-versa). Dressing like a stripper or popping in the Canadian-style ginormous fake breasts would not be. And neither is compelling people to lie about you.

@Zita60 I have answered your question. Again and again.

Whatever you mean by "trans person", this should not be a characteristic thay offers any more protection that any other person has.

But in any case, the law as it stands doesn't protect "trans people", there is a specific carve-out for "gender reassignment", which isn't the same thing. But I also don't think there should be an extra category for gender reassignment either.

If someone says this sort of thing (post above yours):
People can't change sex, so anyone who believes they can is deluded or lying, and forcing everyone around them to lie too.

That sounds to me like them saying there is no such thing as trans (it's a delusion or a lie) and that people shouldn't be allowed to identify as trans (forcing everyone around them to lie).

Therefore the implication of that is trans people are their birth sex and don't exist as a category in any meaningful way.

Great post