Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Amendment to Data Bill to revert all gender markers and out all trans people

412 replies

bluegoldflow · 02/05/2025 22:07

Hoping this passes, it shouldn't be possible to change your sex (a biological impossibility) on legal documents. This would prevent men using this loop hole to erase their past identities and stop male crimes being recorded as female crimes.

Amendment to Data Bill to revert all gender markers and out all trans people
Amendment to Data Bill to revert all gender markers and out all trans people
OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 06/05/2025 16:57

TruthInTransition · 05/05/2025 07:34

Your definition of “woman” may be based on a narrow, biological framework—but womanhood, like all human identity, is far more nuanced than anatomy.

You claim the word “woman” refers only to “adult human females,” as if that ends the conversation. But definitions evolve with society. Language is not static—it reflects how we understand people, experiences, and humanity. Once, “marriage” only meant a union between a man and a woman. Once, “voter” excluded women entirely. Should we have stopped evolving then too?

Trans women are not “twisting” words—we are living our truths. Recognizing trans women as women doesn’t erase or override anyone else’s identity. It expands our understanding of womanhood to include the diverse ways it is lived and experienced. That is not an insult—it is progress.

You say it’s “insulting” for trans women to be included in womanhood. But what’s truly insulting is the suggestion that trans women don’t deserve dignity, don’t deserve recognition, don’t deserve safety—because we don’t fit your personal criteria. That’s not about facts. That’s about fear.

The reality is this: trans women exist. We live as women, we are treated as women by society, and we face the same misogyny, threats, and discrimination—often compounded by our trans identity.

What you’re advocating isn’t about preserving language—it’s about exclusion. And exclusion, under the guise of “shared reality,” has always been a tool of oppression. It was used to keep Black people out of schools. To keep women out of voting booths. And now, it’s being used to keep trans women from being seen, heard, and safe.

You don’t get to decide who is or isn’t valid ANYMORE! based on your discomfort. Your beliefs do not override our existence.

Trans women are not erasing anyone. We are not stealing anything. We are demanding to live, fully and authentically, in a world that has tried again and again to deny us that right.

So no—we’re not twisting words. We’re speaking truth. And if that truth threatens your worldview, maybe it’s your worldview that needs to change.

We’re speaking truth. And if that truth threatens your worldview, maybe it’s your worldview that needs to change.

My truth is that I have a son. His truth appears to be that he is my daughter. Whose truth is backed up by evidence? I'll leave you to guess. If the truth that is backed up by evidence threatens your worldview, maybe it's your worldview that needs to change.

bluegoldflow · 06/05/2025 16:58

"Thing is, for all @TruthInTransition word salad, all he was doing was making a case for there to be social and legal recognistion of a group of people who identify with the social constructions around womanhood as separate from the needs and experiences of being female."

@FlirtsWithRhinos That really wasn't my impression at all, he was suggesting that the term "women" was a shared identity between actual women and like himself. The issue is that "women" isn't a social construction at all, it is a biological reality.

I might have see his point if he was saying that he felt that he shouldn't have to conform to gender norms of being a man if he doesn't want to, if he wants to wear dresses and high heels, grow his hair long or wear make up that is his business but none of that is what "womanhood" is. Womanhood is only being a human adult female, that is what woman means, womenhood is not separate from from being female it is one and the same.

If he wants to campaign for men like him to be accepted as unconventional males and to promote acceptance of men like him amongst other men in male spaces then that is fine as it doesn't come into conflict with women's rights and nobody cares about what he does.

The issue is that this isn't what he wants, he wants men like him to be seen as actual women within the law, i.e. suggesting that men can be women and thereby erasing what a woman is under the law. He wants access to women's spaces and he wants women not to be able to say no.

He says:

"We are not asking for special treatment. We are demanding basic human decency. The right to live authentically. The right to be recognized accurately. The right not to be misgendered or dismissed because of ignorance or prejudice.
To consistently refer to us as men is not only deeply disrespectful—it is discriminatory. It is a conscious choice to invalidate our identities and erase our humanity. If you refuse to acknowledge us as trans women, you are not just disagreeing—you are actively engaging in dehumanization.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. This is about dignity, safety, and truth. If your advocacy for women’s rights excludes trans women, then it is not truly about equality—it is about gatekeeping. And if your language reduces us to something we are not, then it’s not just wrong. It’s dangerous.
A just society is one that listens, learns, and evolves. It doesn’t cling to outdated fears; it builds a future where everyone—cis, trans, or otherwise—can live with respect, safety, and equality."

"The right to live authentically" This literally means they want to be recognised as women and have access to women's spaces.

"To consistently refer to us as men is not only deeply disrespectful—it is discriminatory. It is a conscious choice to invalidate our identities and erase our humanity."

But it is ok for them to erase what a woman actually is and erode our rights, safety and dignity? They don't give a shit about women which isn't too surprising because they are men.

"This isn’t a matter of opinion. This is about dignity, safety, and truth. If your advocacy for women’s rights excludes trans women, then it is not truly about equality—it is about gatekeeping."

He's right it isn't a matter of opinion, he isn't a woman, none of them are and they only gatekeeper at play here is reality.

There is nothing dehumanising or dangerous about stating facts, he's male and therefore a man but he's playing the victim to try and get what he want's i.e. to shut women up and gain access to our spaces and erase our legal protections.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 06/05/2025 18:48

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 06/05/2025 16:57

We’re speaking truth. And if that truth threatens your worldview, maybe it’s your worldview that needs to change.

My truth is that I have a son. His truth appears to be that he is my daughter. Whose truth is backed up by evidence? I'll leave you to guess. If the truth that is backed up by evidence threatens your worldview, maybe it's your worldview that needs to change.

Edited

"The world is flat."

"No it's not. There is evidence to prove it's not flat and instead is a sphere"

"You are wrong, I believe its flat. Your world view needs to change".

RedToothBrush · 06/05/2025 18:58

Women SHOULD 'gatekeep womanhood' whatever the fuck that means.

By that I mean the right to define themselves and not on behalf of others. That means if there is just a tiny minority not consenting, then men don't get to say they are women.

Women saying no is apparently repressive and unfair because these are men who believe they should have the power to define what a woman is and women shouldn't have that power.

That's why they say women have all the power. They don't. Women just have the power to say no and men don't like it.

And even then men will still be male cos they can't bloody change sex no matter how often or what matter they say they can!

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 06/05/2025 20:43

Theft of language is an act of violence against women.

illinivich · 06/05/2025 22:06

You claim the word “woman” refers only to “adult human females,” as if that ends the conversation. But definitions evolve with society. Language is not static—it reflects how we understand people, experiences, and humanity.

Isn't this an argument against the GRA? If language evolves and woman no longer means AHF, then why would a man claiming to be a woman need female id?

TheOtherRaven · 07/05/2025 08:54

illinivich · 06/05/2025 22:06

You claim the word “woman” refers only to “adult human females,” as if that ends the conversation. But definitions evolve with society. Language is not static—it reflects how we understand people, experiences, and humanity.

Isn't this an argument against the GRA? If language evolves and woman no longer means AHF, then why would a man claiming to be a woman need female id?

That would involve logic.

You could also question that if the word 'woman' just means 'person of either (or many, depending on personal view) sex, likes pink and has long hair' what the word 'trans' can mean.

Transitioning from what to what exactly?

The 'evolves' gambit has been in play a long time, it's knackered and very elderly, and has been repeatedly debunked, as 'evolves' does not in fact mean the same thing as 'enforced by authoritarianism from the top down to try and wangle around other people's inconvenient needs, boundaries and protections in law'.

TheOtherRaven · 07/05/2025 09:03

You'd think actually at this point, when phrases like 'it's a minor administrative thing' and 'living with dignity' come up, there'd be large red flashing lights and sirens in the HoC as the Trojan Horse Fuckery alert goes off it's been so bloody often now.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 07/05/2025 17:41

TruthInTransition · 05/05/2025 07:50

Your message unfairly paints an entire population with the brush of your personal grievances. That is not only irresponsible—it’s dangerous. You are attributing the actions of a few individuals, real or alleged, to an entire marginalized community. That’s not justice. That’s scapegoating.

I am a trans woman. I’ve been battered by a cisgender woman in a relationship. Should I now assume all cis women are violent? Should we judge every cis woman by the actions of Nicola Murray, a convicted child abuser? No. Because I understand that people are individuals, not political talking points or collective enemies. I am bigger than hate. I choose not to engage in bigotry, even when I have reason to feel hurt.

What you’re doing—making sweeping, incendiary claims about people you don’t know—is not just morally wrong. It could also be legally questionable. Do you have evidence? Names? Documentation? Or are you repeating narratives designed to inflame and vilify?

We must be better than this. Reducing people to stereotypes, projecting blame on entire communities, and justifying hatred with anecdote is not the path to progress. It's the path to division and dehumanization. You may feel justified, but that doesn’t make it just.

TW are more likely to be in prison for sexual offending than other men, and are hundreds of times more likely to be in prison for sexual offending than women.

Women are allowed to look at population-level statistics when assessing the risk that a group that is materially biologically different from us poses to us. Almost all males are born with rape implements built into their bodies and can leave us pregnant. This difference matters a lot when you are born with a babymaker built into your body.

There are times when "don't tar people with the same brush" and "treat people as individuals" is the right approach, such as in court where we treat all defendants as innocent until their guilt is proven. There are other circumstances where this is an irresponsible approach. Rape counseling centres, domestic violence refuges, dormitories, and changing rooms are examples of when excluding all males based on a class analysis of the risk males pose to females is not only justified, but is the only responsible course of action.

Imnobody4 · 07/05/2025 18:11

Ben Spencer is doing a good job.

Shadow Minister of State for @SciTechgovuk @DrBenSpencer speaks to amendment N21 in the @HouseofCommons #DataBill debate.

x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1920119607139950600?t=Xr-u9wMeOt3ziXc0AoKQYw&s=19

SquirrelSoShiny · 07/05/2025 18:24

98% of trans people are 'outed' the second the person meeting them sees them / hears them. Maybe 2% of trans people 'pass' for ten seconds, then they move / speak / lift their disproportionately large or small hands.

No one should be able to use 'gender' to escape the consequences of their actions as their biological sex.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 07/05/2025 18:31

If Dr Upton had asked for separate changing provision then no one would have known he was trans in his scrubs. Everyone would simply have assumed he was a man.

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 07/05/2025 19:56

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 07/05/2025 18:31

If Dr Upton had asked for separate changing provision then no one would have known he was trans in his scrubs. Everyone would simply have assumed he was a man.

But the good Doctor favours 'raspberry' scrubs, you know a shade of pink therefore clearly a woman because if men touch anything pink they die, actually and literally die. It's how you can tell a penis in pink leggings is a lady penis. Pink for girls blue for boys.

Note to self must ask DC if they are feeling enby yet as neither pink or blue stuff featured in either of their baby clothes/ toys etc.

bluegoldflow · 07/05/2025 20:44

I knew it would fail but I still think it is wrong that people can change sex on a legal document when legally now it is recognised that transwomen are not women under the law. No man should be able to erase his identity and previous crimes if applicable and no crimes should be recorded as committed by women when they were committed by men. Having your actual sex on a legal document isn't an invasion of your private life.

Being able to change their sex marker on their legal documents just encourages people to erroneously believe they have actually changed sex and therefore have entitlement to use women's spaces.

OP posts:
GailBlancheViola · 07/05/2025 20:50

I assume this Bill will have to go through the Lords? If so there is hope that they will amend it.

Imnobody4 · 07/05/2025 22:25

Apparently not one single Labour MP voted in favour of the ammendment.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1920213741683290589?t=QtHygIKU5ThPsq_wOI0Txg&s=19

The amendment which would have brought sex data into line with the Data Protection Act has been voted down.

What happens next?

The bill goes back to the Lords. This stage is called "ping pong".

We hope the Lords will look carefully at the Bill and challenge the Commons to think again.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1920213741683290589?s=19&t=QtHygIKU5ThPsq_wOI0Txg

SerafinasGoose · 08/05/2025 09:49

Imnobody4 · 07/05/2025 22:25

Apparently not one single Labour MP voted in favour of the ammendment.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1920213741683290589?t=QtHygIKU5ThPsq_wOI0Txg&s=19

The amendment which would have brought sex data into line with the Data Protection Act has been voted down.

What happens next?

The bill goes back to the Lords. This stage is called "ping pong".

We hope the Lords will look carefully at the Bill and challenge the Commons to think again.

So much for supporting the ruling of the SC. Craven cowardice.

Merrymouse · 08/05/2025 10:07

Did anyone explain why it's legal to record gender/sex markers if the government's assumption is that it isn't relevant data?

Doesn't it contravene data protection legislation?

Merrymouse · 08/05/2025 12:15

Finally, the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by requiring public authorities to record sex as biological sex in all cases regardless of whether it is justified or proportionate in that given circumstance.

If the data collection isn’t justified and proportionate, doesn’t that interfere with everyone’s rights?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/05/2025 12:20

Sex is biological sex in all circumstances. How can equality monitoring be carried out if multiple definitions are being used?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/05/2025 12:24

It sounds like he either doesn’t understand the SC judgment or he’s pretending not to. It’s not about proportionality etc. Gender reassignment is a separate pc to sex. The question of how sex is defined in the EA has already been answered. It’s not whether it’s “reasonable.”

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/05/2025 12:26

We need all these loopholes closed ultimately. But certainly no lady passports and driving licenses etc should be given to men without GRCs, at the very least.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/05/2025 12:28

Also, am I right in thinking that Bryant was one of the little cabal within government/Labour who were leaked to the press as plotting to try to undermine or get round the SC ruling?