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
FlirtsWithRhinos · 08/05/2025 12:29

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?

Exactly.

Such weaseling going on.

The whole bloody point of electronic id is that it's not all or nothing, the system can show you only the fields you are authorised to see.

So if there's no need for your particular check to include sex, you never even see a person's sex marker.

Yes, due to all the (whether by stupidity or deliberate deception) hand wringing about "outing" trans people, Labour, Greens et al just blocked and id system where literally by definition and baked into the system, no one ever (officially anyway🙄) got to know anyone's sex without a needful and audited reason to know it.

Slow handclap guys, is that foot not getting sore from all the shooting?

TheOtherRaven · 08/05/2025 12:32

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?

If collecting accurate data is not justified or proportionate, why the hell bother doing it in the first place?

How is it justified or proportionate to spend vast amounts of money collecting, processing and using inaccurate data? What is the point? We can't afford to keep pensioners warm or meet kids' SEND needs or have a policeman come out when we're being robbed, but there's money to waste on this?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/05/2025 12:34

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?

Yes https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1913720244499108007

TotallyErroneousRidiculousFolksScreaming · 08/05/2025 12:38

Annoyedone · 05/05/2025 07:47

Is there a script? I’m sure I’ve seen a rant like this lately on another thread. It’s a bit sad when the ploppers can’t even come up with original posts. @TruthInTransition you can do better I’m sure.

@Annoyedone it's sadder that you believe this same rant 'As you call it' has just been regurgitated by different people. Did you ever think that it has been used by the same person on multiple sites so that it reached a wider Audience? Come on @Annoyedone I'm sure you can do better than that. I think you should look in the mirror and to your suprise you'll see the plopper staring back at you 😂

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 08/05/2025 12:41

I wrote to my LibDem MP as per Sex Matters' guidelines, but she still voted against it. Disappointed but not surprised.

TotallyErroneousRidiculousFolksScreaming · 08/05/2025 12:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 08/05/2025 12:54

That's the Men that commit these crimes and claim to be trans woman when they're NOT!

What is the difference?

GeorgeO · 08/05/2025 13:23

So if sex isn’t going to be recorded then on this digital record you can bring up (on the screen of your phone or pc or printout) it should read: please note this should not be used as a confirmation of sex. Next to the sex or gender marker. Otherwise it’s a lie.

Something like this:

Sex: Male - note this record does not confirm you are female or male.

Age: 66

Address: Codderswhallop Cottage, Oceania

Qualification: PhD in Doublespeak (1984)

Right to work in UK: granted

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 08/05/2025 13:24

How is this compliant with the SC ruling that sex must be recorded for the PSED?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/05/2025 13:32

Exactly, I don’t see how it can be.

TheOtherRaven · 08/05/2025 13:37

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 08/05/2025 12:54

That's the Men that commit these crimes and claim to be trans woman when they're NOT!

What is the difference?

Is Isla Bryson a man or a transwoman?

What about Karen White?

Katie Dolotowski?

All of them committed their crimes against women in their identified as gender, and by that access into women's spaces. All of them are serial offenders against women. They are as trans as anyone else is.

There is no way to separate nice/safe men with trans identities from the dangerous/voyeuristic ones. And as women repeatedly say, even if the men in question are absolutely lovely, they still don't want them in a space where they are undressed, or where they wish to be in a women-only situation. What is it with this belief that women should only be permitted what privacy/freedoms men grudgingly allow them if and only when those women have sufficiently proved enough danger? Why in this world view are women's rights and spaces in the gift of men to bestow or deny?

How exactly do you propose to give women their legal protections in law (and homosexual people's and women with trans identities) and still let 'the right sort of man/transwoman' use their space of choice?

And I don't include 'make an app, totally fuck up national data at great expense and lie a lot to avoid those women's legal protections being able to work' because that's just beneath contempt.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 08/05/2025 13:41

Funny how TRA object to people claiming they are something they are not….

EweSurname · 08/05/2025 13:43

Surely this is all a sop anyway, as long as GRCs/the ability to change sex on passports and licences are around? Even though the SC have confirmed that ‘certificated’ sex does not override biological sex for the purposes of the equality act, in practical terms, the government is issuing ID (digital or not) that states that people are officially the opposite sex.

Marylou62 · 08/05/2025 13:45

FeministUnderTheCatriarchy · 05/05/2025 07:57

Firstly, please try to write authentically vs getting ChatGpt to do it for you.

Secondly, no, it isn't bigotry to centre women (adult human females) in feminism. It is not “gatekeeping” to say that women have the right to keep and defend our own spaces, our rights, and our reality.

The endless emotional appeals and accusations of hate are just abusive gaslighting designed to silence women who dare to speak the truth (just like we suffer every day from men in general).

Trans women aren't women. They are trans identifying males. They have not lived female socialization, they are not subject to female biology, and they do not experience the lifelong systemic oppression that feminism was built to fight.

Dress however you want, have whatever surgery you like. Refer to yourself amongst your circle as your pronouns you prefer. But none of that changes the reality and it should not mean that you can barge into our spaces at whim.

We are constantly told to be kind, to be inclusive, to make room. But women fought for generations to have rights based on our sex. Not on identity. Not on feelings. And certainly not to be told that speaking about the REALITY of male violence is somehow hatespeech. To say that trans identifying males don't commit sexual and violent crimes is just another instance of denying reality. Gaslighting.

And we do not make “blanket assumptions.” We are intelligent enough to see patterns of male violence with our own eyeballs and we know that self-ID allows predators to exploit legal loopholes. That isn’t fear-mongering—it’s bloody reality.

Look at the cases in women’s prisons, shelters, sports, and changing rooms. The stories of vulnerable women being asked to LEAVE spaces THEY need in favour of protecting the feelings of men. Women who have been subjected to male violence and misogyny, expected to once again fawn and placate men.

At the risk of sounding a bit childish for a moment... It is FUCKING UNFAIR.

Trans women have every right to live safely and free from HARM. I do not hate anyone. I don't care how anyone dresses, but I begin to care when my safety starts being impacted. When my rights start being erroded.

As someone who was sexually abused as a child by a man, sexually assaulted as a teen by a man, roofied and attempted rape by a man, not to mention countless times of sexual harassment, intimidation and misogyny, I have every right to be fearful. In fact it would be illogical if I wasn't.

This is not a zero-sum game where women must sacrifice everything so no one’s feelings are hurt. It’s not our job to pretend that males are women to protect anyone’s ego.

You say “the word woman is not a threat.” But it’s not just a word—it’s a reality. A word rooted in our biology, and in centuries of oppression unique to females.

We are born into womanhood—we do not choose it. It defines a life shaped by systemic disadvantage, not identity. You scoff when we defend the word, claim it’s “just semantics,” yet fight fiercely to take it. If it’s just a word, why is it so important to you—and so silly to us?

Because it’s not just a word. It’s a political category and you all know very well that if you take our word, you can take everything else. It belongs to the people who were born into it, along with the violence, medical misogyny, economic inequality, and social conditioning that come with it.

Even trans-identified males who transition young are still biologically male, socialised as boys, and carry the benefits of that development in a patriarchal society.

You say you’re not trying to erase us. But when you demand our language, our spacea our legal protections, and then call us bigots for resisting—that is erasure. That is misogyny.

Feminism is for women. Not for males who want to co-opt our identity. Not for men who buy into gender stereotypes and think that makes them a woman. Not for entitled men who have no idea what it is like to be a eoman raped by a man, demanding access to rape shelters.

Not for individuals who threaten, dox, and abuse women for stating basic biological facts.

We will not be shamed, gaslit or manipulated into submission. We see what’s happening and we are not playing along!!!

I have encountered 3 trans identifying males in my life. The first the adult child of a family friend. This person was extremely sexually inappropriate but called himself "one of the girls". He wore clothes that normal wouldn't wear and was very provocative, daring people say soemthing. He was verbally abusive to his mother who he bossed around and he didn't lift a finger to help her (conveniently opting in and out of what women "should" be doing when it fancied him).

The second was in the post office. He cornered me in an aisle, lifted up his dress and showed me his penis through his white lace panties. This was extremely traumatising for me given my history.

And the third person started a campaign of online gate against tme when I expressed some of my views on an online platform. He sent me the most vile, disgusting messages and threats. He told me that I was on a list that is shared around, where they work together to find out our information so they can teach us a lesson.

He told me that I would be kept in a basement and beaten and tied up.

I'm sorry, but that is only a threat a man would make. How am I supposed to pretend that a woman was threstening me with those things?

I have come accross other trans identifying males in passing out in general life. The experiences have ranged from uncomfortable to scary.

I have not had a single truly positive interaction. Not one.

Edit: it is a fact that women commit far fewer sexual and violent crimes than men. It is a fact that trans identifying males commit more sexual crimes than women.

It is exceedingly important for the safety of women that we do not have these statistics muddied by lumping in trans identifying males with our numbers. This WILL have a huge affect on our ability to advocate for ourselves and you know it.

Your comment is just one big straw man argument.

Edited

Thank you for speaking so eloquently and (apart from your personal details which I'm truly sorry that you have suffered) explaining so well what I would like to have been able to express .
I thank you..

Imnobody4 · 08/05/2025 13:52

Here's the complete thread Maya posted. Sorry didn't have time to add above.

Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”

This is distraction.

Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:

  • For their own healthcare
- For social care - For a job where sex matters - For sport - For safeguarding - For use of single sex services

^“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”

“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.” ^

OK so

  1. Which govt departments can accurately verify sex?
  2. How are you going to differentiate this accurate data from inaccurate data sources?

This needs an answer!

“By contrast, the new clause and the amendment would undermine the work the Govt are already doing. Giving the SoSa new regulatory rule would undermine the existing processes that ensure compliance with the UK’s data protection.”
What process ensure compliances?
❌Passports - inaccurate
❌Drivers licenses - inaccurate
❌NHS records - inaccurate

“Secondly, the new clause is misplaced because the Bill does not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender. Indeed, it does not seek to alter any of the content of data used by digital verification services.”

So it accepts in accurate, unreliable data.

“Thirdly, the new clause is unnecessary, because it is very unlikely that digital verification services would be used in many, if not all, of the cases specifically raised …. such as within the NHS to gain access to single-sex wards or for screening or to enter other female-only spaces. “

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

They are developing a system which will claim to accurately verify people's sex for the purpose of accessing services (but will verify unreliable and false information).

But they claim its ok, because the system won't be used by anyone to verify sex.

🙄🙄🙄

"Fourthly, the new clause goes significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court. 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."

The circumstances we are talking about is where an org needs accurate information on a person's sex, and the person has consented to share that information.

If you don't require public authorities to record accurate information then you destroy the integrity of the whole dataset.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 08/05/2025 14:47

The problem here is that significant records have been allowed to be falsified for men without GRCs, let alone those with. That needs to stop.

LonginesPrime · 08/05/2025 14:51

I’m disappointed the amendment didn’t pass, but since the birth register is going to be digitised, won’t we just be in a situation where any organisation who needs to check someone’s biological sex can just look them up on the public birth registry anyway?

Unless reliance on the new digital identity scheme is going to be compulsory for all organisations, surely any service provider that operates a single-sex service and is presented with a birth certificate or driving licence that says female when its owner looks like they might be male can just check on their phone what their original birth certificate said?

Single-sex service providers will likely know which documents are reliable for sex (currently just the birth register) so won’t they just use that? Presumably it will only take a second to check once it’s online.

Currently, single-sex services that want to comply with the law wouldn’t rely on a driving licence for biological sex verification as they know anyone can change that. Given the SC judgment, they can’t use the excuse that they weren’t sure whether to use self-ID or sex at birth, so they will know they need to refer to the original birth register to comply with the EA 2010.

Have I misunderstood this?

MoetUndChandon · 08/05/2025 15:21

Long dashes, such as 'equality—it is about' don't appear on keyboards. They indicate text written using Generative AI.

PriOn1 · 08/05/2025 15:28

Glad to be reminded it will go through the Lords. They generally have their heads screwed on when it comes to this topic.

Wonder whether there are any members of the upper house that are worth writing to. The Baroness and Lord Moonie will already be all over it.

WandaSiri · 08/05/2025 16:11

LonginesPrime · 08/05/2025 14:51

I’m disappointed the amendment didn’t pass, but since the birth register is going to be digitised, won’t we just be in a situation where any organisation who needs to check someone’s biological sex can just look them up on the public birth registry anyway?

Unless reliance on the new digital identity scheme is going to be compulsory for all organisations, surely any service provider that operates a single-sex service and is presented with a birth certificate or driving licence that says female when its owner looks like they might be male can just check on their phone what their original birth certificate said?

Single-sex service providers will likely know which documents are reliable for sex (currently just the birth register) so won’t they just use that? Presumably it will only take a second to check once it’s online.

Currently, single-sex services that want to comply with the law wouldn’t rely on a driving licence for biological sex verification as they know anyone can change that. Given the SC judgment, they can’t use the excuse that they weren’t sure whether to use self-ID or sex at birth, so they will know they need to refer to the original birth register to comply with the EA 2010.

Have I misunderstood this?

Makes sense to me - as long as (as you say) orgs are not required to use the govt verification service or forbidden from using the digitised birth registry records.

PressedOnion · 08/05/2025 18:21

I’ve had an email back from my Labour MP - here is an excerpt:

”Thank you for your e-mail regarding your concerns for the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is currently in its Report Stage in the House of Commons.

I understand that an amendment had been tabled to the Data Bill, which was voted on yesterday, which sought to mandate the collection of sex data strictly based on “biological sex” or “sex at birth”.

I share concerns that this amendment would have had significant consequences for the LGBTQ+ community, including enforcing public bodies to store data regardless of legal transitions; increase isolation for members of the trans-community and erode trust in data privacy. I understand that given the amount of systemic marginalisation that the LGBTQ+ community already faces, the impact of this amendment would have been detrimental to those who identify as transgender.

I voted against this amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill and am pleased to report that this amendment was voted down.

Thank you for raising this important issue with me.”

Anyone fancy helping me with a reply?

JanesLittleGirl · 08/05/2025 18:26

I don't suppose that "Fuck off knobhead" is the tone you're looking for is it?

ArabellaScott · 08/05/2025 18:38

JanesLittleGirl · 08/05/2025 18:26

I don't suppose that "Fuck off knobhead" is the tone you're looking for is it?

It's exactly the tone I'm looking for.

Sausagenbacon · 08/05/2025 18:44

Me too

Merrymouse · 08/05/2025 18:57

"Please could you explain why you believe it is legal for any organisation to collect data on anyone's sex, given that from your reply you don't think it serves a purpose?"