Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
Waitwhat23 · 05/05/2025 08:42

Until then, I look forward to all your replies, unfortunately I don't have time to respond to everyone but I do appreciate the you all for taking to respond, thank you 😊

....do you think the women on here are here to provide you a service? (silly question, course you do)

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 05/05/2025 08:43

But make no mistake — this is only the beginning. I’ll be back, stronger than ever, to keep fighting for the rights of all trans women.

Always the same when women say ‘no’ to men - they reply with aggressive masculinity.

Ingenieur · 05/05/2025 08:45

Returning to the topic, can anyone help me understand why someone's sex and/ or transition status is a matter of privacy? As in the "human right to a private life"?

What made the ECtHR think this? It can be determined by a casual glance, so to me it's no more a matter of privacy than eye colour.

And if it was just about someone's private life, why is it being imposed on the public?

TheKeatingFive · 05/05/2025 08:46

That's the thing about 'transwomen'.

They say they're women, yet they display the most male-coded behaviour I've ever seen.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 05/05/2025 08:46

It would have probably been possible to let a small number of transsexuals who had full surgery live as women

The only way to live as a woman is to be born female, grow up and live. The idea a man can ‘live as a woman’ is sexist tripe.

Maaate · 05/05/2025 08:46

Well, that was a whistle stop tour through the TRA playbook!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/05/2025 08:52

TheKeatingFive · 05/05/2025 08:46

That's the thing about 'transwomen'.

They say they're women, yet they display the most male-coded behaviour I've ever seen.

As someone said earlier on another thread, they really are gender non conforming pioneers we lesser women should all aspire to! Totally women but smashing those stereotypes!

potpourree · 05/05/2025 08:52

The right to live authentically

this is false - you are asking for dishonesty and obfuscation. You won't even give one example of what a woman is, or living as a woman - it seems there is nothing in your mind that differentiates a woman from a man except pure guesswork.

And you are demamding that everyone guess the same thing when you don't even have the "authenticity" to define it.

So please, do not lie and expect women to trust you.

BackToLurk · 05/05/2025 08:53

TangenitalContrivance · 05/05/2025 08:18

ironically with your name @TruthInTransition - this is a very obvious chatGPT post.

MALES are a threat to FEMALES

ANYONE lying and saying they are FEMALE when they are MALE should not be facilitated in that LIE by the STATE.

Old TIT forgot to tell ChatGPT to write in UK English I see.

Helleofabore · 05/05/2025 08:53

Ingenieur · 05/05/2025 08:45

Returning to the topic, can anyone help me understand why someone's sex and/ or transition status is a matter of privacy? As in the "human right to a private life"?

What made the ECtHR think this? It can be determined by a casual glance, so to me it's no more a matter of privacy than eye colour.

And if it was just about someone's private life, why is it being imposed on the public?

I think that because someone's belief about their identity requires some kind of action from others, that there must be grounds for disclosure. If someone's identity didn't require any action of any kind from another person in the form of change of language, allowing a person of the opposite sex into a space, group, activity meant for one sex, what ever, then of course privacy should be ensured.

However, this is not the case. As society interacts with that individual, accommodations are being made from the start. And if accommodations are being made, I cannot see how privacy can be demanded or even that it is reasonable to be expected.

Ingenieur · 05/05/2025 09:02

@Helleofabore yeah, it seems like a totally unreasonable expectation, that the court should have considered more thoroughly. You can't have privacy when you require people to ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears...

illinivich · 05/05/2025 09:04

We are not attempting to erase biological distinctions

So why the strop about sex being recorded accurately?

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 05/05/2025 09:07

illinivich · 05/05/2025 09:04

We are not attempting to erase biological distinctions

So why the strop about sex being recorded accurately?

This

Helleofabore · 05/05/2025 09:09

illinivich · 05/05/2025 09:04

We are not attempting to erase biological distinctions

So why the strop about sex being recorded accurately?

STOP! Stop with the logic!

BingoWindow · 05/05/2025 09:13

The belief and demand action in play fails to translate to all other areas of our human life.
If I believe I am a olympic athlete/oxford student/swift fan no one is expected to budge up on the bench, open the security barrier just because you believe.
And as humans we also have to accept sometimes we can never join that particular club. Yes I can probably manage a Parkrun but even then I'll never outrun even myself a decade ago. I enjoyed my degree but I was never going to be an intellectual heavy weight.
It doesn't matter how much I adore Taylor Swift if I don't have resources to book that ticket, I won't be getting past security.
Our lives are full of 'living in the real world' examples and I just can't see how trans try to insist on the belief and demand action without any of the reality of disappointment and acceptance.

PonyPatter44 · 05/05/2025 09:14

Oh, he's gone.

I wanted to ask why transwomen will have to out themselves at the checkouts. I dont think I've ever been asked to verify my sex in Sainsbury's. They are quite good about allowing people of all sexes to buy things.

MagpiePi · 05/05/2025 09:22

SinnerBoy · 03/05/2025 04:57

MistyGreenAndBlue · Today 01:14

Oh God. I can hear the howls of the TRAs already.

If you lined them up in ascending order of pitch of voice, then showed them the order one at a time, it would be like a gigantic human piano.

Like Louis XI’s pig piano?

Brainworm · 05/05/2025 09:22

Has there been a thread about the impact of the SC ruling on the Data Bill?

I imagine there is a case to be made (likely has been made by Sex Matters) that is if there is a proportionate reason to be recording sex (as required by GDPR), there is a proportionate reason for recording it in line with the EA. To this end, I imagine it would be very easy to argue that without a GRC, data collected about sex must be natal sex. I expect the GRA makes things more complex regarding GRC holders.

SparklyPinkHairband · 05/05/2025 09:23

TruthInTransition · 05/05/2025 07:13

It's deeply unfair and dangerous to judge an entire community based on the actions of a few individuals. When someone commits a crime, they—and only they—should be held responsible. No one blames all cis women for the crimes of one (Nicola Murray for Child Abuse) to be like-minded, so why is it acceptable to do that to trans women?

Weaponizing the actions of a few people (some of whom may not even be genuinely trans) to smear thousands of innocent trans women who are simply trying to live their lives is nothing short of bigotry. It's the same flawed logic that has fueled racism, sexism, and homophobia for generations.

If you're truly concerned about justice and safety, focus on the individuals committing the crimes—not on tarring an entire group. Blanket assumptions like yours aren’t protecting anyone; they’re just spreading fear and hate.

Trans women are not a threat to cis women. Bigotry, misinformation, and scapegoating are the real threats to a fair and compassionate society.

What’s worse is that anti-trans activists are now pushing for our birth sex to be listed on official documents, which would effectively out trans women in every public setting—at work, at the doctor’s, when travelling, even at a checkout counter. This is a direct violation of our right to privacy and safety. The Equality Act exists to protect us from exactly this kind of discrimination, yet some are working to undermine it under the guise of 'safety'—while actually putting us in harm’s way. Heres a rhetorical question and try to be honest with yourselves

Let me ask a rhetorical question—and I urge you to answer it honestly in your heart:

How many of you have ever truly known, spoken to, or spent time with a trans woman who simply wants to live her life like any other woman? How many of you genuinely understand the emotional, social, and physical toll we endure just to exist peacefully in a world that questions our humanity at every turn?

The word “woman” is not a threat. It is not a battleground. It is a shared identity that reflects a lived experience—and trans women, like all women, navigate life through a lens shaped by society, by gender, and often by adversity. The fear some people express over trans women using the term "woman" reveals not a concern for safety but a deep-rooted discomfort with inclusion and equality. That discomfort is not our burden to carry.

This widespread misunderstanding needs to be addressed clearly: when trans women identify as women, we are not claiming to be cisgender. We are not attempting to erase biological distinctions, nor are we trying to appropriate someone else’s identity. We are simply stating the truth of our own lived realities. We are trans women—and we are proud of that fact.

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.

Really sorry but I stopped reading at "birth sex". Your sex doesn't change. This is the point. Yes I want all documents to truthfully show sex.

DeanElderberry · 05/05/2025 09:23

Trans women are not a threat to cis women.

Some transwoman have harmed women. Because they are men, and men, as a class, are a threat to women, as a class, regardless of all the lovely harmless men.
Useful suggestion in recent weeks were that loos, changing rooms etc need to be separated into 'women (females) only', and 'open access', with 'transgender people welcome and safe here' postering in the latter, and an accompanying public information campaign.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 05/05/2025 09:29

To claim men demanding that there is no data describing women are not harming women is quite clearly false. Without sex being recorded accurately all sorts of harms come to women - be it from medication based on false data, safety equipment designed using data including males, policies that hide the harms to women…

user2848502016 · 05/05/2025 09:30

Good!
I would like to see GRCs discontinued (fine people who already have them could keep them I guess), and all amendments to birth certificates and passports reverted back to biological sex. Trans people could have a “gender identity” marker on their ID. Real sex data is important for crime and medical stats and for people to receive appropriate medical care.
I also think “gender”’is important to record too though, even though I think it’s nonsense I think we do need to know how many trans people we have in the country and if they commit crimes/what kind of crimes, and if it turns out they are more at risk of medical conditions- taking all those hormones long term can’t be good.

swimsong · 05/05/2025 09:31

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.

Do you want rapists in women's prisons and refuges or not? Just say.

RedToothBrush · 05/05/2025 09:35

TruthInTransition · 05/05/2025 07:13

It's deeply unfair and dangerous to judge an entire community based on the actions of a few individuals. When someone commits a crime, they—and only they—should be held responsible. No one blames all cis women for the crimes of one (Nicola Murray for Child Abuse) to be like-minded, so why is it acceptable to do that to trans women?

Weaponizing the actions of a few people (some of whom may not even be genuinely trans) to smear thousands of innocent trans women who are simply trying to live their lives is nothing short of bigotry. It's the same flawed logic that has fueled racism, sexism, and homophobia for generations.

If you're truly concerned about justice and safety, focus on the individuals committing the crimes—not on tarring an entire group. Blanket assumptions like yours aren’t protecting anyone; they’re just spreading fear and hate.

Trans women are not a threat to cis women. Bigotry, misinformation, and scapegoating are the real threats to a fair and compassionate society.

What’s worse is that anti-trans activists are now pushing for our birth sex to be listed on official documents, which would effectively out trans women in every public setting—at work, at the doctor’s, when travelling, even at a checkout counter. This is a direct violation of our right to privacy and safety. The Equality Act exists to protect us from exactly this kind of discrimination, yet some are working to undermine it under the guise of 'safety'—while actually putting us in harm’s way. Heres a rhetorical question and try to be honest with yourselves

Let me ask a rhetorical question—and I urge you to answer it honestly in your heart:

How many of you have ever truly known, spoken to, or spent time with a trans woman who simply wants to live her life like any other woman? How many of you genuinely understand the emotional, social, and physical toll we endure just to exist peacefully in a world that questions our humanity at every turn?

The word “woman” is not a threat. It is not a battleground. It is a shared identity that reflects a lived experience—and trans women, like all women, navigate life through a lens shaped by society, by gender, and often by adversity. The fear some people express over trans women using the term "woman" reveals not a concern for safety but a deep-rooted discomfort with inclusion and equality. That discomfort is not our burden to carry.

This widespread misunderstanding needs to be addressed clearly: when trans women identify as women, we are not claiming to be cisgender. We are not attempting to erase biological distinctions, nor are we trying to appropriate someone else’s identity. We are simply stating the truth of our own lived realities. We are trans women—and we are proud of that fact.

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 problem is it's not just about criminal trans people.

We shouldn't frame it like this.

Sex is relevant to data in multiple ways - including ways that protect trans people. This is particularly important in healthcare.

Legal documents may refer to anything relating to a contract or to an officially held piece of government information.

That's anything from your own health records, to an employment contract, to a contract where you participate in a medical study, to criminal files, to data collection in other areas.

Failure to declare sex in any of these areas could have a detrimental effect on others in someway and harm others so there's a lot here to unpack.

It's not all about rapists or an intent to harm. Harm could be unintended or self inflicted if there isn't accurate disclosure of sex that's the problem.

Imagine someone claims they are male but then is accidentally over dosed. There's the impact on staff involved in that case. Imagine you falsify medical records for research and the massive implications for women's health as a result from distorting the records just a little. Image you pretend you are female so you aren't 'outted' at work but end up embroiled in a legal case over the toilets or treating women without their consent and how this drags your employer in (especially with regards to public sector employees). This about how the census data is important and how facilities are planned years in advance on the basis of data and how inaccuracies can cause problems further down the line if the data is inaccurate. This could include a lack of appropriate third party facilities because of the invisibility of trans people from data!

Genuinely even with a ruling about protecting the privacy of an individual there's a problem here which overrides that individual privacy concern. Even GDPR despite being very tight and overarching has clauses which allow for public interest and safeguarding.

And this is where I do think that you'd be able to make a case on those grounds even with previous legal cases because of the massive implications of not observing sex.

I personally think it will stick get nowhere despite this compelling argument precisely because it's being proposed by a Tory not Labour, but I don't think that takes away from the merit of the bill. We really do need to seriously consider the implications of falsified information - and who this harms.

IleftmybaginNewportPagnell · 05/05/2025 09:41

Datun · 05/05/2025 07:57

Wouldn't it be refreshing if people like TruthInTransition said oh yes, I see your point. Two thousand men rampaging through London screaming at women and defacing their statues isn't a good look. I can understand why you might be concerned when they're in your daughter's toilet.

Let's campaign for unisex spaces.

Were you there? This isn’t what I saw at all.

Swipe left for the next trending thread