Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
AllWhitNoWhoo · 05/05/2025 09:41

Can you get chat bots to use English UK instead of English USA?
Asking for a friend. 😂

RedToothBrush · 05/05/2025 09:43

Human Rights Act
Article 8: Respect for your private and family life

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life#:~:text=There%20are%20situations%20when%20public,protect%20public%20safety

There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.
Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

The Human Rights Act is the translation into UK law of our wider Human Rights obligations in international law.

It's hard to argue there wouldn't be a proportionate way to handle this in certain scenarios tbh, due to the sheer importance of sex.

TheKeatingFive · 05/05/2025 09:44

IleftmybaginNewportPagnell · 05/05/2025 09:41

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

It's well documented whether you saw it or not

IleftmybaginNewportPagnell · 05/05/2025 09:55

TheKeatingFive · 05/05/2025 09:44

It's well documented whether you saw it or not

No screaming or rampaging. I was dismayed that someone had chalked on the statues but I think most would agree. It was so busy we were teetering on the edging on flowerbeds but nobody would step on them.

AllWhitNoWhoo · 05/05/2025 09:57

Igmum · 05/05/2025 09:46

Sex Matters has a template letter on this to send to Peter Kyle. It takes a few seconds to add your details but it MUST be sent today (Monday 5th) so please make this your Bank Holiday terfing https://sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-peter-kyle/

Just done this. It literally took seconds. Thanks for sharing the link.

RedToothBrush · 05/05/2025 10:01

I have to say that given the SC ruling I find it hard to find a way that the GRA is compatible with article 8 in terms of hiding sex, where sex has legal relevance.

I wonder if this bill is even necessary tbh.

You'd just have to legally challenge the GRA in terms of the Human Rights and Equality of women.

If women receive substandard care due to sex not being recorded accurately, does this mean they are being discriminated against (research purposes) and if the sex of staff is not accurately recorded is their right to privacy and dignity on the grounds of sex not being upheld properly?

swimsong · 05/05/2025 10:05

Soontobe60 · 05/05/2025 07:50

It’s TWAW bingo bank holiday!

Interesting that the AI actually shies away from claiming that 'transwomen are women'.

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.

I doubt that paragraph is really what the TRA wanted to say.

Myalternate · 05/05/2025 10:06

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

You sound so ANGRY!

But never mind, we know you exist, but we just won’t ever accept you as women/female because you are not. 😄 It’s not a belief it’s a FACT.

No debate…

HTH

heathspeedwell · 05/05/2025 10:06

Igmum · 05/05/2025 09:46

Sex Matters has a template letter on this to send to Peter Kyle. It takes a few seconds to add your details but it MUST be sent today (Monday 5th) so please make this your Bank Holiday terfing https://sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-peter-kyle/

Done. thanks for that!

FloatingSquirrel · 05/05/2025 10:10

PoisedRubyLion · 02/05/2025 22:59

Right to privacy and Goodwin?

Goodwin states a person's gender identity is a privacy right. That's absolutely allowed. However someone's sex shouldn't be as it is necessary to know to protect other people's rights (eg ensuring someone doesn't have a man doing an intimate medical examination when they've only consented to a female doing it).

Waitwhat23 · 05/05/2025 10:11

IleftmybaginNewportPagnell · 05/05/2025 09:55

No screaming or rampaging. I was dismayed that someone had chalked on the statues but I think most would agree. It was so busy we were teetering on the edging on flowerbeds but nobody would step on them.

And this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/22/trans-activists-death-threat-placards-reviewed-by-police/

Edited to add - and this just relates to the London Protest. There were similar (if not identical signs) at other protests across the country. All inciting violence against women.

A bit of a theme, you might say.

ArabellaScott · 05/05/2025 10:12

IleftmybaginNewportPagnell · 05/05/2025 09:55

No screaming or rampaging. I was dismayed that someone had chalked on the statues but I think most would agree. It was so busy we were teetering on the edging on flowerbeds but nobody would step on them.

Right, and the signs with the gallows saying 'the only good terf is a dead terf' (pics tweeted by Jo Grady) were nbd

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/22/trans-activists-death-threat-placards-reviewed-by-police/

https://x.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1914571342822732070

ArabellaScott · 05/05/2025 10:14

Waitwhat23 · 05/05/2025 10:11

And this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/22/trans-activists-death-threat-placards-reviewed-by-police/

Edited to add - and this just relates to the London Protest. There were similar (if not identical signs) at other protests across the country. All inciting violence against women.

A bit of a theme, you might say.

Edited

Oh, snap!

Ingenieur · 05/05/2025 10:15

RedToothBrush · 05/05/2025 09:43

Human Rights Act
Article 8: Respect for your private and family life

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life#:~:text=There%20are%20situations%20when%20public,protect%20public%20safety

There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.
Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

The Human Rights Act is the translation into UK law of our wider Human Rights obligations in international law.

It's hard to argue there wouldn't be a proportionate way to handle this in certain scenarios tbh, due to the sheer importance of sex.

Thanks Red, that link was useful.

It seems the courts have seen "private life" as having an extremely wide remit.

It's interesting that link includes the example of "controlling who can see or touch your body". Disclosure of sex by a public authority such as doctors or the police would therefore be proportionate on order to maintain the same right to the patient/ suspect's private life.

The key point of challenge, I suppose is this one:

Protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

The State has a right to intrude on someone's private life in order to protect the above rights of every other person in society. And correct data collection is necessary for that purpose.

Waitwhat23 · 05/05/2025 10:15

Ah, cross posted with Arabella!

And for anyone who doesn't know, Jo Brady, who tweeted photos from the London event including the 'the only good terf is a dead terf' as an example of how joyous the event was, is the General Secretary of UCU.

Myalternate · 05/05/2025 10:16

Done Igmum
👍

BettyBooper · 05/05/2025 10:23

Igmum · 05/05/2025 09:46

Sex Matters has a template letter on this to send to Peter Kyle. It takes a few seconds to add your details but it MUST be sent today (Monday 5th) so please make this your Bank Holiday terfing https://sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-peter-kyle/

That was super easy! Thanks for posting ☺️

eurochick · 05/05/2025 10:24

“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?”

How fucking dare you use the oppression of women and their treatment as second class citizens in support of your men’s rights movement. 😡

FYI voter means “person who votes” so it’s a nonsensical argument in any event.

RedToothBrush · 05/05/2025 10:24

Ingenieur · 05/05/2025 10:15

Thanks Red, that link was useful.

It seems the courts have seen "private life" as having an extremely wide remit.

It's interesting that link includes the example of "controlling who can see or touch your body". Disclosure of sex by a public authority such as doctors or the police would therefore be proportionate on order to maintain the same right to the patient/ suspect's private life.

The key point of challenge, I suppose is this one:

Protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

The State has a right to intrude on someone's private life in order to protect the above rights of every other person in society. And correct data collection is necessary for that purpose.

Absolutely.

How can women be protected from sex discrimination if you can't see sex?

If sex, for the legal purposes of the Equality Act, means biological sex how can the GRA stand?

How can using the falsified data contained in a GRC because compatible with the human rights of women in certain scenarios?

It can't.

It would arguably fall under 'proportionate aim' as described in the Equality Act (which then has effect on the HRA).

Needs lawyering but I do think there's a case there for women to ask big questions if the GRA.

It also has implications for the rights of transgender people too remember. How can they uphold their sex based rights (which they still retain) if their own records are falsified?! (Irony klaxon).

Waitwhat23 · 05/05/2025 10:24

Igmum · 05/05/2025 09:46

Sex Matters has a template letter on this to send to Peter Kyle. It takes a few seconds to add your details but it MUST be sent today (Monday 5th) so please make this your Bank Holiday terfing https://sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-peter-kyle/

Fab - thanks. Will do just now.

Pinktent · 05/05/2025 10:34

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.

People are entitled to live their lives as they wish. But there are facts - sex is one of them. Trans women sexual offending is at the levels of men, not biological women. So there are real issues for women's safety.

Also, being a woman is not a 'shared identity.' It is a reality - some people may wish to live as though they were the other sex. Fine. But we can't all be expected to deny there are any differences whatsoever.

Everyone deserves to be happy and live their lives as they wish. So long as it doesn't impact on others. Extreme pro trans ideology is pushing people away from something they would otherwise accept. Boundaries (e.g. trans women are not exactly the same as women) are constantly violated and it's sickening people of the cause.

CleaningSilverCandlesticks · 05/05/2025 10:37

IleftmybaginNewportPagnell · 05/05/2025 09:55

No screaming or rampaging. I was dismayed that someone had chalked on the statues but I think most would agree. It was so busy we were teetering on the edging on flowerbeds but nobody would step on them.

Calling for the death of women but careful not to harm flowers…

Brainworm · 05/05/2025 10:39

FloatingSquirrel · 05/05/2025 10:10

Goodwin states a person's gender identity is a privacy right. That's absolutely allowed. However someone's sex shouldn't be as it is necessary to know to protect other people's rights (eg ensuring someone doesn't have a man doing an intimate medical examination when they've only consented to a female doing it).

With reference to personal data of any kind, we have a right to withhold it (we shouldn’t even be asked for it) unless there is a proportionate reason for collecting and storing it.

Therefore, if there is a genuine reason why sex needs to be known, gender identity/certified sex would not align with the purpose the data will serve.

This comes back to whether sex really needs recording in the first place, in any given circumstance.

If we take passports and driving licences- why is sex recorded? The data recorded as sex is actually sex, certified sex or gender identity. With this in mind, what’s the proportionate reason for recording it?

IleftmybaginNewportPagnell · 05/05/2025 10:40

Waitwhat23 · 05/05/2025 10:11

And this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/22/trans-activists-death-threat-placards-reviewed-by-police/

Edited to add - and this just relates to the London Protest. There were similar (if not identical signs) at other protests across the country. All inciting violence against women.

A bit of a theme, you might say.

Edited

Agree those signs are abhorrent.

Swipe left for the next trending thread