GLP v EHRC judgement - Thread 2

[Another2Cats]

This is a continuation thread from here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5489699-glp-v-ehrc-judgement-is-coming-tomorrow?

You mean you identify as a woman, or are you actually female?

The clearest way to answer your question without the inevitable obfuscation is to say he was born male.

I know, it is confusing due to the language used. I and others asked the same questions a number of threads ago.

We were told ‘female’ with a variety of irrelevant justifications and were told the poster went through ‘female puberty’.

However, this is a male poster.

Don’t MtF have to continue on x-sex hormones for life otherwise their true male state begins to resurface? Balding, fat distribution etc., not forgetting the dilation of course.

I actually think part of the obfuscation is to keep the questions coming. This builds attention.

100%

The poster is not grasping that, actually, it isn't attention provision or our "obsession" but our need and wish to clarify the facts so that silence isn't assumed to be agreement.

I think the clearest sign that a poster is male is that they keep telling everyone else how much of a woman they are. Like being vegan but with no good recipes.

Wasn't one of JMs daughters (Grim?) one of the sprogs who release all those crickets? I remember seeing some film of her in the aftermath, she was tiny.

I think the clearest sign that a poster is male is that they keep telling everyone else how much of a woman they are.

This, every time. It's catch 22 for them.

Unless females are talking about issues such as VAWG, patriarchy, misogyny etc. they rarely reference being female. TIMs on the other hand tend to repeatedly position themselves as women.
’As a women I……’
’was chatting to a fellow woman earlier and….’
’Us women……’

I see this as a feature of their condition - a pervasive and obsessive preoccupation with their sex.

Women's oestrogen levels vary throughout their lives. At no point do they change sex.

I think the clearest sign that a poster is male is that they keep telling everyone else how much of a woman they are.

Every one of his statements of supposed womanhood and how he has apparently changed sex, can basically be bookended with the phrase "said no women ever." For example, when he talked about comparing q-angles, hormones, muscle and fat distribution and waist to hip ratios...😂bro, women don't do that, we just don't! Our very existence as adult humans belonging to female sex class and everything that flows from that, both good and bad, does all the talking for us.

Anyway, JM seems to get more and more unhinged every time I read about him. He should be ashamed for giving the community he supposedly supports false hope and blatant misinformation.

how he has apparently changed sex

But it's transphobic to say that your sex dictates whether you're a woman or a man. We've heard that thousands of times.
Is that poster one of those "terfs" I've heard about that like to post on Mumsnet?
I admit I've only skimmed their posts because they seem to focus on sex characteristics rather than the GLP legal challenge that this thread is about.

Shades of

I think that the way that GLP
have applied a highly personalised and subjective interpretation to the judgement is being demonstrated on this thread.

While the judgement can be challenged by further legal cases, there has been the attempted conditioning of society to never challenge such a clearly subjective interpretation of reality for a group of people declaring they have changed sex.

I also wonder if previous supporters of GLP will also recognise that if they say white is actually shades of black (ie. that the impossible can be presented as being true and possible) that maybe they cannot be trusted.

Bridget Phillipson was on Trevor Phillips this morning.
He was the first ever head of the EHRC and was involved in composing the EA2010

He made her admit that the law is settled and organisations have no legal reason to delay implementation of it
even though she is still sitting on the "guidance"

I am prone to being a bit over optimistic, so I’d welcome others thoughts on this.

I think some consistent and strong leadership on this issue is all that is needed to get into a much better position. E.g. Clear and consistent messaging that - Single sex provision , where proportional and legitimate should only be used in line with natal sex. Mixed sex/ gender neutral provision should also be provided. We recognise that this isn’t the preferred solution for many with trans identities, but it is a solution which provides for all.

This could be accompanied by - we are aware that life is very challenging for many trans people and that we are open to exploring alternative means and ways of reducing these challenges to those which involve making single sex provision mixed sex.

And - Natal sex is accurately observed at birth in over 99% of the population. If/ where people have confusion about their natal sex, the NHS is there to help diagnose DSDs. We do not consider, within the context of single sex provision, exogenous hormones and elective cosmetic surgery to change a persons sex.

If government and public services were consistent with this, things would soon settle down. There would still be a vocal group of extremists, as there is in many areas of life, but I’m not sure they’d get much traction.

I presume you mean:

we are aware that life is very challenging for many trans people and that we are open to exploring alternative means and ways of reducing these challenges to those which don’t involve making single sex provision mixed sex.??

I genuinely think a lot of people still think trans means "really wants to be the opposite sex, and looking like the opposite sex essentially makes them the opposite sex".
Rather than the Stonewall "sex doesn't determine whether you're a man or woman, it's your gender identity feelings that literally make you a man/woman/neither/ other".

Therefore for genderists, the labels "man" and "woman" describe anyone with an (unspecified) set of feelings - completely distinct from the charcateristics of your body.

But there's so much muddling between sex and gender, people don't seem clear on what they mean. I think clarifying where a law means sex and where it means feelings helps everyone in the long term, but in the short term we have this confusion which certain groups are having advantage of. Clarity would eliminate that advantage, so it's their enemy.

BP was also on Times Radio this morning being interviewed by Adam Boulton. He asked her when the guidance was going to be published. She said it would be 'very soon' but said at least twice that sex means biological sex and that there is no need for service providers to wait for the guidance. It seemed quite positive but I'm not getting my hopes up too much.

wouldn’t that be nice, if you did indeed mean as TwoLoons suggests?

I think I'd like Bridget's definition of 'very soon' in about the same way as these days I'd like to check what people mean when they say 'everyone' or 'inclusive' or 'kind'. I suspect it's identifying into semantic non conforming territory.

Interesting that she mentioned 'devolved governments' having to be consulted. How much of this is due to the SNP being obstructive?

Interesting that she mentioned 'devolved governments' having to be consulted. How much of this is due to the SNP being obstructive?

a) she is lying, they do not need to be consulted

b) The SNP were the cause of the ruling. Nothing they say can make the guidance contradict the ruling.

I think there are primary and secondary challenges.

The primary challenges are those that are internal / within- person struggles that those with trans identities experience.

The secondary challenges are those that arise from navigating their environments whilst experiencing their primary struggles.

The laws that shape the environment are not /should not be designed to alleviate the primary challenges of trans people alone. When it comes to single sex provision that is proportionate and legitimate, neither the primary or secondary challenges of trans people should have bearing on the requirement to keep single sex provision single sex. Doing so neither denies nor underestimates the primary or secondary challenges of trans people, it simply provides for females. Provision for trans people needs to sit outside of this.

I've been told to stop HRT by a GP, so I could (this really sticks in Helleofabore's bonnet) 'enter menopause.' I've also been told I should take HRT for the rest of my life. There's zero chance I will ever experience androgenic balding. I haven't yet sprouted any beard or moustache hair. And thanks to...reasons...I haven't dilated in over 20 years.

Every person in the past 40+ years who has asked me how I identify or if I am 'actually female' is on this website.