Excellent from Trevor Phillips

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Oh he gets it

x.com/trevorptweets/status/2057780825148490016?s=46

I think that’s what struck me - instead of writing about women directly it was as their roles in relation to men
also not all women are in those roles - I don’t currently meet any of those categories - parents now dead
Surely this is his way of involving men. Because you don't find yourselves in these dangerous situations, Do not ignore your nearest and dearest who do have to avoid these situations.

Did you read the whole piece?

This is the part where he talks about mothers, sisters, wives and daughters (and it's not the first paragraph, it's the 6th):

Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t.

He's quite obviously talking about what men think, and why it's different for their female relatives.

Five years ago, he'd have lost his job.

No, because he's a man. If he were a woman, of course.

Well said Trevor 👏

Excellent piece 👏

I too read the female roles but as an appeal to men to consider their nearest and dearest. He was addressing men, so he didn't need to list their roles - they know who they are!

Incidentally it just made me think: every single trans person, every single TRA - they were all birthed by a woman (obvs).

Do they not realise this?! Do they not care about their own mothers?

I hadn't realised that Trevor was involved in drafting the legislation. What a guy!

I'm not sure that really matters legally.

These could all be in relation to women as well as men, and anyway, why shouldn’t he address men? Pointless quibbling.

But many of them are mothers, wives ,sisters.
All of them are daughters.
I'm every one of these and I'm happy with T.P saying this.
We all need good men like him on our side.

I think he's just trying to personalise it for men who otherwise wouldn't give a shit. By invoking thier own personal connection to women, he is eliciting empathy, man to man if you like. Honestly, we do have to let men speak to men in the way they know will bring other men along, if we want their support. I agree that women are often spoken about according to who "owns them", but lets not let perfect be the enemy of good here.
The comments are pretty bad. I don't have sn X account, but it would be nice to see a TERF pile-on in his support.

I noticed India Willoughby's tweet on this - never happens, does it India?

I really rate Trevor. And I have no problem with him referring to mothers and sisters and daughters.

But I am confused about the idea that a PC cannot be self id into. How else can someone have the PC of GR?

I would love to know what the intention of the PC of GR was. Was it ever to be allowed to change sex on documents, preferred pronouns?

But I am confused about the idea that a PC cannot be self id into. How else can someone have the PC of GR?

I think that's his point. That a PC shouldn't be something you can self ID into. It's an argument against the existence of the PC of GR.

I would love to know what the intention of the PC of GR was. Was it ever to be allowed to change sex on documents, preferred pronouns?

Changing sex on documents is due to the GRA not the EA. Although sex can be changed on some documents without a GRC, it's still nothing to do with the EA.

The EA is about discrimination and about equal and fair treatment of people with different PCs. If someone thinks they have been treated unfairly because of a PC, they can make a claim against the organisation.

I can't stand the man. Don't give a monkeys what he thinks.

I think the understanding has changed over the years. In 2004 it was assumed that it was for people who had had extensive surgery and hormone treatment whose true sex would only be revealed by government records. The GRA was introduced to protect the right to privacy.

By 2015 and the campaign for self ID there was more of an emphasis on the right to insist that the state should recognise and affirm one’s personal understanding of one’s own identity.

2004 “These poor chaps have lopped off their whatsits, which puts them in a frightful pickle if they can’t pretend to be women. We should do the decent thing and give them some papers to make things easier”.

2015 “What even is a woman?”

The general understanding was that "gender reassignment" in the EA was to cover people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery, or were planning to or had applied for a GRC. (Which in turn was generally assumed to apply to people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery.)

This obviously wasn't very well thought out, but it was thought of as a clear subset of people, with there being a clear process, much like a citizenship or residence application, not just a man saying "I'm a woman now".

Obviously many of those actually pushing for the laws were seeing them as a mechanism that could be twisted into men being able to just say "I'm a woman now", but that wasn't what lawmakers generally thought they were doing, and many were actively trying to make sure they didn't create that situation.

Well said Sir Trevor. I’m happy with men speaking out on this - I’d like to see more of them doing it - and women, and children. Dammit I’d like to see everyone supporting women’s rights.

Basing law upon what a person says they might do is ridiculous.

Certainly a person can self-identify into a PC - the PC that covers religion. Gender reassignment should not be in a category of its own. It should, at best, come under the PC of belief. Though whether GR is a BWORIADS is a critically important.

Articulate and clear. Thank you, Trevor.

It's worse than that - it's based on a person saying they might do something ridiculous.

I think he did. IME of trying to explain this to men, they start from the pov of it not affecting them at all, its a tiny minority, women get raped anyway what does it matter if a few women get raped in prison etc etc. (A man actually said this to me!)
When they actually consider the impact on their mum, their wife, their daughter, in changing rooms, toilets, sports, often the penny will drop.

Exactly this. It’s a point to the men in the room who haven’t worked out that if it doesn’t affect them it does affect some people they care about…

Having read (as much as I can comprehend of) the new guidance, I am concerned that a lot of the examples seem to be conflating the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" with anyone who feels that they have a "gender identity.". Thereby, in practice, stretching the category of "gender reassignment."

Has anyone else noticed this, or am I seeing things that aren't there (entirely possible with this guidance)?

"Thin end of wedge, meet thick end"