Excellent from Trevor Phillips

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Oh he gets it

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

If you read the debates in Hansard, the pitfalls were all pointed out at the time, but were ignored by a Labour government determined to push this through.

And yes, organisations like Press for Change definitely wanted crossdressers to be covered by this law, but managed to convince the government otherwise in order to get it passed.

By Norman Tebbit, of all people!

Yes this.

I think it was intended for the guy who shows up at an inter iew or flat showing, and he's medically transitioned and using female coded clothes, name, etc.

The idea being you can't refuse to consider him for the job or flat because you know he's not really a woman.

The idea being you can't refuse to consider him for the job or flat because you know he's not really a woman.

@TempestTost I don't think that is quite right; if the flat is only for women you must refuse to consider him. However if the flat is for men, or if the flat is for men or women, then you can't refuse to consider him because of his transgender characteristic.

Though the GRA creates some paradoxes and it may depend why the flat is only for one sex.

Ah, yes, I was thinking in the normal run of a person renting a flat.

I don't think I've ever seen a flat only for one sex, unless it was a flat share. IN which case I think you are allowed to refuse someone for any reason you like, even if it's a nasty reason.

I think the problem is what I would consider to be the unnecessarily wide definition of "gender reassignment" in the EA itself.

s7(1) says: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." [My bold for emphasis]

What exactly does "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process)" actually mean?

Could self-IDing as a gender opposite to one's biological sex be argued to be the first step in, or part of, the process of gender reassignment?

Parliament should have set a higher bar for what qualified as gender reassignment.

This ^

I'm truly amazed at the number of posters who seem to have completely missed the point and are quibbling about whether it's politically correct to refer to women as mothers, wives, sisters and daughters,

Knee-jerk "Whoooosh!"

Madness

Other than Glinner, Richard Dawkins, Billboard Chris, Charlie Kirk and Ricky Gervais, I really can't think of any high profile male commentators who've pitched overt and unrepentant GC views.
This I'm sure is maddening to GC women out there, but as a GC male myself, I view this as a major failure by my clan.
Men allowed this to happen, ramped up the institutional capture, and have been near non existent in cleaning up the mess.
Women have totally shouldered the burden, most visibly JKR, but also the fantastically feisty female journalists and activists out there, and the canaries in the coalmine (Forstater, Peggie, Darlington nurses etc).
Men have crapped themselves over this, which is why Trevor's words are so important.

Good point, more foresight would have saved everyone a lot of angst later on, but I'm sure that those who cared didn't realize, and those who realized didn't care, if that makes sense?

Yes I agree, maybe an attempt at normalising GR and GI as being one and the same. Slippery slope. 😤

Absolutely.
And the confirmation that the pc of gender reassignment applies to a child of any age is a safeguarding nightmare.

I do hope at some stage that will reviewed as it's evidently wrong and dangerous to argue that babies, toddlers and young children can be gender reassigned.

Yes.

I suspect they were thinking, or some were, that there was a certain time factor, where an individual undergoing surgical transition would be preparing, or in the midst of, the process, and that should all be covered where they were presenting in feminine coded ways.

And maybe where it fell down is that they were only imagining people who were in a kind of good faith, because why would anyone go through so much faff and real medical risk if they were just perverts?

But they neglected to see that a) perverts can in fact be very extreme, b)if you reduce the medical commitment involved by saying that part isn't necessary, that element of filtering people out goes away.

Yes, that bit about gender reassignment applying to children is new, isn't it? I hope it doesn't get glossed over, or lost in the shuffle. Didn't it used to be practically 100% accepted by people who weren't captured by this ideology that tiny children and babies simply cannot be "gender reassigned?"

Are we now all supposed to accept that they can?

Of course he did. There is nothing offensive about these statuses. Every woman is a daughter. A man cannot put himself in the place of a woman, but every man has a mother - hopefully, one he loves and cares for.

Religion is more complicated though and with a longer history.

Historically, religion isnt a choice, its the family they're born into. Even if individuals don't believe, their name and even street they live in tells their religion. It used to be a big issue for catholics and protestant, without race being a factor.

What an arrogant and ill-informed post.

Trevor Philips has been speaking out on this for many years. You are wrong to say he has been silent. What have you been doing these last few years?

Between this post and the many posts complaining about his use of language (and not his message), is it any wonder people (men) aren’t speaking up?

I read this and genuinely think a lot of people would prefer others to remain silent.

The GRA could never impose surgical or medical treatment before receiving a GRC.

As far as I understand it, a GRC is the end of the 'gender reassignment' process. In that the state has officially recognised the holders gender reassignment.

The PC of GR, in part, protects a person throughout that process? So to support the process - they should be allowed to change their name and title at work, not be forced to wear gender based uniforms. Also, allowed time off work to see specialists and have surgery they may choose to have.

The 'proposing to undergo' bit is to protect them while seeking a diagnosis. It also protects those who cannot get a GRC because of religion or because they want to remain married to someone who doesn't consent.

To me, all of this seems reasonable. But its all a lie because it isnt 'gender ' thats been reassigned. The state is giving these people permission to use the incorrect sex on id. Its not recognising a gender its falsifying sex.

And I dont know a way to compromise because TRA want to use sex based words for their gender. Even if we allow id to record sex as well as acquired gender, a man with sex = male and gender = woman/female is just as nonsensical as what we have now.

I disagree.That's not what I took from that post.

Yes, Trevor Philips has been vocal on this issue before, but I don't agree that most men have been silent because others (you mean women? prefer them to be silent. Women have been saying for more than a decade that men should be doing and saying more.

I think men are, and have been, silent on these issues because

a) they aren't aware of the issues
b) they are vaguely aware of the issues, but they haven't been bothered to find out more about them
c) they are very aware, but don't want get involved because it's too much like hard work, with (they think) no benefit to them
d) they are very aware, but think it isn't their business or responsibility
e) they are very aware, but because it doesn't affect them directly, can't be bothered to do anything about the issues
f) they are very aware, but the situations that women find themselves in suits the men just fine, and as long as it isn't happening to them, they don't care
g) they know full well what women and girls are having to deal with, but don't care
h) they know full well all the issues, and get off on the fact that women are treated as bipedal support animals by society

And all the other variations of "not my problem, mate" that you can think of.

Men who actually get involved are few and far between, and these men normally start becoming aware of our issues when they have daughters.

So, Trevor's comments are relevant and necessary.

ps. sorry , doing this a lot today,

should read "That's NOT what I took from that post."

I think there are men who trust the state to safeguard everyone, so assume its women getting things out of proportion.

Someone has to look quite deeply into it to realise men are just self iding into changing rooms and prisons.

Someone has to look quite deeply into it

Except that it hasn't really been that difficult for men to become aware of the issues. They just had to do two things: listen to women and care enough.

Too many men have avoided both of those things, some with apparent glee.

Absolutely. When it comes to gender identity politics.

Men...be like Trevor.