Barbie Kardashian was refused a gender Dysphoria diagnosis by GIDS yet was able to self ID into the female prison estate under the Irish system.

Is the proposed Scottish system different to the Irish one?

What I took from the interview:

1. RMW refusal to give a personal perspective answer. Hides behind an interpretation of the law ie it’s within the law to provide single sex provision but institutions are choosing not to provide them; or these Institutions are the best risk assessors / interpreters of the law. Are they? <paraphrasing>. The equivalent of; “not my fault, gov, them’s the rules”. But who influences these institutions to change their behaviours? Oh, I don’t know - hitting a rocky wall here…
2. Lack of depth / follow ups to points ie RMW’s Rape Crisis clients eg Sussex. It would have been better to follow the breadcrumbs and ask / point out the lack of natal female only services in the county. That would have stuck in new to the subject peoples minds. And why is the Sussex provider fighting the request to provide single sex services v why is RMW choosing to defend that position. Such an interesting question…

Kudos to Sarah for clear answers and no compelled speech.

I was just going to make the same point. The MoJ guidelines for transgender prisoners says that "all individuals who are transgender must be initially allocated to part of the estate which matches their legally recognised gender"

So it makes a difference whether a prisoner has a GRC or not.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

If any man (including a sex offender) who was born in Scotland can acquire a birth certificate saying he is female, that potentially greatly increases the number of males who will be sent to women's prisons. How does this not cause increased danger to female prisoners?

Give over. You know there are hundreds of examples. Stop lying. Oh hang on...

The remarks made about me on social media say rather more about those making them than they say about me.

I was asked to attend to discuss the issues related to Scottish Reform. How my voice, appearance or an unnuanced ‘sound bite’ from a much longer previous discussion are relevant to that is not clear to me. I trust it will be noted that I don’t engage in personal attacks.

That has not gone unnoticed in other comments I have received. If you want a discussion, it needs to be respectful or I won’t be there.

Regrettably, many Mumsnetters can’t keep to that, so I’m only an occasional visitor.

Whilst we are on the subject of prisons.

It seems, although haven't confirmed yet this person has been found guilty.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11667731/Transgender-rapist-accused-attacking-women-transitioning-vulnerable-court-hears.html

I am sure it will be noticed that you never answer questions and you are horrible to women.

And you just can't help yourself, can you? You have to shove your two penn'orth in. No empathy with or for women.

More info on Barbie Kardashian here, courtesy of Tish:

gendercriticalwoman.blog/2022/01/19/barbie-kardashion/

Tish’s source is this judicial transcript:

gendercriticalwoman.blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Barbie-Kardashian.pdf

I can’t imagine many MtF trans prisoners who qualify for a ye olde gatekept GRC would want to be locked in a cell overnight with Barbie? Especially if they ‘pass’ as female…

So why support self ID?

The public funds spent on keeping Barbie technically in a female facility but separate due to the enormous safeguarding issues (24 hour 2 to one supervision?) must be eye watering.
Barbie would probably have a better quality of life on a vulnerable males unit, near-permanent segregation isn’t going to be helping remedy Barbie’s mental issues much either (there is a reason segregation is considered a form of mental torture).

The remarks made about me on social media say rather more about those making them than they say about me.

Yes, it shows that they know that males can never be women.

If you want a discussion, it needs to be respectful or I won’t be there.

Regrettably, many Mumsnetters can’t keep to that, so I’m only an occasional visitor.

Has any Mumsnetter accused you of being mad?

I trust it will be noted that I don’t engage in personal attacks

I again just want at this point to remember what I am Sarah is currently going through at the hands of one of RMWs rape crisis centre clients.

Robin came on her thread which was very intimidating for the OP. They came to correct some posters misunderstanding of an issue that was nothing to do with Sarah's case.

robin could have gone into the relevant Alison Bailey thread mentioned it there and asked for someone to go to Sarah's thread and correct people.

Robin could have got a friend or work colleague to post on Sarah's thread correcting the mistake.

Instead robin chose to come onto a thread about an issue that had nothing to do with the issue of the thread, knowing that would cause the OP and many posters distress.

Robin then posted more times despite the fact it was pointed out to Robin that maybe this wasn't the right thread for them and that their actions could be construed as bullying or intimidating.

Even that didn't stop Robin.

So again for Sarah

STANDING RIGHT BESIDE YOU

I know you probably sometimes feel, you are doing this on your own.
Left to fight the Righteous Mighty(!?!), to get them to atone.

But, if anything these last few weeks have proved beyond a doubt,
for the women here, the one name, that to them does call and shout

is @IamSarah who is fighting for us all, for that most sacred of places,
and the right for ALL US WOMEN to have bloody female spaces!

So we might be faceless names on the mobile in your hand,
but remember, we are with you, fighting bullies of this land.

So when you feel down, think the fight too much and wish the whole thing done,
picture all us women, gardening beside you, in the glorious noontime sun.

We’ll be there to pay the bills, provide moral support; some will hold your hand for real too.
But through the rest of all this shit, remember @IamSarah
WE ARE STANDING RIGHT BESIDE YOU SHOUTING WE ARE SARAH TOO.

Bold fail. Second paragraph is my response to the first.

I think a post I made on the media representation thread is relavent to the question of whether relaxing GRC rules creates additional dangers/challenges for female people:

Why is relaxing the GRC criteria to make it effectively self ID a concern when trans women are already appropriating female spaces, resources and our political and social voices without one?

The gender supremacy movement (this being the movement for the supremacy of gender identity over sex) has mutated its concept of gender over time. The pattern has been to gain a legal concession based on one assumed, but not legally defined, concept of gender, then assert that right applies to people using a different and much wider concept of gender.

So, medically transitioned transsexuals were already living as women. However their actual sex, male, would be revealed by their legal documents. They wanted this concealed for their own privacy so the law gave them a legal fiction to allow them to conceal their birth sex. They didn't need the GRC to live as women, it didn't "change" anything.... except the tiny little detail that it established the concept of a legal sex which can be different to your birth sex.

The next step was to flip this concept 180. GS position is now not that a GRC is a legal fiction, changing documentation to facilitate a major change in a person's life, it's a legal record of fact, correcting documention that has been wrong since birth.

In other words, Legal sex was established as a legal fiction to disguise the sex of male people living AS women but the GS movement now uses it to claim the law recognizes male people can BE women.

So the concept the activists present of the trans woman mutates from the concept under which the GRA was shaped, ie men who are compelled to live "as" women, wanting to live as passing facsimiles of women and needing a GRC to maintain the il/de/lusion - to men who just are women, and who can be as openly, obviously male as they want because their gender isn't related to their body.

But now, the GRC, established as a legal fiction concealing birth sex to support the "as a women" trans women, becomes a problem because it was based in the assumption that the trans women needs the legal fiction to hide her maleness. In that model, her need for it - her "womanhood" if you will - has to be in some way proved or earned, and that doesn't match the new, was-always-a-woman construction where maleness is fine and a GRC is not a fiction for privacy, but a validation of the fact that she is and always was a woman.

So now the demand is for the law to change again to "catch up" with what trans women are already doing. "It won't make a difference, after all they are already in your spaces, and taking your resources, and replacing over your experiences with their own stories of womanhood"

But what it does do is move that baseline another jump, from a GRC being a legal fiction to preserve the privacy of someone living "as a" woman, to a enshrinement in law that a male person is a woman if that is what (s)he says (s)he is. The concept of womanhood is relocated in the law's eyes from the body to the mind/will, not just for trans women but for all women.

Far from the GRC being "just a bit of admin", Women as a legal class based on their sex and the needs of their sex have been entirely un/redefined by it.

So, the important thing isn't what someone can do the day they get their GRC that they couldn't do the day before. It's what further encroachment of male wants on female resources and lives will this new, legal reconception of gender will it be used to normalise next?

@FlirtsWithRhinos

Bravo. Well said.

RMW: I trust it will be noted that I don’t engage in personal attacks.

Also RMW replying:
Robin Moira White (she/her)
Jan 10
Tweet of the day.

Emilia (She/Her) #TransRightsAreHumanRights
Jan 10
Replying to @moira_robin
Why do people consider Sonia Sodha a journalist? Clearly, that is a textbook example of someone self identifying as one.

This is another reason why Robin is only an occasional visitor to MN...Robin gets Robin's arse handed to them.

And anyway, this is Mumsnet
Mums.
Women.

I rest my case...

I've suddenly got a Shakespeare line from Hamlet stuck in my head.

In response to some rather insincere over acting Queen Gertrude responds with

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Of course these days we use it to show we don't have much faith in the sincerity of someone.

Usually with regards to the actual truth of a strong denial.

Can't think why that's popped into my head now.

I used that line in the IW thread yesterday but "accidentally" dropped the "y". My post was deleted!

It's bloody autocorrect. It seriously is sexist

😁

Also THAT will be why it was in my brain, your post. No other reason.

Oh wait, your post had already been deleted before I read it.

So back to wondering why I'm thinking of it on this thread.

🤔

I can't think why Boiled!

After this weekend and another rapist in the female estate today, the gloves are off.

I will never use female words or pronouns for Males and I couldn't give a fuck if that upsets TRAs and handmaidens.

Yeah the decapitate Terfs signs was the end for me. I'm actually rather enjoying the no debate stance I say my piece and then move on to the next comment, and only reply to something that I actually have something, usually inane! to say to someone like yourself!

I'm only having conversions with those I would in real life now. Those that I would say you are wrong this is why, I'm not interested in their response to me. They had their chance for debate. They pissed it up the wall with that sign.

I will not debate and probably not respect anyone who tries to hi jack womanhood for their own means. Tries to minimise the harms being done in many forms to women in favour of men's feelings and desires. Anyone who tries to excuse or deny those signs can fuck of as well.

I have come to the conclusion if you can't respect women, our rights and our voices and words you are a misogynistic woman hater. No debate.

Excellent post, FlirtsWithRhinos

That has not gone unnoticed in other comments I have received. If you want a discussion, it needs to be respectful or I won’t be there.

But it an be argued (and I would indeed argue) that none of what you’re doing, what anyone involved in GRA reform etc is doing, is respectful to women.

You disrespect us by the very act of - as a biologically male person - appropriating the material reality of biologically female people and claiming it as an identity for you to use as you please. In the context of age old male oppression of female people, where males have traditionally extracted whatever resources they want from female people without concerning themselves with the issue of consent, this is just another assault on our human rights. As always, we are objects to be used by male people; not subjects with full agency.

When you make use of facilities designated for female people, and campaign for ever wider access to those facilities for more and more male people - which is the net result of GRR in tandem with self ID in general - you are again disrespecting us.

Biologically male people who respect biologically female people, and acknowledge the ways female people have been systematically hurt and disadvantaged by male rule across the generations, respect our boundaries.

I for one see no reason at all why I should respect biologically male people who don’t respect me, or biologically female people in general.