Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

It's worth pointing out the neither drag queens or transvestites are covered under the 2004 Act (people with a GRC only) or for discrimination purposes under the 2010 Act unless they are intending or undergoing transition (the start point most usually being triggered by informing their GP).

In other words, these are false flag engagements since their legal sex and biological sex are the same as their sex recorded at birth. There is no necessity to amend either the GRA 2004 or the EqA 2010 to treat either drag queens or transvestites as any sex or gender identity than that which is recorded on their birth certificate.

The campaign to amend the EqA 2010 to mean 'biological sex' along with the soundings being made by Badenoch et al at the EHRC is pernicious. The target is clearly trans women.

If the EqA 2010 was amended in this way, it would render the law unworkable since the GRA 2004 Act would continue to recognise trans women as women for all purposes under the law, save for the exemptions contained therein, even if the whole of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was removed from the EqA.

 

[icowden]

It's worth pointing out the neither drag queens or transvestites are covered under the 2004 Act (people with a GRC only) or for discrimination purposes under the 2010 Act unless they are intending or undergoing transition (the start point most usually being triggered by informing their GP).

Why would they be? They are men (usually)!

The campaign to amend the EqA 2010 to mean 'biological sex' along with the soundings being made by Badenoch et al at the EHRC is pernicious. The target is clearly trans women.

Well of course. The idea is to protect women's rights.

If the EqA 2010 was amended in this way, it would render the law unworkable since the GRA 2004 Act would continue to recognise trans women as women for all purposes under the law, save for the exemptions contained therein, even if the whole of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was removed from the EqA.

Which is interesting. It might make sense to try and bring the two Acts in line and decide where lines should be drawn in an open and well informed debate. I'll look forward to it, if it happens in my lifetime...

 

[multitool]

Well of course. The idea is to protect women's rights.

Women's Rights Campaigners:

 

[icowden]

Women's Rights Campaigners:

You should consider buying some colour filters rather than just looking in black and white.
Or are women not allowed any rights now?

 

[multitool]

Or are women not allowed any rights now?

It isn't about protecting women's rights. It's about attacking trans rights, principally their right to exist in public life, which is why the worst people in the world are involved. If you look really carefully at the US, you'll see them attacking women's rights too.

With the exception of sport, which I think is an issue to be worked through, the threat to women's right from trans women is a phantom threat, which is why people like you are unable to quantify it.

There should be reams of cases of infringement from, for example, the 40 countries with self-ID laws, but you are unable to cite any, which is why the likes of you and Aurora have to resort to some sort of weird ideological mantra.

 

[AuroraSaab]

When I give you examples you say they don't count though. No gender critical feminist has said transgender people don't have a right to exist. This is just more hyperbole intended to frighten women into not speaking out.

Right wing men in black rocking up to taunt trans activist are just two sides of the same coin. Both are trying to control women.

Funnily enough I didn't see any trans activists demonstrating when the far right marched through Paris last week. They only turn out when it's women meeting to speak apparently.

 

[newfhouse]

You should consider buying some colour filters rather than just looking in black and white.
Or are women not allowed any rights now?

Your appeal to avoid a monochrome outlook in your first sentence seems to have been discarded by your second. Even if you believe that existing rights are diminished by being more inclusive, it doesn't leave women without "any rights" does it?

 

[icowden]

It isn't about protecting women's rights. It's about attacking trans rights, principally their right to exist in public life, which is why the worst people in the world are involved. If you look really carefully at the US, you'll see them attacking women's rights too.

You mean awful people like Sharon Davies, Martina Navratilova and JK Rowling?

With the exception of sport, which I think is an issue to be worked through, the threat to women's right from trans women is a phantom threat, which is why people like you are unable to quantify it.

How do you know? What proper public research has been carried out? What public discussions have been held? Why does every celebrity have to state "Transwomen are women" or lose their career?*

There should be reams of cases of infringement from, for example, the 40 countries with self-ID laws, but you are unable to cite any, which is why the likes of you and Aurora have to resort to some sort of weird ideological mantra.

Countries are different. Quite a few of those 40 countries aren't great with women's rights which may mean that men are less keen to transition.

*unless they are minted enough not to care

 

[monkers]

Which is interesting. It might make sense to try and bring the two Acts in line and decide where lines should be drawn in an open and well informed debate. I'll look forward to it, if it happens in my lifetime...

Funnily enough, it has been debated from Bill to Act in the House of Commons twice, the House of Lords twice; researched and debated a further two occasions by cross party select committees, and twice more in response to petitions.

Some might say that is quite enough. Both select committees recommended some changes. Theresa May while PM accepted the recommendations but was booted before she had a chance to implement them.

There is no mandate from the 2019 general election manifesto. Some will say that Sunak has no proper manifesto since he has never faced a general election as PM.

The Tories wish to use the debate for red meat in the next general election campaign. 30p Lee has been saying out loud.

The leadership at the EHRC are government appointees so it has lost its independence, causing many of the staff there to say the leaders are bigots and have walked from their posts. The government advisors in the equalites department at the relevant ministry have walked in disgust.

Notionally parliament can change the 2010 Act to 'biological sex' just as they have made seeking asylum in the UK 'illegal' in domestic law.

This would bring the 2010 Act in conflict with the 2004 Act. Notionally parliament can also change the 2004 Act, but this will mean that it will breach the convention rights of UK citizens.

So now consider, what will become the status of those GRCs and amended birth certificates if the law is changed this way.

Also consider what this means to trans people who have gone through a two year process of a medicalised transition, hormone therapy regime, surgery, changing all of their records, replacing certificates for all qualifications, etc. Then there is the question of marriages formed.
A trans person who married a person of the opposite sex between the years 2006 and 2023 will not have the correct marriage certificate.

Can you even begin to imagine the emotional anguish that these changes would bring about ~ this is truly horrendous.

So before carping on about 'women's rights', it might just pay to stop and think this through, and actually provide evidence of harms that trans women are causing to women by their existence.

The question still arises, if the law changes to recognise sex as only 'biological sex', who is going to be there to police it? Maybe that's why the extra 20 000 police officers are required?

The idea is as unworkable as it is outrageous.

 

[icowden]

This would bring the 2010 Act in conflict with the 2004 Act. Notionally parliament can also change the 2004 Act, but this will mean that it will breach the convention rights of UK citizens. So now consider, what will become the status of those GRCs and amended birth certificates if the law is changed this way.

Also consider what this means to trans people who have gone through a two year process of a medicalised transition, hormone therapy regime, surgery, changing all of their records, replacing certificates for all qualifications, etc. Then there is the question of marriages formed.
A trans person who married a person of the opposite sex between the years 2006 and 2023 will not have the correct marriage certificate.

Can you even begin to imagine the emotional anguish that these changes would bring about ~ this is truly horrendous.

I agree.

So before carping on about 'women's rights', it might just pay to stop and think this through, and actually provide evidence of harms that trans women are causing to women by their existence.

I was with you until the last few words. Obviously Transwomen do no harm by existing. The harm comes, where their status affects biological women. In particular we have seen this in sport.

I actually agree with you on toilets, but then I don't care who comes in the toilet or who goes in which toilet. But I'm not a woman. I also agree that you couldn't police it and there are plenty of women who present unconventionally anyway. The harm there isn't of a criminal nature but I am aware that it is an area that some women feel very strongly about - particularly as with the current ideal that "if I say I am a woman I am a woman" there is no basis for chucking a man out of the ladies loo if he says he is a woman - although as you have pointed out, if he is there with any false pretence, the issue will be covered by laws against harassment and assault as needed.

Many areas of potential harm we have covered in the thread, and I think if some of the information around the more contentious issues was made more obvious, it would allay a lot of concerns. You yourself have pointed out that regardless of who you are there should be no automatic right to go to a mans or a woman's prison, but instead it should be entirely evaluated on the risk presented by (and to) the offender.

So maybe there are fewer issues that there are made out to be. But jumping on people for wanting to discuss the topic or who commit "wrongspeak" is the wrong approach. Jo Rowling mentions, for example, Magdalen Berns, a lesbian who didn't think lesbians should be called bigots for not wanting to date transwomen with penises.

There is also harm in the trend for transitioning as a lifestyle choice as evidenced by the huge increase in autistic girls wanting to transition. This was researched but again the researcher was hounded and "cancelled". Many women don't like to be "de-womanised" and called "people who menstruate". Again, I'd say that using the word "woman" is fine.

Anyway, waffle aside, my stance is that neither side should be cancelling, or threatening violence on people just because they don't want to hear discussion.

 

[multitool]

You mean awful people like Sharon Davies, Martina Navratilova and JK Rowling?

How do you know? What proper public research has been carried out? What public discussions have been held? Why does every celebrity have to state "Transwomen are women" or lose their career?*

What, like the famously cancelled celebrities you just listed

Countries are different. Quite a few of those 40 countries aren't great with women's rights which may mean that men are less keen to transition.

What like our closest neighbour Ireland? Or those infamously regressive Scandinavian countries, Norway and Finland

And you are resorting to assumption that you are then running with.

 

[icowden]

What, like the famously cancelled celebrities you just listed

I listed ones that speak out because they are uncancellable. The ones that don't are. Do you see how that works?
If you need an example, try James Dreyfuss who dared to state support for JK Rowling and signed a letter to stonewall asking for respectful debate. Obvious hate crimes.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/16466827/james-dreyfus-doctor-who-bbc/

And you are resorting to assumption that you are then running with.

No - I'm pointing out that it isn't black and white, and that what happens in one country won't necessarily be mirrored in another. I haven't studied the legislation in those countries. Perhaps you could elucidate on the differences and similarities to our own current legislation?

 

[multitool]

I listed ones that speak out because they are uncancellable. The ones that don't are. Do you see how that works?
If you need an example, try James Dreyfuss who dared to state support for JK Rowling and signed a letter to stonewall asking for respectful debate. Obvious hate crimes.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/16466827/james-dreyfus-doctor-who-bbc/

He's moaning about not being re-hired, not "cancelled". As he says, he received no correspondence from the BBC. That isnt a sacking. That is them deciding to hire someone else. Maybe he was shìt at his job.

Incidentally, it's really funny when he recounts how he got lots of abuse from Dr Who fans.

No - I'm pointing out that it isn't black and white, and that what happens in one country won't necessarily be mirrored in another. I haven't studied the legislation in those countries. Perhaps you could elucidate on the differences and similarities to our own current legislation?

We don't have any self ID legislation in this country. Good that you are all over the details, icow.

If you want to present self ID as a danger then the onus is on you to demonstrate the problems it has caused in the 40 other countries with Self ID.

I can't prove a negative.

Come on, icow, this is basic stuff.

 

[monkers]

I agree.

I was with you until the last few words. Obviously Transwomen do no harm by existing. The harm comes, where their status affects biological women. In particular we have seen this in sport.

I actually agree with you on toilets, but then I don't care who comes in the toilet or who goes in which toilet. But I'm not a woman. I also agree that you couldn't police it and there are plenty of women who present unconventionally anyway. The harm there isn't of a criminal nature but I am aware that it is an area that some women feel very strongly about - particularly as with the current ideal that "if I say I am a woman I am a woman" there is no basis for chucking a man out of the ladies loo if he says he is a woman - although as you have pointed out, if he is there with any false pretence, the issue will be covered by laws against harassment and assault as needed.

Many areas of potential harm we have covered in the thread, and I think if some of the information around the more contentious issues was made more obvious, it would allay a lot of concerns. You yourself have pointed out that regardless of who you are there should be no automatic right to go to a mans or a woman's prison, but instead it should be entirely evaluated on the risk presented by (and to) the offender.

So maybe there are fewer issues that there are made out to be. But jumping on people for wanting to discuss the topic or who commit "wrongspeak" is the wrong approach. Jo Rowling mentions, for example, Magdalen Berns, a lesbian who didn't think lesbians should be called bigots for not wanting to date transwomen with penises.

There is also harm in the trend for transitioning as a lifestyle choice as evidenced by the huge increase in autistic girls wanting to transition. This was researched but again the researcher was hounded and "cancelled". Many women don't like to be "de-womanised" and called "people who menstruate". Again, I'd say that using the word "woman" is fine.

Anyway, waffle aside, my stance is that neither side should be cancelling, or threatening violence on people just because they don't want to hear discussion.

Sport is an existing available exemption under both the 2004 Act and the 2010 Act.

I am a lesbian woman. I don't know any lesbian women who have a problem with trans women using the word 'lesbian' about themselves - doubtless they exist. I do know lesbian women who won't go near a penis, and I think that's fair enough. In my view that does not make women transphobic - but if instead of just politely declining they reply with a transphobic comment, then I think it's also fine that they be called 'bigots' or 'transphobes'. It's not just trans women calling out this transphobia, it is cis gender women too regardless of the partner choices. Women don't get a free pass on transphobia because they happen to be cis or happen to be gay.

The whole idea about 'cancelling' is a fallacy. People may have some right to speak freely, but that doesn't mean they have a right to be heard. I can ignore whoever I like, that prerogative is pretty absolute - the right to freedom of speech is not absolute, it is qualified in law.

Neither side should be inciting violence. If I was you I wouldn't pay much heed to the placards, there's a game of call and response going on there from both sides.

A police officer who transitioned in Scotland received over two million messages of abuse when the transition was announced. She was doxxed by GCs and TERFs with the result that rape threats and death threats came from many places around the world.

When my niece was doxxed her house and car were broken into and vandalised, thankfully she was not at home but working abroad at the time. The messages left on her wall was 'choice'. Thankfully her other contact details have remained private.

Addendum: 'wrongspeak'. Lies are not 'wrongspeak', if a person is repeatedly telling lies about others, they deserve to be called out for it.

 

[multitool]

Jo Rowling mentions, for example, Magdalen Berns, a lesbian who didn't think lesbians should be called bigots for not wanting to date transwomen with penises.

Ah, yes. Magdalen Berns.

She didn't just say that though, did she. She also said...