Gender again. Sorry!

[mudsticks]

Ah the Muslamic Ray Guns. Anyway, as MT suggests above, the much more decisive and damning factor was that the police (and other authorities) clearly shared the perpetrators' views of the victims. This continues to be the case. This prompts an interesting (to me) diversion which I don't have time to bang on about just now but might return to later. Contain your excitement, peeps.

I've long thought that Yaxley Lennon's main gripe was probs.

"Hang on a minute you're snaffling up our easy victims, get off of our patch"

Or words to that effect

 

[multitool]

As to the reporting..... it's very odd that there are demos organised by transactivists who proudly threaten to assault women, and where protestors hold signs up saying 'Decapitate Terfs', and you think the most concerning factor is that it's in the Daily Mail.

The guilt by association thing just won't wash I'm afraid. Perhaps transactivists could give the tabloids less to report on by not being so utterly batsh*t in their demands and attitude.

What has what trans activists write on placards got to do with me????

I'm responsible purely for what I am posting here now, as are you

 

[AuroraSaab]

You expressed concern that people were 'amplifying a hate agender', but seem oblivious to the fact that what's being reported is pretty hateful. Perhaps transactivists could give the papers less of their own hate agender to amplify.

 

[multitool]

Ah whataboutery. I see.

 

[Rusty Nails]

 

[AuroraSaab]

Ah whataboutery. I see.

Says the guy with the endless line in 'What about Posie Parker though?'.

 

[multitool]

Ah, attacking an accusation of whataboutery with more whataboutery. I see.

 

[multitool]

Trans-activists drown out the conversation entirely, shouting down everybody with legitimate concerns.

Or, so we are told. Which, when you consider that you almost never hear an actual trans voice, is a bit of an odd thing to say. Doubly so when you think about billionaires with enormous platforms, comedians, politicians, toxic peroxide grifters, and weirdos with obsessive blogs who flood the airwaves and into your consciousness.

So here's some trans voice:


View: https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1617856567872741377?s=20&t=2tTOLX-_FlWSPcuXRjPCFQ

 

[icowden]

So here's some trans voice:

Yep. That's the straightforward and sane bit of the legislation. The problem is not with allowing people who are genuinely transgender to get a GRC more easily so that they can live more normal lives. It's interesting that the main part of that video is Katy arguing that you hardly need one because you almost never need to use your birth certificate.

However she does not address the very salient point that if this bill passed, *any* man can obtain a certificate and all of the legal rights that go with his new gender by just applying for one and waiting 3 months. No need for diagnosis, checks, counselling etc. Don't like the prison you are in? Just say you are a women and move to a women's prison. No need for hormones, therapy etc. You don't even have to lose the beard. Just be housed with women.

Want to get access to the rape shelter where your wife is hiding out? Just get a GRC - now you are a woman you are entitled to access. Just fake a a name and a circumstance - boom.

Want your son to go to the same girls school as your daughter for A-Levels? Just apply for a GRC and get him to pretend he's a girl for a couple of years.

There remains a genuine concern over the lack of adequate safeguarding in the Bill, leaving this system open to abuse. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, has warned that this legislation “would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it”. This concern should not be easily dismissed. Yet, even without that concern, there would be substantial issues relating to the effect that the Bill will have on the operation of wider equality law throughout the UK.

and

the Bill will make at least six changes to the operation of UK law. It will:

• Change the meaning of the protected characteristics of “sex” and “gender reassignment” within the Equality Act.
• Remove the requirement to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, making it legally possible for someone without gender dysphoria to change their legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
• Change the operation of the law in relation to single-sex services, making it potentially more difficult for women-only spaces to exclude biological males.
• Change the operation of the law in relation to single-sex associations which cannot discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment in their membership admissions. This will grant a legal right to biological males who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate to be included (not to be excluded from) otherwise female-only groups and associations, inclusion that would otherwise not be required under UK law.
• Change the law relating to single-sex schools. The law as it stands provides that 16-18-year-old biological males who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate cannot be excluded from single-sex girls schools. There is no exception for gender reassignment discrimination in relation to schools. This Bill will confer on certain biological males a legal right of admission to girls’ schools, a right which otherwise does not exist.
• Change the nature of the Public Sector Equality Duty by changing the composition of those sharing the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment.

If we exclude the first two of those 6 as being acceptable, that's still a lot of issues. Some women (and men) are concerned about this.
They are also rightly concerned that many Trans Women identify as Lesbian. Actual Lesbian's are less than ecstatic about that, feeling that a bloke in a dress is not the same thing as an actual lesbian woman.

The issues being raised and questioned are not about preventing people like Katy Montgomerie from living as a woman. They are about preventing people who want to abuse the system / abuse women from gaming the system.

 

[multitool]

I'm pressed for time, so just skim read your post. The counter to some of your points is:

1) Nobody 'checks your papers now' on entry to 'female spaces'. You do not need a GRC. So if you don't need a GRC to enter them now, why aren't women's spaces already flooded with predatory men?

Equally, if we take your example of women's shelters, there is not automatic right of entry anyway. All entrants are subject to some sort of vetting and a large number are excluded, usually because of substance abuse.

2) the Scotsgov say that females spaces will still have the protections they have currently under EA. Not being a legal expert, I have to rely on the expertise of others, but it might be that some tricky case law emerges.

All of this seems like a moral panic for the reason outlined above in (1). It is also vociferously argued because it seems to transgress the rights of women. But, when you look at current practice in women's spaces it's hard to identify any tangible differences between what happens now and what would happen under Scot ID law.

 

[icowden]

1) Nobody 'checks your papers now' on entry to 'female spaces'. You do not need a GRC. So if you don't need a GRC to enter them now, why aren't women's spaces already flooded with predatory men?

I'm pretty sure they check your paperwork for Women's prisons, rape crisis centres etc.

For example, the Ministry of Justice’s transgender prisoner policy states that
‘transgender women prisoners with GRCs must be treated in the same way as biological women for all purposes…and must be placed in the women’s estate unless there are exceptional circumstances, as would be the case for biological women.’

Specialist discrimination lawyers are also of the view that possession of a GRC allows transwomen to use mechanisms designed to increase female representation in parliament, such as all women’s shortlists.

Three years ago, one of Scotland’s largest NHS Boards, NHS Lothian, admitted that it was unable to guarantee a female healthcare practitioner to women who requested one given the privacy protections under Section 22 of the GRA.

Here's a legal opinion:

In relation to legal rights and protections, we think that the First Minister’s confidence is misplaced. While most of these rights exist on paper and in law, they are often misinterpreted or not applied. We think that a self-declaration model will aggravate a situation that is already detrimental to women and girls in the following ways:

1. Increased difficulties in using the single sex exceptions: Once a person has changed their birth certificate, organisations cannot distinguish between those who are and are not born female, as there is no documentary difference. Staff may feel worried about their right to ask if a person holds a GRC. Note also that it is not an offence for a person to make a misleading statement about their own GRC status.
   
   
2. Increased pressures on service providers: Regardless of the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act, public bodies are already responding to rising numbers of individuals declaring transgender identities by removing sex-segregated provision entirely, whether for cost reasons or fear of legal challenge. This pressure will increase under a statutory self-declaration system, resulting in the further erosion of spaces or roles where women can be confident that there are no people born male present.
   
   
3. A gradual break down of social conventions: As a matter of social convention, recognisably male people have expected to be challenged when utilising women’s services and spaces. These conventions are however increasingly vulnerable and likely to be cemented by self-declaration, as people become reluctant to challenge someone who may say they have a GRC or act assertively about their entitlement to be present in those spaces. Any historic low-key presence of a small number of transsexual males in some settings provides little precedent for this.
   
   
4. Illegitimate access to female spaces: It is likely that some males who identify as women – who have not yet applied or may never apply for a GRC – will feel more confident seeking access to women’s spaces on the grounds they believe they would be entitled to a GRC if they took the necessary action, making it illogical to keep them out.
   
   
5. Scope for abuse: There is likely to be an increase in the number of occasions where male-born people accessing women’s spaces physically harm women, intimidate or humiliate them, act voyeuristically or generally act in ways which make them feel uncomfortable. This might be due to someone purposefully abusing the GRC process, or via the general breakdown in social conventions.
   
   Note that there is no evidence on which to base an assumption that offending patterns in the male-born population vary by self-defined gender identity. This is not to make the claim that transwomen are a high-risk demographic (as the argument is often misrepresented) – rather, that as a group, male-to-female transitioners are likely to retain the same risk of male-pattern criminality. The only counter argument to this appears to be the assertion that transwomen, however defined, are women.
   
   
6. Reduced scope for discrimination claims: To make a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex, a woman needs to demonstrate that she has experienced less favourable treatment when compared with an equivalent male. If a male changes legal sex, he cannot be cited as a comparator. As such, larger numbers of men claiming a transgender identity will potentially nullify some women’s ability to take sex discrimination cases.

Overall, we think it is reasonable to anticipate an increase in how frequently women are aware of evidently male-born people being present in spaces reserved for women, with negative implications for their sense of dignity, privacy, and safety. We also anticipate that a larger number of women will self-exclude from contexts where they previously felt relatively safe.

Scotland is already experiencing a chilling effect on the use of the single-sex exceptions, with the rights of women and girls compromised across a range of policy areas, including hospital wards, prison accommodation, school facilities, and sport. Under a self-declaration model these are likely to deteriorate further, as the legal protections relied on by the First Minister are rendered increasingly unworkable.

So the Scots Gender Recognition Act will benefit 70,000 people in the UK but disenfranchise 33 million women in the UK. To me that seems madly unbalanced.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Trans-activists drown out the conversation entirely, shouting down everybody with legitimate concerns.

Or, so we are told. Which, when you consider that you almost never hear an actual trans voice, is a bit of an odd thing to say.

So here's some trans voice:


View: https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1617856567872741377?s=20&t=2tTOLX-_FlWSPcuXRjPCFQ

An alternative way of looking at that video is that it's two men talking about undermining women's rights.

It's simply not true to say trans voices aren't heard. Robin Moira White was on GB News earlier this week and will be on again this weekend. Transactivist Hannah Graff was on Lorraine Kelly's show last week - noone invited on to give an alternative view. Graff and her transman partner Jake Graff have been on that show quite a few times, plus plenty of newspaper coverage.

India Willoughby gets on loads of stuff, often on their own with no opposing commentary.

There are plenty of non trans supporters getting air time and media articles too. You can't move without seeing Peter Tachell or Owen Jones on something.

Let's not forget that the International Olympic Committe changed the sports regulations to favour the inclusion of transwomen based on one shonky piece of research on just 8 trans athletes by transwoman Joanna Harper. Hardly 'trans voices not heard'.

Funny how times have changed though. For years Stonewall have said No Debate. So women carried on the debate without them and now you're moaning that nobody wants to listen.

 

[Fab Foodie]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland

 

[AuroraSaab]

It is also vociferously argued because it seems to transgress the rights of women. But, when you look at current practice in women's spaces it's hard to identify any tangible differences between what happens now and what would happen under Scot ID law.

As I have said several times, under the Equality Act any man can be excluded from single sex spaces, whether trans or not. Some services have decided not to apply this law. Why? Well in Scotland at least nearly all refuges and women's charities are part or fully funded by the Scots government - who make being trans inclusive part of the criteria for being given money. No transwomen = no money. Women who don't agree will self-exclude, however much they need those services.

If GRR were passed, even those who aren't government funded would have to admit transwomen with GRC's to their services.

Your argument seems to be 'It's already happening so no point trying to stop it now'. Good job we don't apply that to everything else in life.

 

[matticus]

Your argument seems to be 'It's already happening so no point trying to stop it now'. Good job we don't apply that to everything else in life

It truly is one of the more feeble debating points on this thread.

Crack cocaine arrives in UK, dozens already hospitalised - police say "Ah well, we missed that one. Best to live with it as best we can!"