Amnesty International say - 'no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’'

trisher

I think might join you growstuff because the more I read on this thread the more I realise it's nothing to do with logic or real life and everything to do with prejudice and preconceptions which can't be changed.

Well, I'm certainly baffled by it all.

No, of course not, and nor would I.

The concerns I have are not about meeting people on a social level. They are about the law allowing people to simply say they are female and legally being treated as such, and being able to access female spaces.

This has been said so often on this thread that I am getting bored with it. I honestly don't know how else it can be phrased so that people who don't want to understand will do so. Disagree by all means, but at least address the points that don't suit your argument?

trisher
I rest my case.
There is a necessity to refer to gender in the instance of Gender Reassignment Certificate. Trans people with a GRC are protected by law as they should be. Nobody here is questioning that right.

But when you talk of the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth. This is such an inaccurate assumption of reality, it has to be challenged.

So, growstuff, we are left with taking the trans woman's word for it. Transwomen are women as they say.
its thought that many transwomen, up to 80%, do not have “bottom” surgery. Ever. Some don't even live as women full time. So the spectrum of trans presentation is very wide and varied. We are left to guess whether that particular transwoman is safe while another has ulterior motives.

Doodledog It's been happening since the 1960s legally and before prehistory quietly . The appropriate question is why are people getting so het up about it now? The women's movement included transwomen then and still does so.

Nobody has yet explained to me how transmen (who look like men) using women's facilities will make women safer.

I remember the trans storyline in Coronation St in 1998.

I do not remember there being a huge outcry at the time.

Are people becoming less tolerant or was there a gransnet type forum then up in arms about toilet facilities.

trisher

Doodledog It's been happening since the 1960s legally and before prehistory quietly . The appropriate question is why are people getting so het up about it now? The women's movement included transwomen then and still does so.

People are 'getting het up'* about it because for the first time there is a call for self id to be entrenched in law.

As has been said over and over, there is a difference between transwomen which harms nobody, and men self identifying as women, which can be used for nefarious ends when it gives them absolute rights to enter what were female-only spaces.

cornishpasty As has been said on the thread, this is not simply about toilet facilities. Female-only spaces include rape suites, DV hostels and other places which women have spent years fighting for. I can't speak for anyone else, but speaking for myself I would have no problem with a transwoman being in these spaces if she has fully transitioned and has female hormones and genitalia.

*'het up' is the sort of phrase that has been used to diminish the legitimate concerns of women for centuries. I for one, am not 'het up'. I am concerned at the refusal of many activists to debate the issues, and I am far from being alone in this, as this thread attests. Are men who are pushing to be allowed to use female spaces getting 'het up', or would you use a different phrase to describe their concerns?

'het up' is the sort of phrase that has been used to diminish the legitimate concerns of women for centuries
Well said Doodledog.

The majority of contributors to this discussion are expressing similar concerns which are not anti trans. They're concerns about the growth of an aggressive, confrontational group of people who call themselves women/transwomen. How would those who support them, describe their threats of rape and violence towards feminists who maintain that hard fought for women's refuges (for example) should remain safe spaces.

I wonder if transmen slip under the radar because they are women. Maybe this is down to nature and nurture. Most transmen have had a lifetime of being a girl then a woman. Learning to be nice. Learning to accept. Learning to appease. When becoming a transman, those traits may prevent them from making a fuss. Just guessing

Transwomen on the other hand have usually had a male upbringing. Used to being the dominant sex, used to getting their own way. A level of testosterone influencing recklessness, a sense of male entitlement. Again, just guessing.

Same as it ever was really but in different costumes

I am so tired of the rape and violence being brought in as a reason. The actions of a few people do not justify punishing everyone. So just as we don't punish all men because a few are rapists we cannot punish trans people because a few are rapists or violent. And it is punishing people to condemn them to an expensive and intrusive process.
There is a misconception that self Id will not be a legal process but many trans people would prefer to see a system that required a declaration in front of a lawyer. They do not simply wake up and decide to become trans.
Worth reading www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-feminist-self-identification-consultation

het up has no gender alliance. It is linked to arguments becoming heated which can be used of anyone.

As has been said over and over, there is a difference between transwomen which harms nobody, and men self identifying as women, which can be used for nefarious ends when it gives them absolute rights to enter what were female-only spaces

There seems to be a stubborn and resolute determination to ignore this and instead to focus on posters being anti trans.

It is not punishment to segregate by sex. We dont punish all men because some are rapists but we segregate by sex partly because men can hurt women and because some women will be traumatised by mens presence in spaces where they are naked.
The thing is growstuff I have never met anyone who treats transwomen as women whatever that may mean. You for example are not treating transwomen as women, if you were you would completely ignore their needs and concerns, just as you are doing for women. We have detailed the concerns, the voices of survivors of sexual assault, the problems in sport, and for lesbians but you have minimised this and said those feelings dont matter. You are treating transwomen and women differently in every word you say I am afraid.

trisher

*het up* has no gender alliance. It is linked to arguments becoming heated which can be used of anyone.

I think I have remained resolutely calm throughout this debate. If you think I have been 'het up' in any sense of the word, please show me where.

Chewbacca

^As has been said over and^ over, there is a difference between transwomen which harms nobody, and men self identifying as women, which can be used for nefarious ends when it gives them absolute rights to enter what were female-only spaces

There seems to be a stubborn and resolute determination to ignore this and instead to focus on posters being anti trans.

No ignoring. Just a simple question "How will you stop anyone who appears female from accessing public spaces? And how will that impact on women who don't have the standard agreed appearance ?"and a simple answer for other spaces-proper and thorough risk assessments which rule out anyone with violent tendencies.
Self Id is a legal process not as some seem to imagine a sudden decision. It simply removes the medical interference and expense.

We cant rule it out, there are numerous laws that are not foolproof. We ask transwomen to respect womens consent. Many women do not consent to this. As has been demonstrated the risk assessments are not keeping women safe, the prison authorities for one have raised serious concerns about this issue. World rugby are remaining single sex. There are exemptions in the equality act for single sex spaces where there is a proportionate need for them.

It's not that long ago that World Rugby didn't believe women could play the game at all. They were proved wrong. Good to see they remain completely unenlightened.

trisher

It's not that long ago that World Rugby didn't believe women could play the game at all. They were proved wrong. Good to see they remain completely unenlightened.

It won’t take long before the word Women is deleted and replaced with “Low T” (testosterone) the whole team could be self ID Men

Madness!.

I dont think its about enlightenment more about women not getting killed or seriously injured. I imagine they are worried about the law suits.

I believe that was the reason for most dscrimination against women- they were too weak/ foolish/unreliable/ untrustworthy/ brainless to do much at all.

trisher

Chewbacca

As has been said over and over, there is a difference between transwomen which harms nobody, and men self identifying as women, which can be used for nefarious ends when it gives them absolute rights to enter what were female-only spaces

There seems to be a stubborn and resolute determination to ignore this and instead to focus on posters being anti trans.

No ignoring. Just a simple question "How will you stop anyone who appears female from accessing public spaces? And how will that impact on women who don't have the standard agreed appearance ?"and a simple answer for other spaces-proper and thorough risk assessments which rule out anyone with violent tendencies.
Self Id is a legal process not as some seem to imagine a sudden decision. It simply removes the medical interference and expense.

I agree that there will be difficulties, which is why there is a need for a debate which does not revolve around anyone who does not immediately buy into the all-inclusive transactivist agenda being called transphobic or otherwise silenced.

A relatively simple first step would be to make it a criminal offence to 'impersonate' a woman in situations which are deemed to benefit from single-sex spaces (clearly and legally defined so that there is no ambiguity, but an example might be DV hostels or sexual abuse suites in police stations), and to include non-transitioned transwomen with men in situations where a female patient or client has specifically asked for a woman to attend to her (eg a rape counsellor or a gynaecologist) and this would normally be considered a reasonable request.

It wouldn't stop a determined predator, but it would show that the law is on the side of women who want to be certain that a female space is just that, and would mean that people with religious objections to having intimate contact with a member of the opposite sex would have their wishes observed. Both of these things could be limited to situations in which women are vulnerable, and where women already have a right to specify the sex of the professional concerned.

Yes, that would be unfortunate for someone who has qualified in one of these areas and transitioned, but having barriers in the way of a chosen profession has been the norm for women for centuries, and in this case it must affect so few people that it will very rarely happen.

These are suggestions off the top of my head, and it is perfectly possible that I have overlooked something obvious; but my point is that just because this is a potentially tricky area should not mean that we just refuse to consider solutions and throw in the towel. It is not easy to stop all sorts of things, but there are still laws against them if the protection of others is deemed to have priority.

You have the legal right to refuse to be examined by anyone.
It really is difficult to see how you would legislate for all eventualities or situations. Will there be a list of places? What about if a transwomen who isn't fully transitioned comes into contact with someone outside the list of places and is not intentionally misleading but doesn't mention she hasn't yet completed treatment will she be a criminal?
There may be odd occasions where legal interference is necessary but the law is there to provide a framework of safety. We don't legislate for every possibility. We have the concept of acceptable risk.

There is no need to complicate things. Trans people with a GRC have rights, they have their own protected characteristic. Sex is also a protected characteristic.
We have laws that protect all kinds of people. What we don't want are laws that erode the existing rights of women and girls.
Don't try to change what isn't broke. Just leave these laws as they are. Please.

In January there is to be a Judicial Review in which the Scottish Government is being challenged on its decision to redefine the meaning of the word 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act 2018.
Further info is available on the crowdfunder page - link here :

www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-scottish-government-redefining-woman/?utm_source=case_page_social&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=case_page_below_amounts&utm_campaign=stop-scottish-government-redefining-woman