Is Gender Critical the new Pro Life?

Just noticed that GGJ @18:11
has decided that I can hardly call trisher prolific.
1. Where did I call trisher prolific?
2. Did I miss a new GN rule that GJ polices the posts and decides what posters can say?

Answers on a postcard please. This is a request not a demand.

The fact that some women don't have cervices is not the point. If they are biological women they are women.

And here is someone proposing a perfect genderless society whilst posting about denying transpeople the right to choose their pronoun, linking them with abuse and citicising anyone who supports them.
Is the 'someone' here me, M0nica, or someone else? All of this 'some people' stuff is confusing. Why do it unless you want to deny singling someone out if challenged, or to accuse them of arrogance when they assume that they are the subject of the dig?

If you did mean me, I will say that regardless of how long it takes (and I did say that we are a long way from being there) it is something that we should work towards. We will get further from that 'perfect' society if we keep erasing women and keep being dictated to by those who insist that gender = sex.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

It was a hell of a long read Mollygo! I thought it was an excellent speech and will be following it further to see if any changes are brought about as a result. I especially respected his specific insistence that no one is negating the absolute rights of transgender men/women to live however they choose. But natal women are paying a high price for that right.

Thank you Chewbacca. That was well worth the long read.
So many of our concerns recognised and spoken about.
I wonder if attempts will be made to cancel him?

Still I'm sure he really knows what he's talking about! I thought so too.

Didn't you like what you read trisher? A bit too straightforward, non woke and plain speaking for you perhaps? But just maybe, the very fact that this is being discussed in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill means that the majority of people don't actually agree with you. I don't, for one.

I'm not reposting the whole thing but he's got a major mistake in the first paragraph. Quite a few transmen have born children. And quite a few women are born without a uterus and never have children.
Still I'm sure he really knows what he's talking about!

Really!! So how long is this gender -free society going to take? And how is denying transpeople rights going to influence or prevent that? The people who are probably pushing that agenda most are those who identify as non-binary and I think they are denied the right to choose their pronoun and legally can't be identified as such on their passport. So perhaps they should be encouraged and supported more.
We are a long way from such a society
But there's another comparison with pro-lifers. They too envisage a perfect society which doesnt exist, where all babies will be wanted babies and abortion will never be necessary. Of course they do little to achieve such a society preferring to challenge women who need to terminate their pregnancy
And here is someone proposing a perfect genderless society whilst posting about denying transpeople the right to choose their pronoun, linking them with abuse and citicising anyone who supports them.
Similarities or what???
Most of us thankgoodness live in the real world and deal with real people and respect their choices.

I do encourage people to read some of the research on my link. There's a really interesting one about knee replacements and a special `'female" knee designed because more women have knee replacements. Only it turns out that sex isn't the main factor in finding a good replacement, it's femur length.

I make no apologies for the length of this post. If you don't want to read it here, you can listen to it on YouTube: youtu.be/4PCy08ruz00

Lord Blencathra's Amendment 214 under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - Committee (8th Day) (Continued) – in the House of Lords at 9:04 pm on 15th November 2021.

......."Now, I find that the rights of women are under the greatest threat I have seen in my lifetime. It is not just about their rights to safe places such as bathrooms, changing rooms, NHS single-sex wards and in prison; their whole existence as biological women is under existential threat as some people—nearly all men—seek to erase the word “women” from the lexicon or commandeer it for the use of men who identify as women. Let me be crystal clear: I completely support the right of men, as guaranteed in the Equality Act, to change their gender and identify as women. They must not be discriminated against. However, let us be equally clear that men who identify as the female gender are not biological women because, as has been said before, only women have a cervix and a womb, and only women bear children. It is not transphobic to point out that elementary biological fact, which has been at the root of human existence for countless millennia.

I believe that the threat against women is increasing daily. Young lesbian women are being condemned as transphobic if they refuse to have sex with men who claim to be women. What a perversion of common sense and reality that is. However, it is worse than that. The police say that there has been a doubling of crime by female paedophiles. That is a big fat exaggeration. Sexual abuse by women has increased, but it is still infinitesimally small in comparison to that by men. Lynne Owens of the National Crime Agency says that the problem of male paedophilia may be seven times higher than first thought. There has been a huge increase in male paedophiles, some of whom then describe themselves as women; of course, a thoroughly woke police force swallows that nonsense and records it as if the rape and sodomy of children was done by real women. Some of our police forces are trashing the reputation of women by accusing them of crimes committed by men. I believe that the message should go out to the police service that when a male is arrested or commits a crime, he should be recorded as male and never as female, no matter how he designates himself.

I turn to prisons, the substance of my amendment. I am afraid that the situation there is just as bad. Although I suspect that I am in a minority in this House—as I am on many things—I am not one of those who believes that women should not be sent to prison. When the crime justifies it, women should go to prison and be punished. However, that punishment should not include the threat of rape and violence from big, brutish rapists who have decided to identify as women and get sent to a women’s unit. The female prison estate is currently run as a mixed-sex institution because the MoJ’s policies permit prisoners of the male sex, where they identify as transgender and fulfil certain criteria, to be allocated to the female estate and held in women’s prisons alongside vulnerable female offenders. Eligible males include those convicted of the most serious, violent and sexual offences and those with intact male genitalia.

Among others in prison at the moment, there is a vile man—I would describe him as vile—who raped two children, got his gender recognition certificate while in prison and is now swaggering around a female prison wing. I cannot name him or his prison. I believe that women’s prisons should be separate, single-sex facilities for the safety, dignity and privacy of women in prison. Since the Corston report in 2007, it has been acknowledged throughout the criminal justice system that women in prison exhibit patterns of vulnerability that distinguish them from both women in the wider community and male offenders. Female offenders report disproportionately high rates of previous experience of violent and sexual abuse; they also experience high rates of mental health problems. Indeed, in the previous debate, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, say that three-quarters of women in prison had suffered male violence before being sent to prison. A recent study of prisons in Scotland found a high prevalence—almost 80%—of significant head injury; these injuries were most often caused by repeated incidents of domestic abuse occurring over several years.

For many female prisoners, time in prison is often the first opportunity to tackle the complex issues around their offending, improve their health and access the services they need. Where women in prison have been the victims of sexual and violent assault, prison is often the first time they can be confident that they will be away from their male abusers. Where women in prison have been the victims of sexual and violent abuse at the hands of men, the presence of any offender of the male sex may have an inherently traumatising effect, regardless of the nature of offence committed. It is for good reason that approaches to tackling female offending have consistently emphasised the need for trauma-responsive services.

The Ministry of Justice policy that permits prisoners of the male sex to be housed in the female estate is called The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender. The policy states that all male prisoners who identify as transgender and who are in possession of a gender recognition certificate must be allocated to the female estate. The conviction, offending history, risk profile or anatomy are of no consideration.

Theoretically, a decision may be made to transfer to the male estate after risk assessment. We know of no situation where this has happened. Even the most high-risk male prisoners have remained in the female estate, including those convicted of violent and sexual offences against women and those with intact male genitalia. In respect of male prisoners who identify as transgender and who have no gender recognition certificate, initial allocation is to the male estate. The prisoner may then make an application to be transferred to a women’s prison.

In March 2021, a judicial review was brought against the Secretary of State for Justice, challenging the lawfulness of the MoJ’s policies that permit prisoners of the male sex to be housed in the female estate. Judgment was handed down in July and found that these policies are not unlawful. It would be quite extraordinary if the MoJ was found to be operating an illegal policy. However, the judgment was clear that the court had been called on to rule as to the lawfulness of the policy and not its desirability.

Lord Justice Holroyde acknowledged the negative impact of these policies on women in prison. He said “I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. I also readily accept the proposition … that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”

He also said: “I fully understand the concerns advanced on behalf of the Claimant. Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances.”

I agree with Lord Justice Holroyde that it is both incongruous and thoroughly inappropriate. If it is lawful to house prisoners of the male sex who have been convicted of the most serious violent and sexual offences alongside women who have been the victims of violent and sexual assault, that law must change. It is wrong.

Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, people who fulfil certain criteria are able to obtain legal recognition of their acquired gender. Legal recognition will follow from the issue of a gender recognition certificate by a gender recognition panel. A new birth certificate is also issued, with the sex marker changed to reflect the acquired gender and the name changed to the newly adopted name. There is no requirement for surgery or medical treatment to obtain a GRC.

GRCs have been obtained in prison by males convicted of violent and sexual offences who have then transferred to the female prison estate. I do not consider that the original intention of the Gender Recognition Act was to enable violent or sexual offenders of the male sex to be housed with women in prison, much less those who retain fully functioning male genitalia. I also make this point: these male prisoners want to identify as women. That is perfectly okay. Apparently, they do not want their male bodies, but every single one of them have retained their male genitalia as they swagger around female prison units. I suggest that those men, particularly those in prison, are simply faking being a woman to get access to real biological women in a female estate.

Clauses in the Gender Recognition Act clearly indicate that a GRC entitles a bearer to be treated as a member of the sex with which they identify for most purposes but not all. Hence, possession of a GRC expressly does not affect recording of parenthood. The possibility of being convicted of a crime defined as one that only a man can commit is also unaffected by possession of a GRC, as is the possibility of being a victim of a crime defined as one which only a female can be a victim of. Primogeniture is also unaffected.

I submit that incarceration for violent and sexual offences is a situation where a GRC should not take precedence over unchanged biological sex. The MoJ may be acting lawfully but it is not acting decently nor doing its duty to protect biological-sex women. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice policy documents do not talk about women, but call them non-transgender women, automatically giving top billing to men identifying as women, with real women described as non-transgender. That is why I say that women are being erased from the lexicon. A male, no matter how he identifies, should never be housed in a women’s prison. Like many government departments and organisations, the Ministry of Justice has fallen for the minority, militant transexual agendists, giving far more rights to men who claim to be women than to women themselves. My amendment is a small first step to defend women. There will be many more amendments to come as people realise that the assault on women is now a clear and present danger. I commend my amendment to the Committee."

Yes if we got rid of all the segregation by gender where it is not needed then the segregation in the places where it is needed will be accepted by all as it will be seen as being sensible.

I think it will be a long time before the WI recognise that they don't really need to be segregated.

Excellent post Doodledog. Especially this: If we just had men and women, but let them do their own thing, there would be no need for all the angst.

We're a very long way from that, but I'd love to think that things would work out that way.

I've said this before, but I think that the whole concept of gender (in the sense of how people 'present') is outmoded. I think most people are close to 'gender-neutral', but don't feel the need to police others' language by insisting on pronouns to ram that down others' throats - we just crack on doing what we've always done.

I think that the idea that to change genders people need to change sex is dangerous. If we just had men and women, but let them do their own thing, there would be no need for all the angst. The language could still recognise men and women (and know what each of those things means), research statistics would be based on the genuine differences between the sexes and not on dated concepts of gender differences, and where there is a need for safe spaces they could still be divided on the grounds of sex.

I genuinely don't understand how we've reached a point where people are so hung up on gender that they have created this mess, and why those who are not involved in it themselves want to put others through it, or at any rate to encourage them.

Gender is a gonner. If we have sexual equality people will be free to be to be whatever they want, without pfaffing with outdated concepts like gender. All that will exist will be biological sex.

Gender is a gonner. If we have sexual equality people will be free to be to be whatever they want, without pfaffing with outdated concepts like gender. All that will exist will be biological sex.

That'll be really interesting trisher. I loved the studies I did in the area years ago. Fascinating.

Sex is immutable. Gender is like Shakespeare. I’m sure you have got an idea for a new thread. Why not call it TWANW the truth according to trisher!

Mollygo

Sadly you think anything that argues against the fact of male and female is interesting.
I don’t doubt we shall hear more about it from you.

I thought you were all keen on science. It's fascinating reading
"Sex" and "gender" are distinguished for analytical purposes (see Sex and Gender). In reality, sex and gender interact (mutually shape one another) to form individual bodies, cognitive abilities, and disease patterns, etc. (Nowatzki & Grant, 2011; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Schiebinger & Stefanick, 2020)
It's just given me an idea for a new thread!

Mollygo

Sadly you think anything that argues against the fact of male and female is interesting.
I don’t doubt we shall hear more about it from you.

You can hardly call trisher prolific MG. She says a lot less than many other posters.

Sadly you think anything that argues against the fact of male and female is interesting.
I don’t doubt we shall hear more about it from you.

I said Robert Winston in every day life had the. same ability to decide a person's gender as anyone else Rosie51

I think this research is fascinating and it is looking at interactions between sex and gender. It is very complicated but so interesting genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/methods/how.html

I didn't think you trusted Robert Winston trisher, you know he who maintained there are only two sexes. Why would you trust American scientists any more?

Still room for so many inaccuracies. For example, from the link In medicine, not recognizing osteoporosis as a male disease delays diagnosis and treatment in men but if a portion of those presenting with osteoporosis are transwomen identified in records as F, then the proportions of disease between the sexes will still be skewed. Unless you're saying that everyone will need to have their biological sex tested and affirmed in preference to accepting an individual's declared sex, in all data collection.

Peasblossom They are researching at very deep levels genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/case-studies/stem_cells.html

We just can’t get past the DNA. So much genetic information is passed either down the female or male line. Medically, for research purposes, we just have to know whether someone carries the Y gene or not.

I mean, what would it do to statistics on something like haemophilia if the research started to show that females were developing it instead of being just carriers.

Peasblossom they are acredited scientists from a renowned American university if you trust Robert Winston to decide what's what why wouldn't you trust them to find ways of dealing with things?