Surprising proposed changes to gender identification legislation

Interesting point regarding the competitive sport aspect. I would think that testing would be required for this?

Oriel I have seen shared (single sex) showers, without cubicles, in a number of sports facilities.

Trans-women who've fully-transitioned can shower and change wherever they like as far as I'm concerned.

What is unacceptable to me is for someone to 'self identify' as female and then have legal access to women's facilities, services, and activities such as competitive sport.

I've worked with a nurse who had transitioned some time back and would have no problem with her nursing me and providing intimate care - I would not allow a man who suddenly self-identified to provide that care.

Should read ' on the continent their toilets' bloody predictive text!

Yankee I was unable to open the links so can't comment on them.

You seem to cite showers and changing areas as being your main concern. Surely these are areas which can be easily sorted out by simply having a transgender changing room/shower room.

My father in law is involved with the building of a new church and they will have three separate gender toilets, one specifically for transgender. This building is being built now - not proposed in the future.

I'm sure you realise that in the continent there toilets are often mixed sex and have always been that way. We travel extensively in our motorhome on the continent and sometimes use the campsite shower blocks - very often they are mixed. Whole families using the facilities together. I have never felt threatened or embarrassed and no-one I see in them looks cowed or frightened as you seem to suggest would be the case.

The scenario you portray of vulnerable girl (I don't know why you think females are always 'vulnerable') literally showering next to testosterone fuelled male is ridiculous. I don't know where you go but I have never ever seen facilities where everyone showers together - there are always cubicles.

I'm confused as to how they plan to alter birth certificates - they state your Sex not Gender.

A man transitioning to a trans-woman remains biologically male; your sex can't be changed.

Suzied, that's a really interesting point, I remember that woman being hounded at the same time caitlin Jenner was getting "woman of the year" and bravery awards and I scratched my head at the time.

If I'm honest, I don't really know how you can "feel female" without being one. Being a woman is a biological experience (and a deeply visceral, primitive one at times!). If you don't have the biology, isn't it just a fantasy or a costume of what a woman is?

Think of the furore when that white women ( can't remember name) identified as black and got jobs, scholarships etc which were intended for minorities. Is this much different? Should we be free to choose an identity which is in conflict with our biological reality? Or should those who see themselves as a different race, gender, age whatever be treated for psychological issues? Is gender now just something like hair colour that we can change as and when the fancy takes us? I am worried about young people who now may feel they could be more interesting/ fashionable to be a different persona and this could unleash a whole number of problems for them.

Brendan O'Neill voices some concerns that worry me.

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-orwellian-nightmare-of-transgender-politics#.WXkYrLHTWhD

I saw Yankeegran's point immediately.
It is about men who have no gender issues, but who could choose to pretend they do in order to prey on women and girls.
As the established sex offender, mentioned by Primrose65 actually did.
I don't know how anyone fails to see that point.

LeslieKnope - at last, an ally!
On reflection, I think my post would have had more contributors if I had given it a sexier title - something like 'You, too, can shower with strange men'!

Thanks for starting this thread Yankee, I was in disbelief when I heard the proposals. How can anyone not see the dangers inherent in allowing any man to access women's spaces? If it doesn't matter, why bother having segregated spaces at all?

Smileless, I wou,d be really interested to hear how you think the UK can introduce self identification without falling into the same pitfalls? Because if anyone can say "I feel like a woman" and that's all there is to it, I don't see how that can be reconciled with safety and privacy for women?

YankeeGran I can't access the links to a google mail account, so there's no way to read it. But a random search on one of the names shows he was an established sex offender, who committed his first crime in 2002, 10 years before the one you mention.

I just don't see it the way you do. But that's fine.

I think what your evidence shows YankeeGran is that some countries where this has already been introduced haven't taken the time or the care to implement legislation sensibly.

The evidence you've produced needs to be scrutinised carefully so that if this does indeed become law, we don't make the same mistakes. I know there's a saying that one bad apple can spoil a barrow but that doesn't mean that the entire crop will be rotten.

For those of you who insist on evidence:

These are the men who've committed sex crimes in Target (US chain store) since they introduced their self identification policy
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fb213e9c4046&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

In Missouri you apply to the courts to change your sex (only slightly more onerous than the UK government's proposal of filling in a form on the Internet) resulting in Danielle Muscato, an intact male, now legally being a woman. He was recently living in a homeless women's shelter, taking a space intended for a vulnerable woman
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fb0f67b8cc1e&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

More from Danielle
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fb5721da6781&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

States with self identification forcing women to have mixed sex dorms
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fb7d875ad352&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fb7d875ad352&attid=0.3&disp=safe&zw

Washington state has self-identification
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fb91bbd1e580&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

Canada has had self identification for a while
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fba121a18da5&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

The following link shows Stefonknee (get it?!) who identifies not only as female, but as a 6 year old girl. Interestingly he is legally female in Canada but you can't self identify your age. Bigots. He has been "adopted" by a couple and enjoys play dates with their grandchildren (are they mental?) and anal sex with his adopted father. Lovely. He's a prominent activist and was name checked by the Canadian govt when they were thanking people who helped them bring the self identification laws in.
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fbdc48b192ed&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

Christopher/Jessica Hanbrook was able to access two different women's shelters in Canada under their self ID laws. He assaulted 3 women and a 15 year old girl. Trans activists have said he wasn't really trans. It doesn't matter, he got in because there's no level of gatekeeping of what a woman is and the shelters were too afraid of being prosecuted for a hate crime to turn him away.
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fbff2fb383e3&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

Colleen Francis: Intact male who was naked in the shower area of the swimming pool coincidentally at the same time as the girls swim team met. Those horrible bigots didn't want to undressed in front of a naked strange man and protested. They were told he had every right to use it and they crowded into the disabled space to get away from him.
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cfa3ed9fa&view=att&th=15d7fc1f2a3f9292&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw

I rest my case.

I've been pondering about this since yesterday and have read the link several times because of this.

There's been almost 100% talk of men calling themselves women and nothing was mentioned until GrandmaKT's post of it being done the other way around.

There was a case I think only a year or two ago where a fully transgender male to female had to fight in court not to be sent to a male prison which I'm sure we'd all agree would have been outrageous, but not it seems outrageous enough to have been suggested in the first place. Is it therefore realistically likely that a man who calls himself a woman but is still physically a man, would be placed in a woman's prison?

Yankeegran you referred yesterday to Paris Green prison and sex taking place between a transgender man sent there for his own safety, and two female inmates. Was this rape or was it consensual because if it was the latter IMO it isn't as bad as the reference to it could imply.

There are divisions within the LGBT community. Some same sex couples agree with bringing children into their relationships while others don't. Some homosexuals and lesbians don't have an issue with bi sexual's while others do. Some are accepting of transgender's while others are not.

It is indeed very complex and until every minute detail of this proposed legislation is known impossible to what will run along side to ensure the safety of all.

I agree with Oriel that implying "every transgender person is a rapist/and or pervert just waiting to attack women.....is a very unfair and insulting assumption".

It's not so long ago when looking for pedophiles that the police looked first to the gay community. It would be a great pity if we as a society were to once again attribute sexual assaults and inappropriate sexual behaviour to any other than heterosexuals.

I can't find evidence of the impact Yankee, perhaps post some links?

All these hypothetical men are already potentially using mixed sex changing rooms, mixed sex hospital wards and mixed sex toilets. Is there any evidence that the problems you envisage happen there already?

Oriel - in case I have not made myself clear, I have zero interest in being 'objective' about the Gender Recognition Certificate. I am absolutely against the passage of this bonkers piece of legislation and am actively campaigning well beyond this thread on Gransnet.

I have never used the term rapist and have gone out of my way to express sympathy for people who are genuinely gender dysphoric. Of course they are no more likely to be sexual offenders than anyone in the wider population, but this does not mean that the legislation would not enable those with dubious motives to abuse what I have to assume are the good intentions behind the proposals. Biological men WILL have legal access to vulnerable women and girls in ways that have previously been illegal.

If you find this hard to believe, I suggest you have a look online at the resulting impact on the female populations of countries where similar legislation has already been enacted: Ireland, Malta, Denmark, Argentina and Colombia.

If you think my stance is unfair, I look forward to hearing how you will explain to your teenage granddaughter just why a biological male has the legal right to shower beside her.

I have read your posts and frankly I think that your reasoning is totally illogical and irrational.

You imply that every transgender person is a rapist and/or a pervert just waiting for the opportunity to attack women. I feel this is a very unfair and insulting assumption.

Where is the evidence to back up your theory that half the population will be put at risk?

Oriel - if after reading my opening comments and following the suggested links, you still do not understand the risks, then there is nothing more I can say. However, risks aside, why would any woman want to change clothes or shower in the gym next to a man? If this were not the case, why would we have women-only facilities in the first place? The issue of privacy is as important as safety.
And yes, we have probably all stood next to a trans man or used toilets where they have been, but my personal privacy is not threatened in either of these scenarios. It IS threatened in changing areas and showers...and if I were in a women's refuge, rape crisis center or hospital ward, I would be horrified to have to share facilities with someone who was clearly a man. The government keeps telling us how important single sex hospital wards are...so which is it? Either they are important or they're not. Can't have it both ways.

Grandma, I don't think that causing genealogists confusion should be a reason for not altering the birth certificates!

The whole point is that they were assigned the wrong gender at birth. Why would anyone put themselves through gender reassignment if their birth gender was correct?

And there I was, thinking this was just a cunning plan to resolve the BBC gender pay problems, as it would enable Fiona Bruce. Clare Balding, etc. simply to declare themselves to be men.

The only issue I have with all the scaremongering is that these hypothetical men are already in close proximity to loads of women. They stand next to them in the queue at the supermarket, live in the same house as women, work at the next desk to women.
They are already here! Do you really think they're sitting at home thinking 'If only I could get access to the Ladies toilets'?

I read this at the weekend. I must admit the thing that concerned me most then (and still does) is that (according to the Sunday Times) "Men will be able to identify themselves as women - and women as men - and have their birth certificates altered to record their new gender". Does that mean the actual birth certificate will be retrospectively altered? Imagine the confusion! Genealogists will have a nightmare task! I can understand some people wish to change their gender and have some form of record - but not change the historical FACT that they were a male or female when they were born.

I have to say that the tone of your language shows that you are prejudiced against this proposal. That's your prerogative but I feel that before anyone else is drawn to your point of view that perhaps some facts would be informative... you've obviously researched prior to posting so could you help with the following...

In particular a couple of questions... what/who do you perceive to be at risk? Why and in what way is there a risk exactly? Assuming that you've answere these questions, What evidence do you have?

Can you give links to what you say please? In particular the six to eight countries who have already adopted this legislation?