the law as it stands on sex

There shouldn’t be any conditions attached to female only safe spaces, they should just be female only safe spaces which using biological definitions means not admitting anyone with a penis.

I know grannygranby and especially your point
And yet because of this legal situation as Baroness Nicholson revealed there have been dozens of sexual assaults on women in hospitals by women who had penises. to say otherwise was against the gender laws And yet because of this legal situation as Baroness Nicholson revealed there have been dozens of sexual assaults on women in hospitals by women who had penises.

I have personal experience of women in a mental health facility, (actually one of those on Baroness Nicholson’s list), suffering from depression, or suicidal tendencies or paranoia caused by males. A male, allowed on the ward because he said he was a woman, wearing an open hospital gown to flaunt his maleness was allowed to traumatise the other patients -and the nurses couldn’t have him removed because of gender laws and the risk to their jobs by being called transphobic or bigots.

Does anyone on GN, think for one minute that “ those trans NOT involved in harming females (or even other TW,) or NOT desirous of perpetrating such harm” support the actions of those who do?
And if no-one on GN thinks that, why aren’t all posters supporting safe spaces for vulnerable women-refuges, communal changing rooms, toilets etc.
Is there any proof that those trans mentioned above, in inverted commas support the withdrawal of safe places for females? (without qualifying that by saying keep them if needed as I’ve seen someone do.)

as Baroness Nicholson revealed there have been dozens of sexual assaults on women in hospitals by women who had penises

I didn't see that granygranby...only the case of the woman who was raped but the Hospital denied it? I didn't know there were dozens of cases.

as Baroness Nicholson revealed there have been dozens of sexual assaults on women in hospitals by women who had penises.

Dozens? Have you got a link for this please grannygranby?

thanks Mollygo I don't know where we start really but naming women as non-trans or cis women is not reasonable for 51% of the population. The small percentage of transgender people are very highly represented on social media they say TWAW (transwomen are women) I suspect the 51% would prefer they were content with calling themselves transwomen which apparently hurts their feelings and we are urged to 'be kind'. (with the implication that the 51% aren't kind. - so passive aggressive). So they are called women and are women in law which immediately opens up all the areas that have been safeguarded for women. Talk about the patriarchy taking over. And if the 51% complain or say...hold on this isn't right... they are attacked for being hateful bigots.
When Nick Ferrari asked Keir Starmer "Can a woman have a penis?" on LBC radio on Monday this is how he answered:

“Nick, I’m not… I don’t think we can conduct this debate with… you know… I just... I don’t think, erm, discussing this issue in this issue helps anyone in the long run. What I want to see is a reform of the law as it is, but I am also an advocate of safe spaces for women. I want to have a discussion that is… Anyone who genuinely wants to find a way through this, I want to discuss that with. I do find that too many people in my view retreat or hold a position that is intolerant of others. I don’t like intolerance, I like open discussion."

he wants it all. Don't we all. He couldn't answer the question because as a lawyer he knows that in law and woman can have a penis. He doesn't want the public to know this. He doesn't want to be called a transphobe and bigot. He can't answer. And yet because of this legal situation as Baroness Nicholson revealed there have been dozens of sexual assaults on women in hospitals by women who had penises. One woman wasn't allowed to report the rape as the hospital said that was impossible as there were only women in the ward. to say otherwise was against the gender laws. A complete car crash. What can we do...? we cant ignore it

seemed to suggest that rape isn't the horrific monolith I've always believed it to be

I am not sure if I am "one of the two" being referred to as "agreeing" with Germaine Greer!"

There is a difference between "agreement" and refusing to "dismiss" a viewpoint expressed by someone who is known for referencing deeper issues for consideration! My point was that removing the emotion whilst reading Germaine Greer enables one to engage with her often very pertinent points. I think that applies to her comments on rape in terms of considering wider and difficult issues that are often ignored!

Doodledog

I don't think that 'gender variable people in frocks' are any more or less likely to be attackers than anyone else.

What I do think, and what I suspect many others also think, is that women feel happier when we feel vulnerable (eg when we are in a state of undress, or distressed, or unwell) if we can be sure that the people around us are what they appear to be. When people are already on alert, even if subconsciously, adding another uncertainty can just be a step too far. It's not that we think that transwomen are dangerous per se, but that there are times and places where we just want to be amongst other women.

I don't know why that is seen as unreasonable.

Exactly. ?

grannygranby I agree with everything you said.

Doodledog I agree with everything you said.

Mollygo your representation of trans allies (general) is once more incorrect and untrue

grandetante I agree with everything you said

my point was that there is confusion in the law. Rape is defined by sex and now through the GRA sex is defined by gender. I know it's difficult.

This is the law for rape. (This is not the law for sexual assault that is different.) But just to show I wasn't giving a point of view when I said it was about penises:

How rape is defined in law
In England and Wales, the legal definition of rape is when someone intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with their penis, without the other person's consent.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 says that someone commits rape if all of the following happens:

They intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with their penis.
The other person does not consent to the penetration.
They do not reasonably believe that the other person consents.
In other words: if a person puts their penis in someone’s vagina, anus or mouth on purpose, when the other person hasn’t consented, then they have raped them.

The law also makes it clear that it is rape if:

Someone removes a condom without the other person’s permission – or lies about putting one on in the first place. This is commonly known as ‘stealthing’.
The victim or survivor consented to one type of penetration e.g. vaginal or oral sex, but not another e.g. anal sex.

It doesn’t matter who the person committing the rape is – if there is no consent then it is always rape. And that includes within marriage and relationships.

Men and women are not mentioned. The important issue is whether they have a penis. And there's the rub...because since time immemorial female humans have been protected from males in public spaces in other words they have been protected from other people's penises for obvious reasons. But now the law states that people with penises can enter these spaces. And that is dangerous. And that is the point. At present the GRA says people with penises can be women if they say so. All the political parties wish to extend that even further with no checks. And once it is law so many things follow. and its nothing to do with being transphobe that is just dogwhistle scare tactics...its about female safety. And we have a duty to make sure that those spaces are kept safe.

I don't think that 'gender variable people in frocks' are any more or less likely to be attackers than anyone else.

What I do think, and what I suspect many others also think, is that women feel happier when we feel vulnerable (eg when we are in a state of undress, or distressed, or unwell) if we can be sure that the people around us are what they appear to be. When people are already on alert, even if subconsciously, adding another uncertainty can just be a step too far. It's not that we think that transwomen are dangerous per se, but that there are times and places where we just want to be amongst other women.

I don't know why that is seen as unreasonable.

MaizieD
Because it means that we (women) are being pressurised to accept into our spaces male people saying they're women who might decide to revert to their male gender while there and do a spot of rape or other sexual assault. As has happened.

But you have to understand MaizieD, it’s only a small percentage who do that so it’s only a small percentage of AHF women who get harmed and apparently, that doesn’t matter enough to some people.
(Wait for the mention that harm is caused by other men and, indeed, by women. It’s always presented as an excuse)

Those posters don’t want anyone to be harmed, and want to put a stop to all violence, but feel that putting safety measures in place for such a small percentage of AHFwomen is unfair on all trans including those who commit the offences!
I’m just saying, we’d all like to put a stop to violence, and I haven’t met anyone on GN or anywhere else who says they do want anyone to be harmed.
Most posters see strategies to limit potential harm, e.g. cycle helmets, traffic lights, banning drugs, incarceration of criminals etc. as a good idea, even essential.
But as soon as the protection of females from all males whether TW or not is raised, out come the TAs crying discrimination! transphobia! or whatever the latest buzzword they’ve come up with, to silence those asking for protection for females to be put in place, and by so doing, they themselves discriminate against
AHF women.

Actually, I take that back. It was only 2 GN members that actually agreed with Greer. Apologies for the misrepresentation.

I think cis men commit unfettered rape as it is. I doubt gender variable people in frocks will make much difference to the rape statistics.

Not to mention, the view of rape extolled by Germain Greer, which was agreed with by quite a few GN members, seemed to suggest that rape isn't the horrific monolith I've always believed it to be.

GagaJo

*not happy about people dipping in and out of their gender choices*

Why?

It doesn't bother me at all, as long as they're not offended if I get the pronoun wrong, by mistake on, for example, a woman day.

Because it means that we (women) are being pressurised to accept into our spaces male people saying they're women who might decide to revert to their male gender while there and do a spot of rape or other sexual assault. As has happened.

Absolutely, Madgran.

Why does it bother so many people that some persons are unhappy with the gender they physically conform to, and change their name and manner of dressing to suit the gender they emotionally belong to?

I'm not sure that that is what bothers "so many"!

It is the perceived implications for "individual rights" that bother people.... either the rights of the person who is a transwoman or transman or the individual rights of those who are not!

An lot of time, trouble and heated argument could be done away with if legistration in any country was changed on various points.

Rape should in my opinion be defined as having any form of sexual congress with another person without that person's consent. It should not matter whether anything is inserted into anything else, or what is put where.

If it is done without the other person's consent then it should be classed as rape.

As should any sexual practice carried out by the use of force, and any sexual practice where the one participent is either under the age of consent, or mentally incapable of consenting, or knowing what he or she is consenting to.

It would likewise by rape if one party was incapable due to drugs, drink or any form of unconsciousness.

Surely a woman was judged guilty of rape in the 1990s either in lowland Scotland or just south of the Scottish border because she had forced a man at gunpoint to have sex with her? She did not have a penis. Nor apparently need one of her own,

If someone choses to define themself as female although in possession of male genitalia or as male although in possession of female genitalia - that is a legal matter and as far as I am concerned it is their right.

Whether it is reasonable for them to use the changing rooms and public toilets of the sex they physically do not conform to in appearance, I find difficult to know. If they are law-abiding decent people they are not going to commit rape or any other form of what Scots law used to define as lewd practices in public, are they? Those who do, can be charged for the offence to public modesty, and/ or for commiting an indecent assault.

A relatively simple solution would be to do away with urinals in male public toilets, boys' schools, male sports facilities etc and only have cubicles. Thus no-one would need to know whether the person using the toilet looked like a man or a woman.

Women's toilets only have cublicles, and if the user goes in and locks the door, who is to know whether she physically resembles a woman or a man?

If those born male, who identify as female still go around committing rape I am much afraid they will do so, whether or not they have access to female lavatories!

Why does it bother so many people that some persons are unhappy with the gender they physically conform to, and change their name and manner of dressing to suit the gender they emotionally belong to?

This is, and should be a private matter, unless they break the law by forcing themselves upon others.

I am watching an interview with Stephanie Hirst who has had the complete operation. She seems a lovely person who wanted to be a woman and is very happy with her results and has a positive outlook.
Loose women 30 March

petunia

Molly, I too am greatly irritated by being referred to as a cis woman. Stonewall define Cis as

"Someone whose gender identity is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth. Non-trans is also used by some people"
This raises a few issues with me. Firstly, I do not have a gender identity. I am myself, my sex is female. Not having a gender identity has never caused someone to misgender me. Amazing.
Secondly, humans are not assigned sex or gender at birth. Ive been involved with many births and new families in my working life time and I can honestly say the neither myself or my colleagues ever assigned anything to new borns. We observed the sex of the baby and recorded what we saw. Always.
And thirdly, non trans.......I have no words for this breath taking arrogance.

???
Yes but . . .

Molly, I too am greatly irritated by being referred to as a cis woman. Stonewall define Cis as

"Someone whose gender identity is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth. Non-trans is also used by some people"
This raises a few issues with me. Firstly, I do not have a gender identity. I am myself, my sex is female. Not having a gender identity has never caused someone to misgender me. Amazing.
Secondly, humans are not assigned sex or gender at birth. Ive been involved with many births and new families in my working life time and I can honestly say the neither myself or my colleagues ever assigned anything to new borns. We observed the sex of the baby and recorded what we saw. Always.
And thirdly, non trans.......I have no words for this breath taking arrogance.

Cis to me is as offensive as saying trans-women-are-transwomen is to others.

* I read an article (can't find it now) about a transman with a transwoman partner. They wanted a family. Obviously, transwoman couldn't get pregnant. So the transman did.*

I can read stories about this every day.
Male and female get together, fall in love and have a baby. Female finds the changes in her her body difficult to cope with.
I wonder why they didn’t respect each other’s gender and adopt.

Thank you for your explanation re JW, GGJ.
I feel sympathy for him, not just because of the rape, but because knowing he isn’t 100% a man and definitely isn’t female must be confusing.
It’s good that he has ‘come out’! Cuts down on the risk of blackmail which was always one of the nastier elements of being homosexual or lesbian undercover. It will be even better when he sorts himself out.

not happy about people dipping in and out of their gender choices

Why?

It doesn't bother me at all, as long as they're not offended if I get the pronoun wrong, by mistake on, for example, a woman day.