NHS U turn on trans terminology

Rosie51

Glorianny Well jolly good I've always said the legal provision was there. So I was right.

You've also always followed that up with a gleeful "how are you going to enforce it, genital inspections?" so I think your smugness at knowing the legislation is somewhat misplaced.

No I haven't I have said that if you try to limit access to public toilets or facilities you cannot do so based on appearance. That in fact there is no way to do so and trying to do so is not only impossible it's restrictive and will impose restrictions on women their dress and appearance.

The law is one I have always supported that places where women need a space free from transwomen are legally possible.

It is legally possible if trans women obey the law. Unfortunately some don't.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny Well jolly good I've always said the legal provision was there. So I was right.

You've also always followed that up with a gleeful "how are you going to enforce it, genital inspections?" so I think your smugness at knowing the legislation is somewhat misplaced.

No I haven't I have said that if you try to limit access to public toilets or facilities you cannot do so based on appearance. That in fact there is no way to do so and trying to do so is not only impossible it's restrictive and will impose restrictions on women their dress and appearance.

The law is one I have always supported that places where women need a space free from transwomen are legally possible.

And how do you tell the difference in the places where you support the law? If it can't be done on appearance what measure are you going to use? Or is it a case that transwomen should have more integrity and self police their own exclusion?

As Smileless says Yes, the legal provision is there but because of the actions of a few, they are being ignored. I don't need a sign in every shop I go into to remind me that shoplifting is an offence, and a trans woman doesn't need one to tell them that without a GRC it's illegal to access safe spaces for women.

Smileless2012

It is legally possible if trans women obey the law. Unfortunately some don't.

If you believe you are a woman you will use women's facilities unless they are restricted to single sex provision where you are not allowed. Public toilets are not legally single sex spaces. The restriction is only advisory, which is just as well as I've been with women who have used the gents when the queue was too long for the ladies.

... disingenuous Glorianny...

Well jolly good I've always said the legal provision was there. So I was right.

And it isn't a question of who is right.

You know as well as many on here that there is confusion around the legal position of trans-identifying people. Hence those 'events' that sometimes make media headlines - or some column inches, in the less-hysterical media.

To which can be added the calls for no debate which have led to de-platforming and cancelling and, in some instances the harrying of individuals within organisations / companies to the extent that a few have lost their positions. Not to mention the harassment of high-profile figures threatened with rape and death for exercising their right to free speech.

So it's really not that straight-forward is it?

If those in positions of power or authority are themselves unsure or ignorant of the legal provision, it will create media headline-grabbing news which leads to strident demands from the TAs and equally strident rebuttals from the so-called gender-critical. And that's the position we seem to be in at the moment.

In my opinion, stifling debate and discussion on both official and social levels has led us to this toxic environment. It is not healthy to suppress views on matters that affect society as a whole. Important issues, regardless of their nature, that are within the government's remit, need to be widely 'advertised' and debated, and informed debate cannot take place if one group demands that only their voice is legitimate and dissenting voices be silenced. And that is what the TRAs are demanding, duplicitously labelling those who would voice an opinion as transphobic.

And, it is they who have muddied the waters - as much as any right-wing bigots.

If you believe you are a woman you will use women's facilities unless they are restricted to single sex provision where you are not allowed so why are some trans women using facilities that they know they are not allowed to use Glorianny?

Believing you're a woman when you are in fact a man doesn't make you a woman and if the myth that men can become women had been debunked when it first arose, we probably wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Smileless2012

It is legally possible if trans women obey the law. Unfortunately some don't.

Exactly. If you knowingly lie to access something you have no right to access, it says a lot about the person you are. If you make it obvious that you are enacting that lie knowing it will cause mental or physical harm to females, it says even more about how wrong you are.

Which says a lot about the TW who are under discussion, who don’t even acknowledge the damage they do to the image of trans as well as to females.

Great post, Dickens. It's precisely because the waters have been muddied by 'No Debate' and accusations of phobia, right wing bias, racism and any other mud that could have been slung by the trans lobby that people have been confused about what is legal and what isn't. I wonder whether that was deliberate - a way of riding the wave until public opinion came down one way or the other.

In response to the tedious 'the law says that transwomen can be refused attendance if their presence would prevent women' from going' posts from Glorianny, I have always said that this may have been the case (although in fact it's not - as can be seen from my link, they law is very different) it would be impossible to implement unless women knew in advance that a transwoman planned to turn up, were willing to risk death threats and 'cancellation' and able to contact the venue and speak to someone who believed that to be the case.

So now it is clear. Only those with a GRC have a right to access opposite-sex facilities. Where certain conditions are met, businesses and other organisations can legally provide single and separate-sex services. This includes services such as toilets, changing rooms, and female-only fitness classes, which may exclude transgender people of the opposite biological sex who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). Where it is justified, they may also be able to exclude transgender people with GRCs.

Now that everyone knows the law, ways of ensuring that it works can be put in place. Those ways will probably vary depending on the venue, its clientele and the likelihood of turning a blind eye being abused, with some being a lot stricter than others. To me (although I realise that opinions will vary) that seems fair enough.

Smileless2012

Believing you're a woman when you are in fact a man doesn't make you a woman and if the myth that men can become women had been debunked when it first arose, we probably wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

... why so many seemingly intelligent people accepted this myth is beyond my comprehension.

Doodledog

Now that everyone knows the law, ways of ensuring that it works can be put in place. Those ways will probably vary depending on the venue, its clientele and the likelihood of turning a blind eye being abused, with some being a lot stricter than others. To me (although I realise that opinions will vary) that seems fair enough.

I agree with you - it's fair enough.

'Biological men 'is a category that now includes trans men. It was not always so but with advances in clinical treatments individuals who previously were women can and do become men.

'Biological women' is a category that now includes trans women. It was not always so but medical and surgical treatments for sex change are now p;art of the culture.

Medical and surgical treatments are to preserve life and remove mental and physical pain and discomfort.

Any man or woman who takes advantage of a woman's (NB including trans women and trans men) frailty is a criminal .

Dickens

... disingenuous Glorianny...

Well jolly good I've always said the legal provision was there. So I was right.

And it isn't a question of who is right.

You know as well as many on here that there is confusion around the legal position of trans-identifying people. Hence those 'events' that sometimes make media headlines - or some column inches, in the less-hysterical media.

To which can be added the calls for no debate which have led to de-platforming and cancelling and, in some instances the harrying of individuals within organisations / companies to the extent that a few have lost their positions. Not to mention the harassment of high-profile figures threatened with rape and death for exercising their right to free speech.

So it's really not that straight-forward is it?

If those in positions of power or authority are themselves unsure or ignorant of the legal provision, it will create media headline-grabbing news which leads to strident demands from the TAs and equally strident rebuttals from the so-called gender-critical. And that's the position we seem to be in at the moment.

In my opinion, stifling debate and discussion on both official and social levels has led us to this toxic environment. It is not healthy to suppress views on matters that affect society as a whole. Important issues, regardless of their nature, that are within the government's remit, need to be widely 'advertised' and debated, and informed debate cannot take place if one group demands that only their voice is legitimate and dissenting voices be silenced. And that is what the TRAs are demanding, duplicitously labelling those who would voice an opinion as transphobic.

And, it is they who have muddied the waters - as much as any right-wing bigots.

Of course it's a question of what is legally right. There have been many posts accusing me of not supporting single sex spaces and I have always quoted the law. I have been consistently told I was wrong, but I was right.

The very vocal voices on GN show debate has not been stifled.

Accusing others of not allowing debate because you disagree with them is not really a successful way of putting your view across. Just admit the law has always been there. It isn't transpeople's fault if others have misinterpreted it or failed to act on it. Ignorance of the law is never a justifiable defence.

Threats of rapeand murder have never been limited to transpeople and I thought we all agreed that transpeople simply want to live quiet lives and are not responsible for extremism.

Glorianny Just admit the law has always been there. It isn't transpeople's fault if others have misinterpreted it or failed to act on it. Ignorance of the law is never a justifiable defence.

I don't believe anyone has questioned that the law exists, we have questioned why outfits have instead gone by Stonewall's version of the law which has always been totally wrong. You haven't said how the law can be enforced without going by appearance, what measures you think can be used. Are we to rely on the honesty of transwomen to respect women's spaces as it hasn't worked that well up to now has it?

I assume you agree that those transpeople who have used single sex areas whilst being of the opposite sex are entirely to blame for their actions. Lax enforcement by venues does not excuse their deliberate disregard of the law.

No, you said that IF women would not attend something then transwomen could be refused entry. That is clearly not the same as it being perfectly legal for venues to offer single sex events and facilities, (such as lesbian speed dating) whether women put their lives and safety on the line by protesting or not, and whether women who would prefer not to share facilities are able to know in advance that there will be males in attendance.

You have a very selective memory about what you have said (eg that puberty blockers are harmless), but accusing others of getting things wrong just because you disagree with them is not a very successful way of getting your ideas across when you do so online and there is a record.

Caleo

'Biological men 'is a category that now includes trans men. It was not always so but with advances in clinical treatments individuals who previously were women can and do become men.

'Biological women' is a category that now includes trans women. It was not always so but medical and surgical treatments for sex change are now p;art of the culture.

Medical and surgical treatments are to preserve life and remove mental and physical pain and discomfort.

Any man or woman who takes advantage of a woman's (NB including trans women and trans men) frailty is a criminal .

No Caleo as much as you'd like 'biological women' to include transwomen and 'biological men' to include transmen it really doesn't. It is not possible to change your biological sex. With surgery and drugs it is possible to change some outward bodily features to imitate those of the opposite sex, but biologically nothing has changed. Sex is categorised by the gametes a body is organised to produce, even if that function is faulty or missing. The male sex applies to those bodies that should produce the small gamete, sperm. The female sex applies to those bodies that should provide the large gamete, ovum. No human being or indeed any other mammal has ever changed their sex.

Incidentally are you aware that the vast majority of transwomen retain their penis? The biggest area for surgery is young women having their healthy breasts removed.

Of course genuine gender dysphoria needs treatment and that might in some cases require drugs and surgery, but it still doesn't mean that someone has changed sex. There are many transexuals who freely acknowledge that they remain the biological sex they were born. Debbie Hayton freely says she is still a biological male.

Glorianny

Dickens

... disingenuous Glorianny...

Well jolly good I've always said the legal provision was there. So I was right.

And it isn't a question of who is right.

You know as well as many on here that there is confusion around the legal position of trans-identifying people. Hence those 'events' that sometimes make media headlines - or some column inches, in the less-hysterical media.

To which can be added the calls for no debate which have led to de-platforming and cancelling and, in some instances the harrying of individuals within organisations / companies to the extent that a few have lost their positions. Not to mention the harassment of high-profile figures threatened with rape and death for exercising their right to free speech.

So it's really not that straight-forward is it?

If those in positions of power or authority are themselves unsure or ignorant of the legal provision, it will create media headline-grabbing news which leads to strident demands from the TAs and equally strident rebuttals from the so-called gender-critical. And that's the position we seem to be in at the moment.

In my opinion, stifling debate and discussion on both official and social levels has led us to this toxic environment. It is not healthy to suppress views on matters that affect society as a whole. Important issues, regardless of their nature, that are within the government's remit, need to be widely 'advertised' and debated, and informed debate cannot take place if one group demands that only their voice is legitimate and dissenting voices be silenced. And that is what the TRAs are demanding, duplicitously labelling those who would voice an opinion as transphobic.

And, it is they who have muddied the waters - as much as any right-wing bigots.

Of course it's a question of what is legally right. There have been many posts accusing me of not supporting single sex spaces and I have always quoted the law. I have been consistently told I was wrong, but I was right.

The very vocal voices on GN show debate has not been stifled.

Accusing others of not allowing debate because you disagree with them is not really a successful way of putting your view across. Just admit the law has always been there. It isn't transpeople's fault if others have misinterpreted it or failed to act on it. Ignorance of the law is never a justifiable defence.

Threats of rapeand murder have never been limited to transpeople and I thought we all agreed that transpeople simply want to live quiet lives and are not responsible for extremism.

The very vocal voices on GN show debate has not been stifled.

Oh come on Glorianny, you know full well that is not the issue, it is not about us here on GN! Do I really need to spell it out?!

Accusing others of not allowing debate because you disagree with them is not really a successful way of putting your view across.

... accusing others? How many times have we heard - or seen the slogan no debate from certain quarters of the trans-community... the demonstrations attempting to prevent someone from speaking? Are you saying the accusations are not justified?

I used to think that some on here were rather in the wrong accusing you of twisting what is being said, but here you are, doing just that!

It is a fact that some trans people believe raising question about gender-identity is off limits.

Threats of rapeand murder have never been limited to transpeople and I thought we all agreed that transpeople simply want to live quiet lives and are not responsible for extremism.

That is true - threats of violence are not limited to trans people, it seems to be the modus operandi of those who are too cowardly or too emotionally inadequate to enter into civilised and rational argument. And that includes the minority - but very loud, aggressive and demanding minority - of TRAs who are dominating the trans landscape and with whom we are taking issue on here, because they are the ones who keep sticking flies in the ointment. If only they would just shut up and allow all - from the wider trans-community and women, to speak... we might get somewhere.

Doodledog

No, you said that IF women would not attend something then transwomen could be refused entry. That is clearly not the same as it being perfectly legal for venues to offer single sex events and facilities, (such as lesbian speed dating) whether women put their lives and safety on the line by protesting or not, and whether women who would prefer not to share facilities are able to know in advance that there will be males in attendance.

You have a very selective memory about what you have said (eg that puberty blockers are harmless), but accusing others of getting things wrong just because you disagree with them is not a very successful way of getting your ideas across when you do so online and there is a record.

The law is that single sex spaces can be provided if it is shown there is a need for such a space. If transwomen are accepted by the other women attending something it isn't a single sex space and all women are welcome. Some spaces will still be welcoming to transwomen for that reason.

As has been posted the advice is ^__Where certain conditions are met__, businesses and other organisations can legally provide single and separate-sex services.

Among those conditions will be that the space has to be shown to be something women have requested, something I have always made clear. (oh and also similar and equal provision will need to be made for men).

You seem to have ignored the conditions bit.

I said that there was little evidence that the use of puberty blockers was harmful and questioned why the distress of a girl going through puberty early was deemed worthy of treatment, but the distress of a girl questioning her gender was not. It seems odd if they are harmful to use them for a girl 7-11 but deny them to a 11-14 year old.

Rosie51
Thank you for answering Caleo. It is unbelievable that some people still think you can change sex just by adding the word biological in front of it.

It is the fault of those trans people who ignore the law Glorriany if not, then whose fault is it?

Ignorance of the law isn't justifiable to those trans people who don't abide by it, and certainly doesn't justify the abuse and threats of violence against those, whether or not they are trans, who repeatedly say that the law should not only be enforced, but adhered too.

You are wrong Caleo. The categories of biological men and women have never included trans and never will.

Thank you Dickens for answering this paragraph from
Glorianny
Threats of rapeand murder have never been limited to transpeople

I’m still wondering who she thinks has said rape and murder are limited to trans. The quote above says that Glorianny herself has said it, but I don’t recollect seeing it anywhere else else on GN.

The point that the threats and violence by some some TIM and their TRA supporters is responsible for the negative image of trans, seems as always to have passed Glorianny by.

Glorianny says
I thought we all agreed that transpeople simply want to live quiet lives and are not responsible for extremism.

No Glorianny. You may think that, but you missed out a very important word.
I’m sure we all agree that SOME or even MOST ^transpeople simply want to live quiet lives and are not responsible for extremism.

Unfortunately for females and for those transpeople who do want that peaceful life, some TIM and their vociferous, threatening and violent TRA supporters do not want to live quiet lives. They want to lie and cheat their way into female safe places, female sports, and female awards and are happy to do that even if it upsets females.

Glorianny I said that there was little evidence that the use of puberty blockers was harmful and questioned why the distress of a girl going through puberty early was deemed worthy of treatment, but the distress of a girl questioning her gender was not. It seems odd if they are harmful to use them for a girl 7-11 but deny them to a 11-14 year old.

They would never be used on a girl suffering precocious puberty for that time span. In fact few girls suffering precocious puberty are even prescribed puberty blockers. Precocious puberty is defined as starting in a girl under 8 or a boy under 9. Over those ages nothing would be prescribed.
You know as well as I do, that at the Tavistock puberty blockers almost invariably led straight on to cross sex hormones. Not surprising as the child had been affirmed onto a pathway that would be very difficult to leave. Having issues about your developing body does not automatically mean being transgender, and the vast majority will come through puberty without the need for drug intervention. Puberty isn't just about changing bodies, puberty is essential for brain development. Denying that development at the normal time can never be corrected.

.... and are happy to do that even if it upsets females and their fellow trans.

Among those conditions will be that the space has to be shown to be something women have requested, something I have always made clear. (oh and also similar and equal provision will need to be made for men).
Do you have a link, please?

You seem to have ignored the conditions bit.
No, I just don't know what they are, but I will when you have shown me the source. I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests that what you say is the case though.

The law is that single sex spaces can be provided if it is shown there is a need for such a space. If transwomen are accepted by the other women attending something it isn't a single sex space and all women are welcome. Some spaces will still be welcoming to transwomen for that reason.
That's a good example of why mangling language is a bad idea )

I'll have a go at translating it though. You seem to be saying that it has to be 'shown' that there is a need for single sex spaces? How does that work? Who needs to show what to whom, and what qualifies as a need?

I'll gloss over the 'transwomen/other women' thing, as it is such a blatant attempt to make a point that it's unworthy of comment, other than to agree that if transwomen are there then it is no longer a single-sex space, because transwomen and women are not the same sex.

If the 'other women' aren't bothered then there is no problem. As was said earlier, the venue, the clientele and the situation will determine whether it matters or not. In some cases it really won't, but in, say, a lesbian speed dating event males are unlikely to be welcome, and a bearded man lurking menacingly in a changing room can be asked to leave without a manager or shop assistant fearing they are breaking the law.

The point, though, is that it is only those with a GRC who are entitled to use single-sex facilities, and even then, there are circumstances under which they do not have that entitlement.

Whether individuals choose to allow mixed sex arrangements or not, the right to refuse is now clear, and that should result in a sensible way forward. As we have always said, our objections are not because of transphobia. Where it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, but where it does it is good to see that that has been recognised.

Doodledog

*Among those conditions will be that the space has to be shown to be something women have requested, something I have always made clear. (oh and also similar and equal provision will need to be made for men).*
Do you have a link, please?

You seem to have ignored the conditions bit.
No, I just don't know what they are, but I will when you have shown me the source. I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests that what you say is the case though.

The law is that single sex spaces can be provided if it is shown there is a need for such a space. If transwomen are accepted by the other women attending something it isn't a single sex space and all women are welcome. Some spaces will still be welcoming to transwomen for that reason.
That's a good example of why mangling language is a bad idea )

I'll have a go at translating it though. You seem to be saying that it has to be 'shown' that there is a need for single sex spaces? How does that work? Who needs to show what to whom, and what qualifies as a need?

I'll gloss over the 'transwomen/other women' thing, as it is such a blatant attempt to make a point that it's unworthy of comment, other than to agree that if transwomen are there then it is no longer a single-sex space, because transwomen and women are not the same sex.

If the 'other women' aren't bothered then there is no problem. As was said earlier, the venue, the clientele and the situation will determine whether it matters or not. In some cases it really won't, but in, say, a lesbian speed dating event males are unlikely to be welcome, and a bearded man lurking menacingly in a changing room can be asked to leave without a manager or shop assistant fearing they are breaking the law.

The point, though, is that it is only those with a GRC who are entitled to use single-sex facilities, and even then, there are circumstances under which they do not have that entitlement.

Whether individuals choose to allow mixed sex arrangements or not, the right to refuse is now clear, and that should result in a sensible way forward. As we have always said, our objections are not because of transphobia. Where it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, but where it does it is good to see that that has been recognised.

Doodledog I have posted the link to the relevant legislation so many times I despair. As you are so keen on telling me what I have said in the past perhaps you could also find the links I have posted. But "There are none so blind as those who will not see"

The whole of your long post only confirms what I have always said far more simply. Where women want a single sex space it can be provided and even women with a GRC can be excluded.

I'm not "mangling language" simply explaining that there are women who recognise transwomen as women and do not object to sharing spaces with them. I assume you would grant those women the right to do so.

You may object to transwomen some women don't. The right to refuse them admission has always been there.

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny Well jolly good I've always said the legal provision was there. So I was right.

You've also always followed that up with a gleeful "how are you going to enforce it, genital inspections?" so I think your smugness at knowing the legislation is somewhat misplaced.

No I haven't I have said that if you try to limit access to public toilets or facilities you cannot do so based on appearance. That in fact there is no way to do so and trying to do so is not only impossible it's restrictive and will impose restrictions on women their dress and appearance.

The law is one I have always supported that places where women need a space free from transwomen are legally possible.

And how do you tell the difference in the places where you support the law? If it can't be done on appearance what measure are you going to use? Or is it a case that transwomen should have more integrity and self police their own exclusion?

As Smileless says ^Yes, the legal provision is there but because of the actions of a few, they are being ignored. I don't need a sign in every shop I go into to remind me that shoplifting is an offence, and a trans woman doesn't need one to tell them that without a GRC it's illegal to access safe spaces for women.^

As I have already said public toilets are not single sex spaces. The notices are simply advisory. Otherwise the man at the airport I saw wander in and use the ladies, and the women I know who have used the gents, would all be criminals. They aren't. It would simply be impossible to police or supervise every public toilet, not to mention the problems with employing cleaners who can currently be of either sex.

What about the other spaces which are single sex Glorianny? This is about so much more than public toilets.