Is this woman a transphobe?

[SpackleFrog]

But as Kevbad the Bad has said; if I can simply identify into womanhood, who are you or anyone to tell me that I'm a "man telling women how to do feminism"? Or maybe - like Eddie Izzard - I have a girl mode and a boy mode and I flip between them and some of my posts are by a woman, some by a man?

You can't 'simply' identify into womanhood though. The process takes two years and because of people like you the changes to the Gender Recognition Act have been dropped so you will also need to provide medical evidence of gender dysphoria and be signed off by a doctor. Which is what all this is actually about remember - that despite a government consultation that showed 80% of people support removing the requirement for medical evidence to transition, we continue to demand trans people provide medical evidence.

Eddie Izzard is hardly a representative example, is she? And in any case she's quite clear that she wants to be treated as a woman from now on - not to switch between boy and girl mode as you claim. Eddie Izzard: Comedian and actor opts to use pronouns 'she' and 'her'

There are trans people and there are non-binary people but there are not people demanding to be allowed to switch gender on a whim as you claim.

I am just baffled and depressed more than I can say about this. I know serious left wing people who are seriously talking about voting tory over this. WTAF?

Again, this is a complete fabrication. There are no serious left wing people considering voting Tory; that's completely oxymoronic.

 

[Border Reiver]

Maybe take it up with the people who are talking about voting tory, rather than the people who aren't?

And if we're going back to the quote discussed in the OP, I still think you're using a really unhelpful set of criteria. There are some statements that are obviously motivated by hatred or a desire to restrict people's legal rights, "gas the kikes, race war now", "send them back", "get back in the kitchen", whatever. I don't think the stuff in the OP is comparable to that, but I don't think that's a good standard to use.

Think about these statements instead: "calm down dear, don't get so emotional", "go on love, give us a smile", "do you think that maybe you just haven't met the right man yet?", "oh, I thought you were really surprisingly articulate, considering". And so on. These statements are not "obviously motivated by hatred and bigotry", as you put it. But they're all shitty things to say and you shouldn't say them. I think the stuff in the OP is on a par with most of those.

Except it promotes denying legal rights to a group of protected persons. Equivalent doing it to ethnic minorities.

 

[SpackleFrog]

As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc.

More lies. It's not possible to identify as a woman on a part time basis, and it was previously possible for people with male genitalia to obtain a GRC. The only proposed change which has been dropped is that trans people no longer need a medical diagnosis of dysphoria.

It really riles me that you come onto these boards with the explicit intention of lieing to stir up shit over this issue. I wouldn't have a problem with you saying you didn't get it or you don't like it or even if you were just straightforwardly denying the existence of trans people or gender dysphoria despite the millennia of anthropological evidence. But you set out to lie to stir shit up and honestly I would be very happy to see you banned from these boards.

 

[Border Reiver]

You can't 'simply' identify into womanhood though. The process takes two years and because of people like you the changes to the Gender Recognition Act have been dropped so you will also need to provide medical evidence of gender dysphoria and be signed off by a doctor. Which is what all this is actually about remember - that despite a government consultation that showed 80% of people support removing the requirement for medical evidence to transition, we continue to demand trans people provide medical evidence.

There is also common law that allows people with a good excuse to be in a single sex space. There is no law excluding persons of one sex entering spaces intended for the other sex.

(edited to clarify common law.)

 

[Border Reiver]

"I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls"
I can see this as being problematic. This person does not "subscribe to the notion" of transgender people, and then claims that such a notion would ("necessarily" is implied here) damage cis-genedered women and girls.

Imagine saying that you do not subscribe to the notion of certain ethnicity's rights being protected!

 

[smokedout]

As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc.

Both of those are genuinely problematic issues for many many women - I think for obvious reasons.

So "preserving single sex exemptions" is about maintaining the status quo pre-self-ID, not about removing the protections currently given to tw with a GRC. But I'm sure there will be different strands of thought about this, but this ^^ is what I see most often.

Well after several years of discussing this you still understand it completely wrongly.

The legal position is that anyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means has undergone, is undergoing or is intended to undergo gender transition is protected under the Equality Act and in most cases can use spaces inline with their gender. This has been the case since 1999 and these rights were strengthened in the 2010 Equality Act. Trans people have been self-IDing into single sex spaces for decades.

This protection comes with exemptions, which apply to all strands of the Equality Act which is that discrimination is permitted if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or in the case of employment if it is a reasonable requirement for the role - so a white actor could not sue if they were refused an audition to play Malcolm X for example. These are what the gender critical movement calls sex based rights, although really the rights given in the Equality Act are that you should not to be discriminated against due to sex (or gender reassignment, race, sexuality etc) except in very limited circumstances. A gender recoginition certificate does not protect you from these exemptions, neither does it grant you special rights - although it does provide protection in your legal (aquired) sex - so a trans woman with a GRC is legally a woman and could join a class action sex discrimination case against her employer over equal pay for example.

The law is a bit of a bodge in this area and the main problem is that far from trans people attempting to invade women's spaces there is virtually no case law which establishes what would be a proportionate and legitimate reason for discrimination and none which has reached a higher court. It is near certain that discriminating against trans people in toilets or enclosed changing room provision is probably illegal, and it is probably legal to discriminate against trans women in the provision of single sex services for sexual violence for example. But this should only be done on a case by case basis, as opposed to a blanket policy, and efforts should me made to avoid discrimination if possible, such as offering a service in a different way. This has been the approach taken by much of the refuge and VAWG sector, who are in most cases trans inclusive but reserve the right to invoke the exemption in some cases. And this has pretty much worked for years, but until a case comes before the courts then the legality or otherwise of discrimination relating to trans people and single sex spaces is really a bit unknown - hence the endless arguments. But gender recognition certificates are not even mentioned in the Equality Act and have little bearing on who can access single sex spaces, although they may influence other areas - such as whether you should say you are a man or a woman in the census, but again this is all untested by law.

 

[Border Reiver]

Well after several years of discussing this you still understand it completely wrongly.

The legal position is that anyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means has undergone, is undergoing or is intended to undergo gender transition is protected under the Equality Act and in most cases can use spaces inline with their gender. This has been the case since 1999 and these rights were strengthened in the 2010 Equality Act. Trans people have been self-IDing into single sex spaces for decades.

This protection comes with exemptions, which apply to all strands of the Equality Act which is that discrimination is permitted if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or in the case of employment if it is a reasonable requirement for the role - so a white actor could not sue if they were refused an audition to play Malcolm X for example. These are what the gender critical movement calls sex based rights, although really the rights given in the Equality Act are that you should not to be discriminated against due to sex (or gender reassignment, race, sexuality etc) except in very limited circumstances. A gender recoginition certificate does not protect you from these exemptions, neither does it grant you special rights - although it does provide protection in your legal (aquired) sex - so a trans woman with a GRC is legally a woman and could join a class action sex discrimination case against her employer over equal pay for example.

The law is a bit of a bodge in this area and the main problem is that far from trans people attempting to invade women's spaces there is virtually no case law which establishes what would be a proportionate and legitimate reason for discrimination and none which has reached a higher court. It is near certain that discriminating against trans people in toilets or enclosed changing room provision is probably illegal, and it is probably legal to discriminate against trans women in the provision of single sex services for sexual violence for example. But this should only be done on a case by case basis, as opposed to a blanket policy, and efforts should me made to avoid discrimination if possible, such as offering a service in a different way. This has been the approach taken by much of the refuge and VAWG sector, who are in most cases trans inclusive but reserve the right to invoke the exemption in some cases. And this has pretty much worked for years, but until a case comes before the courts then the legality or otherwise of discrimination relating to trans people and single sex spaces is really a bit unknown - hence the endless arguments. But gender recognition certificates are not even mentioned in the Equality Act and have little bearing on who can access single sex spaces, although they may influence other areas - such as whether you should say you are a man or a woman in the census, but again this is all untested by law.

Where statute law and common law is silent, no crime is committed. There is no prohibition on people of one sex being in the space of another's unless further facts intervene. Same spies to public nudity.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Unfortunately I think you probably are right and this whole thread will get us nowhere.

As for what people say on this thread, I think it is more than reasonable to talk about what others may think, even those not on urban at all. Otherwise we would never get anywhere at all on any subject.

Some people - most people actually - have already wrapped their heads around this stuff. Some people don't want to and aren't going to.

 

[belboid]

Cba I read the last couple of pages, but isn’t it refreshing to have a conversation about trans rights without just pointlessly going over exactly the same ground again, with no false equivalences or wholly circular arguments?

ohh...

 

[Knotted]

You're incredibly disingenuous. You've completely misunderstood the 'Gender Critical' position, and used a silly name for people with that position, and then insisted that in fact they don't have a position, and then got cross because people aren't being kind enough.

Just remind you it was Co-op who introduced the whole non-debate about whether sex is real in the OP. The stupid troll questions worked, and we've six or seven (I believe) cis men lecturing each other about biology. Well done all.

 

[Athos]

The killer question is: "If a person with male genitalia and a GRC is using a women's changing room, what are your rights over hers?"

It would only be lawful to exclude a trans woman if that was an objectively reasonable and proportionate response. Which I'd imagine would be a very exceptional case, since trans women have been using those spaces for years with no issues. I think the law is in the right place in this.

 

[Athos]

I’d rather we got rid of bigots

I'd prefer we got rid of the threat to women (cis and trans) of male violence, AND bigots.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is the problem. Who are the bigots? Is Keira Bell a bigot? Anyone going to go there? Because by the logic of some here, she is.

 

[SpackleFrog]

This is the problem. Who are the bigots? Is Keira Bell a bigot? Anyone going to go there? Because by the logic of some here, she is.

Yes, as has been pointed out.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, as has been pointed out.

See I think that is a shameful thing to say. Really, really shameful.

 

[iveivan]

From this thread, I see bigots like to follow a scattergun approach to discriminate against trans people and attack them from all sides

 

[hitmouse]

Except it promotes denying legal rights to a group of protected persons. Equivalent doing it to ethnic minorities.

Oh yeah, I certainly wasn't trying to defend the stuff in the OP, just to point out how unhelpful the standard Co-op wanted to measure it by was.

 

[two sheds]

Well after several years of discussing this you still understand it completely wrongly.

The legal position is that anyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means has undergone, is undergoing or is intended to undergo gender transition is protected under the Equality Act and in most cases can use spaces inline with their gender. This has been the case since 1999 and these rights were strengthened in the 2010 Equality Act. Trans people have been self-IDing into single sex spaces for decades.

This protection comes with exemptions, which apply to all strands of the Equality Act which is that discrimination is permitted if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or in the case of employment if it is a reasonable requirement for the role - so a white actor could not sue if they were refused an audition to play Malcolm X for example. These are what the gender critical movement calls sex based rights, although really the rights given in the Equality Act are that you should not to be discriminated against due to sex (or gender reassignment, race, sexuality etc) except in very limited circumstances. A gender recoginition certificate does not protect you from these exemptions, neither does it grant you special rights - although it does provide protection in your legal (aquired) sex - so a trans woman with a GRC is legally a woman and could join a class action sex discrimination case against her employer over equal pay for example.

The law is a bit of a bodge in this area and the main problem is that far from trans people attempting to invade women's spaces there is virtually no case law which establishes what would be a proportionate and legitimate reason for discrimination and none which has reached a higher court. It is near certain that discriminating against trans people in toilets or enclosed changing room provision is probably illegal, and it is probably legal to discriminate against trans women in the provision of single sex services for sexual violence for example. But this should only be done on a case by case basis, as opposed to a blanket policy, and efforts should me made to avoid discrimination if possible, such as offering a service in a different way. This has been the approach taken by much of the refuge and VAWG sector, who are in most cases trans inclusive but reserve the right to invoke the exemption in some cases. And this has pretty much worked for years, but until a case comes before the courts then the legality or otherwise of discrimination relating to trans people and single sex spaces is really a bit unknown - hence the endless arguments. But gender recognition certificates are not even mentioned in the Equality Act and have little bearing on who can access single sex spaces, although they may influence other areas - such as whether you should say you are a man or a woman in the census, but again this is all untested by law.

That's really clear and helpful, thanks

 

[smokedout]

See I think that is a shameful thing to say. Really, really shameful.

Why? Do her circumstances give her a free pass or something? She vocally supported Posie Parker who was whipping up MAGA type men 'who carry' to start using women's toilets, she is opposed to all trans health care not just treatment for minors and she chose a legal team, and expert witnesses from the Christian conservative right. She regular posts transphobic misinformation and she supports transphobic groups who oppose all existing trans rights. I'm sorry she made a mistake, and let's not forget the vast amount of treatment she had was when she was an adult, I fully support detransitioners and removing the stigma around detransition, but that doesn't mean she should now be immune from any and all criticism no matter what her opinions.

 

[Knotted]

See I think that is a shameful thing to say. Really, really shameful.

She's part of that millieu, there's a dozen tell tale signs in her statement. Co-op is also. On this thread we've learnt about "gender critical feminists" defending trans conversion therapy. That's therapy that reinforces gender stereotypes a part from anything, there's nothing gender critical or feminist about that. I don't think labels are going to help, but that's the sort of thing we're looking at. Conversion therapy.

 

[Knotted]

Sorry mixed up Keira Bell with Vicky Hubble in the OP. I don't know enough about Bell to comment.

 

[Border Reiver]

It would only be lawful to exclude a trans woman if that was an objectively reasonable and proportionate response. Which I'd imagine would be a very exceptional case, since trans women have been using those spaces for years with no issues. I think the law is in the right place in this.

That is why it is a killer question. It exhibits intention to discriminate against people in a prot free class. Which gets you banned from social platforms.

 

[Border Reiver]

This is the problem. Who are the bigots? Is Keira Bell a bigot? Anyone going to go there? Because by the logic of some here, she is.

Bigot is a term to be avoided if debate is to remain rational.

 

[Athos]

That is why it is a killer question. It exhibits intention to discriminate against people in a prot free class. Which gets you banned from social platforms.

I think that's a overly simplistic. I happen to feel the law is in broadly the right place when it comes to balancing the rights of females and trans people, but there are plenty of people who'd like to see it move in one direction or another - the removal versus the strengthening of the sex-based excemptions. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're all bigots (though some are), and suspect that kicking them all off Twitter just polarises the issue more, even driving people into the arms of extremists.

 

[co-op]

On this thread we've learnt about "gender critical feminists" defending trans conversion therapy. That's therapy that reinforces gender stereotypes a part from anything

Gender critical pov is never in favour of either conversion therapy nor gender stereotyping, you seem really confused on this point.

There has been an argument about whether or not permitting any discussion with young people presenting as trans except "affirmation" counts as conversion therapy - TRAs seem to say it does. And in taking this line it is them who are "reinforcing gender stereotypes" because they are often going to be transing young gay people into the opposite sex, thereby rendering them heterosexual. That looks to me more like gay conversion, albeit it isn't done with "therapy" but with hormones and surgery.

 

[Athos]

There has been an argument about whether or not permitting any discussion with young people presenting as trans except "affirmation" counts as conversion therapy - TRAs seem to say it does.

The thing is, your position is weakened by having previously claimed that is Stonewall's position, then failing to back it up.

 

[Border Reiver]

I think that's a overly simplistic. I happen to feel the law is in broadly the right place when it comes to balancing the rights of females and trans people, but there are plenty of people who'd like to see it move in one direction or another - the removal versus the strengthening of the sex-based excemptions. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're all bigots (though some are), and suspect that kicking them all off Twitter just polarises the issue more, even driving people into the arms of extremists.

I have not used the term 'bigot'.

The question determines who is unwilling to respect the legal rights of trans-women.

 

[Athos]

I have not used the term 'bigot'.

The question determines who is unwilling to respect the legal rights of trans-women.

Does it though? Many people are willing respect the law at any given time, but lobby for the law to be changed.

 

[Border Reiver]

Does it though? Many people are willing respect what the law currently says, but lobby for the law to be changed.

That is their right. They probably think that many of my views differ from theirs in an objectionable way. Lobbying for a law change is not a problem.

 

[Santino]

Just remind you it was Co-op who introduced the whole non-debate about whether sex is real in the OP. The stupid troll questions worked, and we've six or seven (I believe) cis men lecturing each other about biology. Well done all.

He started it, Miss!