Their identity formally recognised
The Guardian on changing the Equality Act:
A significant change to the 2010 Equality Act is being pursued by the government, which would redefine “sex” to refer specifically to a person’s sex at birth. That would be designed to make it legal for those who are transgender to be banned from single-sex spaces and events, such as book groups and hospital wards.
Book groups? Is it currently illegal to have all-women book groups? Really?
Currently, trans people can have their identity formally recognised by applying for a gender recognition certificate.
What does that mean? What does “their identity” mean? Identity isn’t a synonym for sex. This issue is such a mess of lies and obfuscation that it becomes necessary to re-write everything that’s said about it, because it’s always so misleading and confused.
This affirms their gender change in law, allowing them to update their birth or adoption certificate and have their gender recognised on a marriage or death certificate.
In other words they have state permission to falsify their sex on official documents.
That process is not expected to change, but the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, wants to make a clearer distinction in law between those who are born a particular sex and those who transition or identify as a gender different from their birth one.
Between the normies and the magic people.
Those who advocate for sex-based rights say it would affirm hard-fought protections for those who are born biologically female. But the impact on trans people would probably be detrimental.
Only if you think they absolutely have to be able to say they are what they are not at all times and in all situations. If you think the detriment to billions of women is far less important than the notional detriment to a tiny number of trans people, you’re delusional.
Critics of changing the Equality Act also say trans people would feel they were being targeted, with the potential for real-world hostility towards them rising.
No, you know what’s doing that? All this deranged over-reach. Telling women to shut up and fuck off and kiss the ring. Bullying women while treating men who claim to be women like darling little kittens. Taking women’s rights away and giving them to men. That kind of thing.
If there is a single gender stereotype that holds true, it is that women are the caring and nurturing sex and that a Matriarchy would be a far calmer and more peaceful world.
I am in awe of how women are fighting back against the attacks on their human rights, and how they are doing it with meetings, discussions, and peaceful protests. Their courage to stand up in public and advocate for their rights, without denying the human rights of anyone else, is the template all movements for social change should be using.
On the other hand, we have the fake women who perfectly fit the stereotype of the strong, silent*, and violent man whose response to even a perceived threat to his status and privilege are fists and boots.
*Silent in small numbers, shouty as fuck in large groups.
There are plenty of serious literary discussion groups that regularly meet in womens’ dunnies, lavatories, washrooms, spaces, call-them-what-you-will, etc, that people born male who wish they had been born female will want to join. It seems hardly fair to exclude them just for the fact that beneath their female clothing they have male genitalia a-dangling away.
Nor is it fair to the other members of these aforesaid serious discussion groups that they miss out on the contributions to the discussions of the aforesaid blokes who beneath their female clothing have male genitalia a-dangling away. On the face of it, I’d say it’s lose, lose, lose all round; particularly if we also count the blokes in normal mens’ clothing who wander into the womens’ dunnies, lavatories, washrooms, spaces, call-them-what-you-will by genuine mistake (IT CAN HAPPEN!) and want to join the literary discussion group they fin already in place and going strong in there. Think of the cost to society at large from their social deprivation.(!!)
Which brings me to hospital wards. It is a well-known fact that many serious surgical procedures take place in the aforesaid womens’ dunnies, lavatories, washrooms, spaces, call-them-what-you-will, etc, due to financial constraints experienced by normal hospitals in these stringent times. Heart transplants, brain transplants, etc, etc, etc.
In short, the hidden costs to society will be enormous.
Maybe they could just stop handing out GRCs altogether. Perhaps grandfather (as it were) those who already have them, but stop issuinfg new ones. They’re as binding on reality as one that declares the bearer to be exempt from gravity.
Isn’t that backwards? If you think the detriment to a tiny group of “trans” people is far more important than the detriment to billions of women (and girls), then you would be delusional.
Yes; fixed. Yesterday seemed to be typo day for me.
“make a clearer distinction in law between those who are born a particular sex and those who transition or identify as a gender different from their birth one.”
note the focus pull from “sex” to “gender” within one sentence.
surely therein lies the crux of the biscuit?
“particular sex”?