This coming week sees the deadline for the consultation on reforming the GRA. The consultation in itself is a challenge because it’s using the heavily flawed GRA 2004 as a starting point. The battle for self-id is an ugly one, but to be honest, it’s easy to see how we arrived at this point when you learn that genital surgery is not a requirement for the current GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate). Swiped straight from the gov.uk website, it says you can get a GRC if:
- you’re 18 or over
- you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria (discomfort with your birth gender) – this is also called gender identity disorder or transsexualism
- you’ve lived in your acquired gender for at least 2 years
- you intend to live in your acquired gender for the rest of your life
The whole male/female thing is a way to separate the girls from the boys. The PRIMARY reason for doing this is because of the stark biological difference between the two. The biological differences are at least part of the reason there are significant protections in place for females – it’s to keep us safe. Sure, dignity plays its part too, but the bottom line is males have anatomy which can be used a weapon to harm females.
There are places where women have a right to request a female over a male. The same goes for female-only areas such as public bathrooms, hospitals wards, refuges, prisons, and sport have an exemption clause. However, this is not exactly true and the narrative says there has to be justifiable reasons for refusing access to someone with a GRC and it is generally done on a case-by-case basis. I have noted the balance is very much skewed towards the direction of the transwoman, or man if you like. So, exclusion has to be justified and safety is most definitely not paramount. There is currently no standard practice for refusing to allow anyone with a history of violence or sex offences against women and children which automatically bars a male from entering a safe space ‘as a woman’. So, whilst many are up in understandable arms about the threat which is self-id – we’ve already got a major problem where the emotional welfare of men is being prioritised over the physical safety of females. If safeguarding was a priority, those transwomen would be obligated to provide proof they were deemed safe to enter. I am aware there is much sensitivity around the issue of ‘proving identity’, but if we’re going to acknowledge safety as the priority, and not feelings, then there has to be a mechanism in place which ensures this is possible. As it stands, women have little chance to defend themselves against those already abusing the system under current legislation. If legislation were to be relaxed, it is highly likely to open the floodgates to those who are harbouring ill-intent towards women. I actually don’t care what a man wants to think he is – if he has a cock I don’t want him anywhere near the ladies, nor in refuges, nor in female prisons.
The Gender Binary Shite
One aspect of the consultation concerns the legal allocation of rights to people who identify as non-binary; let’s be honest, this IS shite. What the fuck is a non-binary and non-gender? Are these people born without any sex organs or chromosomes? Do they come from another planet? These people don’t need validation, they need therapy. Okay, I’ll humour the non-gendered, do these people REALLY want special status for defying a stereotype? A certificate of preferential treatment for not conforming to the status quo? Apart from anything else, it’s humanly impossible to be non-gendered or non-binary. I can only assume they’re all are sat in a plastic vacuum packed bubble wearing skorts. But hang on a minute, I think they’re designed for females…what are these people wearing? Who does the hoovering? Does anyone cook or is everything ordered to take-away? Traditional roles, for the most part, are stereotypical. Most ‘roles’ played in the daily grind are assigned a gender – humans are not. Humans have a clear and definite sex – gender is the bullshit term created to categorise roles and expected behaviours. If you’re sticking ‘gender’ in your identity, please don’t try to tell me you’re not endorsing a regressive concept. Irony? That’ll be the bit where they’re all claiming to be progressive thinkers and doers.
The Birth Certificate
A birth certificate is a record of a true fact, and as its name suggests, it is a certificate of fact regarding the birth of an individual person. The fact a person can change the gender on their birth certificate does not sit comfortably with me. Again, the problem is here a refusal to acknowledge the trans status and instead forces the person into one of two boxes…but to allow the change of a birth certificate is giving the support of a blatant lie. The government should never have been complicit in such an obvious deception. Men, women and trans people should each have a fundamental right to be protected from abuse and discrimination but it’s hardly appropriate to lie on an offical document. The point here is that it’s only necessary to supply the bc when applying for other forms of id such as a passport. If you’re going to insist on changing the sex markers on documents, it’s really the passport and driving license which need attention. As someone who is trying to see the bigger picture, I have to ask why it isn’t okay to list someone as a trans woman or trans man? We can’t change biological sex and there is no real justification for the law pretending we can. Many post-op transsexuals are perfectly comfortable with the trans prefix…so why isn’t the government?
The Pronoun Police
Clamouring for the coat-tails of attention are demands for an individual to be referred to as their chosen gender, or non-gender as the case may be. Accusations of bigotry and hate are sure to follow if you refer to someone as a him because he looks like a male (because he is a male). And no, it’s not a reasonable excuse to say you didn’t know – you’re supposed to anticipate the correct chosen gender for each and every human you come across. You know, like – magically. It’s infantilism at its absolute finest. Also in human existence are those who claim one should never assume and always ask. People have already been booted off Twitter with a lifetime ban, banned from Facebook, and even reported to the police (yes, seriously) for calling cross-dressers and fetishists, men. I state it this way deliberately because the post-op transsexuals and trans women have no problem accepting they are biologically male. The ones protesting outrage at being ‘misgendered’ are, ironically, generally still in possession of a penis. The problem I have is the concept of gender reinforces regressive stereotypes. Woman and female are biological realities, not a frock to don because you feel inadequate as a feminised male. One of the problems with self-id is that it allows a male to stake a claim in womanhood based on their own personalised view of what it is to be a woman. Are we really saying that one becomes a woman through clothing, wigs, make-up, and pronouns? Sounds a tad superficial to me.
Right to Privacy
How far does an individuals right to privacy extend? Is it ever okay to lie about something which may be essential to a person receiving life-saving treatment or some other important assistance? What if a male-bodied person demands a female police officer do his cavity search? Is this appropriate? What about a male-at-birth-rapist being sent to female prison – he’s demanding to be called Monica and prances around in a dress, but he’s also still in full command of his tackle? He’s got eight years of a ten-year sentence left and his ‘condition’ has absolutely nothing to do with wanting access to women so he can rape them too. Or maybe he’s a convicted paedophile and wants to be called Karen… I think it’s perfectly reasonable to not have to explain life-story to employers, although if safeguarding is in place I think there has to be some expectation of an intrusion into the past. Anyone who works with children and other vulnerable humans are subject to a background check, and they are also expected to provide previous names. Trans people cannot justifiably withhold this information on the grounds of privacy, surely? Uncomfortable feelings of a grown adult versus the physical safety of a vulnerable member of society?
Stonewall et al…
The most prominent LGBT charity is fully supportive of reforming the GRA to allow for self-id. Whether individuals are personally affected or not, to insist that men can become women and women can become men without so much as a shred of evidence – they’re saying that lesbians should accept males can be as much of a lesbian as themselves. I have witnessed the abuse of lesbians online for myself – being called transphobe, bigot, TERF (and yes, it is a fucking slur) and god only knows what else. Lesbians have been told to suck ladydick, pretend it’s a clit on a stick – I’ve seen enough to fill a book, never mind a blog post. There are transsexuals who have openly supported and defended lesbians as a protected class, and they too have been subjected to abuse for doing so. Pink News, a prominent LGBT newspaper, a.k.a Penis News to those familiar with its content – has regularly fed into the current trans-narrative and demonised lesbians and transsexuals who have refused to stay silent on the clear conflict of interest that self-id presents. The irony in all of this is the majority of people being protected by the ‘acceptance without exception’ policy touted by Stonewall and Pink News are actually white heterosexual males. Yeah….you can all laugh loudly now.
The Stance of Political Parties
Urgh, where do I start? Do I even bother? The Labour party is losing members due to its unconditional support of self-id. It has already let fully intact males onto all female shortlists and its representatives can be found chanting the trans women are women mantra. Many of us are now feeling politically homeless. There was a recent case involving a Student Officer for the NUS advocating for self-id and in a position to influence policy at the uni; he’d been caught with his pants down, penis out, blogging about his fascination with flashing. Many MP’s on all sides are offering unconditional support to self-id and more disturbingly, the medicalising of kids with gender dysphoria (more on that another time). The Green Party were mocked and criticised for their use of the term non-men to describe women. The Green Party is currently investigating how the father of a high-profile member was allowed to stand as his election agent after he had been arrested and charged with the rape and torture of a ten-year-old girl. Disturbingly, the father and son were both influential in helping to develop the party’s stance on self-id. It only came to light after he was sentenced to twenty years in prison; and even after the event, rather than apologise they defended the adult son. It was only after a shit-load of effort from members of the public they suspended him pending further investigation. Haven’t got anything from the Conservatives off the top of my head but I’m sure it’ll be out there. Oh, hang on, the woman pushing for self-id and leading the consultation is Penny Mordaunt – a conservative who has stated: “Trans women are women, that is the starting point”. A recent article suggests MP’s are afraid to speak openly on the subject and fear reprisals. Great; we have a major safeguarding issue and they’re acting like a bunch of cowards.
A Painful Reality
Every time, and I mean EVERY time I write something about anything connected to the trans debate, I am sidetracked into the more absurd aspects which have little to do with the core issue. It is a painful reality that the voice of the tiny minority of genuine dysphoria sufferers who choose to medically transition are being drowned out by the post-modernist bullshit of identity politics. The obsession to win the victimhood olympics has created a dialogue which doesn’t recognise the genuinely oppressed as even significant enough to be mentioned in the conversation. Those currently winning are straight white males – those same people who are said to be privileged above all others. The losers are women in general, children, and males who don’t conform to the popular male narrative of the time. A true head-fuck if ever there was one.
A Bastardisation of Language
No man should ever have a legal right to claim he is a woman. A man may feel he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, but this does not make the statement true. Women are not born in men’s bodies. This is no different than forcing people to believe woman was created after God removed a rib from Adam. Allow a man to live as a woman? Absolutely. But we’ve got a major problem in society if we think we have to legislate that a bloke can wear a dress if he feels like it – most especially if he has to pretend he’s a woman to do so. The majority (if not all) of trans-activists have no intention of having hormones or surgery to alleviate gender dysphoria. Some are no more than confused about how to present themselves to wider society, some are simply rebelling against conformity, some are hardcore fetishists, and some are so horrendously fucking misogynistic it beggars belief they’re able to think they can hide it just by slapping on a bit of lippy. Also hailing the transwomen are women mantra are women themselves, but then women have always been capable of enabling abusers. The current push to remove words such as transsexual appears to be an attempt to diminish the voice of the few who were the reason for the GRA in the first place. Transsexuals are generally the ones speaking out against self-id and they’re usually the ones who have had treatment for dysphoria. The Trans umbrella now has to encompass so many people it no longer just offers protection to those who were (or are) genuinely dysphoric. In actual fact, many transsexuals are raising concern about losing protection if self-id were to become law because they know it’s going to be abused (it already is even now) and they don’t want to be associated with predatory males.
Push to Repeal the GRA
A final note on the current legalities has to include an expression of my desire to see the GRA abandoned/abolished/repealed. This piece of legislation was created by cowards to avoid dealing with the issue of gay marriage. Whilst fully understanding the necessity for transsexuals to have protection against discrimination, there has been a clear conflation of the words sex and gender, and anything imposing on the rights of women can not ever be given as a right to transsexuals who were born male. Access to female-only spaces can only be given as a privilege, and there should be far stricter controls on who can belong to that group of privileged males – the very least of which should be full genital surgery and police background checks. You can’t widen the umbrella of what it is to be trans and then expect the general public to accept it without question. What does need to be widened is our concept of how men and women can express their personalities without being shamed. But seriously, how the fuck did they manage to pass a law which CLEARLY infringes on female rights?