Correction: this sentence is confusing or inaccurate:
“ This view of Paisley’s goes beyond self ID laws, which would allow any male with a gender recognition certificate to use the women’s changing facilities”
Did you mean “allow any male *without* a GRC to use the womens changing facilities”? In which case that literally IS what self-ID laws say, it isnt “going beyond” them.
So perhaps “This view of Paisley’s *supports* self ID laws, which would allow any male *without* a gender recognition certificate to use the women’s changing facilities” ??
Yes - thank you - it should read "with or without" - in fact, it's redundant - it should just read "any male" maybe. I am always grateful to have mistakes pointed out. x
It’s not redundant becaus people still think there is some sort of criteria for identifying as female. It is important to keep explaining that there is no criteria whatsoever :)
Correction: this sentence is confusing or inaccurate:
“ This view of Paisley’s goes beyond self ID laws, which would allow any male with a gender recognition certificate to use the women’s changing facilities”
Did you mean “allow any male *without* a GRC to use the womens changing facilities”? In which case that literally IS what self-ID laws say, it isnt “going beyond” them.
So perhaps “This view of Paisley’s *supports* self ID laws, which would allow any male *without* a gender recognition certificate to use the women’s changing facilities” ??
Yes - thank you - it should read "with or without" - in fact, it's redundant - it should just read "any male" maybe. I am always grateful to have mistakes pointed out. x
It’s not redundant becaus people still think there is some sort of criteria for identifying as female. It is important to keep explaining that there is no criteria whatsoever :)