Advanced search

Gender ID Bill-bad for trans too?

(37 Posts)
TheEgregiousPeach Thu 02-Nov-17 12:18:42

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I was having a chat with a friend who is involved professionally in the area of gender (realise this is vague but don't want to be too specific).

We were talking about GID Bill and my concerns for women only spaces and she pointed out something that I hadn't thought of. By de-medicalising the process of officially changing one's gender and negating need for gender dysphoria diagnosis, it could actually make it harder for people to access medical interventions like hormones and gender reassignment surgery.
Her theory being, if we dispense with the view that it is a disorder then we don't need to provide treatment.
Her view is that in the long run it will create a lot more barriers for trans people accessing such treatment on the NHS as they would have to try and prove they really needed it; as after all nothing would be stopping them filling in a form and changing gender officially and living as their target gender.

It got me thinking. Are transactivists aware of this? that they are supporting something that could actually restrict them further? or is my friend wrong?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Thu 02-Nov-17 12:25:44

Your friend is not wrong. It will also (and is already) further prevent people from having any sort of counseling or mental health treatment related to their dysphoria.

A cynic might say that this is why the government is all for it, it would bean excellent cost cutting exercise.

TheEgregiousPeach Thu 02-Nov-17 12:34:10

Hmm, yes I thought money saving measures would come into it.
So TRA's kicking off in support of this are essentially turkeys voting for Christmas. You'd think they'd see that glaring hole in their argument but then they don't seem too open to measured debate.

differenteverytime Thu 02-Nov-17 12:54:57

On the one hand an affirmation-only model is developing, where parents and children are encouraged to consider puberty blockers. Statistically 100% of users of puberty blockers have progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment as adults.

On the other hand, Theresa May wants to 'streamline' and 'demedicalise' the process of legally changing one's sex. Literally a form and it's done.

How does that add up? The only thing I can think of is that those who are truly desperate for treatment (counselling or physical) will resort to the private sector. This may well include parents of children who have been told their child will kill themselves if they don't have physical treatment. Meanwhile, those who don't mind their bodies remaining as they are will find the process much simpler.

In other words, a voyeur who fancies stripping off and having a good look in the women's changing rooms, or a convicted rapist who pleads trans to be moved into a women's prison, will be better served by these changes than a vulnerable person of the group who in the past was called 'transsexual', who needs counselling and may be desperate for hormones and surgery.

differenteverytime Thu 02-Nov-17 12:57:00

Of all the myriad groups now gathered under the ever-expanding trans umbrella, the only group who will actually benefit from this is the lady dick brigade.

Stopmakingsense Thu 02-Nov-17 14:06:45

However - speaking as a parent of a trans-identifying autistic young adult - I am conflicted by the proposed legislation. If she can survive a few more years without hormones or surgery, I know she will be OK, and won't ultimately do it. I am hoping the whole toxic edifice will collapse by then (thanks in no small part to fab women on here). If being able to self-identify is a means of living her life using whatever pronouns she wants in the meantime, without having to prove anything more, then I am glad of that. That is an entirely selfish point of view, know.

HornyTortoise Thu 02-Nov-17 14:13:11

Her theory being, if we dispense with the view that it is a disorder then we don't need to provide treatment.

I have thought of this before, when pondering why the Tories would be all for this bill. I can't figure out if its just because they hate women, because they wish to 'expand their membership' so to speak by reaching liberals also...or because they want to cut the NHS bill even more, which this would certainly do as they really could refuse to give out hormones and such as 'transition' is not needed at all surely...assuming the bill goes through

Possibly all 3.

It will definitely negatively impact transsexual people.

nauticant Thu 02-Nov-17 14:16:11

differenteverytime raises an important point. Not all trans people are equal. Different communities sit under the trans umbrella and they are not all fey 16 year old boys/crop-haired sensibly clad 16 year old girls who wouldn't hurt a fly. There are some dodgy groups in the world of trans who wouldn't hesitate for a second in throwing other groups of trans people under the bus.

nauticant Thu 02-Nov-17 14:21:56

It might help your understanding OP if you google the term truscum, both its meaning and as it is used by trans rights activists. You might want to swerve around SJWiki.

This type of googling might not be compatible with your employer's Internet use policy.

differenteverytime Thu 02-Nov-17 14:27:09

Stopmakingsense, I am in the same position as you, except my daughter is 15 flowers.

Datun Thu 02-Nov-17 14:48:37

There is no way transactivists have not thought this through to the nth degree.

Self identification benefit AGP individuals only. And that is who is driving it.

In terms of accessing treatment, which a lot of them will still want, I’ve been thinking about it.

The whole legal issue is around the terms gender and transgender. Not gender dysphoria.

So I can see a situation where they will absolutely get treatment if they present as having gender dysphoria. But legally, can be perfectly legitimate transgender without any gatekeeping.

I’m gender dysphoric, I need feminisation hormones. Okay, here you are.

Meanwhile, I’m instantly transgender every time I need validation and/or want access to the ladies.

Datun Thu 02-Nov-17 15:05:12

What I mean is, the elimination of criteria means you don’t have to have gender dysphoria to be trans. It doesn’t say that gender dysphoria doesn’t exist.

It’s a win/win for men who want the hormones, but don’t have the illness, just a fetish. But can pretend to have the illness to get the hormones. They don’t have to live as a woman for two years, or anything.

Historically men with autogynephilia were denied treatment. But they got round it, by pretending they had gender dysphoria. (tips and tricks on how to deceive your therapist were rife online). But they still weren’t considered transgender unless they went through the two year process. Which really doesn’t work for someone who wants to be Susie on a Saturday night, but Mark in accounts again on Monday morning.

This way they get to have their cake and eat it too.

Datun Thu 02-Nov-17 15:06:33

Course, I could be wrong. But one thing I do know, transactivists are pushing this so they really, really want it.

TheEgregiousPeach Thu 02-Nov-17 15:54:37

The point my friend was making though is that the existence of gender dysphoria as a psychological disorder could be eliminated.

We were thinking of the move towards de-pathologising gender dysphoria, the ramifications of which are huge. If it is removed from the DSM-5 ( a contentious issue at present) then we could end up in a position where treatment is considered unnecessary. Rather like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which now doesn't 'exist', we have to talk about 'narcissistic traits' ( we're both psychologists by the way, but she works more with gender issues).

This is clearly not helpful to gender dysphoric people and leaves them in a horribly vulnerable position unable to access help.
It seems like this bill will only support certain groups of trans people and as pp said throws others under the bus. Not much equality then.
Off to google truscum

Datun Thu 02-Nov-17 15:58:03

Transactivists , I don’t think want gender dysphoria removed, do they? Just for it not to be a condition of transgender.

DJBaggySmalls Thu 02-Nov-17 16:02:51

TheEgregiousPeach Both you and Datun are right IMO.

The Tories want to dismantle and privatize healthcare. Thats their agenda. 'Non essential' healthcare wont be covered by the lowest rate of care. AGP's are behind this move for their own self interests.
Actual transsexual people will suffer as a result.

TheEgregiousPeach Thu 02-Nov-17 16:08:00

I have heard arguments for it to be removed as they view being non-traditionally gendered not as a medical disorder but as a 'social phenomenon'. They argue that it is akin to homosexuality- once viewed as a psychiatric disorder and in the DSM, but removed (fully) in the 80's.

Difference being, you don't need a specific medical pathway to support you in your sexual orientation whereas with gender you may.

TheEgregiousPeach Thu 02-Nov-17 16:10:23

Sorry, that should read ' I have heard arguments from trans rights supporters for it be removed'.

Stopmakingsense Thu 02-Nov-17 16:13:22

Hello different - we are part of the same growing community of bewildered parents! flowers to you too!

Gender dysphoria may soon be re-named "gender incongruence"?? And the TRA's aim is that there should be no gatekeeping by the medical profession, by which time any treatment is indeed cosmetic surgery.

So if you are poor and transsexual then that could be a problem for them, although there is always the threat of suicide card you can play. An anaesthetist I know says she has assisted in NHS operations to reduce women's labia in size - funded because it is "causing significant distress" (presumably to her sexual partner), so not cosmetic.

Betty184 Sat 04-Nov-17 12:27:57

Magdalen Berns has covered this point in her latest video:

WhereYouLeftIt Sat 04-Nov-17 18:55:05

Theresa May is quoted on PinkNews as saying “We’ve set out plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act, streamlining and de-medicalising the process for changing gender, because being trans is not an illness and it shouldn’t be treated as such.”

My very first though was that for May, demedicalising means that the NHS would no longer be providing hormones or surgery (maybe even counselling?) because it's 'not an illness and it shouldn’t be treated as such'; and so not the NHS's responsibility.

Yes, I do think this is bad for those with dysphoria. And yes, I don't think the transactivists are aware of just how pyrrhic their 'victory' will turn out to be.

HornyTortoise Sat 04-Nov-17 19:07:07

And yes, I don't think the transactivists are aware of just how pyrrhic their 'victory' will turn out to be.

I don't think activists care about this. I think they are well aware that the result may well be no treatment for dysphoria people on the NHS. I think they do not care, as better treatment for transfolk is not the ultimate goal. TAs consider those with dysphoria to be 'truscum' anyway and on a level, if not worse than, 'terfs'.

I am aware this is a bit conspiracy theory like.

I don't think its a coincidence that the majhority of TAs are the 'female penis' types. Or just flat out blokes screaming that they are women.

Datun Sat 04-Nov-17 19:36:04

Yes, I do think this is bad for those with dysphoria. And yes, I don't think the transactivists are aware of just how pyrrhic their 'victory' will turn out to be.

Transactivists have been pushing for this and they’re smart, organised and know full well what they’re doing.

Gender dysphoria will remain treatable.

But being trans is not an illness. Stigma removed.

So fetishist cross dressers, who are considered trans, can be legally women, with no criteria or gatekeeping. Hello ladies bathrooms.

Should they want any feminising treatment, breasts, etc, they can say they have gender dysphoria and get it. Bingo.


nauticant Sat 04-Nov-17 20:11:56

I don't think activists care about this.

In my view the one thing that TRAs would put above everything else is to blur as much as possible as many boundaries in the sex and gender domains as they can. The freedom this will provide is for those with sufficient clout to do just what the fuck they want.

nauticant Sat 04-Nov-17 20:21:25

Actually, I'm now going to do my regular dog-with-a-bone. The push to change everything in the sex and gender domains has some things in common with Brexit. One might think "but what if Brexit causes economic damage and instability, why would anyone push for that?"

Simple. The ones pushing for it have the influence/resources to manipulate situations and they're confident that if many things turn to shit, they'll be able to use their clout to go on a massive land grab.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: