Yogyakarta principles(80 Posts)
At the Bristol meeting Shelia Jeffreys refers to these principles which are behind the worldwide drive to include cross dressing males in the legal definition of female. I haven't read them all yet, it is long, but I thought it may be of interest.
I will be watching this thread with interest. They were mentioned a lot in the recent Scottish GRA consultation. I had never heard of them but I got the impression that it was an internationally agreed set of principles that every country was involved in, kind of like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in fact I got the impression it was pretty much an official addendum to that).
What Sheila Jeffries said, has made me doubt that and I am hoping some knowledgeable MNer will come on with some more background (there's always a knowledgeable MNer )
Thank you for posting this, I meant to get around to looking this up.
I was thinking of starting a thread on this after listening to Sheila. I've had a brief look at the website but not read fully as yet.
I'm interested to hear from posters who have more knowledge.
The Yogyakarta Principles
In 2006, in response to well-documented patterns of abuse, a distinguished group of international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to outline a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. The result was the Yogyakarta Principles: a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.
A time is going to come where common sense is against the law.
Jenn Smith (a self confessed man I follow and tweet with) is organising a day of action in Canada on Monday.
I ask you to stand beside me on Monday April 23 at 11am PST outside the BC Legislature in Victoria BC to send a message to government that we will not submit anymore for the trampling of women's rights & the state brainwashing and drugging of our children
Tweet your support for Jenn, it sounds scary over there.
Well done to Jenn.
It's a really weird situation we are in where men (still legally male) are inserting themselves into the sex category of female and many of the older transsexuals (legally women for decades) are coming back 'out' as males in response.
you can hear Sheila Jeffries here as the meeting was recorded
I heard sheila in the meeting live feed and want to read up on this too.
And then we need a set of principles for immutable sex. Watertight.
That is my goal.
Legal protections for my sex.
Distinction between sex and genderblahfeelz
Our friend Stephen Whittle helped to draft them:
I got an invitation and could not believe it because nobody ever asked us anything. As trans activists, one of the reasons that we set up the separate trans organisation in the UK “Press for Change”, which I was part of, was because our voice didn't exist otherwise. I was involved in the development of Transgender Europe (TGEU) and in 2007 I became president of WPATH, the first non medical person and first trans person to have that position. I suspect I got invited because Robert Wintermute was one of the experts and he was very much engaged with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).
My actual role ended up being the one making sure that there was trans inclusivity, that there was within the work an understanding of the complexity of trans identities and trans lives and that we moved beyond a binary gender notion. The other thing that was particularly important for me, partly because of our own family history – my partner had immense difficulties getting the right to donor insemination –because she lived with me.
Who gave this particular group of experts the authority to make a worldwide declaration?
I've just had a quick read and I have no legal background maybe somebody could help me with these questions because I am trying to figure out what it's actually saying and how this could be interpreted by law.
PRINCIPLE 30 The Right to State Protection
Take appropriate and effective measures to eradicate all forms of violence, discrimination and other harm, including any advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence on grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics, whether by public or private actors
With people saying misgendering is literal violence does this make such things a crime? What's incitement to discrimination? Saying that women refuges shouldn't admit males for instance, could that be classed as incitement to discrimination?
Ensure sensitivity training of judicial and law enforcement officers and other public officials on issues relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics;
Waves at mermaids
PRINCIPLE 31 The Right to Legal Recognition p9
"Everyone has the right to change gendered information in such documents while gendered information is included in them."
iii. Ensure that no eligibility criteria, such as medical or psychological interventions, a psycho-medical diagnosis, minimum or maximum age, economic status, health, marital or parental status, or any other third party opinion, shall be a prerequisite to change one’s name, legal sex or gender;
Is this saying that self-ID is a right and you don't need a dysphoria diagnosis or medical intervention?
iv. Ensure that a person’s criminal record, immigration status or other status is not used to prevent a change of name, legal sex or gender.
Also, is this allowing prisoners to self-ID?
PRINCIPLE 32 The Right to Bodily and Mental Integrity 10
"No one shall be subjected to invasive or irreversible medical procedures that modify sex characteristics without their free, prior and informed consent, *unless necessary to avoid serious, urgent and irreparable harm to the concerned person.*"
Is this saying that you don't need children's informed consent to trans them?
Just skimmed through the yogyakarta principles. They seem consistent with human rights.
They don't seem to say anything on including cross dressers as female unless I missed it.
In India transgender (mostly transexual I think) has been visible as a community for ever but they have not had the right to employment, owning property etc. As part of implementing these principles, the Indian supreme court also recognised trans gender/sexual people as a third gender. And giving equal rights to the two other sexes. So I think it's the interpretation rather than the principles that are a problem.
Having said that, the third gender only seems to recognise MTF so it seems inherently sexist and one way. Unless there are two categories within the third gender.
No idea... need to read up on this. Will be following this thread with interest.
Interesting article from 2013
Part of Burchill's critique of trans campaigners was to suggest they are a small, educated minority who punch well above their weight. Whittle admits trans people tend to be well educated but says this is a legacy of them having no jobs to go to. Whittle, Lees and Burns all came from humble beginnings and are now smart, networked individuals.
In 25 years, Barrett has seen trans people become "a networked bunch" – more so than other people, he thinks – thanks to the internet. Lees, who also works for Trans Media Action, says social media is the "essential catalyst" for the transformation of trans people in society. "Society is in transition and we've woken up from the operation and there's no going back. We can't pretend that trans people don't exist any more," she says. "People have been taking the piss out of trans people for 60 years. The narrative on trans issues has been controlled by people who have no understanding of them. Social media is about us grabbing the narrative back and telling our own stories – this is our reality, this is what we go through and this is what matters to us. We're here, we're in your face, we definitely exist. That's the most important thing – realising we exist."
Some of those points you picked out "DJLippy seem pretty scary to me, either because they are wide open to (mis) interpretation, or like the required rewriting of history, even if you are a criminal.
Guardian article above also interviews Stephen, Paris Lees and Sarah Brown...
Whittle, who "transitioned" nearly 40 years ago, was one of three trans men and three trans women who did an unusual thing in 1992: they went to meet Liberal Democrat MP Alex Carlile in Westminster. The unusual element was not the meeting but the fact that they travelled together – at the time, trans people never dared to because it increased the likelihood that they would be spotted and abused. These six wanted to start a campaign group; Carlile advised them to avoid the word "transsexual". So, in Grandma Lee's teashop opposite Big Ben, an anodyne name, Press for Change, was chosen.
It does put "gender identity" and "sex characteristics" as different things.
However it also uses definition of gender ID
"UNDERSTANDING ‘gender identity’ to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth"
Where it accepts that sex is not observed but assigned,
And also that each person has a "deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender" which is also the Stonewall approach but as we see from threads on MN, many many women do not experience this. Do most men? I have no idea. Who have they asked before deciding this thing exists in the vast majority of people? Well they asked trans people, who by definition have this feeling, and then they assumed everyone else does as well. Stonewall describes "agender" (no internal feeling of gender" as rare. I say bollocks, most people just feel like people don't they? Certainly an awful lot of women on MN do, and the standard explanation for this (that women are too dense to know their own minds) is not a satisfcatory explanation.
I didn't read all of it, but did look at prisons, where it did seem to say that people should be housed based on their preference, and does not mention what the consequence of this might be for the people with "sex characteristics" = cunty.
I think gender identity is supposed to be subjective so anyone can decide for themselves what gender they are and don't need to match their outward sex characteristics Beaded ladies in skinny jeans totally fine in my 6 year old nieces changing room then?
This is a difficiult one to navigate:
Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to adoption or assisted procreation (including donor insemination), without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;"
So - state must pay to sterlise people if they wish it, but also pay for them to procreate.
I also wonder, what does this mean for surrogacy? Is there an argument that it is a human right for men who want to reproduce and don't have a woman handy, that they will be provided with one? They don't mention surrogacy specifically, it's a complex area (and one ripe for exploitation and of course poor women around the world are already being exploited).
"The Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, including for the purposes of peaceful demonstrations, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Persons may form and have recognised, without discrimination, associations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and associations that distribute information to or about, facilitate communication among, or advocate for the rights of, persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities."
And yet women do not? >> Have the right to assemble based on their sex, to discuss the issues relevant only to them and try to improve things.
"Protection from Medical Abuses
No person may be forced to undergo any form of medical or psychological treatment, procedure, testing, or be confined to a medical facility, based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Notwithstanding any classifications to the contrary, a person's sexual orientation and gender identity are not, in and of themselves, medical conditions and are not to be treated, cured or suppressed."
So which is it?
Are states to provide medical support & psychological support to trans people if they want it, or not?
I imagine a lot of the old-school trans-sexuals (who wanted surgery) will have a few things to say about this one. IF it is not a medical condition then there is NO basis for "treatment".
Previous principle (17) says this:
"Facilitate access by those seeking body modifications related to gender reassignment to competent, non-discriminatory treatment, care and support;"
This is contradisctory, isn't it?
OK can't be bothered to read it all. Most of it is good stuff and looks to be extending the current human rights accords to trans people which is great.
The points that are iffy are the sort of things pointed out above - there is no mention of any possible conflict with women's rights and the "assigned at birth" and assertion that all people have an internal sense of gender that is strongly held, is not great.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.