Advanced search

Would you back self ID if...

(1000 Posts)
daimbars Tue 19-Jun-18 15:08:10

Once a trans women got their GRC they had to wait a period of time (say 5 years) before they were able to have the same rights as all women? For example they would only be able to apply for a job as a women’s officer, appear on a female only panel or to compete in women’s sport after five years of lived experience as a woman?

Someone I know is meeting with her MP to discuss how to propose this legislation. She thinks it will address possible repercussions from self ID and stop it being abused. I thought it was an interesting idea I could get behind.

dinosaurkisses Tue 19-Jun-18 15:14:17

Yes, excepting the sport. I don't think it's ever fair to pit a biological female body against another which has the bone density, stronger muscle mass etc of a biological male. It's just never going to be a fair match, is it?

I don't have a problem with TW being on women's short lists etc as long as it's proportional to their number in society, but of course that is nigh on impossible to police and would pretty much be a ban anyway given how small that section of society is.

Picassospaintbrush Tue 19-Jun-18 15:14:37

I don't support self ID. And I don't support ambiguous conditions like this either. Disastrous idea.

SpartacusAutisticus Tue 19-Jun-18 15:15:00


PeakPants Tue 19-Jun-18 15:15:41

Sorry, but to me that sounds even more restrictive than what trans people have now and which they say is more restrictive. I don’t see the logic in that at all. Why not keep the current system if you’re in favour of a waiting period?

My own view is that I don’t have too much of an issue with people self-IDing on the proviso that sex based protections are strengthened with certain spaces remaining single-sex regardless of whether someone has a GRC. In other words, recognising the rights of trans people to self ID as what they want but at the same time recognising the importance of sex-segregation in limited circumstances.

So to me, no your proposal is insufficient because I don’t think that even after 5 years someone should be able to compete in women’s sports, especially if self-ID carries no requirements for hormone treatment.

hesmyworld Tue 19-Jun-18 15:16:18

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

soapboxqueen Tue 19-Jun-18 15:16:34

No. I think it's just kicking the can down the road.

daimbars Tue 19-Jun-18 15:16:45

I'm on the fence with sport too. Apparently after five years of female hormones the playing field is levelled but I still think trans women must surely have height and strength advantage.

Otherwise five years lived experience as a woman seems pretty reasonable to me.

LapdanceShoeshine Tue 19-Jun-18 15:16:48


I would happily subscribe to special different rights for transwomen, but never to women's rights for them.

spontaneousgiventime Tue 19-Jun-18 15:17:57


A man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man. GRC or not.

Theinconstantgardener Tue 19-Jun-18 15:18:01


Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar Tue 19-Jun-18 15:18:08

I wouldn’t support it under any circumstances whatsoever.

LunaTrap Tue 19-Jun-18 15:19:18

No because I don't think transwomen can ever have the same lived experience as women.

Battleax Tue 19-Jun-18 15:19:51


PeakPants Tue 19-Jun-18 15:20:29

But daimbars self ID does not have any requirement for hormone treatment so how can you say the playing field is levelled after 5 years?

I think a pp’s mention of Ireland which keeps sex segregation is more sensible. Don’t subject trans people to red tape but at the same time limit what it means to be trans or self-ID as a woman- it means that you get to have F in your passport but it does not get you access to a rape crisis centre or the right to compete in women’s sports.

CardsforKittens Tue 19-Jun-18 15:20:38

I'm not sure that this would address my concerns about safety and competitiveness in women's sport, or my concerns about women's political representation. I'm struggling to see how having a GRC for five years would make any difference. I also don't see how it would make any difference in issues around trans women in prisons, rape crisis centres, refuges etc.

What specific implications of this proposed five year rule do you think would make a difference compared with the status quo?

daimbars Tue 19-Jun-18 15:20:48

At the moment the process of getting a GRC is humiliating for a trans person (having to live as the opposite gender for two years) so this idea would be to go ahead with self ID but have stricter exemptions and a specific time lapse after the GRC has been given.
I hadn't thought of it that way around before but it makes sense.
No risk of a burly, hairy man abusing self ID unless he was willing to play a very long game.

LapdanceShoeshine Tue 19-Jun-18 15:21:10

As far as sports are concerned the choice should be

a) transition, & stop competing


b) stay as you are as long as you wish to continue to compete

BettyDuMonde Tue 19-Jun-18 15:22:07

Social spaces, sure.
With sex based exclusion available for things such as sexual abuse survivor help groups.

Not sure about short lists. Most of women’s oppression is to do with reproduction or women specific health and/or safety issues, so representatives of women should ideally be of the reproductive sex class.

Naked space, no. No penis-havers in women’s communal showers or saunas etc (and especially not in places where women are compelled to shower together).

Sport, only with with very strict rules (ie no combat sports, for starters).

TheLocalYokel Tue 19-Jun-18 15:23:05

Your suggestion hinges on the misconception that objection to self id is about excluding male people who are trans from womanhood as if it's an exclusive club.

That's not what it's about. A male will never have experience of being female, so should not be entrusted to represent and champion female people's concerns as a women's officer, or to present a female perspective on a panel. A male person who is trans is never going to have a female body, so should not be allowed to compete against females in sport.

Why can't you grasp this? It's not about what someone has to do before they can join the club. It's not a club. A male can not become female. There's no waiting period, no hoops to jump through, nothing to self declare.

It's not about excluding anyone from anything. It's just a biological fact.

BarrackerBarmer Tue 19-Jun-18 15:23:27

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

noeffingidea Tue 19-Jun-18 15:24:25

daimbars it's not just a matter of hormones - it's pretty much everything. The skeletal system is different. Men have a higher haemoglobin level and therefore carry more oxygen in their blood, women have a higher risk of certain kinds of injury (eg knee ligaments), there's a different level of fat composition, etc. There are simply too many differences between male and female anatomy and physiology for there ever to a level playing field.

TerfsUp Tue 19-Jun-18 15:24:28


Picassospaintbrush Tue 19-Jun-18 15:25:35

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar Tue 19-Jun-18 15:25:37

Just how is having to live as the opposite gender for two years before getting a GRC “humiliating”?
Isn’t that the whole fucking point?!

This thread is not accepting new messages.