On Gatekeeping

HairyBallTheorem - thanks for your OP. And MadgeMidgerson, thanks for highlighting the abortion issue and two doctors. That was my first thought as well - the hoops that women have to jump through, currently, in order to access a legal (in most of UK, but not all) procedure called an abortion or termination.

Gosh BossyBitch that's really interesting.

Perhaps it's all intrinsically tied into the social media generation and/or a general culture of self belief. Which in itself isn't a bad thing but it has to be balanced with a sense of realism.

Fascinating stuff!

IMO, the issue may more generally be that gatekeeping goes against the zeitgeist to some extent. In this interpretation, the entire trans tsunami might, in fact, be more of a symptom of a broader mindset than a phenomenon in its own right. I'll try and explain:

Jobs and careers were mentioned as a 'gakekept' area on this thread. But as a manager involved in graduate hiring, I'm actually experiencing that this isn't really 'acceptable' to a certain subset of (predominantly young, white and male - I wonder why) individuals there, either:

The amount of unrealistically high expectations in terms of salary as well as roles that I come across in my recruiting duties is often rather mind-boggling. And I'm not the only manager I know who's had job applicants quite simply refuse to take a rejection and insist they'll have the job anyway.

True, jobs are not as entangled with civil rights as identity is - therefore, firms simply get to have the individuals in question escorted off the premises (and the entire interviewing panel escorted to the nearest pub for some badly needed self-medication). Having said that, the underlying attitude of 'I am and I do what I say I am and do - and others (employers, society as a whole, reality itself...) must accommodate my self-image as e.g. a successful management consultant - and if they disagree it's not acceptable' seems to share at least some characteristics with the self-ID types.

It's essentially the refusal to accept anyone's - even a globally shared - reality if and when it clashes with the individual's self-perception, however skewed it may be, and the demand that self-image be accepted as objective truth. It follows that gatekeeping is unacceptable simply due to the fact that it imposes external perceptions and opinions on the individuals in question.

I'm no psychiatrist, but I'd hazard a guess that it's all a bit narcissistic.

If you are pregnant do you not need two doctors to sign off on allowing you a termination? And can they not also refuse on grounds of conflict with their religious belief?

Let me know when that gate has fallen and then maybe I can bestir myself to care about trans gates. Remind me too as well of the extensive work the trans community has done to dismantle the gatekeeping around terminations and reproductive freedom. 🤔

Gatekeeping - so that a medical professional can decline to provide irreversible medical intervention if they don't think it is in their patients' best interests. Yes please.

Or don't let people change sex, but not allow discrimination based on "gender presentation" for lack of a better word.

When the 2004 GRA was passed it was assumed that transsexuals as they were called then would have full gender surgery and hormones, and before any protections were brought in this was the only 'transition' feasible (anything else was mere crossdressing etc.). Even then it was not an explicit requirement, though anyone applying for a grc without any medical treatment finds it nigh on impossible to convince the panel they are serious. As many have pointed out, increasingly many do not have surgery and this makes objective justification much harder for gatekeeping. The current school of thought is the patient knows better than a doctor, though in many cases I would defer to my doctor's advice and expertise. Personally I see no problem for the sake of having ID documents as you want so you don't out yourself say buying restricted goods (where age is the key factor not gender), in employment where there are no gender requirements, etc. but where there is a legitimate reason for single sex admission then some external scrutiny is totally reasonable imo. Marriage and pensions were previously dependent on a grc but have been equalised since 2004 so less of an issue where gender is concerned.

It's just that the whole concept of legally changing sex is so very problematic

It is since the TRA's decided to run with it and it became a thing that was outside the constraints of a medical/psychological issue. Add into the mix the concept of non binary, trans femme and whatever other gender nonsense and the whole thing has become like cultural Japanese Knotweed.

Common sense tells you it would be better to get rid of anything gender based that constrains both men and women but instead we all have to try and untangle everything without damaging what lies beneath.

Yes. The sex based exemptions in the Equality Act need to be beefed up and actually used, as opposed to all of these orgs being "ahead of the law" following guidance issued by TRAs

But a GRC isn't needed. Men are in hospital wards and prisons without one, they also are taking women only positions with no GRC.

Is it known how many men are denied GRC? Is it public knowledge what the criteria is? Realistically, there is probably very little gatekeeping, in any meaningful way, going on.

I do agree - if the only options are a GRC with gatekeeping, or by self-id I'd choose the gatekeeping every time.

It's just that the whole concept of legally changing sex is so very problematic.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I totally agree in theory but given GRC's have been in use since there were just a very small number of transexuals I don't see that as being something that can be overturned easily. Or a very easy sell to the general public who have sympathy for those with gender dysphoria.

It certainly isn't fit for purpose though under an ideology where penises are female and dysphoria isn't needed to be trans but individuals can be coached on the correct things to say.

I still think that a legal requirement of a GRC in some situations is better than nothing. It's self ID that will truly cause havoc.

In this particular case I am not in favour of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping usually relies on some sort of solid verifiable fact to be able to pass the "gate". There is no-way to do this with a GRC - there is no scientifically sound way to prove if someone is "trans" or not. A GRC creates a fiction that someone can change sex, which they obviously can't. Gatekeeping gives this fiction even more weight.

The GRA needs to be repealed. There is no need for it anymore.

I'm in favour of gatekeeping. I want to know my gynecologist didnt just walk in off the street.

Well said.

Quite.

Jobs and careers also. I can't just identify as a Doctor or a Lawyer, I have to have the relevant qualifications then pass an interview to be allowed to work in the chosen sphere.

Very few things don't have some element of gate keeping or officiating.