If you're pro Self ID for trans people please could you explain it to me?

I am so not coming back to this because yet again the few sensible people who I really genuinely would like to debate this with have been drowned out. Just as I admit many sensible voices on the trans side are drowned out by some of the narcissitic idiots who happen to be trans. Which means we are unlikely to ever be able to find a solution for the moderate majority.

But flamingo you might want to read www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/it-racist-have-preference-whom-you-date. Many POC do see an absolutist form of race preference in romantic relationships as racist. Not being one, it's not something I can fully understand and I do accept that there are POC who don't see it as a problem, but it's not straightforward.

And Elendon. I so so hope you are in charge of campaigning for one of my Labour or Tory opponents one day, or that that's a common methodology in whatever party you have phoned for, because if that's how you canvass my data game will entirely smash yours and it maybe explains some of my wins. When GDPR inhibits your ability to benefit from throwing money at targeted social media we may even be able to level the playing field at a national level.

being subjected to years of medical and psychological scrutiny to prove one is who one says one is is invasive, distressing and demeaning. Why should anybody have to go through that? I never had to prove my sexuality to a doctor or make anybody "believe" me

Welcome chamberini.

I have never had to prove my sex to a doctor and neither have you as a man. I'm pretty grateful not to have to pull down my pants to prove what sex I am for a consultation, aren't you? We cannot deny that there are sex-related health issues where being male or female means you have a much higher or lower risk. If we all self-ID, how will our doctors know whether we fall into the higher or lower risk category without asking us to pull down our pants and seeing if we have natural or surgically modified genitalia and having to make a judgement call on which is which? That invasive, distressing and demeaning IMV.

Legal rights: all equal across the board. Marriage, inheritance, employment law, housing, family life, medical care, check check check. Human rights: all equal, discrimination protection under law, protecting right to freedom from violence, harassment, endangerment.

There is no such thing as a 'right' to subjectively declare yourself something that material reality and fact does not support, and have everyone else compelled to indulge it under threat of state punishment. That should never be framed in law, and if politicians are truly stupid enough to do it we will be paying the price in buggered up law and legislation for decades to come. It will be stupidity on the scale of Brexit.

Self ID is not the end of the road for identity political agenda, it's just the beginning. Take a look at Action for Trans Health's manifesto if you want a few glimpses of what the next campaigns would be once the self ID door has been legally opened. The legalisation of paedophilia as a legitimate identity and the rights of 'trans age' individuals will be one of the first, that one is already gently gathering steam.

chambeni Very interesting post, thank you for sharing.

I do get that people can consider the GRC process demeaning. But since transitioning is serious and carries the risk of regret, I think people should go through a supported process.
As a woman I have to undergo medical examinations such as PAP smears and breast screening. Disabled people have to undergo rigorous, frequent screening for PIP. For many people its just a part of everyday life.

Personally, I think intersex people should have the right to self identify, and it shouldn't cost them anything. I would hope they have some support while making the decision.

It is like transubstantiation.

It is. I wasn't quite right when I said there was only one coherent argument for self-ID. There are two:

1. You believe gender identity is a real thing that people innately have.
   In which case, you have a religious belief and no right to impose it on others.

2. You think the rights of males with an identity disorder should come before the rights of women and children.
   In which case, I think you are a misogynist.

That leaves you with option number three:

3. Self-ID is a bloody stupid idea that will have dreadful consequences and all political parties should drop it immediately. Hip hip hooray! You finally got there!

They are not even really rights bewilderness more like wants.

There is no compromise possible because trans identified males rights are antithetical to women's rights.

@flamingo

No I am not saying that.

But I am still not convinced there is no way to suit all. It is more difficult and complicated than I thought and I may agree with you after some more reading.

Maybe it is naive, I just think there should be a way to protect people like you without stopping genuine people self identifying. Struggle to see ideal solution though.

Given that nobody else has a solution either, would you agree that we need to slow down and allow for a proper debate with nobody being shut down before we change any laws?

Oh missed one - the acceptable number of women and children to die at the hands of their partner/father because the woman was afraid to take the refuge place she was offered and stopped accessing help?

My unanswered question remains:
Can you mandate belief?
Can you codify into law the idea that some people can mind over matter themselves out of material reality and into the opposite sex, and must be treated accordingly?
It is like transubstantiation. A belief that no one actually believes.
Will you allow people to drug and mutilate children based on this belief that no one believes?

The gatekeeping involved is for a VERY small number of spaces and situations, yet those are unacceptable to TRAs.

There is not a way to allow self ID as a blanket policy with no exemptions and still protect women and girls. If you support self ID then it's accepting there is going to be collateral damage that women have to endure so men can be validated by being in spaces that they really don't need to be in. A TIM's life is not going to be blighted by the fact that some women don't want them to administer their smear test.

I asked earlier on the thread:

How many women and girls is it acceptable to throw under the bus to the increase in sexual harassment, voyeuristic crime and assault (bearing in mind in the Target stores trialling self ID these crimes against women and girls between double and tripled as a result) ?

How many women is an acceptable number to see no longer able to use gyms or changing rooms in a western world country in 2018 because they are biologically female?

How many women is an acceptable number to see no longer able to access smear tests? And to suffer higher rates of cervical cancer deaths?

How many women is an acceptable number to see discharge themselves from hospitals and psychiatric care because they are afraid to be there - and certainly afraid to sleep?

What percentage of women is it ok to put under the bus to validate the feelings of a tiny percentage of the 0.3% of the population who are TRAs? There is no way to disguise that this is nakedly valuing male born people more highly than female born people, and believing that it is right and acceptable for female born people to suffer harm if it benefits male born people.

Much the same belief that drives FGM and rape really.

Interesting thread, but the pro self ID people are repeating the words "believe" and "hope" quite a lot.

Anyway, it's all been said. Multiple times. And still people can't see.

I will have a read at those links. Thanks.

Maybe it is naive, I just think there should be a way to protect people like you without stopping genuine people self identifying. Struggle to see ideal solution though.

It doesn't simply 'occur' to perverts. They share information and ideas with each other. Have you not had a look at the twitter feeds and reddit threads?

Last year it wouldn't have occurred to me that Lilly madigan would get the job she's in.

Last year, it didn't occur to me a woman would lose her job or be suspended from a political party for saying women do not have penises.

Last year it didn't occur to me that an intact Male sex offender would be housed in a women's prison.

More fool me.

a pervert to fake being a TIM with qualifications/experience to get an interview as a counsellor. THEN they were undeniably the best candidate so the employer had to take them.

No, different situation. The pervert faking being a TIM is an issue in women's spaces like toilets, changing rooms, psychiatric wards, hospital wards.

In those very few specific situations such as women's refuges, smear tests and rape counselling it doesn't matter if the TIM is a pervert or a sainted Bishop with 9 PhDs in counselling. The issue is that however lovely, a TIM is biologically male, and that some women do not feel comfortable with receiving that care from someone not same sex.

Well you've been given the example of Vancouver Rape Relief who were tied up in an incredibly lengthy and costly legal battle because a TIM decided his need to be validated as a woman came above the rights of all the women who needed single sex rape crisis services.

Transactivists are spoiling for a fight over this and in the UK these sorts of services for women are struggling to keep the lights on as it is.

There'll just be no women's services. Fuck this shit.

I think the number of people who pretend to be TIM for this reason will be small and there will be ways to keep everyone comfortable.
Abusive predatory males are already flocking to self ID to get unrestricted access to women.
Half the trans identified males in prison are there for sex offenses. Many now identify as women and are demanding transfer into the women's institutions.

8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
Only males can be transwomen, which is how we know they are men.

What do you think self-ID means LML83?

When you say things like 'while still keeping victims safe' and 'there will be ways to keep everyone comfortable' what are you basing this on? Is this just something you're hoping will happen or have you read any concrete proposals?

@pencils of course that is unfair on the victim but this would only happen if it occurs to a pervert to fake being a TIM with qualifications/experience to get an interview as a counsellor. THEN they were undeniably the best candidate so the employer had to take them.