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

I want to give this woman a smear test - I refuse a smear test from a specific woman without giving reason.

The thing is though that many women would be afraid of speaking out; hurting someone's feelings; being seen as 'transphobic' and find it difficult to do that. I know that I would find it very difficult.

Futhermore, when this very situation occured recently, the woman involved said, "I'm sorry I asked for a woman" and the manly nurse in a dress, complete with gruff voice and stubble said, "I am a woman". She wasn't listened to and ended up walking out without her smear test. That is the reality.

I want to work in a woman’s refuge- you’re welcome to apply but you will be measured same as everyone else and a blanant disregard of the feelings of a vulnerable woman means you’re not getting the job

I sincerely hope that this would be the case.

The shower thing needs to be afdressed. And it goes beyond not wanting to shower next to a man. If you don’t want to be naked in front of anyone you should have that option. Cubicles are expensive but they are the future.

The problem is, without open discussion and consultation, these concerns and issues are not aired. Therefore solutions are not proposed. My fear is that we will be hearing "lessons have been learned..." for a good few years to come.

Cross post Datun

My bad - it was 12 years!!!

I want to give this woman a smear test - I refuse a smear test from a specific woman without giving reason.

You ask for another woman, you get another man.

The point, I think that you're missing, is that the cohort of trans-women who are fetishists, will make an absolute point of tying everybody up with their shenanigans.

It's not a neutral ask. It's an ask with a purpose.

The women's rape refuge? A trans-woman tied them up for 12 bloody years going all the way to the High Court because he wanted to work there. Costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Any normal person would see the 'blanant disregard of the feelings of a vulnerable woman' was self evident.

But once things are enshrined in law, it's immaterial.

"We think he looks like a dodgy perv" Will get you nowhere.

Noni I don't think orgs will apply those reasonings though. The case in Canada where a DV shelter was almost bankrupt by a TIM insisting they were discriminating is one example. He kept the litigation up for 10 years!

All these orgs and businesses are scared to fight back and apply common sense.

I want to give this woman a smear test - I refuse a smear test from a specific woman without giving reason.

I want to work in a woman’s refuge- you’re welcome to apply but you will be measured same as everyone else and a blanant disregard of the feelings of a vulnerable woman means you’re not getting the job.

The shower thing needs to be afdressed. And it goes beyond not wanting to shower next to a man. If you don’t want to be naked in front of anyone you should have that option. Cubicles are expensive but they are the future.

I haven’t seen any argument for people not being allowed to do something they want..

Well actually those arguments do exist. Some of the ones I've seen are debating wants like:

'I want to be able to give this woman a smear test' ^even though she requested a female sex health professional and we both know she doesn't want me to do it'

'I want to work in this refuge with domestically abused women' even though I know my presence will alarm, distress and in some cases prevent those women from accessing this service

'I want to shower in this shower alongside women' ^even though I know that many of those women are deeply uncomfortable about a naked male alongside them, and that some groups of women will no longer be able to access this facility'

I could go on. In all these cases, the reason for persisting with that 'I want' is the right to be validated despite how anyone else may be affected, may feel, may need, or what they may lose.

The answer to this is not 'oh be kind and suck it up'. Kindness and any other social contract necessitates a two way contract. Mutual respect, mutual kindness, mutual care.

Sorry sent before finished post!

It's obviously going to allow predatory men to access women and children. A local paedophile broke the front legs of a puppy so it was crying and children came to see it. Self ID means that man can say he's a woman and waltz into changing rooms etc.

Plus it will end women's sport which makes my blood boil.

I see what’s happened. I don’t support self ID. I think the arguments are about different things. There’s nothing stopping people wearing what they want and I haven’t seen any argument for people not being allowed to do something they want..

Exactly!

I think the thing that always strikes me about these threads is that there are lengthy, detailed and well thought out logical perspectives from the people who are anti self ID. Any question can be answered.

Whereas those who say they are pro self ID say it, back it up with a "inclusive", "twaw", "be nice" soundbite but aren't able to construct an argument that stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

Given that this appears to be going ahead regardless, I would really like to realise that I'm worried about nothing, or over reacting, or just to have someone construct an argument for self ID that makes me think, "Yeah, actually, when you look at it like that..." but I haven't seen it yet.

I honestly don't understand anyone supporting gender self I'D.

I see what’s happened. I don’t support self ID. I think the arguments are about different things. There’s nothing stopping people wearing what they want and I haven’t seen any argument for people not being allowed to do something they want. I don’t agree with hacking off body parts but that applies to nose jobs and skin peels too.
And we do know who sex offenders are. We (society) just don’t really care. I watched my dear old dad fight for the prosecution of those who protected people. Please don’t assume I am naive to this.

If someone believes that transwomen are women then what does women mean?

As a female the way I would deal with sex offenders is to not allow men into all female spaces. That would be my response to the problem, which is not my problem, it's a male problem.

YTho

Datun, I'm just trying to think of reasons why some people don't seem to have an issue with self Id. Maybe if it came to that, in your examples the letters could be send to anyone identifying as woman or maybe registration forms would separate gender from sex. Sports might end up with other categories based on physical differences rather than sex. Etc. That's why it would be handy to know what other countries are doing about these issues.

No you are finding a way to form a rational argument. And I appreciate it.

Separating gender from sex is good idea. Unfortunately it's relentlessly pounced on as transphobic.

Sport being based on other physical characteristics would also be transphobic. The idea is not to separate out people into categories of likely performance, but into categories of sex, except allowing meant to be absorbed into the category woman. There is zero validation for a sportsman, who is not very good, being put in the men's team. And anyway, he will fail, amongst men.

And we can't look at how this is working in other countries, apart from what people are saying, either anecdotally or in newspaper articles, where they are allowed to talk about biological sex. Because men identifying as women, are recorded as women. In terms of statistics.

Hell, the debate has been shut down here to such an extent, that most people don't even realise this is going on.

In New York City you can be fined $250,000 for misgendering somebody.

How the hell can you talk about the problem of not being able to talk about this, when you can't talk about it!

www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/de-blasio-fine-businesses-wrong-gender-pronouns/

Just to be clear sex offenders accessing the vulnerable in male and female prisons is terrifying. They shouldn’t be allowed to access anyone ever. I feel that getting to gender argument is a distraction from the reality that we do not deal with sex offenders adequately.

You're in denial.

Cross dressing is the most common paraphilia in sex offenders.

Under self-ID (and in current trans ideology), cross dressers are as trans as anybody else.

Under self-ID, trans-identifying sex offenders will, by law, go to women's prisons.

Under self-ID, cross dressing sex offenders will have unimpeded access to all spaces where women and children are vulnerable.

This is not difficult logic to follow.

Make an argument as to why you believe this is ok? Because if you support self-ID, this is what you support. No amount of prevaricating from you can escape this. This is what you support. So tell us why it's ok. And make us believe it.

Just to be clear sex offenders accessing the vulnerable in male and female prisons is terrifying. They shouldn’t be allowed to access anyone ever.

Male prisons have separate facilities in which they can accommodate those who pose the greatest risk to fellow inmates. Women's prisons don't. In a women's prison, those men would be amongst the other inmates.

Women's prisons don't have the facilities to protect the female inmates from these men.

But what is what self id will mean, Noni.

Those people will have access to vulnerable women, or just any women, and children.

And we don't deal with sex offenders adequately, so why not tackle that first?

And they're not sex offenders until they offend, so why make it easier for them? Or for opportunists?

"We don't deal with sex offenders adequately" is not an argument for self ID.

Just to be clear sex offenders accessing the vulnerable in male and female prisons is terrifying. They shouldn’t be allowed to access anyone ever. I feel that getting to gender argument is a distraction from the reality that we do not deal with sex offenders adequately.

"I think that the current system is fine"

I don't think it is. I think women and girls are been silenced, made to feel uncomfortable and abused by the current system, but nobody is acknowledging it.

The current system is for the benefit of trans individuals, not the good of women and girls. GRA and GRC recognises persistence, not femaleness. Who has been given the power to change 'women' and 'female' to 'men who consistently claim to be women'?

There is no reason why a man needs to be labelled as a women.

I think it is hard to fight our own social conditioning, that overwhelming ‚‘BE NICE‘

Once you spot that for what it is, the scales fall away.

I think that the current system is fine and find it crazy that self-id for gender is prioritised in a culture where people have to fight to get medical diagnoses and justify them at assessments to get PIP and practical help like Statements at school. If TM wants to expedite the identification (diagnosis) process for a group of people, she could have picked a less trendy group like new mothers or children waiting for a dyslexia assessment.

YY

It's taken 8 years to get an EHCP for my child (who got top tier funding btw when the system finally agreed to go through with assessment)

The idea that other groups are not subject to worse gatekeeping is laughable and insulting.

Sorry meant to add my italics on the quote and it was addressed to Noni

Also, sex offenders are a small class of men, I think they should be dealt with separately regardless of what gender they present as. I think it’s truley terrifying to have a sex offender have access to vulnerable women in prison but that is the case in male prisons. Surely the argument is to police them better for everyone’s sake.

Sex offenders are not a small class of men. They are part of the class that is men. Trans women are from the class that is men and so therefore cannot be excluded.

You have already acknowledged that someone from the class of men self Id as a women to gain access to women's estates is 'terrifying'.

The police, prisons and parole board already spend millions of pounds addressing the issue of sex offenders. The answer is that men should not feel entitled to sex offend and it is up to MEN, as a class, to address the issue, not women and not the tax payer.

I think that the current system is fine and find it crazy that self-id for gender is prioritised in a culture where people have to fight to get medical diagnoses and justify them at assessments to get PIP and practical help like Statements at school. If TM wants to expedite the identification (diagnosis) process for a group of people, she could have picked a less trendy group like new mothers or children waiting for a dyslexia assessment.