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

Not all 'cis' women have everything in working order though. Some are born without a vagina or a womb or ovaries or have to have womb/ovaries taken out for some reason. If you judge people on having a working set of reproductive organs, you'd exclude a lot of women born female too.

I don't know where this idea came from.

If a girl is born without a vagina, she will be examined by a doctor and her parents will say what's happened?

When boys are born, the parents do not ask the doctor what has happened to his vagina.

@glitched that is a phenomenally bad analogy.

Glitched

Why can't you be inclusive to trans people? You wouldn't say only white people can be British.

Okay. When you say inclusive, what specifically do you mean?

Do you mean that transwomen and women are completely interchangeable? When it comes to sport, prisons, refuges, shortlists, toilets, locker rooms, etc?

Do you think some should be sex segregated or none?

Thegoldenbough, no. Those people are not trans people they are criminals. Worrying yes, but this thread is about trans people, not criminals. Those people are not their fault.

Why aren't they trans people? What do you think "trans" means exactly?

What I took from #metoo was that sex offensives are massively under reported and under punished. And you’re a bloody idiot if you didn’t know that. I assumed everyone knew these unspoken rules. But what I meant was that’s what should change. I’m definitely not NAMALT and I think prosecutions should extend to people that new or suspected and did nothing.

My attitude to competitive sport I dare not speak on a public forum. Honestly I would be torn to shreds.

Great idea for a thread... can we try to keep this as a space for people who support self-ID to talk about why, without immediately bashing them down with our logic? Most of us here have spend a significant amount of time reading, thinking and talking about why self-ID is a terrible thing for women's rights (myself included). There are no doubt lots of people only just starting to think about this issue who can't see why its such a big problem or those who have been following the debate and think we're all hysterical / over reacting.

If we could give them space and time here to talk about their thoughts, whilst being appreciative that they're stepping into the bearpit of FWR to do so, I think it can only be a good thing.

Why can't you be inclusive to trans people? You wouldn't say only white people can be British.

Also, sex offenders are a small class of men

Is that what you took from #metoo and subsequent revelations?

One of the best slight of hand tricks in all of this are people believing that women doesn't equal female. Once you believe that, trans ideology starts to make sense, or at least you stop questioning it.

When has a women truly being thought of as a man because of the clothes she wears, the job she does or the power tools she uses? When a women has a hysterectomy or goes through the menopause, she doesn't get told she is no longer female and a women.

A women has always been an adult human female, it's nothing to do with gender or presentation or inner feelings.

ReluctantCamper

It's an entirely understandable question to ask.

But I have yet to see an answer that didn't end up being, why can't you just be nice?

There's either a sort of neutral feeling that it's not a problem, or a less than neutral feeling that why wouldn't you? because it's only being nice/decent/inclusive.

You won't get any rebuttal to the analysis of why it's damaging to women/children/homosexuals.

You might by vocal transactivists with a vested interest. But they are actually quite thin on the ground here.

And the arguments you do get from transactivists will hinge entirely on the definition of the woman. (along with why can't you be nice).

Everything else is dependent on that one thing.

@nonibaloni thanks for the response, it sounds like you fall into Becca Reilly-Cooper’s description of thinking sex based protections/segregation’s aren’t important, in which case I can see why self ID doesn’t concern you too much.

Do you have a view on eg women’s sport?

It occured to be the other day that, if this goes through, I might self identify as a man and use the men's changing rooms/facilities precisely because the men I would be at risk from will be identifying as women in the 'Ladies'.

"
If someone was born without a vagina or womb I would guess that they may be intersex"

Not necessarily. They may just have something wrong with them, like someone born with a missing finger is no less human. I'm not going to go looking for links for you as I'm on MN for fun, not as a job.

But clownfish! But strawberries!

Okay the clownfish thing I've heard before, but what's the strawberry thing?

Given that gender is a ragbag of expectations, stereotypes and justifications for discrimination, I more than understand people's wishes to pick and choose their own set of gender definitions or even reject the whole concept. However, don't impose your version of gender on me.
But mostly, don't confuse sex and gender and try to tell me that you can pick and choose your sex.

Those people are not trans people they are criminals. Worrying yes, but this thread is about trans people, not criminals. Those people are not their fault.

Bollocks. Under self-ID, those people are as trans as anybody else who says they're trans. That's the bloody point. The thread is about self-ID, as it says in the title. Try again.

The question you were asked is this: passing self-ID laws will undermine safeguarding for women and children so do you think this is an acceptable consequence of allowing trans people to change legal gender/sex without gatekeeping? Yes or no?

Simple question, simple answer. Yes or no?

(Am going now!)

I swear I’m not trying to be goady. Generally I can be found in an hour argument about changing chairman to chairperson because the little things matter.
But I also agree with OP that echo chambers are useless. So, surely a person can refuse a medical examination from anyone for any reason. There’s a nurse I won’t have smear test with because she is no fan of lube or sympathy, I never give and explanation just a no.
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.
Changing rooms and swimming pools is a cultural things. Lots of places in Europe nudity is commonplace. Lots of people would never like to be naked in front of anyone. Surely cubicles is the answer. And my every banging drum of penalties for being a pervert. Again self ID ing transwomen being kept of it changing rooms because of wanking AGF is the wrong answer. Putting the wanker on the sex offenders register and making is completely unacceptable would make more sense to me.
Honestly I think the whole thing is nonsense. I don’t feel female at all, I am biologically female, I have no desire not to be. But I’m fairly gender non conforming. (Also growing a beard but that’s all my natural hormones).

Actually, I would see this issue being about self id rather than transpeople.

The current wave of trans rights activitists and transwomen do not recognise those with diagnosed gender dysphoria ('proper' trans) as being like them. They are as abusive to them as they are to women.

I think the problem is that, ultimately, the self id issue is seen as inclusive and kind by a lot of people. But those most aggressively promoting it are concerned with men's rights and trans women's rights but not about aligning those with pre existing women's rights.

Most old skool transsexuals (hate to keep using that term but I feel it creates a distinction) accept that they are not women. They know they are men. But they also appreciate that women will stand alongside them in public toilets and pretend that they don't see it.

This new wave wants transwomen to be regarded as biological women.

From Rebecca Reilly-Cooper. This is pretty much how I feel

"We don’t know to what extent anyone would seek to exploit legislation designed to allow people to self-identify as women. But we do know that making gender entirely a matter of self-definition effectively eradicates current legislation designed to protect women from discrimination and invasion of privacy.

If you don’t think that women should be provided with these legal protections – women only spaces, or resources put aside just for women – then that is one thing. But if you do, then the category of “woman” as a matter of self-definition is self-defeating.

The logical conclusion of shifting our definitions of gender from objective characteristics to inherently subjective and personal ones is that the categories of “man” and “woman” effectively become meaningless. This is not a satisfactory outcome, especially for those who strongly feel that they identify as one particular gender. It is natural and understandable to feel empathy and concern for those who feel pain and distress at their socially recognised gender, and who wish to transition to live in the opposite role. But shifting our definition of what it means to be a woman so that it no longer has any grounding in the material or social reality of what it means to be a woman helps no one."

theconversation.com/why-self-identification-shouldnt-be-the-only-thing-that-defines-our-gender-57924

As for women without fully functioning reproductive systems, it’s a red herring because many trans women have fully functioning male reproductive systems. Unless someone is intersex (which is a different issue), we all know what a biological male and biological female is so let’s not be silly.

I've never seen any post anywhere on MN that trans people shouldn't be trans or shouldn't live exactly the way that they want to. They just want to keep the few exemptions for biological women in some situations of nudity, vulnerability and intimate care

^YES

But is no to self ID really stopping people live within the social construct of their choice? I've never seen any post anywhere on MN that trans people shouldn't be trans or shouldn't live exactly the way that they want to. They just want to keep the few exemptions for biological women in some situations of nudity, vulnerability and intimate care.

And if we say women are adult human females with a specific reproductive capacity - that reproductive capacity doesn't have to be fully functional. It's a medical issue to an adult human female body. Some people are born without legs. We don't say that they are not human because humans have functioning legs, or say that the human race is not bipedal because a tiny number of people are born with a medical issue that affected the formation of their legs?

I agree with you Just except that there is nothing to stop the criminals or the perverts or the violent, aggressive predatory men from using the GRA for their own ends.

No safeguards are being put in place.

And if they are, no one knows about them because no one is allowed to talk about it.

Plus, the trans rights activists are aggressive and violent men.

This is not a move that trans people want either. They share the same concerns.

It seems to boil down to 'be nice' and 'mens feelings are more important'.

If thats all you need to erase womens sports or women only domestic violence shelters then admit it, you are supporting a hierarchy, not equality.