Yogyakarta principles

I've got a different impression about what the Yogyakarta Principles were about. I don't think they were ever supposed to be mainly about intersex but about sexual orientation and stopping the persecution of gay, lesbian and bisexual people around the world. Somehow, T got tagged on to LGB and they invited Stephen Whittle to participate. There may be some other trans advocates in there, but I do not recognise any names.

Stephen Whittle's aim is to do away with the category of 'sex' altogether and replace it with 'gender', as in this article from 2007. www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

There is no indication from the list of participants that 'intersex' was really on the agenda'. It is only mentioned once in the whole document. The criticism I mentioned above regarding the lack of input about intersex people was (possibly) addressed in the YP +10 with the inclusion of at least 2 additional participants whose main area of interest is intersex people.

I am fairly sure that the aim was to help the LGB community, with perfectly reasonable measures. It was hijacked by T in the shape of Stephen Whittle (and possibly others) who added some totally unreasonable stuff about self-id for trans people, which is now being held up as 'international best practice' and applied without any analysis by various governments.

Trousers
I'm a bit confused about what you are getting at regarding the intersex issue. Are you saying that intersex people have hijacked something intended for another group of people, or that it was supposed to be for intersex people and has been hijacked by others?

From the Wikipedia page, there is only one intersex participant in the original Yogyakarta, and that individual plus two others in the +10.

What are 'sexual rights'?

Many of the experts were intersex.

How do you know this? The only ones I had heard of were Stephen Whittle (transman) and Mary Robinson (ex-president of Ireland). I don't know how you'd find out which experts were intersex.

On the Wikipedia page it actually mentions a criticism of the principles: "The Principles do not deal appropriately or adequately with the application of international human rights law in relation to intersex people."

ItsAllGoingToBeFine
But thats the weird thing - people are seeing and presenting the Yogykarta doo dah as part of "human rights" I'm not sure where that has come from?

The document is described as:
Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity
It was put together by a group of lawyers and other people working in the area of human rights. They are a bunch of experts, the rest of us supposedly know nothing about anything, so we all should defer to their greater expertise. I think this is where all the governments are coming from which are just swallowing it whole without engaging brains first.

The 2006 version describes homosexuality as being same gender attracted.
Stephen Whittle was involved in writing the Yogyakarta Principles. Stephen wants to replace the category 'sex' with 'gender' as in this paper.
www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

The 2006 version describes homosexuality as being same gender attracted. It’s not a mistake either; the principles clearly differentiate between sex and gender. I don’t think the later version changed l.

But thats the weird thing - people are seeing and presenting the Yogykarta doo dah as part of "human rights" I'm not sure where that has come from?

I've just found the transcript of the HoC debate about Maria Miller's bill to reform the GRA, where she mentions the Yogyakarta principles.
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-01c.1692.2

If we are looking for a reason why so many politicians are being swayed by the self-ID argument, it could be because they look for an authority on the subject, and they find Yogyakarta.

As Joanna Cherry (SNP) says in the debate:
Since 2007, the Scottish Government have been using the Yogyakarta principle, a fully inclusive definition of gender identity, in all their trans equality policy work. Does she agree that the use of that principle is desirable because it was devised by an international commission of jurists in recognition of the fact that gender identity is a human right?

The MPs seem to be taking this document as the most authoratative voice on the subject of transgender issues.

And I think, this suppression of women who are saying hold on a minute this introdcues RISK as there is a significant minority of creepy men in the world - enough that pretty much all women habe had multiple encounters ranging from creepy to illegal -

And the reason they say no you're over reacting exaggerating is because they ?do not no this because the main activists have not expereinced it for an obvious reason.

With #metoo you see it as well - the testimony of women is discarded. Especially if it conflicts with something men want. I also think there is this thing that the older I get the more I realise that many men only really care about women they know. The rest are a sort of facless 2D mass of objects. I suppose this is why the "it's somebodies mother / sister" is often used - to try and get those sorts of men to care. And it's widespread - the men who shout at girls from cars - she is irrelevant. If you went to one after and said she went home crying and has been having nightmares ever since, he'd probably be surprised and a bit upset that had happened. But at the time, they don't care because they don't actually see her as a person, she's an object to enact their male bonding out on. I mean of course plenty of men do want to scare / upset, but I think most of them just don't think about it.

OldCrone Yes, the more I read about gender identity, the more I think, isn't it just a (sexist) term for 'personality'?

I know, ildcrone, it's very confusing.

I think the activists would say well if you don't get it you don't get it but it is real.

I say fair enough I believe you, my issue is not how anyone dresses or anything (I mean to accuse GC feminists of trying to enforce gender norms and stereotypes?!!! WTF are they even on it's so insulting), but with all the things that we talk about endlessly. Sport, female reserved positions, how we are going to do stats about anything from crime to pay gap to women in STEM and everything. Prisons. The fact that women will no longer be able to have a woman look after them or be with them as a preference at any point in their life, from shared accomadation to hospital wards, and just everything.

And of course there will be no words (are already getting to be no words) to describe women and girls as a group (cunty ones) to talk about the things that affect us (no stats no proff no leverage for action) and a lot of the words around our biology which only recently are being spoken about more openly are being vigorously suppressed again.

I don't get how people can't see this.

KittTheCar
Anyway my point is that the idea of an internal strongly held gender ID being a global, always, basic thing that pretty much everbody has is unproven and as a person who does not have it, I struggle as what on earth do they even mean, I can't begin to imagine.

No one ever defines what they mean by gender. The Yogyakarta Principles only defines 'gender identity', but uses the undefined word 'gender' in the definition:

Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.

I also struggle to understand what it means to have a 'deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender'. How does this manifest itself?

They say that gender 'may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth', so they are not using 'gender' to mean 'sex'. 'Expressions of gender' include 'dress, speech and mannerisms'. So gender is just an aspect of personality. In which case, why does it have anything to do with anyone's sex?

Pip explains it so clearly in that first link, Trousers

The best analogy is that it’s exactly the same as when you are choosing what clothes to wear. You have an internal preference and think, ‘Right, today I have a preference for wearing a dress or trousers or a peplum skirt or trainers or high heels’. It’s purely a preference.

Except that that's not an analogy, that's it. A peplum skirt doesn't make a male into a woman, and feeling like a woman doesn't make you have to wear a fucking peplum skirt. It's purely a preference.

Whilst the author holds some questionable opinions, this is an interesting read:

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/03/18897/