Yogyakarta principles

Trousersdontmakemeaman

f) Take all appropriate action, including programmes of education and training, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes or behaviours which are related to the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of any sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression.

So this means on a man's woman day he is entitled to go wherever he wants.

I read the bit you quoted as saying that people should not be discriminated against for their gender expression, not that if a man dresses as a woman he should be treated as a woman.

I think this bit is designed to enable men who identify as women, but dress in a typically male way, to be accepted as women:

UNDERSTANDING ‘gender expression’ as each person’s presentation of the person’s gender through physical appearance – including dress, hairstyles, accessories, cosmetics – and mannerisms, speech, behavioural patterns, names and personal references, and noting further that gender expression may or may not conform to a person’s gender identity;

So gender expression is a person's physical appearance, and this may or may not conform to their gender identity. Why don't we just do away with gender identity, and accept that someone's physical appearance may or may not be typical for their sex? But their sex can never be changed.

L. Combat the practice of prenatal selection on the basis of sex characteristics, including by addressing the root causes of discrimination against persons on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, and by carrying out awareness-raising activities on the detrimental impact of prenatal selection on these grounds;

Apologies if this has appeared elsewhere, but I read this to mean the combatting of abortion because the embryo/fetus isn't the desired sex - yes, no quibble there - but the rest of the listing? How can you know what the gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression of said embryo/fetus will be? Does that make sense to anyone?

C. Compile statistics and research on the extent, causes and effects of violence, discrimination and other harm, and on the effectiveness of measures to prevent, prosecute and provide reparation for such harm on grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics;

Surely accurate stats will be impossible to produce if transwomen are women & transmen are men?

Ah, I see. Thanks

afghanistan

Not read it for ages but I seem to remember they struggle when they have to switch from pretending to be boys, to girls in a society where women and girls are very repressed.

Sorry that was an essay!

It's fascinating isn't it.

"...Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom...States shall:"

Sexual orientation - As animals we have a drive in general to have sex to procreate. Obviously it gets more complicated than that but essentially, fancying people and wanting to have sex with them is a thing that is fairly universal - for sure there are sexual people and the focus on sex from a male perspective throughout history is a bit of a bummer, but even without all the external stuff, teenagers will still have sex drives and most of them will fancy people and so on...

Gender identity... Now I question whether this is universal. It's hard for me as I have literally no idea what this means. So it's like - I'm an athiest, I went to a religious school, I was always ??? about it. I just don't have the capacity / whatever it is that makes people want / need / feel meanings and reasons beyond the here and now. I know that lots of poeple have this spiritual feeling - but I can't imagine what it's like. Another one - I can't see things in my "minds eye". Apparently most people can do this (I only found out recently). I had no idea that something was not "normal" as I've never lived another way. I can't imagine what it is like to have this. So, internal gender. I do not have this, I can't imagine what they mean. So, when they assert this is unusual, have they checked? Who have they asked? Have lots of studies been done to see if most people have this? I mean aside from associating with or preferring one gender role over another (social / societal). This is a thing inside. What is it? I can't imagine.

My guess is that most old school feminists will be similar as we are the ones who notice how ridiculous gender (sex role) is when we are young and therefore say this is stupid and work to get rid of stereotype etc. Many feminists are GNC, one way or another. This is one reason we notice how we are treated based on our sex. Because we are NOT comfortable with our gender role.

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.

This is putting the cart before the horse and you know what if it turns out that most people do have a strongly felt internal sense of gender (unrelated to sterotype or sex role etc) then OK. It still doesn't get rid of the oppression of women and girls around the world who are oppressed based on their SEX, any internal sense of gender is wholly irrelevant to tackling that.

I have seen online the idea that it is not people of the female sex who experience oppression but "femme" or "feminine presenting people". This idea erases the entire factual experience of women and girls across the world in favour of including GNC men in the group. Women and girls across the world cannot escape what will happen to them due to their sex, by donning a pair of trousers, cutting their hair and saying they are called Dave. Well, I tell a lie, some can (see girls in Afghanistan whose parents do this so they get educated) but in general it is the fact of our sexed bodies and assumed reproductive capacity that causes all the trouble, not because we are "feminine". GNC women get loads of shit FGS let's just turn a blind eye shall we?

JustAnotherSpartacus
Everyone does seem to be just applying the Yogyakarta Principles as 'best practice', without any thought or analysis.

Principle 3 is about legal recognition. This is the one that was quoted in the Scottish GRA Consultation.
3.10. The view of the Scottish Government is that the 2004 Act requirements are unnecessarily intrusive and do not reflect the best practice now embodied in the Yogyakarta Principles and Resolution 2048.

Principle 3: THE RIGHT TO RECOGNITION BEFORE THE LAW
...Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom...States shall:
...
B. Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to fully respect and legally recognise each person’s self-defined gender identity;
C. Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure that procedures exist whereby all State-issued identity papers which indicate a person’s gender/sex — including birth certificates, passports, electoral records and other documents — reflect the person’s profound self-defined gender identity;
D. Ensure that such procedures are efficient, fair and non-discriminatory, and respect the dignity and privacy of the person concerned;

Whole text here yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf

MargeH
Who gave this particular group of experts the authority to make a worldwide declaration?
They were not given any authority to do this. A lot of the principles are to do with not being discriminatory towards gay and trans people, and not criminalising them. Despite being an unelected bunch of human rights lawyers and academics, they have then made recommendations about 'best practice' regarding legislation around trans people, which has, it seems, been accepted, without any analysis, by various governments - including the Scottish government.

KittTheCar wrote:

"This is a difficiult one to navigate:
Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to adoption or assisted procreation (including donor insemination), without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;"

So - state must pay to sterlise people if they wish it, but also pay for them to procreate.

I also wonder, what does this mean for surrogacy? Is there an argument that it is a human right for men who want to reproduce and don't have a woman handy, that they will be provided with one? They don't mention surrogacy specifically, it's a complex area (and one ripe for exploitation and of course poor women around the world are already being exploited)."

That is scary. No one has a "right" to children. "assisted procreation" could include surrogacy, though it says without discrimination on the bases of gender identity or sexual orientation. I suppose if surrogacy was illegal for everyone it would also apply to transgender people (i.e. they shouldn't get special dispensation to use a surrogate if it was being denied to others).

This is interesting, as quoted by KittTheCar as it is similar to wording I have seen used a lot:

"UNDERSTANDING ‘gender identity’ 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"

This is very similar to the wording in the newly proposed Prohibition on Conversion Therapies Bill in Ireland (not as cuddly as it sounds. It will effectively outlaw a non-affirmative approach regarding transgenderism, if it gets voted in in its current form)

"“gender identity” refers to each person’s internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth"

The Bill can be dowloaded from here for anyone who is interested on www.sinnfein.ie/contents/48626 (this bill only affects the Republic of Ireland)

OK can't be bothered to read it all. Most of it is good stuff and looks to be extending the current human rights accords to trans people which is great.

The points that are iffy are the sort of things pointed out above - there is no mention of any possible conflict with women's rights and the "assigned at birth" and assertion that all people have an internal sense of gender that is strongly held, is not great.

Previous principle (17) says this:

"Facilitate access by those seeking body modifications related to gender reassignment to competent, non-discriminatory treatment, care and support;"

This is contradisctory, isn't it?

"Protection from Medical Abuses
No person may be forced to undergo any form of medical or psychological treatment, procedure, testing, or be confined to a medical facility, based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Notwithstanding any classifications to the contrary, a person's sexual orientation and gender identity are not, in and of themselves, medical conditions and are not to be treated, cured or suppressed."

So which is it?

Are states to provide medical support & psychological support to trans people if they want it, or not?

I imagine a lot of the old-school trans-sexuals (who wanted surgery) will have a few things to say about this one. IF it is not a medical condition then there is NO basis for "treatment".

"The Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, including for the purposes of peaceful demonstrations, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Persons may form and have recognised, without discrimination, associations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and associations that distribute information to or about, facilitate communication among, or advocate for the rights of, persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities."

And yet women do not? >> Have the right to assemble based on their sex, to discuss the issues relevant only to them and try to improve things.

Uh-huh.

This is a difficiult one to navigate:

Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to adoption or assisted procreation (including donor insemination), without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;"

So - state must pay to sterlise people if they wish it, but also pay for them to procreate.

I also wonder, what does this mean for surrogacy? Is there an argument that it is a human right for men who want to reproduce and don't have a woman handy, that they will be provided with one? They don't mention surrogacy specifically, it's a complex area (and one ripe for exploitation and of course poor women around the world are already being exploited).

I think gender identity is supposed to be subjective so anyone can decide for themselves what gender they are and don't need to match their outward sex characteristics Beaded ladies in skinny jeans totally fine in my 6 year old nieces changing room then?

It does put "gender identity" and "sex characteristics" as different things.

However it also uses definition of gender ID
"UNDERSTANDING ‘gender identity’ 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"

Where it accepts that sex is not observed but assigned,

And also that each person has a "deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender" which is also the Stonewall approach but as we see from threads on MN, many many women do not experience this. Do most men? I have no idea. Who have they asked before deciding this thing exists in the vast majority of people? Well they asked trans people, who by definition have this feeling, and then they assumed everyone else does as well. Stonewall describes "agender" (no internal feeling of gender" as rare. I say bollocks, most people just feel like people don't they? Certainly an awful lot of women on MN do, and the standard explanation for this (that women are too dense to know their own minds) is not a satisfcatory explanation.

I didn't read all of it, but did look at prisons, where it did seem to say that people should be housed based on their preference, and does not mention what the consequence of this might be for the people with "sex characteristics" = cunty.

Guardian article above also interviews Stephen, Paris Lees and Sarah Brown...

Whittle, who "transitioned" nearly 40 years ago, was one of three trans men and three trans women who did an unusual thing in 1992: they went to meet Liberal Democrat MP Alex Carlile in Westminster. The unusual element was not the meeting but the fact that they travelled together – at the time, trans people never dared to because it increased the likelihood that they would be spotted and abused. These six wanted to start a campaign group; Carlile advised them to avoid the word "transsexual". So, in Grandma Lee's teashop opposite Big Ben, an anodyne name, Press for Change, was chosen.

Some of those points you picked out "DJLippy seem pretty scary to me, either because they are wide open to (mis) interpretation, or like the required rewriting of history, even if you are a criminal.

Interesting article from 2013
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Part of Burchill's critique of trans campaigners was to suggest they are a small, educated minority who punch well above their weight. Whittle admits trans people tend to be well educated but says this is a legacy of them having no jobs to go to. Whittle, Lees and Burns all came from humble beginnings and are now smart, networked individuals.

In 25 years, Barrett has seen trans people become "a networked bunch" – more so than other people, he thinks – thanks to the internet. Lees, who also works for Trans Media Action, says social media is the "essential catalyst" for the transformation of trans people in society. "Society is in transition and we've woken up from the operation and there's no going back. We can't pretend that trans people don't exist any more," she says. "People have been taking the piss out of trans people for 60 years. The narrative on trans issues has been controlled by people who have no understanding of them. Social media is about us grabbing the narrative back and telling our own stories – this is our reality, this is what we go through and this is what matters to us. We're here, we're in your face, we definitely exist. That's the most important thing – realising we exist."

Just skimmed through the yogyakarta principles. They seem consistent with human rights.

They don't seem to say anything on including cross dressers as female unless I missed it.

In India transgender (mostly transexual I think) has been visible as a community for ever but they have not had the right to employment, owning property etc. As part of implementing these principles, the Indian supreme court also recognised trans gender/sexual people as a third gender. And giving equal rights to the two other sexes. So I think it's the interpretation rather than the principles that are a problem.

Having said that, the third gender only seems to recognise MTF so it seems inherently sexist and one way. Unless there are two categories within the third gender.

No idea... need to read up on this. Will be following this thread with interest.