Trans women are women answers to Terfmore's questions

Sorry missed this from Rat

"They already are obliged to reveal their birth sex in some circumstances; it's written into the EA and the GRA. It isn't a breach of their human rights because it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end - so basically it is important for other people's human rights that it be known."

OK, good. In that case, yep, the GRA needs updating. Any updating needs to reinforce that getting a GRC does not mean you change your biological sex, and that, in some limited circumstances you will be legally obliged to reveal your natal sex.

By arguing the toss over whether someone is really a woman, isn’t the point lost?

No. It is critical to an understanding of why women need sex based protections to be upheld, and yes, strengthened.

^^Self-id means any person can fill in the form - no diagnosis, no treatment plan, no living openly in your assumed gender role but most importantly no changes in appearance required whatsoever. That's evidently very different from the GRC. So saving money for the NHS Ever wondered if this is why it tabled by the government in the first place

but we are prioritising one particular kind of individualised self-expression of healthy persons over the rights of everyone else.

This, exactly.

RatRolyPoly
They already are obliged to reveal their birth sex in some circumstances; it's written into the EA and the GRA. It isn't a breach of their human rights because it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end - so basically it is important for other people's human rights that it be known.

It may say this in the legislation, but how does it work in practice? The Scottish Transgender Alliance want the EA exemptions removed completely, because:
as well as violating trans people’s article 8 human right to privacy [under the ECHR] about their gender reassignment history, [it] is generally unworkable because the only way anyone could prove beyond doubt that they had not undergone gender reassignment would be to submit to an unacceptably intrusive medical examination

If a law cannot be enforced, what is the point of it? One answer here is to repeal it, the other is to take a look at what it is trying to achieve and see if there is another way of achieving that aim, and replace it with something more effective.

Coupled with self-id this will mean excluding all transsexuals from all single-sex spaces under all circumstances, no matter how long ago they transitioned because their GRCs will be rendered meaningless without gatekeeping and we must therefore exclude all members of the opposite sex no matter how they appear.

Quite. But you won't be able to exclued anyone from anywhere, because you can't ask what a trans person's birth sex is without breaching their human rights.

Some religious people have a deeply held belief that being gay is a sin, that it is harmful to wider society, that it is harmful to children and that it’s contagious and can be cured. They are absolutely against gay marriage because in their eyes it changes the meaning of marriage and undermines the institution.

And they believe this because they they think a sky fairy wrote it in a book.

However:

1. Marriage is a civil instituation
2. Who the f* cares who anyone wants to spend the rest of their life with as long as they are consenting adults and don't do anything worthy of an AIBU weddings thread.

Reason triumphs over anti scientific dogma.

On the other hand I have to accept legislation that accepts the idea that sex is a feeling in somebody's head?

PeakPants You are completely missing the point.

Single-sex spaces and places for women are not compatible with self-id. So what you are asking us to do will not work.

And no, I do not accept the attempt to de-medicalise the process. The process was created for people suffering from a specific illness that has a specific treatment which leads to a specific outcome.

De-medicalising means that we are no longer protecting those who need society's protection because they are suffering from an illness, but we are prioritising one particular kind of individualised self-expression of healthy persons over the rights of everyone else.

I accept that you cannot see that. I know that the politicians I've spoken to are completely unaware that self-id is not aimed at protecting transsexuals suffering from extreme gender dysphoria. Once they are made aware - usually via an issue dear to them like sports or stats or medicine - they too question if self-id is the wrong path to take.

And as for your contention that the GRC already is given out based on feelings: that is blatantly false. To receive a GRC an applicant needs to provide two medical confirmations of suffering from gender dysphoria and at a bare minimum show evidence of a treatment plan for a medical transition in addition to living openly in a gender role of the opposite sex for two years.

Self-id means any person can fill in the form - no diagnosis, no treatment plan, no living openly in your assumed gender role but most importantly no changes in appearance required whatsoever. That's evidently very different from the GRC.

So we have two options: we can fight self-id. OR we can as you advise us to do fight for stricter and wider application of single-sex exemptions.

Coupled with self-id this will mean excluding all transsexuals from all single-sex spaces under all circumstances, no matter how long ago they transitioned because their GRCs will be rendered meaningless without gatekeeping and we must therefore exclude all members of the opposite sex no matter how they appear.

Do you understand that what you are suggesting will hurt transsexuals?

That would mean they are obliged to reveal their biological sex in some circumstances, yes?

They already are obliged to reveal their birth sex in some circumstances; it's written into the EA and the GRA. It isn't a breach of their human rights because it is a proportionate means to a legitimate end - so basically it is important for other people's human rights that it be known.

the issue isn’t self ID

The issue very much is self ID. Because as someone else wrote it will change the culture. The culture is changing already. Not so long ago Travis Alabanza would not have been pandered to.

Self-ID does not mean that you can wake up and stroll into a changing room and pretend to be a woman.

That's exactly what it means.

I present to you Ibi-Pippi Orup Hedegaard, who is taking advantage of Denmark's self ID to enter women's communal changing rooms.

reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/35dm73/meet_ibipippi_the_lesbian_trapped_in_the_body_of/

They may be doing it as an 'artist' to be provocative. But if they can do it then so can any man.

I think the personal information they're keeping private is that they've changed legal sex

But what is legal sex? If it is different to biological sex, why should everybody else have to reveal their biological sex? If it is the same, where is the legislative language that allows people to have sex based exceptions based on biological sex?

What about people who don't pass?

What about people who are non-binary?

It just seems to be a fudge based on the idea that you can change sex.

@PeakPants
Teacup says "But we can’t argue for tighter exemptions if we’ve already said they are women." and the same point has been made repeatedly. I am interested to hear your response?

But we can’t argue for tighter exemptions if we’ve already said they are women.

It really doesn’t

So as I said teacup the issue isn’t self ID, it’s the policy on applying exemptions under the Equality Act. That’s what needs to be tightened up. By focusing on self-ID it comes across as trying to restrict trans people’s rights (from an outsiders viewpoint), not that you’re trying to protect the rights of women. By arguing the toss over whether someone is really a woman, isn’t the point lost?

I doubt very much a male presenting man who has done nothing to transition would get a diagnosis of dysphoria to be honest.

Compromise from them: accept that they can be excluded from all female spaces in some circumstances but that for other intents and purposes they will be treated as the acquired gender.

That would mean they are obliged to reveal their biological sex in some circumstances, yes? According to someone (Peak or Rat?) that would breach their human rights, no?

Well there isn’t such thing as a lady brain.
And I wouldn’t be skipping through the fields with joy about a trans woman on an all woman shortlist but the actual crowd funderbwas to challenge self id’d trans women.
Like I keep saying self id changes the culture, Labour have opened them up to ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ that could be a trans woman or a natal woman or a non binary Male, or literally any male who just says they do to sabotage all women’s shortlists.

Like I keep saying I don’t think that a man can change sex but the GRC is a good compromise to keep everyone’s rights intact.

Nauticant there are zero rules on presentation in order to get a GRC. You can have intact male genitalia and get it.

On what basis can you challenge a man in a dress now? Even if he looks masculine he could have a GRC. After self-ID you have as much right to challenge him as you do now. He still might have a GRC, there will just be a change in the procedure to obtain it.

Self-ID does not mean that you can wake up and stroll into a changing room and pretend to be a woman. It will be easier to get a GRC but the majority of trans people don’t even have one at the moment and you have said that things are working fine as they are.

And we can exclude them, but most places aren’t upholding that right because of pressure from the trans lobby, if they backed off and let us uphold those exclusions then quite frankly this conversation wouldn’t be happening.

In the same way that most people don't spend much time thinking about Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn or the EU, I'm pretty sure that most people aren't aware of this topic. I also suspect that most men who are aware of it think it's a women's issue that doesn't concern them.

I am sure that I could walk down my street now and try to gather opinions, and all of my neighbours would politely agree with whatever I said until we moved onto a safer topic like the weather.

If you are on a the Feminist board on a parenting forum claiming that a penis is a female sex organ because the man who owns it says so, then doesn't that make you stop and question your belief?

PeakPants
The exemptions allow exclusions of those with a GRC.

But they're unenforceable. If the individual has a female birth certificate and insists that he was born female, how can you prove otherwise to enforce the EA exemption?

But surely Teacup its also about having trans women on the list full stop? You want the list to be reserved for natal females? That’s certainly the impression I get from the majority of anti self-ID posters on here. They say there is no such thing as a lady brain etc so surely they wouldn’t want people with a GRC on the list either? Because a man can never be a woman. Or have I got that wrong?