Letter in The Guardian from Transexuals saying self ID not the answer

Agreed GRA allowing legal sex as recorded on your documents is self evidently a legal fiction. There are others of these- like ‘child of the marriage’ legal assumption and sometimes these can be useful and protect people. They all respond to a social context. I don’t know the history but it sounds like a part of the pro-GRA argument (or how it was articulated publicly/via lobbying) back in the day was because people couldn’t be in same-sex marriages back then.

It doesn't matter if we don't speak for all women. Our boundaries and our consent are human rights. Youvso not speak for all trans'women'.

But this does impact on women, that's just a fact. They don't have to care about it, but men using women's facilities, joining their groups etc. absolutely impacts women. The fact that they don't get this is a loud and clear indication of male socialisation.

You don't speak for all women or even most women. When women have different opinions to you, you dismiss them as not 'getting it' or victims of 'socialisation'. That sounds more like male socialisation to me.

She said some women aren't happy to accept this.

She said some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not.

I was pointing out that the law regards them as female. It's not a matter of honour. Human rights aren't an honour or a courtesy.

You can't mandate women being happy about the situation. I'll decide what I'm happy and comfortable with, thanks all the same.

I'm not trying to. And ditto.

It is a fact that a fiction has been made legal

Lol

And let's face it there's no definition of woman that isn't by reproductive role. There's no point even arguing that there is.

It is a fact that a fiction has been made legal.

It is a legal fiction. It involves being treated as a woman under the law.

There is no legal definition of woman or man so the law does not define anyone with a GRC as the opposite sex.

It is a legal fiction.

It is a legal fact. You don't agree with it - that doesn't make reality fiction.

Lang it wasn't meant to be goady at all. I'm not the only one who has posted in anger or been overly provocative in the past. Being on here has caused me to reflect on many things, including my own language

If I see information that I disagree with or that I think is wrong or unjust I can still contribute even if it is the same information to you. Maybe it is in response to the same information being posted? It doesn't really matter to me anymore if you respond or not.

Thanks and have a good weekend too.

Christine Burns comments here in 2013:
"Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues"

(It's a significant article, I think, in understanding the history behind the fight for rights for people in the UK who are transgender)
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Supermatch: gender and sex are not interchangeable.

It is a legal fiction.

Sorry I'll post that again without the patronising tone. See I am learning so much from you!

LOL! Good goad!

Supermatch, we have been in and out and up and down and through the difference between social, cultural and legal environments - and also the specifics of current and proposed legal frameworks - a great many times before. I'm not going to do it again. Indeed, it is unlikely I will respond at all to you in future, particularly on lengthy threads when you suddenly appear and cite me by name in order to rehash disagreements we have had before. I regard it as goady on your part. Of course, goading may well not be your intention at all but either way - do feel free to continue to post whatever you want wherever you want, even though I am unlikely to respond to you further.

Have a good weekend!

Ceinwen/Kay - if you are going to post on here, you are going to have to accept that using women's facilities, joining women's groups and ticking the box marked F is impacting on women

No they do not have to accept that just because you say so

But this does impact on women, that's just a fact. They don't have to care about it, but men using women's facilities, joining their groups etc. absolutely impacts women. The fact that they don't get this is a loud and clear indication of male socialisation.

Moreover, you are going to have to accept that, while some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not

No they are not going to have to accept that at all. Because the law states that for the vast, vast majority of purposes and situations a trans woman is female. Or woman

She said some women aren't happy to accept this. You can't mandate women being happy about the situation. I'll decide what I'm happy and comfortable with, thanks all the same. And exactly where did you remove the patronising tone?

LangCleg is spot on when she talks about appeals to female socialisation. I have now lost count of the hours I have spent reading long, rambling posts on here from transwomen who come to tell us all about their painful histories and to point out that they are not in favour of self-ID, that they share our concerns. But also that they personally are not a threat so can we just stop being mean?

This is one of the reasons we need separate campaigns as feminists and as TS - so we can set our own agendas without being compromised and without tone policing each other.

Then we can see where we have the same aims and support each other's campaigns where it is useful to do so.

She's great JHB. IW is great too (when she's not shouting in other women's faces).

The upshot of the change to the legislation that's been asked for around self-identity, is that you are putting women, including transgender women quite frankly in vulnerable positions potentially.

Yes agree. Self ID without safeguards could allow men into women's spaces and that will put women, including trans women at risk.

What the law currently says or is interpreted as saying is completely different to whether anyone believes a man can literally become a woman.

This is a good guide to the legal positions and implications of changes to women, including reference to sex based exemptions:
fairplayforwomen.com/legal-basics/

Sorry I'll post that again without the patronising tone. See I am learning so much from you!

Ceinwen/Kay - if you are going to post on here, you are going to have to accept that using women's facilities, joining women's groups and ticking the box marked F is impacting on women.

No they do not have to accept that just because you say so.

Moreover, you are going to have to accept that, while some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not.

No they are not going to have to accept that at all. Because the law states that for the vast, vast majority of purposes and situations a trans woman is female. Or woman. That is the legal position.

appeals to female socialisation

No appeals to female socialisation are necessary. The law/ parliament states:

UK Parliament Women and Equalities Committee 2015:
279.Further, under the Equality Act 2010, all organisations (including employers and public bodies, such as the NHS) must respect a trans person’s acquired / affirmed gender and any associated change of name. Failure to change pronouns, names and gender markers (including honorifics and pronouns) on records in respect of a trans person would (with a few exceptions)281 constitute unlawful direct discrimination under the Act.

and

Gender Recognition Act 2004:
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

PermissionToSpeakSir
w.r.t. schizophrenia it is another disease where sex makes a difference, onset is typically earlier in males (late teen) than females (30s)

Truely horrible disease.

SupermatchGame

When Justine Roberts was interviewed by Julia H-B about why Mumsnet was allowing discussion about this here, she commented in response to India Willoughby:

"I think the problem with this is that the trans lobby have confused an issue about people quite rightfully sticking up for the idea of hard won women's rights around....(interrupted but early JR said women's refuge and rape counselling as examples)

The upshot of the change to the legislation that's been asked for around self-identity, is that you are putting women, including transgender women quite frankly in vulnerable positions potentially.
We need to be able to discuss if we are changing legislation, and for very good reasons because I am totally in favour of recognition, equality and fair treatment of all individuals and letting them live how they live.
But we need to be able to discuss these competing rights and it needs to not just be shut down....and I'm afraid and to be honest India you've got to see the other point of view, you can't just plough on with the [position] 'our issue is the only important one''

& a number of members of Mumsnet responded to her & MNHQ's position:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3222471-AIBU-to-be-extremely-proud-of-Justine-Roberts-Mumsnet-right-now

Ceinwen/Kay - if you are going to post on here, you are going to have to accept that using women's facilities, joining women's groups and ticking the box marked F is impacting on women.

No they do not have to accept that just because you say so.

Moreover, you are going to have to accept that, while some women here are happy to regard post-SRS transsexuals as "honorary" women, others are not.

No they are not going to have to accept that at all. Because the law states that for the vast, vast majority of purposes and situations a trans woman is female. Or woman. That is the legal position. I thought we covered this already Lang?

appeals to female socialisation

No appeals to female socialisation are actually necessary. Appeal only to the law:

UK Parliament Women and Equalities Committee 2015:
279.Further, under the Equality Act 2010, all organisations (including employers and public bodies, such as the NHS) must respect a trans person’s acquired / affirmed gender and any associated change of name. Failure to change pronouns, names and gender markers (including honorifics and pronouns) on records in respect of a trans person would (with a few exceptions)281 constitute unlawful direct discrimination under the Act.

and

Gender Recognition Act 2004:
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

Erm, why are you giving me permission post again? Weird.

I admire sweary too. But this issue isn't about who we like best or who was mean to who last week. When it gets to that we've lost the argument.

I am now going out with the dog but you may post again (if that's how we do it now )

What LangCleg said.

Have another fgs.

Ta. Oh by the way, if you want to post again, please do, you can have the last word, I don't want it. I still won't be quiet about this though Oh one other thing, Sweary is not my mate, she is a woman I admire. I know nothing more about her than I've seen on the television, press and on here.

Give me a break.
I'm not supposed to criticise you as we're both women???

Have another fgs.

But the squabbling, and sticking up for your mate cos she said I said it, type thing, really does look pathetic.

From one woman to another - thank you.