Legal self-id - what are the problems?

But noone is ever going to win that war! And I wouldn't want to live in a world where either side did.

It’s not a question of winning a war. It’s just how mammals reproduce. At some point in the future we may be able to lay eggs that men can keep warm like penguins or reproduce asexually, but we aren’t there yet.

In the mean time, there are clear consequences to being born with a human male or female reproductive system. It is possible and sometimes necessary to group people according to sex.

What goes on in people’s heads is their own business and I really, really, really don’t want to live in a society that tries to group people by identity.

but it seems to me being GNC is not only sometimes a stereotype in itself these days, it's often seen as pretty cool too.

It’s not about what you can get away with in a nightclub.
Society will accepting of gender non conformity when a middle aged man can throw on a skirt to visit the allotments or paint their nails for a night out at the golf club.

Yes, I agree but trans people are by definition gender non conforming. And it is the gender non conformity that leads to discrimination.

Are you sure? I'm pretty GNC, loads of feminists are, have we experienced significant discrimination for it? What about Pink? Lady Gaga? Olly from Years and Years? All the blokes in nightclubs with their deep-v t-shirts and dress-length vest tops? All the gay men in eye liner with drawn on eyebrows? All the butch lesbians? All the women in jeans? Anyone who wears anything from a "unisex" fashion label??

Of course that discrimination has happened historically, and school is notoriously hard; but it seems to me being GNC is not only sometimes a stereotype in itself these days, it's often seen as pretty cool too.

I think transpeople are usually discriminated against because people find the idea of "being in the wrong body" incomprehensible, abhorrent and unnatural.

'Trans women are women' is the ideology.
FTFY.

There is a difference between being gender-non-conforming and trans.

Yes, I agree but trans people are by definition gender non conforming. And it is the gender non conformity that leads to discrimination.

but a man is still not a woman.

We're getting to the crux of the matter much quicker than usual on this thread - I'm pleased. The issue is ideological. But noone is ever going to win that war! And I wouldn't want to live in a world where either side did. Society is about peaceful coexistence, is it not?

If the best protection I'm being offerred in a women's safe space, whether it be a changing room or a refuge, is that I must be able to prove a hate crime has been committed then I am not satisfied with self id

I'm not sure you've understood. You don't have to prove anything, you simply go about your changing room business as you usually would, and if anyone causes you alarm you do exactly as you would now; you alert the management that there is an individual behaving lewdly in the shower block.

Totally the same as you do now.

If the best protection I'm being offerred in a women's safe space, whether it be a changing room or a refuge, is that I must be able to prove a hate crime has been committed then I am not satisfied with self id. It's not great enough protection or for my safety or dignity.

Changing rooms belong to someone, typically a leisure centre. They set the codes of conduct, and if you're snogging in the pool or behaving lewdly in a changing room they can eject you with very little explanation at all; be you man, woman or collie-dog.

Yes, because we all know women are always believed when they complain, right?

I welcome any changes to the law, finally we will get clarity if what defines a woman, what are gender feelings and how do you prove your feelings and where biological sex stands in relation to gender. Because currently it is one big mess and women are being shouted down and told they are hysterical when they object to being erased as a class.

So, biological sex is a protected characteristic, organisations are allowed to exclude people based on their sex (sports, prisons, wards etc.) and you have the right to enforce this, you can always ask for a nurse, security guard based on the same sex, refusing a service to a transperson or accidental misgendering is not a hate crime, remove the gender from passports etc, replace all changing rooms, showers, toilets with cubicles and gender neutral (yes, also the mens) then fine, have a GRC with a doctors note. But a man is still not a woman.

Disabled people need medical proof for things that benefit their lives (blue badges, services etc). Pregnant women need a medical form to claim maternity benefits.

And crucially there would be no badges or benefits if anybody could join the group regardless of circumstances.

Transpeople don't won't a GRC so they can be what they aren't, they want it so they can be accepted as what they believe they are!

Except the piece of paper can’t do that. It can only facilitate concealment. That might be a perfectly reasonable aim, but it has nothing to do with acceptance.

Self ID will make it impossible to remove these men from women's facilities - because they self ID as women, right?

No, not right!

Changing rooms belong to someone, typically a leisure centre. They set the codes of conduct, and if you're snogging in the pool or behaving lewdly in a changing room they can eject you with very little explanation at all; be you man, woman or collie-dog.

And before someone tells me they'd be too afraid of having committed a "hate crime"; until such time as it becomes an actual cringe to tell someone to stop staring, I think we're all okay. That's cos there can be no "hate crime" without an actual crime having been committed.

Losing a clear definition for the word ‘woman’ makes alot of difference to me.

The idea that you can only have certain rights on a ‘case by case basis’ also seems to be fundamentally at odds with everything we value about the law.

The concept of only the ‘right kind’ of trans person being able to access certain services doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

You can only give rights to a particular group if you can objectively explain who they are whether that is trans people or women or children or anyone else.

There are males around who like to expose themselves to young girls and women. Who like to watch young girls and women getting undressed. Self ID will make it impossible to remove these men from women's facilities - because they self ID as women, right?

When legislation is based on someone's own beliefs, how can it be challenged?

When people argue that a predatory man wouldn't want to live as a woman just to gain access to women's spaces - wouldn't self id mean he wouldn't have to genuinely live as a woman? He could gain access without having to tell his mates down the pub he's changing sex, he could just stroll in one day if he felt like it?

And how do women get him thrown out if he's not being violent or threatening. Its not a crime to stare at someone. So, even if a woman managed to get the police down how could they remove him if he has a right to be there because he has self identified as a woman that morning?

Because a person’s sex at birth is recording biology.

Jaycee told me they don't change the record entered at birth Nosquirrels.

They simply give you a copy for use when you might be asked for one.

It is basically saying we recognise that you will get shit for being gender non conforming so we'll do nothing about that but here's a piece of paper so that you can hide away your past

Jelly. There is a difference between being gender-non-conforming and trans. Enough transpeople have come here to tell us so. I can't believe people are still suggesting trans might just "go away" if we were all allowed to dress how we liked.

Oh you're gay, well yes that's fine but we will give you this piece of paper so that if anyone ever suspects you can show them that actually you are straight because this piece of paper says so

Transpeople don't won't a GRC so they can be what they aren't, they want it so they can be accepted as what they believe they are!

You've really misunderstood this whole thing I think Jelly.

Imagine if this was what happened with homosexuality instead of laws changing and discrimination challenged.

Oh you're gay, well yes that's fine but we will give you this piece of paper so that if anyone ever suspects you can show them that actually you are straight because this piece of paper says so.

It's for transpeople Jelly.

I disagree. It does nothing to fight discrimination. It is basically saying we recognise that you will get shit for being gender non conforming so we'll do nothing about that but here's a piece of paper so that you can hide away your past like some kind of dirty little secret.

We need to fight for acceptance for people and their journeys, not for laws to cover up people's past.

As the BC is largely irrelevant for a trans person to be able to function in society, streamlining the process makes sense as it would enable more of us to obtain them.

If it’s mostly irrelevant, then the big push for it seems odd.

Why is a birth certificate different to passport etc where gender is possible to Self ID already?

Because a person’s sex at birth is recording biology.

If it is so important to get a new BC, then a “proof of need”, via a doctor’s note as Rat suggests doesn’t seem so terrible to me.

Disabled people need medical proof for things that benefit their lives (blue badges, services etc). Pregnant women need a medical form to claim maternity benefits. Women seeking an abortion need 2 doctors to agree. If none of these people can self-refer themselves out of their physical reality, why should trans gender people be different?

For me this always comes back to male violence and male harassment of women. If the day ever comes when men - as a class - acknowledge and take responsibility for the problem then I might reconsider. Until then, no self ID in situations where women are vulnerable. Crime and employment statistics and sport based on biological sex. Thank you and good day.

You still have no answer for the case of the girl in the changing room who sees the naked body of a man beside her.
There is no attendant for her to call, and even if there was the person with male genitals has only to state that he is a woman.
All your legal arguments are meaningless to protect the girl who will now be too frightened to use that facility again.

It's for transpeople Jelly.

And if it's something they value, and it hardly makes a jot if difference to us... why would we stand in their way?

I have no idea how it feels to be recognised as the person you feel you are that, having previously been seen as something you're sure you're not.

To get that recognition in the eyes of the law, to some, must bring security and a quite profound peace.

Sex based exemptions have to be proportionate means to a legitimate aim and assessed on a case by case basis in relation to trans men and women.

Sex based exclusions have to be proportionate and fair in relation to everyone - including people who aren't trans.

It doesn't make sense to have a clear reason why an exemption is needed on the basis of sex and to then include other people on a case by case basis. Deciding things on a case by case basis is pretty much the definition of exercising discrimination.

You can either explain who a service is for (and this might include anyone legally recognised as a woman or women and transwomen), or you can't and it should be open to anyone.

Neither the Labour Party AWS nor the Guides seem to be able to explain who they are serving. In the Labour Party I suspect that is because they don't care (AWS were never universally popular) and in the case of the Guides I think it's because they want to avoid a fuss - which isn't really working out.

But hey, I'm all up for saying get rid of everything except a statutory declaration and a doctor's note, if that would make everybody happy. But obviously I'm not trans.

But why is anything needed at all? What is the piece of paper for if it doesn't actually change very much?

It takes a while, but these threads usually end up with the everyone agreeing that legal self-ID doesn't really affect all that much, except to perhaps give the prison service a bit more work to do in risk assessments.

But then it turns out it's all about "the principal".

But hey, I'm all up for saying get rid of everything except a statutory declaration and a doctor's note, if that would make everybody happy. But obviously I'm not trans.

The principal aside, would that be acceptable? That's about as much gatekeeping as you have when you apply for your passport - any one of us - and it hardly medicalises the process; I had to have a form from my midwife each time I took times off work when pregnant; that hardly medicalised my pregnancy.

Compromise?

For them, the BC would out them in a small number of instances.

Which is why we need to work towards gender non conformity being totally acceptable. Hiding people’s journeys moves us further from that and means that people live in fear of being ‘found out’.