Guess how I got suspended from the Labour Party?

Basing anything legal on ‘intention to do something for the rest of your life’ is on an obvious hiding to nothing.
People change their minds, life happens. That’s fine. You can’t punish them and nor should you. That’s why we have divorce, notice periods at work, etc.

hackmum

Fermats: "Money is a social construct. But we don't allow individuals to write "I promise to pay the bearer on demand of the sum of £10" in biro on a blank piece of paper and take it into a shop. We have agreed legal rules about what counts as money and what doesn't. Nationality is a social construct - but you're not going to get far applying for a passport with a hand-written note saying 'I identify as British' rather than your actual birth certificate."

This is an incredibly important point. The nationality analogy had occurred to me before. You can't, in a well-ordered society, simply allow people to go around saying, "I identify as XYZ" and take their word for it. I identify as dyslexic, so you must allow me extra time in exams? I identify as disabled, so I'm entitled to park in the disabled parking space? I identify as Irish, so you must give me an Irish passport? All these things have rules attached to them that we have agreed on as a society.

^this is exactly it. It was Rachael Dolezal that first sent me down the peak trans route. I felt deeply uncomfortable and outraged that she thinks she can just 'identify' as black. As a mixed race person I found it very offensive to suggest that there is a particular 'way' to be black or feelings associated with it. I can accept that she feels very much part of the African American community and culture, absolutely, but to pretend to be actually, physically black is just ridiculous.

And then I realised, how is it any different with sex?! And now I'm here!

Sarah,

Thanks for explaining about those Yoyakarta principles. I've learnt something there.

It's really obvious you don't understand criminal law though so I'd leave that. Especially the analogies. English lit is the degree if you want to get points for random analogies, not law.

I'm about halfway through the YPs (I'm up to yogyakartaprinciples.org/principle-16/) and so far it can mostly be summarised as "some people live and love in ways that are at odds with the expectations of their surrounding society, particularly in respect of behaviour expected on the basis of sex, and they shouldn't be persecuted nor denied human rights because of this". But it took the framers of that document nearly 40 pages to state that. It took me around 40 words.

TBH the whole bloody thing feels like a highly-personalisable religion.

I think it's like Scientology - a religion capitalism has come up with for its own interests. Scientology = profit generating pyramid scheme. Genderism = profit generating body modification scheme. The theology justifies the commerce.

you must intend to live in your preferred gender until you die

And how do the Labour Party know that David doesn’t intend to be female (on wednesdays) until he dies?

@FermatsTheorem Citing the Yogakharta declaration as a definition that supposedly can't be questioned in a discussion with gender critical feminists is a bit like citing the Nicene creed as a statement of fact in a discussion with atheists. It really doesn't carry quite the weight you think it does.

TBH the whole bloody thing feels like a highly-personalisable religion.

Hear hear, bd67th. AWS are about sex. Not gender identity. That’s the whole bloody point. We haven’t got a Parliament with less than 30% women MPs because of gender identity discrimination, but because of how society treats women on the basis of their perceived reproductive capacity. Their sex.

you must intend to live in your preferred gender until you die

But if the person changes their mind, how cruel would it be for anyone to insist they can't legally transition again?

And would there be any possibility of checking that, anyway, if all records have been changed to the new reality as if they were always that way?

People with penises are men.
People with vaginas are women.

Some men are gentle, caring and nurturing. They like to look nice. They are the primary caregiver to their children. They keep the house clean. They are still men.

Some women don’t like to wear dresses or make up. They don’t care about their hair. They do manual jobs. They aren’t fussed about children. They are still women.

Rather than jumping through hoops to pretend we are something else lets challenge gender stereotypes.

Reading these definitions it is quite clear that LM and also Sophie Cook have female gender identities.

Not to me it's not. A "deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender" is not discernible to an outsider. LM and SC are free to be honest or tell lies - I've no way of knowing. Equally, I'm free to disbelieve them and they have no way of proving it. It's nonsense.

Similarly to change your legal gender today you must intend to live in your preferred gender until you die. A Gender Recognition Panel (a tribunal) decides whether you are sincere. When legal self id comes in, a court will decide if an individual has made a false statutory declaration.

People promise to marry until 'death do us part' everyday, yet 50% of those marriages end in divorce. A question in the Scottish consultation asked how many times we thought someone should be allowed to change their gender id. Given de-transitioners exist, the answer has to be at least twice. Thereafter, it's just whether the number should be an odd or even one.

Citing the Yogakharta declaration as a definition that supposedly can't be questioned in a discussion with gender critical feminists is a bit like citing the Nicene creed as a statement of fact in a discussion with atheists. It really doesn't carry quite the weight you think it does.

That’s an inaccurate explanation of criminal law. The element is mens rea not intention.

The really handy thing with murder trials is that evidence is really quite important though.

So let's say, Mr Jones was found with a knife with the victim's blood on it and had googled 'how to kill someone.' And he was witnessed running away from the scene having been heard to shout at the victim.

Vs 'I really promise I feel lile a woman, see I'm wearing a dress and everything.'

Do the two honestly compare? A lawyer doesn't tell a jury, 'I really believe this man did it because I have an internal feeling which tells me he did'

The two things differ wildly.

how do you define gender identity and how can you judge someone else's gender identity.

Two very simple answers here:

1. You can’t
2. You can’t.

Because it comes down to how people FEEL. How do I feel? You can’t know. Do I see red the same as you? We will never know. It’s subjective. It’s a feeling. There is no objective measure. It cannot be weighed, detected, seen, heard, smelt or sensed in any way. It’s just how you feel.

You can however define sex. Objectively.

You cannot legislate for a feeling. You cannot legislate for belief.

Some societies do. They ban blasphemy for example and apostasy. Are they societies you’d like to live in? They are not ones I want to live it.

TRA like to pretend that gender identity has everything to do being male,female, man women girl and boy. When in reality it means nothing but sexist stereotypes.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

Luv that pic - captures the paradox of self ID very well

The Y Principles are word salad pushed through by vested interests but without appropriate consultation. Many of us have feelings and many of us have found that certain feelings aren't facts.

@SarahAr The Yogyakarta Principles define gender identity as:

None of which has any relevance to the female socialisation from birth that all females experience, the male socialisation from birth that all males experience, nor the continuing oppression of females on the basis of their female sexed bodies that AWS were supposed to try to compensate for.

Please stop with this talking point, Sarah. Under self-ID, the only way to prosecute someone for making a false declaration would be if they stood up and said they lied. Which is unlikely to happen. This is because legislation would be based on subjective, not objective criteria. This, by the way, is the hallmark of a theocracy. Please, do us the favour of making arguments that hold at least a drop of water.

In the case of the OP, it is not trans people or allies who will determine if he is sincere in his claim to have a female gender identity some of the time, it will be a Labour Party disciplinary committee.

Yes, and that's extremely sinister.

Self ID

There seems to be two main themes coming up on this thread: how do you define gender identity and how can you judge someone else's gender identity.

Defining gender identity

The Yogyakarta Principles define gender identity as:

"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"

Further information on gender identity is on wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

Reading these definitions it is quite clear that LM and also Sophie Cook have female gender identities. However, it is not possible to have a gender identity where you are a woman on Wednesdays but a man for the rest of the week. So the OP is not sincere when he claims to identify as a woman on Wednesdays. His subsequent comments to the media and on this thread reinforce his lack of sincerity.

Pippa Bunce's gender identity is bi-gendered which remains constant. However, her gender expression varies from day to day. She does not have a female identity so would not qualify for AWS or the role of women's officer in the Labour Party. She is also not able to change her legal gender under today's laws or under legal self id - and I doubt she would want to.

Deciding if someone's claimed gender identity is sincere

Criminal law is based on people's intent. For example, to be convicted of murder you need to have intended to kill or seriously injury someone. Defendants could argue that what they intended to do is entirely subjective, that they did not intend to harm the victim and you have no way of knowing otherwise. Yet people are convicted of murder all the time. Why? Because the court looks at all the evidence and makes a judgment on whether the defendant is telling the truth or not.

Similarly to change your legal gender today you must intend to live in your preferred gender until you die. A Gender Recognition Panel (a tribunal) decides whether you are sincere. When legal self id comes in, a court will decide if an individual has made a false statutory declaration.

In the case of the OP, it is not trans people or allies who will determine if he is sincere in his claim to have a female gender identity some of the time, it will be a Labour Party disciplinary committee.

Depressingly the fact man is doing it will get more publicity thsn a woman making a point but not to take away from his point or actions.

It kind of is a bit depressing, but it's the only way that the reality of men barging into women's space could be made obvious.

The whole thing is so depressing that anything that trips it up is welcome.