Why do trans folk need 'extra' rights?

Rufus as I said our rights have been. Taken away before the April Ashley case was the biggest example and was due to powerful people protecting themsleves at the expense of us. If you include rights in Northern Ireland then this country as often taken away the rights of poeple when it as needed too.

As I posted on. Another thread it is not so much that people want to take them away but that in a binary society that not allowing us to be seen as our gender means that it does remove rights in a non. Binary society this would not be the case

From the Stonewall website on reforming the Gender Recognition Act (which is what says whether you can get a certificate to change your birth certificate):

Instead, we would like to see a simple administrative process based on self-determination in line with best practice in other countries, such as Ireland, Malta, Argentina and Norway. With self-determination, a trans person does not need to be diagnosed with a medical condition.

I think Stonewall they also would like to reduce the age to 16:
Currently, trans people aged 16 and 17 cannot apply for a gender recognition certificate because of their age. Instead, we would like to see the age of legal recognition lowered from 18 to 16.

Don't ask me what the process is if anyone wants to change it back. Presumably that has to be allowed too?

Do some transgender men/women want to be able to change their birth certificate based on ‘self ID’? What if they are born a man, decide they ID as a woman and change the BC then a few years later, feel they ID as a man, can they then change it back?

Lurker

Being gender non-conforming probably does fall under sex discrimination i.e. If a woman is sacked because she doesn't wear make up she is being discriminated against because of her sex (a man wouldn't be sacked for not wearing make up).

The definition of gender reassignment in the EA is fairly broad (I quoted it upthread) and covers someone who proposes to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone procedures to change characteristics of their sex. As far as I know this is interpreted broadly, it doesn't mean there needs to be any kind of medical process, it could be as little as choosing to wear clothes associated with the opposite sex.

Crosspost

But has anyone said that those rights should be taken away

Thank you for answering bespin

I don't understand why some people are saying that there are moves to take away any rights

When there dont seem to be

I am probably very ignorant about this bit but in this country and in my limited understanding its quite rare to take anyones rights away, i dont know of any examples

(Im excluding anything brexit related from that statement...fuck knows what the government will come up with next)

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment covers issues in relation to transitioning gender so being sacked for wanting to transition or needing time off or adaptations to allow for this, also around specificly being discriminated because you are transgendered

Rufus

At this time no rights are being taken away and they may never be, but we have had rights that we had taken away from us before like the right to marry in the 1970s this was not illegal upto that point as trans people were seen as the gender they presented as. Also inheritance in the 1959s in relation to trans men. These rights were slowly won back in court cases over the last 40 years and we are mostly. Back to a place ligally we were in the 1950s, though socially we have also come a long wayz though unlike younger trans people I realise that this can all be lost again at any point and knew when the trans tipping point was proudly declared that this would be the responce because it as happened before.

lurker
I think another poster suggested that trans people would already be protected by sex discrimination laws anyway

Might have been me?

Everyone is covered by sex discrimination laws, in that it is unlawful to treat someone less favourably because of their sex. Most often women are treated less favourably than men (because, patriarchy) but it could be the other way round.

This is different to gender reassignment discrimination, in that it is unlawful to treat someone less favourably because of their actual or proposed gender reassignment.

So they are two qualitatively different rights. There may be individual circumstances where someone might be able to claim discrimination under both, but they really do rather different things.

I think a couple of weeks ago a poster suggested that gender reassignment as a protected characteristic could be equally protected under the PC of sex, but I didn't really get the argument (I'd need to think about it more carefully). In any case I think there are lots of reasons to maintain gender reassignment as a PC of its own.

For what it's worth, I do have sympathy with all your examples, Snappity. Certainly I think the GRA process could be made more user-friendly, just as MANY bureaucratic processes could be. But I don't think it should be self-declaration, or that medical evidence should be removed, or that any changes should be brought in without thinking VERY carefully about sex vs gender and what impact any changes will have.

Nobody ever says what rights are being taken away...ever

I would be really interested to know

Oh and some people come up with really really fucking stupid points that they think are mic drop moments and i just sit there and think 'twat'

wibble

I agree

I was pootling along quite happy with no idea of the GRC etc then I looked at a thread and when some women mentioned their concerns they were insulted and no explanations were given

It seemed to be ask a reasonable question then called called a terf or transphobic etc

But no one ever explained

And now people with all sorts of different opinions are all pissed off with each other

Snappity

Your first two examples are about people living abroad and how to acknowledge that in the UK. I don't really understand why that justifies a system of self-declaration, instead of (for example) making the admission of medical evidence from abroad a clearer process. I'd also assume that in the second example - if the asylum claim is made solely on the basis of transsexual identity then clearly that should be noted in the immigration paperwork just as if someone was escaping another form of persecution. I am a little confused as to why the person born abroad should need to amend a birth certificate, presumably issued from their country of origin, for this process? Wouldn't the mismatch between their birth certificate and their physical appearance +/- medical paperwork form Exhibit A for their asylum claim? Additionally, I thought they'd be treated as their preferred gender as a matter of course, as I've been informed on by trans activists repeatedly.

As to changing birth certificates, try getting visas for some countries if you can't get all your documents matched.

I've never had to show more than my passport for visas, which I understand can be changed for a fee with relative ease. But certainly for some places you might need more documentation. This sounds like a case for the diplomats, though, because they should do something about keeping citizens abroad safe.

How about insurance? If the form says sex and you haven't got your birth certificate changed, the insurance might be invalid - and nobody should have to to out themselves to get motor insurance. Or drawing a pension from an occupational pension scheme - they often demand birth certificates. And without changing a birth certificate, there is no right not to be outed by a malicious official without being able to rely upon s22.

This last part of your post is interesting because we've been fed the line that the birth certificate doesn't matter, trans people have all their practical rights anyways, and sex based rights aren't going anywhere. Are you admitting now that actually having a GRC/Amended birth certificate does impact legally on the determining of someone's sex? And therefore women should be concerned about making this process easier and open to all with no gatekeeping?

@Snappity
Why the push for demedicalisation for adult males but medicalisation for children?

You did not answer this question. Transition for adult males is all to do with obtaining documentation to prove they are women, without doing anything to change their body.

Transition for children is all about starting them on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and surgical procedures as early as possible.

Why are the two modes of transition so different for adults and children?

to all the other mothers of children with disabilities.

I am also the mother of a son with special needs. Ober the years since he was born, I have filled out mountains of paperwork for him. Forms to get him assistance like physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy. Forms to get him into education, to get him into the special education unit and so on and so forth. Reams of paperwork.

That is an aspect of life, and yes, I do understand why we need this bureaucracy, however tiresome I might find it.

So why should trans people not also have to deal with bureaucracy? Why should they be exempt? Being trans is not the norm, and so yes, there should be gatekeeping. It is natural that bureaucracy should form part of that process.

Personally I think gender non conformity could be covered even though yes you are right, sex discrimination covers that too.

Snappity it's the exactly right characterisation.

Why the push for demedicalisation for adult males but medicalisation for children?

That's a false characterisation.

Suppose a British citizen has lived in Norway. They might have been through the medical system in Norway but they won't have - and can't get - the documents presently needed to get a GRC because the documents they have won't have been signed by a doctor on the special UK list.

Or an immigrant fleeing persecution for changing sex in a country where that is illegal. Again, they won't have the right paperwork to get a GRC and be treated as a woman during the immigration process.

As to changing birth certificates, try getting visas for some countries if you can't get all your documents matched. How about insurance? If the form says sex and you haven't got your birth certificate changed, the insurance might be invalid - and nobody should have to to out themselves to get motor insurance. Or drawing a pension from an occupational pension scheme - they often demand birth certificates. And without changing a birth certificate, there is no right not to be outed by a malicious official without being able to rely upon s22.

Ok I can contribute to this from the horse's mouth - there aren't really any gaps on trans rights, according to transadvocate lawyer Mark Landon at the Westminster Forum on Trans Equality: The Next Steps.

These are the 'gaps' he mentioned:

There is no specific protection against discrimination against non-binary and intersex people.
They don't have a specific protected period of leave for transition, like maternity leave.
They should get to fill in more
discrimination questionnaires about how they feel they are treated.

So I hope that answers your question. The only real one I can see there is the protection for intersex people, which seems hella overdue.

garam

Amusing deflection from a forum actively campaigning to remove rights and amend the equality act.

Can you explain to me why the demand from adults for adults is to demedicalise and make the process easier with no gate keeping, but the demand from adults for children is to medicalise with blockers, hormones and surgery?

If it’s all just administrative why are children not being encouraged to simply change documents and live as they are?

Why the push for demedicalisation for adult males but medicalisation for children?

Do you see how that looks?