Looking for a neutral summary on trans issues

Are you actually aware how many of our systems in society function entirely on that premise?? Nothing is foolproof; it would curtail our liberty too much for it to be so.

Yes, so you know, let's not make it worse.

You can’t ‘live in a chosen gender’ you just are a gender aren’t you? You feel it inside no matter how you look act or dress... This is why it is unverifiable and the proposed changes are that asking for verification is burdensome and transphobic...

I would do away completely with any suggestion of ‘living in the chosen gender’ TBH, I think it is horrendous... but it would require having sex AND gender identity laws, since the ‘living in’ is only necessary as a way of proving you are committed enough to qualify for a legal change of sex

But they aren't women. That's the whole issue. Thanks for showing how the motivation gets lost in meaningless woke rhetoric.

I think you misunderstood; I'm saying they won't want to change their legal sex to "F" because then they wouldn't be cross dressers any more.

You want to make a law that can be easily exploited and then trust individuals and organisations not to exploit the law even though individuals and organisations exploit even the not robust laws?

Are you actually aware how many of our systems in society function entirely on that premise?? Nothing is foolproof; it would curtail our liberty too much for it to be so.

Did you know that electronic tagging cannot be used on people who have ever worked in electronic tagging (I'm talking the ankle tags for criminals)? Did you know that's because they're actually really easy to manipulate, and anyone whose ever worked with them would know that? But to everyone who doesn't know, they're still a very useful tool?

I don't think it is me who is the naive one. I think many people here are labouring under the delusion that the safety we enjoy in society is as a result of foolproof safety nets, whereas the reality is we have far less definitive protection that you would feel comfortable to believe, and a large swathe of societal function is built on mutual trust and, to some degree, societal ignorance.

not even the kinky cross-dressers, but it ain't cross-dressing if you're simply a woman dressing as a woman.

But they aren't women. That's the whole issue. Thanks for showing how the motivation gets lost in meaningless woke rhetoric.

I personally don't have an issue with someone who has had reconstructive surgery or even who lives day to day in their mind as a woman using female toilets if they have no ill intent.
What I do have as a problem with is if legislation is made then it doesn't allow women who do have a problem with this to challenge it if they come across this situation, and there is no way of telling the difference between these people and others who are doing it as an occasional 'cross dressing' fetish or pretending to gain access.
Also I have a problem if it allows them to enter spaces with vulnerable women such as womens refuges.

Therefore the set up we have at the moment, where there is no laws regarding it but some transwomen will use open women's areas such as toilets seems OK, but removing the right for women to challenge this if they are uncomfortable isn't OK.

I appreciate Rat's attempt at neutral. I am rarely enlivened by her posts, however, because although there is a claim to wanting everyone to be able to have as much liberty as possible, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's liberty, the only thing I have ever seen Rat do is shill for the TRA perspective. If she made any coherent attempt at ever acknowledging the myriad of concerns or examples of women who want to maintain boundaries, I've not noticed it, and I can certainly say it's not been done with nearly the enthusiasm with which she has either dismissed those concerns and boundaries or openly mocked them.

*most

You want to make a law that can be easily exploited and then trust individuals and organisations not to exploit the law even though individuals and organisations exploit even the not robust laws?

not even the kinky cross-dressers, because it ain't cross-dressing if you're simply a woman dressing as a woman.

"What gender do you identify with"
There was NO question on natal or biological sex

Valid point, take it up with them I would suggest. I'm sure you will. Not sure what justification that is for a wholesale assassination of the transgender worldview or painting them as the manipulative villains of public policy (not saying you've done this personally but it's certainly a feature of the MN fem boards).

Wouldn't that be considered 'othering' transpeople? Why would someone who believes "TWAW" tick the 'i am trans' box on the data gathering forms?

Are you "othering" disabled people when you put a box on your monitoring form saying "Do you have a disabililty?". Um... no.

Transsexuals make up about 1% of people yes... if we take stonewall’s definition of trans and the proposed changes to qualification for legal change of sex then virtually all people can be considered trans and would therefore be capable of claiming trans rights.

This old chestnut? "Trans" is not a protected characteristic, "gender reassignment" is. Doesn't matter who is under that umbrella is they have no claim to gender reassignment or the perception of it.

As for who can change their legal sex, all those people under that Stonewall umbrella, which of them are going to be changing their legal sex so they can live day in day out as that sex? It isn't going to be the agenders; nor the non-binaries; not even the kinky cross-dressers, but it ain't cross-dressing if you're simply a woman dressing as a woman.

The only people under Stonewall's umbrella who are going to be "claiming trans rights" to change their legal sex are the ones who want to live their lives as the opposite sex. You will know them as the transsexuals. They're the same people who have always wanted to be able to do that. Just because every man and his dog is under Stonewall's blanket doesn't change the fact that there is only one small group of people who will be changing their legal sex.

Either way, why would you make laws that allow that possibility? ‘I trust it will work out’ is already proven not to be a credible position by what is happening currently, before any changes to the law.

60 to 70 million non binary people in the U.K.

By what I understand of what's meant by non-binary I know very few people who wouldn't qualify, even though none of them would describe themselves that way.

But exactly rat , no one is saying not to record/note gender identity. The issue is that this should not be the only one.
So I had a ATHENA-SWAN survey to fill out. (this is about trying to work out why women are under-represented in the STEM subjects and now it has been rolled out to economics). It asked
"What gender do you identify with"
There was NO question on natal or biological sex

Transsexuals make up about 1% of people yes... if we take stonewall’s definition of trans and the proposed changes to qualification for legal change of sex then virtually all people can be considered trans and would therefore be capable of claiming trans rights.

Because we can differentiate people along more axes than merely sex? I mean if you want to evaluate the impact of something on BAME women vs non-BAME women you can do so, right? If you want to evaluate the impact of something on women vs trans women you can do that too. We are allowed to collect equality statistics based on equality data; sometimes it's self-recorded, sometimes it's recorded by police officers etc. It's not 100% accurate but it's good enough in volume. Why would we not be able to record someone's gender reassignment status as well as their sex?

Wouldn't that be considered 'othering' transpeople? Why would someone who believes "TWAW" tick the 'i am trans' box on the data gathering forms?

If the majority of the Glasgow bin men were transwomen and the carers women then there would have been no case to answer for sex discrimination... Of course this wouldn’t change that the council knows the transwomen are male or targeting higher pay at people who are male...

You are aware the trans people make up less than 1% of the population and that that figure has been stable for... oooh... years? It would take every single Scottish transwoman to be a Glasgow bin collector, no doubt, to achieve the apocalyptic scenario you describe.

I think the point that you are overlooking is that of self ID resulting in the eradication of the ability to categorise by sex. If the definition of woman and/or female changes to include natal males, how will we know if natal females are impacted or not?

Because we can differentiate people along more axes than merely sex? I mean if you want to evaluate the impact of something on BAME women vs non-BAME women you can do so, right? If you want to evaluate the impact of something on women vs trans women you can do that too. We are allowed to collect equality statistics based on equality data; sometimes it's self-recorded, sometimes it's recorded by police officers etc. It's not 100% accurate but it's good enough in volume. Why would we not be able to record someone's gender reassignment status as well as their sex?

Well... IMO it’s basically ‘we’re a civilised country, I trust it will work out’ which is an incredibly naive position to take IMO and completely ignores how much these laws have shaped us to where we are today and all the stuff that is still happening despite these laws...

If the majority of the Glasgow bin men were transwomen and the carers women then there would have been no case to answer for sex discrimination... Of course this wouldn’t change that the council knows the transwomen are male or targeting higher pay at people who are male...

Good post Rat
I find myself agreeing with some of it and I think it demonstrates that you are trying to take a balanced, even handed blow.

I think the point that you are overlooking is that of self ID resulting in the eradication of the ability to categorise by sex. If the definition of woman and/or female changes to include natal males, how will we know if natal females are impacted or not?

No matter what we label people and how we organise society, if the human race is to continue it will continue to have 2 distinct reproductive roles that are determined at conception. Which reproductive role you are assigned will impact on many aspects of your life. Some of these are universal and others depend on which society you live in.

I struggle to give credibility to anyone who overlooks this fundamental issue.

Perhaps you are right, some people are over protective and infantilising, perhaps this has pernicious effects. However, how will will know if we do not evaluate?

I think you're trying very hard to concoct a problem there drwitch.

rat I agree with your general take - we need to do what works best for everybody BUT

there is ambiguity in the current law and any changes might make it worse. Thus an organisation might not be able to prevent person A from entering even though they (and most other people) believe them not be female. - and here the semantics matter because a clever lawyer will be able to argue that female bodied person B is not a woman because she does not have a female identity - therefore why should person A not be allowed in

Hello OP, I haven't rtft but I thought I'd give you my two cents.

I come from the starting point that everyone has the right, as far as possible, to live their lives as they see fit. And that society should aim to strike a balance between protecting our citizens and enabling them to live freely. If you become too protectionist you bring about the death of personal liberty, and if you are too liberal you enable people to take advantage of each other.

So personally I don't care all that much what trans people believe. Or what "gc" feminists believe. Both have the right to live freely according to their realities. I mean I know enough about both sides to defend either against accusation of lunacy, or irrationality; because both do make sense, in their own way; and I don't think it's fair to assassinate someone else's worldview so that you don't have to consider how to accommodate it in society - if indeed it can be accommodated.

What I care about is "what will be the outcome if we do this?". Will it be good for women, good for men, good for trans people, bad for women, bad for humanity? In my opinion the super-protectionist attitude of some feminists would go so far in its attempt to protect women that it ends up infantilising them in a way which is not proportionate to the reality of life in 2018 Britain, and curtailing their freedom and liberty in the long run. If you send a message out to society that women are more more weak and vulnerable than is proportionate, society will believe it. And women will too. It will set us back so many years.

I came into this debate when everyone was talking about self-ID legislation (now everyone bangs on about the ideology, but like I say I think that's unnecessary and morally dubious). When thinking, "what will actually happen if self-ID comes in?", I came to the conclusion, "not an awful lot". Trans people have existed in fairly stable numbers for a long time now, and they have - as far as anyone can establish - been using the facilities for their chosen gender for all that time. Hospitals and prisons have found a way to accommodate that, so have refuges, and no woman was scared that the person in the cubicle next to her might have a penis. Literally no measurable bad has come from it.

Could it be exploited by the rare nefarious sex-offender type? Perhaps. Someone out there sufficiently informed and sufficiently motivated could get around almost any system anyone put in place; people are clever. But so are the people around us every day; prison guards can spot a lying criminal. Bouncers can spot a lying criminal. Even swimming pool changing room attendants can spot a lying criminal. Not every time (no-one can spot them every time) but enough that they aren't going to fall for the "I'm a woman today" bullshit.

So again it comes down to protectionism. Protect your citizens because your citizens can't be trusted. Well I'm of the opinion that society is very largely based on trust. There are those who would abuse it, but we are a civilised nation and we have built that on a foundation of personal liberty, tolerance, mutual social trust and respect. I don't want to see that going backwards any time soon.