So what rights do transpeople think they don’t have?

I don't have a gender identity. I know that I am a woman, ie an adult human female. But that's biology, not an identity.

A person absolutely can, if that's how you define gender identity. You don't have to agree with the definition though.

In your case, you don't think you have a gender identity and you are a woman, so by the defintion above (which you entirely dispute) your gender identity is "woman."

According to WHO, if there is no gender incongruity you are "cis," otherwise trans. Please don't kill the messenger when I say this!

A good analogy is neurotypical and neuroatypical. For example, if your proprioception isnt' work, you certainly notice it, if it doesn't you might not even be aware you have it.

Do you think gender dysphoria is a real condition, that is, people experience gender incongruity? If so, you acknowledge that most people don't experience it. Those people's gender identity matches their natal sex. Because they don't experience an incongruity, they don't "notice" having a gender identity.

The issue then is, does this mismatch mean that they are women, or is it like someone who thinks they are Napoleon when they can't possibly be? GC critical feminists say the latter.

Here is the WHO definition of gender:

"Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health. It is important to be sensitive to different identities that do not necessarily fit into binary male or female sex categories."

What isn't clear is how anybody could read this and believe that segregating people according to established gender norms is a good idea.

You'd need to ask the WHO, the NHS. NICE. PAHO, EHCR and, major international psychiatric body or gender studies professor.

If you, a third party, can't explain it, it's a pretty meaningless and useless definition.

Your definition of woman is adult human female and rooted entirely in biology, so, of course you dispute gender identity is a thing and deny transwomen are women

Please explain why the definition needs to have anything to do with anything other than biology?

I didn't invent this defition - I just pointed at it. You'd need to ask the WHO, the NHS. NICE. PAHO, EHCR and, major international psychiatric body or gender studies professor. I am not the owner of it.

Please don’t pretend that redefining ‘male’ and ‘female’ only affects trans people, or that definitions of gender used by organisations like the WHO are in any way adequate.

Transgender people say they want the right to define their own identity. But if transwomen are women, then that means that the word 'woman' has been redefined to include male-born people. This forces actual women to redefine ourselves as a subset of women, meaning that we no longer have the ability to define our own identities.

Why should transgender people have the right to define who I am?

As for the swathes of people who don't think they have a gender identity

Strictly speaking according to Stonewall they are trans.

So does that mean we are forced to have a gender identity even if we believe we don't have one? I thought we were all supposed to self-define our identities.

#translogic

Feminists are pro-women, not anti-trans. Feminists do not attack and assault trans people, we just know that for women sex-based rights are crucial. When the trans movement is deliberately intent on misleading schools, businesses and institutions, to the detriment of women and girls, the time for being ‘nice’ is over. We have to be honest instead. We have to defend our rights. In every new case of changing trans policy, if there is anyone who needs to budge up, shift over and lose out, it is women and girls. The only way this could be acceptable is if you believe that women and girls have too many rights already. Do you?

From the not in the news link.

How fucking true.

people who don't think they have a gender identity

I don't have a gender identity. I know that I am a woman, ie an adult human female. But that's biology, not an identity.

You also can't insist that 'everyone has a gender identity' when they insist they haven't, any more than you could insist that everyone has as an immortal soul. You can believe it if you wish, and can order your own life accordingly, but you have no place to insist people who do not share you belief to change the world around in the way you feel your belief requires.

As for the swathes of people who don't think they have a gender identity

Strictly speaking according to Stonewall they are trans.

Your definition of woman is adult human female and rooted entirely in biology, so, of course you dispute gender identity is a thing and deny transwomen are women

Please explain why the definition needs to have anything to do with anything other than biology?

Do you know you are a woman? Then, that's your gender identity.

You might as well say “Do you know you are British, then that’s your national identity”.

No - I am legally a citizen of the U.K. because of my place of birth and the nationality of my parents. It has sod all to do with my identity.

You might not agree it's a thing, but it has a defintion, and I am not the owner of it

Even if you believe that some people have a very strong sense of their gender identity, why on earth would you want to segregate people according to gender identity?

It’s possible to accept that somebody has a very strong sense of their gender identity and also see that that has absolutely nothing to do with the physical reality of actually being male or female.

Similarly I can absolutely accept that some people have a sincere belief that they have a soul that is separate from their physical body. However, there is no law anywhere that forces me to agree that they are right.

It is a big step from agreeing that some people believe they have a gender identity to agreeing for all practical purposes that the law should define everyone according to their gender identity.

Please don’t pretend that redefining ‘male’ and ‘female’ only affects trans people, or that definitions of gender used by organisations like the WHO are in any way adequate.

As for the swathes of people who don't think they have a gender identity

How rude...

no, me being a woman is not a gender identity, it's my sex. I don't have a gender identity because I reject gender stereotypes as regressive and damaging. Gender identity is a feeling, and laws and policy should not be made on the basis of subjective feelings.

And people are aiming this at you because you appear to be endorsing it.

But transwomen KNOW they are not women. They just want to be one. The genitals between their legs prove that they are not women so they can't know that they are a woman because biology proves otherwise.

What if you don't have a gender identity? And what is a gender identity anyway?.

I don't know why you keep asking me this. The WHO, the NHS, the PAHO all have the definition posted. You might not agree it's a thing, but it has a defintion, and I am not the owner of it.

As for the swathes of people who don't think they have a gender identity, here is a simple way for you to find out what it is. Do you know you are a woman? Then, that's your gender identity. It doesn't matter whether you know you are a woman because of your body, or otherwise. That's the definition. Your definition of woman is adult human female and rooted entirely in biology, so, of course you dispute gender identity is a thing and deny transwomen are women,

*OldCrone Largely, yes, bar some specifics.

The definition is that if your gender identity doesn't match that typically associated with your body, then you are trans. Are you a woman? Do you have a male body? If so, you are a transwoman.

What if you don't have a gender identity? And what is a gender identity anyway?

DadJoke
So my view is, be certain in law that you are treating sex and gender as different but related protected characteristics, and ensure both have the necessary protections, and allow self id, taking this into account.

So would you agree with what Rosa Freedman and Rosemary Auchmuty say in this article?
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate

how is that trans? That's just someone who doesn't buy into the gender sterotypes associated with their sex, which is to say like gazillions of people how don't feel the need to make a bloody song and a dance about it. You're pathologising a perfectly normal state of affairs.

Again, you are conflating my views with the generally accepted defintions of what trans is. I don't necessarily agree with them.

The definition is that if your gender identity doesn't match that typically associated with your body, then you are trans. Are you a woman? Do you have a male body? If so, you are a transwoman. If not, not. It used to be you had to want to change your body to be trans, now there just has to be a mismatch. I am not making these rules, just reporting. The scope is increasing. I am confused by the whole thing.

If we leave the EU, you'll be pleased to hear that the UK goverment will be able to remove the rights transgender people have already gained, repealing the ERA and the GRA.

Just for the OP, there is a great article in the Guardian setting out six legal views on the new act and discussing the rights.

oldcrone I answered your main question "what is a 'being trans'? That wasn't my opinion, just a statement of the internationally recognised definition, which doesn't currently match with the broader Stonewall one.

I didn't answer the question about medicalisation. To be honest, I just don't know, which is why I am here. If there is literally no way other than asking to find out what someone's gender is, and a person can be quite happy with their body as it is and still be trans, then medicalisation makes no sense. But if you don't accept that transwomen are any kind of woman, then nothing, medical or otherwise, will persuade you that any approach in law will work. That said, the GRA and the new act put sex segregation at risk by conflating sex and gender. Pretending sex isn't real and biologically rooted is frankly ridiculous.

So my view is, be certain in law that you are treating sex and gender as different but related protected characteristics, and ensure both have the necessary protections, and allow self id, taking this into account. The alternative is to not recognise rights arising from being transgender at all.

Dad here you go: transcrimeuk.com/2017/11/16/trans-homicides-in-the-uk-a-closer-look-at-the-numbers/?fbclid=IwAR3S7xkCO22bl1rRp1lQ55AkSKsr2S3bjGOHgxa6Cjrae4UvourlUdh9CaU

7 homicides of trans identifying men (though 2 seem to be occasional cross dressers) versus 12 murders committed by trans identifying men. Of the murders, I can't see that any where definitively murdered because they were trans.

so, nearly double the number of murders committed to victims, and 7 murders over 9 years versus 2 women murdered a week on average.

Still convinced that 'Transwomen are more likely to suffer violence and sexual violence, and are subject to very specific abuse because they are transgender. They suffer gender based and trans-based oppression, though not oppression based on their male bodies.' ?