to ask what *alternatives* to self ID you think would work for trans people and the rest of society?

[yetanothertranswoman]

If you are against self if, what would you like to have instead as a system that allows trans people to live their lives the best they can whilst ensuring that potential issues highlighted by self ID are minimised.

For context - I am trans. I've had HRT and surgery. It took a long time to get to surgery as the NHS appointment system takes its time. I had to attend a psychiatrist appointment even before being referred to the NHS clinics. Then I was able to get a letter from the GP to allow me to alter my 'identifiers' on my passport and driving license.

At that point I told work and was given protection under the Equality Act so I couldn't face discrimination due to being trans at work.

I got my diagnosis of transexualism after my 3rd session with the NHS psychiatrist.

I got my GRC after my surgery - it hasn't really meant much to me in real life getting this.

I am not in favour of self ID - and this thread is not about self ID. I was just wondering what people think of the current system and if they can see any alternatives - as the definition of trans varies wildly.

(much worse than we think we are, I mean)

The unpassing TIM is going to cause distress to the 9 year old girl, with or without a GRC. I'm sure no-one want to cause distress, so the unpassing TIM needs to find another solution.

What about the transman who would be obliged to use the women's toilets LostArt? Would they not cause distress to a 9 year old girl?

You're not telling me a 9 year old would definitely be able to tell that your average transman is actually a woman with xx chromosomes are you?

First step, I think that you are right that the gradual shift to making gender less clearly defined and it become acceptable to be what you want or like within natal gender is the right approach.

This could resolve the escalating number of people being non conforming and creating niches and names for themselves. And feeling forced into conventions when they are unconventional.

It will take a generation to bring about but is I think the reason why we have seen such a dramatic explosion in numbers within the past 10 15 years. It is no coincidence that this is the same period that social media and the internet has taken off showing that it is a kind of expressional liberation being played out in that way.

Your solution has chance of resolving this major problem because this huge range of expression seems to be commonly the cause of the young and vociferous who by their nature want to make themselves heard and be on TV and dictate the agenda. So it might ease that demand on the rights of women that I can see must feel under assault.

Sadly, what it will probably not do, though, is resolve the transsexual problem. Though it should put it back to what it was before - a steady trickle of a few thousand cases per country and less in your face people who want to stay out of visibility not be in the think of it.

Whilst I obviously do not know the cause I am convinced this is not a product of gender stereotypes in the same way as fluidity may well be. Because it has always been happening in what look like similar low levels throughout history whilst society and gender has shifted markedly in gender patterns.

If those shifts create a sudden explosion in one thing and not another - as we seem to be seeing here - then that suggests they probably do not have one fixable cause.

There have been transsexuals at this low level all over the world for centuries in societies that were radically different in terms of how gender stereotypes got perceived. From repressed states where transsexuals can be eradicated as a disease to others that revere them as a third sex. And from inner city cultures awash in social interaction promoting unisex to remote island communities where trans girls are just accepted without question as having a spirit in the wrong body.

Regardless of how they are dealt with they keep on occasionally happening. They do not shift according to the latest trend.

I cannot see how this is coming from gender non conformity. If it was then acceptance of fluidity of dressing or behaviour would be enough. And as you can see it is not usually enough for anyone transsexual where the need to physically transition is a key part of it.

Most transsexuals reading these threads (several have PMd me) are scared to death of coming on here. They don't want exposure or to argue and fight for their hard won existence or to have a row. And most are as peed off with the way the phenomenon has been hijacked and hyped by others as a cause.

Such differences in expression are noticeable and regardless of how you see no difference because of a few who speak out or agitate most lack the desire to get embroiled in protests, wars of ideology or demands for rights.

Meaning - as usually happens - the loudmouths and hotheads scream loudest and take over the argument.

Research into what causes someone to be transsexual seems to have all but disappeared as I think doctors have become scared off by the campaign to make gender a choice too.

Nobody knows if this has a physical or a psychological cause. Both have been sought. None has been proven. So they have focused on mitigating the symptoms which GRS was found to do successfully - and really they stopped at that point.

Whether a cause can be found and anything done when it is I do not know. But it should not be ignored because those of us going through this know that it is a truly awful condition that eats away inside of you. It is not how I think many of you imagine - some choice over liking pink or blue. It is way deeper than that. But it is becoming mixed and confused with other very fuzzy stuff going on today.

That is not your problem I understand. So forgive what looks like a political speech. But the differences are important as they are not going to be so easily dissolved by gradual changes to gender identity within society as other expressions of identity spring up now might.

Transsexualism is not a mindset. It is integral as a part of you.

This will not resolve the current problems that I can entirely see are here and now and of deep concern to women.

I agree that solutions are needed though. So that is a start.

"What about the transman who would be obliged to use the women's toilets LostArt? Would they not cause distress to a 9 year old girl?"

Why wouldn't a passing transman use the men's?

Still reading, but as my name has been mentioned, this is what I said about the speakers corner person.

Yes they've been charged. It went to court. I'm not familiar with how this works, but I believe it's a plea hearing. Which will now result in a trial.

And, for the record, there were no speakers who have been suspended from the Labour party. Venice Allan is the event organiser, not a speaker.

Posie Parker was guest speaker, and has not been suspended from the Labour party (not sure she's even a member).

Linda Bellos was not a speaker, and her remark was in response to the speakers corner violence, along the lines of just let anyone try that with me. A sentiment echoed by tons of women.

The two thrusts of the complaint about Posie are the use of the word castration in that it reminded Susie Green of a sex offender, and whether physically castrating her 16 year old (or chemically when they were younger), constituted abuse. Posie has been charged with nothing.

And Maria Mac had her phone strapped to her wrist, and when an attempt was made to steal it, she held onto the would-be thief as he was trying to run away. The phone was subsequently flung to the floor and broken.

But Maria Mac and Linda Bellos defending themselves, or talking about defending themselves appears to be the height of audacity.

Tut.

"You're not telling me a 9 year old would definitely be able to tell that your average transman is actually a woman with xx chromosomes are you?"

And you are not telling me that the average transperson actually passes, are you?

Jaycee I saw a spat on twitter where someone said (and I agree with) that one of the problems with self ID is that trans people would not be automatically getting mental health help. The trans person said that no one should be forced to have help (while also saying how high suicide is in trans).

To my mind, whatever you think of being born in the wrong body, if you have felt that way for years and had the bullying etc that is always cited with it (no idea of the truth) ANYONE who is trans would benefit from MH help. And that self ID, and it being harder to get the help, could lead to worse MH and potentially an increase in self harming and suicide.

So my question is: what to you think? Should trans people automatically get help and if they want a GRC not be able to opt out? And do you agree that self ID is likely to cause more MH problems for trans people?

In the interest of clarity this isn't my only problem with self ID. But it is a genuine fear.

Why wouldn't a passing transman use the men's?

Well that's where things get complicated isn't it.

Some people will say no-one can pass, ever, at all. So everyone should use the space of their sex, but that everyone will know that's where they belong because, you know, we can all tell.

Some people will say some transpeople pass and some don't, and they should all know exactly who thinks they pass and who doesn't (or would we all agree?) and that they should use the facilities which line up to what the people around them think their sex is.

Some people will say if you're making an effort to look like one sex or the other that's probably enough effort to show you're not just trying to use certain facilities for nefarious reasons so go ahead and use the loos that you're clearly aligning yourselves with. Some say that just opens the door to men in dresses infiltrating women's spaces.

And some would say you can't possibly know what's in someone's pants or their chromosonal make-up by looking at them, particularly if we throw those gender stereotypes out the window, so probably best to take everybody's word for it.

The two middle options seem to most reasonable and would see an obvious male person in the men's loos, and a passing transman in their too, but they're also nigh-on impossible to implement across the board with any degree of success! Although arguably they're what we have right now, and surely they're working better than the "birth sex only" option would?

I agree with your post Jaycee and am personally tired of seeing gender criticality offered as a solution for transsexualism or body dysmorphia.

I don't thing being rid of gender will help people with Body Dismorphia. I do think out will help some of the people we're seeing at present because they seem to concentrate on things to do with gender, rather than things yo do with sex. So wearing makeup, dresses, caring roles etc. Men should be OK to do that too.

And I do think it will help a lot of people who are nothing to do with trans but want to do something that has nothing to do with their gender and shouldn't be to do with the other gender either- it should just be open to humans. So engineering, liking lorries etc. Freeing us all from stupid generalisations that do no good for anyone.

am personally tired of seeing gender criticality offered as a solution for transsexualism or body dysmorphia.

But even for transsexualism and body dysmorphia, wouldn't less gender stereotyping offer a better environment and less stigmatisation? Not a solution but something that would help such people integrate better in society, particularly during transition? And even to be accepted for further treatment without having to go through periods of living like male/female stereotypes?

I would have more faith in a process that makes GRC available to people with gender dysphoria as diagnosed by at least one (preferably two) medical professionals following a specific process and preferably following surgery.
A woman needs medical sign off to obtain a termination.
Why should obtaining a GRC be any easier?
Why is it so difficult to understand that women do not want a person with a penis in a space they previously considered safe?
Why should women have to adapt (again) to a set up that people with a penis dictate to them?
Why am I considered a prejudiced right wing stepford wife for asking any of this?

Morning, everyone. We've just deleted a couple of posts here that were reported as being about a case that was sub judice, so just a quick reminder that it's best not to speculate on cases like this while they are ongoing. Thanks.

Thank you, Datun and HebeMumsnet

Stillscreaming wrote:

Because she has accused me of committing a crime and, if that is Maria and she believes that I've committed a crime, a message board isn't the place to deal with that. I'm sure that MNHQ have my IP address and will pass it on to anyone in authority who asks.

Libel is, of course, a civil offence rather than a criminal one and it's certainly not something I'm interested in pursuing when there is a (1) criminal trial against one of my assailants due to take place in a few weeks time and (2) an ongoing police investigation with regard to two other assailants.

Comments from Stillscreaming suggest that they know the identity of one of my assailants and isn't about to inform the police of what they know. Naturally this is disappointing but no more than what I have come to expect from trans cult allies who have the temerity to call themselves 'feminists' while shielding woman beaters. If Stillscreaming doesn't know the identity of the individual in question, then they are choosing to promote a demonstrably false narrative about events at Speakers Corner. The posts in question have now been removed but, in any event, are given the lie by videos posted by Pencilsinspace - thank you!.

Stillscreaming wrote:

Thanks for the heads up but I'm absolutely fine with what I've said. I've shared photos, taken in a public place, that haven't been altered and I've shared information that I've obtained from more than one source and believe to be true. The posts are Fair Comment and I stand by them.

Just to clarify, these were not "photos, taken in a public place, that haven't been altered". They were stills from a video carefully selected and circulated on social media, originally by a trans cultist called Joss Prior and did not even show what Stillscreaming said they showed.

That Stillscreaming still thought their posts were "Fair Comment" indicates a lack of interest in the truth but that's between them and their conscience.

For anyone interested, my blog written a couple of weeks after the incident is here: www.skepticat.org/2017/09/when-vicious-entitled-thugs-attack-i-fight-back/

But even for transsexualism and body dysmorphia, wouldn't less gender stereotyping offer a better environment and less stigmatisation? Not a solution but something that would help such people integrate better in society, particularly during transition? And even to be accepted for further treatment without having to go through periods of living like male/female stereotypes

Probably. But it won't solve the problem for these people. I want gender criticality - I just don't see it as a cure all and get frustrated when I see it offered as a magic bullet.

The posts in question have now been removed

You got screen-shots though didn't you?

RatRolyPoly, I was really disappointed that you used transmen as a gotcha about TIM in women's loos. It's not a critisism - ive done the same. But that's about the only time they are mentioned - to justify male demands to women's spaces. We know the majority of transmen are struggling with their sexualality, abuse or gender expectations. So why use them in this way? If male people want to be in female people's spaces, they should be able to justify it without threats, emotional blackmail or using females with problems of their own.

But it won't solve the problem for these people. I want gender criticality - I just don't see it as a cure all and get frustrated when I see it offered as a magic bullet.

No, it clearly isn't, but as I pointed out earlier, it was suggested in response to the request for alternatives to self ID that the OP asked for.

Everyone realises that blurring gender stereotypes won't solve body dysmorphia, I hope.

Mip Mip, I have said consistently many times on several threads that have been started on here in the past 2 weeks that the current rules guarding the GRA and the award of a GRC should NOT be removed.

And that medical assessment by doctors and psychiatrists as presently required ARE essential both to protect wider society - and in the case of trans women specifically women - from those who have some pathological reason or are doing this with ulterior motives.

AND so as to protect the person themselves from some otherwise undetected condition being discovered.

I cited in earlier posts brain tumours, that can rarely cause gender confusion, sexual fetishes that can also manifest this way and should not be treated by transition and to also eliminate those who are unsure and just think this might be an interesting thing to do.

Because if you are transsexual this is never a choice and always an imperative.

I have been arguing the same thing on Digital Spy for a year or two.

I have stressed further that the two year period before granting a GRC is important as it is used to demonstrate that the person has made a permanent commitment and does not come to regret it or wish to flip flop gender identities as some do and that they are able to successfully integrate into society and contribute to it, rather than drain upon it.

These safeguards are there now with very good reason to protect the transitioner and those they will interact with.

There also has to be a two year period between transition and surgery as the hormones need to work first before GRS can occur. And I further believe that commitment to physical transition at least hormonal should be added to the GRC although that is very unpopular with trans people when I say it.

I think that would draw the line between those just expressing gender identity, whom I have no problem with doing, but who should not expect to integrate physically if they make no commitment to transition physically.

So this will make the GRC a gate through which those wishing to transit biologically as far as possible can pass but those with a lower commitment and just wish to change lifestyle can do that but without then imposing their still entirely male bodies into spaces.

I also suggested in a thread sometime last week on here that perhaps a preliminary GRC with more limited rights could be awarded at the outset to those unclear how far they wish to go and only upgraded to a full GRC if and when they comply with all the obligations.

That preserves choice without imposing the consequences of basically choosing a half way house of social transition not physical transition onto others.

The option is a free choice for the trans person. But the consequences of the choice are not imposed unilaterally on everyone else regardless.

Basically if you want acceptability you gain it by how much commitment toward full transition you show. Not just because you demand it.

That I think would separate transgender identifiers from transsexual transitioners.

I do not think it is insignificant that the transsexuals are largely fine with the restrictions placed on getting a GRC as we see why they are there and usually support them.

And the ones asking for the act to be changed are doing so because they do not want to comply with any of these restrictions or see them as too onerous.

Medical assessment is to me non negotiable - because - whatever causes you to be transsexual - it IS a medical condition almost by definition. It is under current understanding not possible to have a body with one sex and an internal belief you are the other. But that is exactly what happens.

I have no idea of the cause but certainly went to doctor after doctor from childhood onward year after year and readily agreed to be studied as a patient in a psychiatric unit because I knew this was not a normal thing to believe.

So I wanted to get help to find an answer and then to fix it as best as they could.

All transsexuals I think know these realities and so have no issue with seeing doctors. They welcome it. Apart from - as you say - the fact that living with being this way for years does indeed have obvious effects on your mental well being.

If it doesn't then, in my view, you cannot be transsexual because something like this and as powerful as this has to be destructive in some way.

They're mentioned quite a lot by me LostArt, I would say it's the wider argument that ignores them - on both sides. But their existence does need to be acknowledged with regards to women's fear of people who "appear male", when this is brought up. Fear or discomfort is used as a definitive "women shouldn't have to feel this way", but fear or discomfort is not always justified.

A lesbian friend who shares my opinion on things is sad lesbians get brought up on all this as a means to beat transpeople for the cotton ceiling.

I'm a sportswoman; myself and every other sportswoman I associate with resents being dragged into this as an example of how transpeople are ruining our sports. We aren't speaking up in our droves because we are happy with the inclusive attitude of our sports, not because we are a clear example of women being silenced by TRAs!

Everyone realises that blurring gender stereotypes won't solve body dysmorphia, I hope

I'm not always clear about that in the context of some posts I see on here.

Lweji some people are definitely of the opinion that tearing down gender stereotypes will result in no-one feeling the need to transition; hormones, surgery etc.

I know they're out there, I've been arguing with them!

Hi Jaycee, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. In this instance I'm not talking so much about self ID and the danger to others, more the danger to oneself. I guess I'm asking if it's possible for anyone who is trans to grow up without secondary issues, perhaps caused by BM, perhaps contributing to it. Basically is there anyone who is trans who wouldn't benefit from mental health help (assuming they were open enough to engage).

I admit I am biased as I think pretty much everyone should engage with MHP at some point in their life - not just trans. I don't believe anything is done in isolation and that the body and soul/mind are connected and impact on each other.

I know you feel it should form part of the GRC for the reasons you stated and I'm sorry I made you repeat yourself.

Ok, I believe you, Rat. :)

Although I think there's often some confusion between transsexual and transgender.

To be clear: I think you have covered that. I'm just trying to look at it from a different angle. And I was pretty shocked that someone who was very vocal about trans people being at risk of suicide didn't feel they should all be engaging with mental health professional to help. I don't know how much that is to do with stigmas around mental health, how's much they feel it isn't needed and how's much they were just being obstante and not wanting to be told what to do.