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.

Leweji, most transsexuals are not motivated to transition because they want to dress and act as the opposite sex. It is much deeper than that. Some have not even been cross dressers before (I wasn't for one) because it is not 'dressing up' or 'fitting in' that is what you seek.

It sounds a cliché but they often exist because they occur. But as a transsexual the overwhelming sense is nothing to do with appearance or activities or sexual preference. These rarely change dramatically before or after.

The sense is one of huge relief of finally just being who have always believed you were. That euphoria gets you through transition and passing is less of a problem than you imagine because feeling free of the split between body and mind that you have had up to then and just feeling mentally well is enough. Confidence gets you through.

More gender fluid clothes might help some I guess. Though in the 60s during that era even as a boy I could wear some pretty flamboyant stuff - lilac and pink jeans with flowers on were not looked on oddly. And that was before I transitioned. But that had no impact on the depth of my feeling transsexual inside. If it were just about clothes and lifestyle you might think trends like that would.

I recall in hospital after surgery and I was finally free and me and it was such a blissful moment, despite being in agony, that it was curious. That lasted for a day and then a wave of emotions washed over me and it was almost like a depression, but a happy depression.

I was really confused and talked to the nurse who was looking after me those weeks. She smiled and said something similar happened after she had her baby and that I was not the first transsexual patient who had reported this after surgery.

It passed after a few days and I never had it again but it may be that you focus so much attention on that one moment, expecting it and wishing for it for years and when it comes all that pent up bliss explodes out of you emotionally at once. Then you are drained for a while as your body tops it back up again.

It is still a vivid memory now 42 years later.

I think we have to have third spaces.

I don't actually mind sharing female spaces with the early transitioning, androphilic (=male people who are sexually attracted to men and are essentially a subset of feminine-presenting gay men) transwomen.

But the trouble is that if we go for self-ID and "you are a woman if you say you are a woman" then we have to let in all the others-the autogynephiles. If we buy into the whole "binary" thingno requirement to "live as" a woman for any given length of time--then all the part-time cross-dressing men will have to be let into female spaces too. I don't want them there.

We have to have third spaces, I am afraid.

Mip Mip, of course anyone feeling this way should seek assessment. And I agree that for their own mental and physical welfare they should.

Typically you would see psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists and have physical tests on the body. I spent months in hospital after hospital whilst they were looking for a cause as in those days - late 60s/early 70s - there was no such thing as trans gender and even GPs had never read anything about it let alone encountered it. So they looked everywhere for the cause and were willing to attempt anything to fix it - force feeding testosterone in high doses and electro convulsive shock therapy were common then.

If you are this way you should want help, seek it out and do what it takes.

But today's culture seems very different and prefers not to regard this as an illness. The World Health Organisation is about to declassify it. That is likely to further drive trans people away from medical assessment that they need.

I do think that a lot of those out there clamouring for self ID and who insist it is their choice and not an illness are probably right - in their cases - as it will be for them a mode of expression.

But in the deeper transsexual cases it self evidently is caused by something going awry somewhere and assessment is essential.

I do not think that the person making the choice that it is just my gender expression versus a real condition that they might have is in a position to be sure one way or the other. Though I think it will be quickly apparent on medical assessment which is true.

So it seems safe and sensible to do an up front assessment of everyone who presents with this condition first. Let the specialists decide the appropriate course of action.

The trans person does not have to listen and some no doubt will choose not to, but as a society the best approach is to have a duty of care to the person and any others their actions subsequently might effect.

Leweji, most transsexuals are not motivated to transition because they want to dress and act as the opposite sex. It is much deeper than that. Some have not even been cross dressers before (I wasn't for one) because it is not 'dressing up' or 'fitting in' that is what you seek.

I realise that.
Has the requirement to live as the opposite sex for X time been dumped? I remember it was required, but I think I've seen fairly recently that it wasn't required anymore.

Would self ID been important to you? Surely saying you're a female rather than a man without the physical changes is not sufficient either and doesn't solve anything.

Kokeshi - the problem with third spaces is it has to be fourth spaces or fifth spaces and just financially impossible or you are resolving one problem by creating several others.

A third space would presumably have trans men with vaginas, trans men with penises, trans women with vaginas and trans women with penises all together.

You will have quite a few problems resulting from that. And plenty of people from each of those categories refusing to go in them for similar reasons to the perfectly legitimate fears of women.

I see a third space for anyone who doesn't require sex segregation.

It could be men and women, because they want to go as couples, or because they don't care about who else is there, or fathers with daughters, or mothers with sons.

As posted earlier, no sex segregation as default, with some segregated spaces for those who need or want them.

"A third space would presumably have trans men with vaginas, trans men with penises, trans women with vaginas and trans women with penises all together."

But could happen now in a female space?

Can't we just have a defined space for each individual person with their own individual needs, which contained everything required and was private and secure? We could call them cubicles.

Can't we just have a defined space for each individual person with their own individual needs, which contained everything required and was private and secure? We could call them cubicles

Yes. And there are many instances of woen being attacked or photogphed or filmed in these. Better are clear, women only spaces.

Yes. And there are many instances of woen being attacked or photogphed or filmed in these. Better are clear, women only spaces.

Well if a space for one single woman can't be secured I don't see how a space for several of them can be!

Wouldn't all this be fixed if shops and services just took better responsibility for the welfare of their customers and invested in some better cubicles?

I mean wouldn't that be the right fight to be having, that we could all be on the same side of, rather than fighting each other?

Women shouldn't be unsafe.

Anywhere.

Some people have the power to keep us safer, whether or not there men, transfolk or outright predators in the vicinty; let's make sure they do it!

YetAnotherSpartacus

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

Are you talking about me?

Let me see if I can explain my reasoning.

Firstly most detransitioners are quite illuminating about how stereotypes were indeed, a large part of the reason to transition.

Because I think it's quite hard for people who are gender critical to imagine how profoundly one can be affected by subliminal messages such as gender stereotypes.

Despite evidence to the contrary. Most recently the BBC programme no boys and girls. By age 7, the children were fully wedded to them, despite their carers, teachers and parents claiming they treated girls and boys the same.

I sometimes read detransitioning stories and get frustrated. Along the lines of, well why didn't you ignore that? How could you have placed so much importance on that? Not dissing their experience, but slightly shocked as to how their circumstances affected them so profoundly. I don't mean that in an undermining way, I mean the people reading it will recognise a pattern, that the writer couldn't see, at the time.

The second thing that made me think was people at the coalface, like Stephanie Davis Arai, who receives hundreds of emails each week from concerned parents.

She has said she has yet to see a girl transition who wasn't either a lesbian ( very gender nonconforming), autistic (doesn't recognise gender, so doesn't fit anything), or suffer from past sexual trauma. A situation, although not directly related to stereotypes, is quite understandable, I would think. Wanting to identify out of the class who are deemed 'fair game'.

The narrative from transwomen also tends to run along lines that have similar aspects. Often a parent, usually the father, who is wedded to gender stereotypes and objects to effeminacy.

I don't know if there have been any studies, probably. But it's notable, how often that kind of timeline comes up.

Then there is the issue of children. All the famous trans kids, Kai, Jazz, Jackie have the same narrative. It's about toys and preferences.

Which doesn't make sense. Unless you think, genuinely, that toy preferences are innate.

If one doesn't think that, they should never even arise as a point. But they do. Always.

I think, for me, a disconnect does arise when I listen to trans people talking about how they feel.

There is a deeply held core that this is something utterly beyond their control and that they are born with.

And I find myself nodding. Because I don't think it requires much imagination, to find that plausible.

But when I read further stories, it becomes muddied again, because there is so often a rejection of what it means to be, male (say), based on circumstances.

It's not really about believing that men want to wear women's clothes etc (unless AGP, of course). And those sorts of stereotypes. It's about rejection of what it actually means to be male in our society.

Helen Highwater, who was Miranda Yardley's partner, wrote a long blog about her experience. She grew up in a Northern town where it was all very laddish and toxic masculinity was celebrated.

She found the whole thing abhorrent. And it led her to question whether she was really a woman.

I asked Miranda, himself, about it. And he, too, had a father who was heavily into enforcing gender.

I don't know if he, himself thinks that has anything to do with it. But I have to say, I wasn't surprised.

Also the two transwomen on the James O'Brien show this morning. One of them had a hells angel father who they said was bigoted, the other one, again, was told their preferences were wrong and heavily criticised for them.

At the moment, there is no consensus as to what causes gender dysphoria. There seem to be several different routes.

And talking about gender stereotypes isn't meant to be a flippant 'eureka' moment.

And I don't think it should be used to discredit transgenderism.

If someone, JC for instance, said I've got it absolutely wrong, I would accept what they said.

It's not my place to contradict them.

It doesn't stop me seeing how gender stereotypes are, without doubt, interwoven into this issue.

It may be that some people have a neurological reason for being more susceptible to the influence of society.

And, I suppose, the idea that one has been born on the wrong body can become ingrained. The suggestion that it might be down to society's notion of what is and isn't expected, would be anathema.

Quite understandably.

So that's where I am with it. I'm perfectly happy to accept other peoples opinions, of course.

Lost art, I did say that in my post - the end paragraph noting that it would just be recreating the existing legitimate fears of women over these problems.

the safest thing is use woman's facilities when you have had your dick refashioned into a vagina until then you're a man whatever you call yourself

I agree that to delay the transition of a dysphoric person is unkind.
I agree that a simple 'I'm a woman now' is not enough to override women's spaces.
I like the idea of GRA as it allows the transperson to have all their documentation changed and 'go stealth' if they want to.
At the moment it feels as if some of the safeguards are being lost to make a painful process easier, when in fact it is the dysphoria itself which is painful. We need to streamline diagnosis and treatment for real transsexual people with real dysphoria, not change the definitions.

I think discarding gender stereotypes would do it. Stick to biological sex for toilets etc, otherwise a person wearing make up and a dress is simply a person.

No self id, no gender id at all. If there were none, how would a trans person express their “inner female”? They couldn’t- they would wear what they like and be a biological male until they have reassignement surgery.

I don’t think it will ever happen. Society is determined to stick to it’s gender norms, and pink brain/blue brain.

Great post datun.

(She says like that's a surprise )

Datun, I would not say that you have got it wrong, I think your argument supports what I am saying.

That two very different things occur and have been rolled up intone big gooey mess by the social revolution of the past 20 years.

And that because medicine has basically run away scared of the activists and also because it has spent many years struggling to find answers it has basically caved in and decided to not regard all this stuff as their problem any more.

Medicine has reacted rather like women.

Who have understandably got fed up of finding what was once a minor issue or hardly noticed by them has suddenly become a real and very legitimate area of concern in their lives because the whole thing has exploded out of control.

So both women and medicine now see some mad free for all where people with all sorts of motivations and ideas and concepts of gender theory have grabbed hold of this relatively rare anomaly as a horse to ride on and tossed in all the bits of identity and gender confusion and fetishes and probably just plain bonkers ideology cooked up by try it on activists who see this as opportunism.

There are two ways to deal with this - the medical way - assess, research, find answers or cures and meanwhile treat according to best evidence solutions.

And the social transformation way where we evolve ideas of gender norms and allow people to be people and live within their own concept of boundaries.

From the outside looking in these probably look like the same thong because you can find examples that point here or there that confirm or contradict everything. But there are currents of deeper evidence that show these two things are different and have always been out there but that one of them (gender identity expression in multiple varieties) is booming and the other (the transsexual medical problem of whatever cause) that is staying pretty much at a level it has always been.

Given the mess we are in and the way these things have fallen to the easy assumption that everything is about this huge soup called 'transgender' then it is no surprise that the lines are getting blurred.

But at heart the division is totally clear. The two distinctive factors are those who recognise this is a medical matter caused in them somehow and a drive or necessity with consequence in wishing to physical change as far as possible to merge body with mind - and those who argue it has nothing to do with any doctors or anyone else it is my right to express myself how I choose and you should just accept that.

The former has always dealt with this medically, then acted with deference to others and not demanded everyone see things differently and been aware of reality whilst quietly getting on and shutting up.

The latter has always seen this as a social crusade and so become more and more litigious and demanding of concessions by others and become very vociferous in asking the rest of the world to change how they see things and that they see them their way in terms of gender being an option that nobody else should decree.

These are very incompatible positions. Which is why we have such a current problem. Because there are lambs and there are wolves and there are a few lambs and thousands of wolves and they are circling.

Meanwhile the farmers sit outside and say - sod you lot I am sticking with hens as they are not so intrusive. Go and eat one another somewhere else.

JC Yes I agree with the distinct difference between someone who has genuine gender dysphoria (for whatever reason), and 'all the rest'.

And the schism within the trans community is becoming wider and people are starting to be more vocal.

So it comes as no surprise that transactivists are desperately ramping up.

As I said, because being trans is subjective, assessment of authenticity is nigh on impossible. You personally may feel as though you would have a reasonable stab at convincing a doctor of your authenticity. (And obviously have done so).

But unfortunately, those narratives are easy to find, and not hard to copy.

I've seen many online suggestions on how to deceive a therapist.

All of them cherry picking the right wording, the most authentic way to rewrite their history, the public denial of AGP, etc.

Since it all relies on what someone actually says.

Gosh, I didn't mean that to sound as though you had deceived anyone. I'm sure you haven't.

I meant is deceit isn't hard.

Frankly, the more I am reading and seeing of this recently, the more I believe something a consensus is being reached.

There are many people who are of the opinion that genital surgery is the marker.

Which I understand.

I don't think it makes a person any more of a woman, but firstly it's a question of numbers. And secondly, I imagine it would largely sort the gender dysphoric from the fetishistic.

I can see it becoming a compromise that, although not ideologically pure, would at least sort some of the practicalities.

There are many people who are of the opinion that genital surgery is the marker

But in practical terms - what would that mean?

A trans person who has had surgery can get a GRC. But if a trans person has not got a GRC, then what would that practically mean?

Would they be prosecuted if found in 'the wrong space?"

Would that be ok if they tried to enter an award for 'men' only or 'female' only?

It's easy to say someone should have surgery to get a GRC. But you can't tell if someone has a GRC unless you ask them.

It's easy to say someone should have surgery to get a GRC. But you can't tell if someone has a GRC unless you ask them.

It would be useful in terms of sport, rape refugees, prisons, AWS, Single sex organisations/holidays, etc.

And yes, it would have to be acknowledged that proof was needed.

Datun, that's okay I realise you did not mean that.

When I started seeing doctors - many doctors - at least a dozen or so in areas from psychologists to psychiatrists and endocrinologists to neurologists - we are talking the mid 1960s and early 1970s when there was nothing about this out there for anyone to imitate.

Those of us experiencing this thought we were unique and something was terribly wrong with us and had never heard of trans this that or the other as this was an age when that really existed only in the annals of a few specialist doctors. Not public consciousness.

From what I can see there had been a handful of cases and hardly any through the NHS before I was in the system.

The clinic at Charing Cross - the only one in the UK for many years - was only created in 1966 in response to this problem being recognised first Europe and in the US from isolated cases such as racing driver Roberta Cowell which I only discovered in more recent years and had never heard of then).

This was not a cause expressed by hundreds of thousands it was a rare medical problem we sought help to resolve as it was so destructive.

Everyone from all the British Isles had to go on a waiting list to go to Fulham Palace Road, even if it meant trips of hundreds of miles every few weeks for several years. That was possible as cases were so few - like I say they dealt with only around 90 a year forwarded from local psychiatric units over the UK who had assessed people first and decided which ones needed to go for specialist care in London after other options had been exhausted.

So there was no discussion, no awareness, no social media or debate and no way to know what anyone else was saying to blag answers.

I met a few trans people in the waiting area in the corridor at Charing Cross before going in on each trip but you never knew who was or wasn't trans as there were others sat there too and this was not something openly declared like a badge of honour. So chit chat was not common.

Later when visits were made for post treatment assessment I met others who had also got that far and was able to talk to a few. But by then we were already heading out the other side not into it.

Before then we were given batteries of tests by all sorts of doctors the meaning of most I don't have a clue how to explain now or what they were even about. And we were studied 24/7 as inpatients in clinics where I would imagine you would have to be a brilliant actress to fool experts for weeks on end.

I have no idea how much of that happens today. Probably nowhere near as much of it given less resources and escalating numbers.

But it was this in depth study of the first group of cases that formulated the basis of what happened next.

There was no way you could cheat as nobody knew the ground rules and we were only able to tell our story as we knew of no others.

Before long, of course, the media started to see the 'thrill' of this and create tabloid trash. Happened to me twice. On neither occasion did I approach them or give them an interview. They published behind my back based on half truths told them by sources and scary photos that they must have taken whilst spying.

Back then there were no rules to stop this but if anyone was using the information in them as a guide then it might well have mislead them as half of it was made up.

Yetanother, of course that is true about a GRC.

But we have to try to see this from the perspective of other women. Not all are going to accept that biologically we are female - as in real terms that sadly can never be literally true. So in a way we are always living an accommodation. Just one that has been largely amicable up to now.

With a small number of transsexuals (the majority of trans people covered by the GRA) there has been little issue because many had had GRS or at least some depth of medical transition. There was no obvious stress being caused and the GRA does guard certain spaces with an opt out such as refuges. Which I think is fair enough given intimate things being involved.

When the numbers were just a few thousand give and take on both sides was easy. Especially as we were not trying to cause any fuss or activate or change definitions of who or what women are - which they regard as very important, understandably given the long struggle for equality.

Women call it an 'honour system' where they thought inside you were still a man but did not call you that and unless there was an obvious problem such as someone who just did not pass potentially scaring someone in a loo or open chasing room then nobody was bothered enough to want to bring down the house of cards.

However, things have changed drastically because the numbers have rocketed and many of these are not people who believe in the need to be medically assessed so as to eliminate potentially dangerous (to women) conditions like fetishes and are not interested (as opposed to medically unable to) physically transition.

So the planned changes to the GRC and the existing broad brush strokes of the Equality act have made the honour system fall apart because there are now real risks of many more non passing individuals with male bodies who also are seemingly happy to promote an agenda of being a 'woman with a penis' that baffles and bothers me every bit as much as it does many women.

I can well see why they would worry about the risk of meeting someone alone in their spaces who brags about that anatomical conundrum as it creates an image of risk and threat. I would not be thrilled myself to be honest.

Nobody wants to deny people who wish to identify this way the freedom from oppression or abuse and I have no issue at all with some act affording basic recognition.

But anyone unwilling to be medically assessed or for whom being trans is a badge of honour to serve a cause or who wants to change the accepted definitions of biology because they believe in self discovery is to me in need of at least not sweeping access.

I do not see how a GRC can or should cover both. It turns a relatively clear type of trans woman as now who has shown commitment in exchange for some leeway into a vast array covering anything up to an entirely anatomical male cross dressing fetishist who wants to express their feminine side.

This is not what the GRA was designed to cover and should not in their view (and mine) be extended to cover.

I agree they should not be abused if they want to do that even in open society. But to get into that honour system and access to any spaces where women and girls might have to face this really needs restricting to a transition that is more committed than that.

So a free choice to all individuals as to how far they want to go or are willing to go and what in return women are willing to grant in leeway.

That seems a fair compromise between granting freedom to be yourself and protecting some of those selves you want to be from contact in intimate spaces with vulnerable others.

You ask how will this work as nobody shows a GRC going into a toilet. Agreed. But it works in terms of legality if you make the equality act say that is the basis of allowance into such spaces.

If someone without one passes and causes no trouble or desires to cheat and goes unrecognised there is nothing anyone can or will do.

But if someone is caught up to no good the law will give them no leeway without producing a GRC.

And if someone feels uncomfortable in the presence of another person and is asked to leave then they will either oblige or insist they have a right to be there and if they do, then they will be able to prove that. And if they do not, then they can be cautioned by the security staff and told to stay away in future.

It is imperfect and will not cover any eventuality but there is a register of GR certificate holders so any dispute can be settled. And it offers some deterrent to those up to no good if they think that without a GRC they might get caught and no doubt suffer the consequences.

And has no downside for those who do have a GRC other than maybe getting challenged and feeling uncomfortable if they enter spaces and do not pass. But they then have a choice to protest or leave quietly and any of this could happen now and without strengthening the GRA and if it allows self ID into it then I suspect that it would happen a very great deal more and to more people.

Wow, so many posts, I agree with page one okMaybeIAmATERF

"I'd like us, as a society, to reject gender stereotypes en masse, and I'd like us to make a concerted effort to get rid of rules that reinforce them. For example, I'd like it to be illegal for employers to have different dress codes for men and for women. I hope we could change as a society enough that men or women could present how they like and do what they like without needing to (pretend to) change sex in order for that to be allowed."

Plus I would like to see things stay as they are, so that transexuals and people with gender dysphoria can get the help they need, whatever that is. Maybe the only change would be to reduce costs of it so that people are not put off by cost. But I am not sure that is the reason anyone is put off.

The reason I have heard people are put off going for a GRC is because they resent having to 'prove', who they are. But I think it is only right there is a process. Just as there is if you want to adopt, or to get a disabled parking badge or claim incapability benefit or whatever.