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.

@LadyLance an excellent post yesterday.

I think it is amazing to see that perhaps some of this precious legislation that affects women and trans women may hzce come in under the radar some what.

Perhaps there was a hope that self I'd would come in under the radar?

I am genuinely surprised the petition has not grown even faster.

The medical profession used to lock women up for "hysteria ". I am old, my own grandmother suffered this.
To say that the medical profession has been slow to catch up with gender dysphoria is no reason to keep modern medical intervention and oversight out of it.
I was treated like shit by the medical profession when I struggled to breast feed - they treated formula as if I was suggesting giving my baby heroin.
They got it wrong. I suffered. That is not to say there should never be medical intervention.
For what it's worth, my devout Catholic mum in her health care work in the 70s came across a young person with what would now be called gender dysphoria . She was professional and supportive of this person who was categorised as having behavioural problems and did what she could to ensure their core issue was addressed and not ignored. I know because she told me about it at the time. So it is not correct to say that no one in the medical profession understood it in the past.

@ItalianGreyhound Thank you!

I don't know if there was a deliberate effort to sneak things in under the radar. I think perhaps with Brexit etc in the press, it was perhaps seen as a minority issue and not hugely newsworthy. A lot of men in the media won't have thought about how Self-ID will impact women.

Then, slowly, women became more aware of the issue, but society still has this expectation of women that they will move over and make space and play nice.

But actually, a lot of women have said- no, this is the line for me. You are trying to put my safety and dignity at risk, and attack my identity. A lot of women have a visceral reaction to being asked to give up their safe spaces- so they have looked at the line they were being fed, and found out that TRAs are lying and misleading them. And the more feminists have made their points, the more some TRAs have behaved like violent, dangerous men, and the more women have decided to fight it.

I think at first it was a mix of people trying to be nice and inclusive, and not question, and also not really probing deeply into the issues, rather than a deliberate effort to change the law by stealth.

I do think some of the drug companies involved might be trying to deliberately fly under the radar and use people to further their agenda.

Gussy, obviously some medics DID understand trans to a degree in the 70s as I was being studied by them for the first half of that decade. And the third GP I talked to in about 1973 was the first to seem to even understand it was a real thing and get me into a clinic.

Indeed they were about to do electro shock on me when by chance an expert from New Zealand was in the area and the psych clinic got him to do some tests he had developed first and he persuaded the psychiatrist in charge of my case to put a hold on it.

But in the 60s when I was first seeing doctors whilst at school they were completely ignorant and had little help to offer other than orders to man up, telling my parents it was probably a phase and would go away with puberty and in the end treatment by nerve pills and public insults hoping it would shame me into getting rid of a delusion.

As noted there was no British clinic taking patients until 1966 - the one I was forwarded to in 1974.

With regards self ID sneaking under the radar. It was not just with women in general that this happened. I think because many old school transsexuals were living quietly and not part of any trans community it has rather caught us on the hop too.

And may well still be doing given the rising levels of concern from this otherwise not very visible group.

From different directions perhaps there is a swell of concern at what is happening and where it might be heading.

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

No, I wasn't talking about you. I was also being careful (in context) to agree that gender criticality is a good thing, but simply not a cure in itself for all forms of transsexualism and body dysmorphia (note careful use of terms).

Yetanother, of course that is true about a GRC

Oh dear! Now I'm not sure what aspect of my posts you are referring 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.'

Ilooked in the water - Yes, I think the argument to cut out the safeguards is partly to speed things up because if a person is transitioning then not having ant legal recognition during that process makes things harder.

That said everyone who transitioned prior to 2004 and many others since did exactly that. Just got on with it and made it work.

Paris Lees, the trans activist who is often on TV, has not got a GRC or a birth certificate (one is needed for the other). I doubt very much when on Question Time the BBC make her use the gents. Or we would have heard about it.

Indeed she makes a point of not getting one I think to argue that it has nothing to do with toilets or changing rooms as she uses female ones and has for a decade. Because there is no law preventing it.

I get the impression she wants this to be seen as a reason for making the GRA free of waits and much simpler - because the things most women worry about are, in her view, irrelevant because it makes no difference to toilets and changing rooms if you do or do not have a certificate.

The problem for me is not so much that argument. She is right most trans women will have done what she does unquestioned before the GRA was passed in 2004.

But these are not really the main concerns over making the GRA easier. Making it more straightforward can be done and should be done. Perhaps making it free - though no doubt that needs costing.

However, for me there are lines in the sand over the question of medical assessment out of protection of the applicant and others from someone doing this for frivolous or dangerous reasons. And I also think we cannot compromise on protected spaces like refuges and medical tests. And that a delay post transition to establish permanence of decision and success of integration into society is demonstrated. Not to mention adding medical transition as a requirement.

The best way I can see to balance both needs here is to offer an interim GRC without full rights but as a marker of intent that will offer some reassurance to others. Granted after the initial medical assessment.

Then upgraded later to a full GRC once all the other clauses are fullfilled.

This is something

yetanotherSpartacus, that was my fault - sorry.

I was replying to the other yetanother - yetanothertranswoman.

Had not even spotted the confusion of abbreviating the name.

Apologies.

precious legislation I meant previous legislation (I am dyslexic)

I don't know if there was a deliberate effort to sneak things in under the radar. I think perhaps with Brexit etc in the press, it was perhaps seen as a minority issue and not hugely newsworthy. A lot of men in the media won't have thought about how Self-ID will impact women.

There was in America where arguably this aggressive idpol stuff comes from. The transactivists deliberately slipped things under the radar. And are proud of their tactical brilliance. I wouldn't be surprised if our homegrown activists took notes.

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.

Yep.

I think fully transitioned trans women (with a GRC) should be allowed to use women's facilities, hospital wards, prisons etc. It removes (or at least reduces very significantly) the threat of rape from allowing people with penises to use such facilities, and also protects those trans women who would otherwise equally be at risk in men's facilities following full physical transition.

As well as physical transition, I think an assessment should be made that the person would not pose a risk if transitioned, and the GRC should not be issued to anyone with a history of violence or sexual violence. This is necessary to protect women prisoners from rapists or other violent offenders who decide to transition in order to be put in a women's prison with a plentiful supply of victims locked up with him instead of going to a man's prison.

A pp said something like what's the point of a GRC if you don't know someone has one. Firstly as above, to determine things like what prison/hospital/regiment they go in. Secondly, it means that (unlike with self id) an apparently male presence in a female space could be questioned without it getting the questioner ejected for transphobia. Although, there's a balance to be struck here because obviously it's such a sensitive issue for trans women and women who have a masculine or androgynous appearance. Being 'challenged' about your use of female facilities because of your appearance ideally shouldn't happen, it should only be if your behaviour is of concern (eg showing your penis, trying to shock or intimidate, inappropriate behaviour or conversation, staring etc). The problem is you can't really legislate for people to be kind and considerate, or realistically, for people to behave in a completely appropriate way (how long is too long to look at someone - an accidental glance can feel inappropriate). So I think the most sensible way is to hope most people just follow the rules and have common courtesy, but for when there is an issue of "should this person be here", a GRC can hopefully resolve the issue - either they have the right to be there as they are fully transitioned and assessed as not a risk to women, or they shouldn't be there and can be asked to leave if necessary.

I think fully transitioned trans women (with a GRC) should be allowed to use women's facilities, hospital wards, prisons etc. It removes (or at least reduces very significantly) the threat of rape from allowing people with penises to use such facilities, and also protects those trans women who would otherwise equally be at risk in men's facilities following full physical transition.

As well as physical transition, I think an assessment should be made that the person would not pose a risk if transitioned, and the GRC should not be issued to anyone with a history of violence or sexual violence. This is necessary to protect women prisoners from rapists or other violent offenders who decide to transition in order to be put in a women's prison with a plentiful supply of victims locked up with him instead of going to a man's prison.

A pp said something like what's the point of a GRC if you don't know someone has one. Firstly as above, to determine things like what prison/hospital/regiment they go in. Secondly, it means that (unlike with self id) an apparently male presence in a female space could be questioned without it getting the questioner ejected for transphobia. Although, there's a balance to be struck here because obviously it's such a sensitive issue for trans women and women who have a masculine or androgynous appearance. Being 'challenged' about your use of female facilities because of your appearance ideally shouldn't happen, it should only be if your behaviour is of concern (eg showing your penis, trying to shock or intimidate, inappropriate behaviour or conversation, staring etc). The problem is you can't really legislate for people to be kind and considerate, or realistically, for people to behave in a completely appropriate way (how long is too long to look at someone - an accidental glance can feel inappropriate). So I think the most sensible way is to hope most people just follow the rules and have common courtesy, but for when there is an issue of "should this person be here", a GRC can hopefully resolve the issue - either they have the right to be there as they are fully transitioned and assessed as not a risk to women, or they shouldn't be there and can be asked to leave if necessary.

Sorry, accidental double post.

@RatRolyPoly

"It's the transexuals who would benefit (see footnote) from the changes to the GRC (so that kind of self-ID). "

Transsexuals will not benefit from self Id. Along with females they will face the possible danger of random males I'm the female safe spaces. That's what I have been told by a transsexual woman very scared of self id.

Had not even spotted the confusion of abbreviating the name

I missed that too, LOL. In hindsight, I should have joined the dots.

But why is a transsexual in any danger from random men in female safe spaces? Those random men are there to access women, if they wanted access to male bodies, they could in men's spaces.

Transexuals benefit from self id because it makes been male in female safe spaces acceptable. Self id isn't about looks or behaviour, so now the non passing transexuals can enter women's safe spaces unchallenged when previously the might have faced questions.

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

It's really simple. I think we should all admit the simple truth that if you have a male body with a penis you are a man to all intents and purposes, particularly legally.
What you want to wear or call yourself is entirely up to you and I have no opinion of any kind.

JayceeI 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).

The first trans person that I became friends with is a good example of why de-medicalising transitioning is wrong. Their sex is female but they've identified as non-binary for years. They wear a breast binder and asked their gp for surgery to remove their breasts.

Going back a few years, they also suffered psychosis from time to time. I have no idea what their official diagnosis was but every few weeks they'd end up in A&E and occasionally be sectioned.

When they met with a consultant at the gender clinic, it was put to them that it might be better to put off any drastic surgeries until they were in a more stable place with their mental health, given that removing someone's breasts is permanent.

My friend gave it a lot of thought, no doubt, and said they agreed it was the most sensible option given the circumstances.

I know they hate having breasts. I know they might well have them removed at some point. But nothing has been rushed into and my friend is being helped more holistically - i.e their mental health issues are being taken seriously and addressed first.

If you take away these kind of protections you do at worst end up with someone who has effectively been mutilated and later changes their mind. You're also given a free pass to not investigate or help with mental health issues which is also wrong.

I wonder how long it will be, in the US at least, before someone sues their medical professional for performing permanent grs on request, with no thought to mental health, age, living situation, abuse history etc. Personally I can’t see how they’d not have a case.

That would put a rapid halt to self ID.

I do wonder if part of the reason this is getting support from politicians is that it will save the NHS money. It won't have been as huge amount before when the numbers were so low but now there are tens of thousands the cost of the mental health treatment if always provided would he huge. Not to mention all the other elements (I'm unsure exactly what thee NHS does provide). Long term of course this will cost more with lawsuits etc but they're not seeing that.

"I do wonder if part of the reason this is getting support from politicians is that it will save the NHS money."

And that's part of the reason surgery will never form part of the GRA. It will cost the NHS a fortune.

I understand that it is a regular view among trans people to be anti-surgery.
Which is why many are fearful of self-ID. The thought of someone with a penis faking their way into a space where there are vulnerable women makes me shiver.
I could only ever support self-ID if there were clear safeguards to protect e.g prisons and refuges. Even then...

Lost art - why would transsexuals be at risk from men in female spaces - because they are there to access women, not men.

You are assuming that these men will not see a trans woman as a woman, or, necessarily care if they have the necessary body parts to suit whatever they are up to.

You judge everything on definitions based on DNA and biology and I am not denying such distinctions.

But surely you understand that a predatory man is not going to have a scanner that beeps and checks whether you have a womb or xx chromosomes before they decide whether to act?

They will act on perception and most trans women in there will be so perceived if they have had surgery and hormone therapy.

I very much doubt such a man would care either way here. You seem to be transferring your view of what a trans woman is (a man) onto the perception of a pervert or rapist.

But why is a transsexual in any danger from random men in female safe spaces? Those random men are there to access women, if they wanted access to male bodies, they could in men's spaces

So you think a random man in female spaces would not be concerned about a transsexual being there?

Do you think a transsexual woman might have some of the same concerns that a woman would have about a random man in a female space?