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.

RatRolyPoly - absolutely right. The changes to the act would only benefit transsexuals scared to see a doctor or be properly assessed and want to get access to the best medical diagnosis and treatment of the right way forward to take their transition.

Some might see that as a plus as it cuts out a lot of waiting around and being investigated.

But I would have thought most would not. Because one of the things that differentiates someone who is transsexual from someone who is transgender is a grasp of reality.

A transsexual knows they feel they should be the opposite sex because that is what their inner sense of self says to them. But they know their body is biologically what it is. There is a disconnect. But not with reality or science. The need is to seek help to bridge that gap by adapting sex characteristics of the body as far as they can be. Hence the word sex.

So medical assessment will seem good sense not an imposition if that is how you see yourself I would imagine.

The group that will most benefit from self ID is those who feel this is about gender identity - and they by definition are not transsexual but trans gender. Which is why many of them are not really wanting to change their body very far and not to the point of surgery.

Just enough to bridge the gap toward acceptance of their expression of gender. Not, as with transsexuals, to 'change sex' - not literally - though we would if it were possible. But in the sense of that word.

Put it this way - no transsexual would argue that a person with a functioning penis can be a woman. This would be like a cancerous growth that you would remove not appreciate.

A transgender person would as that is just a body part not them.

Perhaps sexual preference matters too. I don't know the details but all the transsexual women I know are attracted to men and always have been. There may be some who are not and that might effect how they view their body.

But from how I see transsexual v transgender - one is about shifting the body to as close as possible to the sex you perceive - which has to mean if you have a penis you feel it should not be there - and if you are transgender then you want to express you masculine or feminine gender identity and this might involve some tinkering with the body but it will not be a necessity, just a possible consideration.

Ok, perhaps I should have said non passing transexuals. But, seeing as though no trans group seems to be making any effort to keep men out of womens spaces, I didn't think it was a big issue for you?

Lostart, it certainly is a big issue for trans women who have surgically transitioned given that they are prey to men just as much as women would be.

So where physical assault or rape is the concern that is certainly something trans women have to do.

Not just in toilets but in not walking down dark spaces at night or checking out exit routes in advance or when booking a late night taxi alone. These things are instinctive responses to possible threats.

I certainly cannot speak for any trans groups because I don't know any and have never been part of any. But I suppose it is quite likely they are looking only at self interest and that appears to be protecting the far broader spread of people now defined as trans - including those transgender women with functioning anatomy.

I am sure most will be innocent enough, but you know my view is that that as a minimum hormonal 'castration' should be required as a minimum access to spaces.

Though the problem - as you recognise from the comment about passing trans women in toilets - is that with or without any laws a pervert with a functioning penis could access somewhere if they can pass enough to do so.

Any GRC or self ID law would not make one jot of difference to that.

And whether it was a pervert man dressing up or a self ID transgender person the law would deal with the consequences of their actions the same. Bad things are not made possible because of right of access. They are still bad things.

So those groups are likely looking at it this way and protecting the people they represent.

Women are quite rightly making their views on risk and access known too, which will be from an understandably different side of the whole thing.

I can obviously see both arguments more easily from experience but have made clear I think access needs tightening and rules of who can access reconsidered from a physical body parts perspective. As that is a legitimate area of concern for women that cannot just be swept aside.

Fencing, that was a good example of why medical assessment is for me a necessity. I saw plenty of people when I was going through the system in hospitals and clinics who were desperate to 'change sex' one day and desperate to 'be cured' the next and who very clearly had many issues going on that had nothing to do with sex or gender but were being subsumed into that idea.

They were rightly not put through towards transition - like I was told 90% of cases were not. And we know from child cases in clinics these days that most do not go onto transition either.

So it is self evident that the evaluation is not an optional extra but a necessary way to stop people potentially making a mistake. Some of those I saw had potentially dangerous (to them and others) psychiatric condition. Finding them and trying to help them appropriately has to factor in somewhere and cannot just be ignored to give everyone freedom of choice.

Expressing gender identity might be a choice to some. To others it is the result of a pathology. You cannot expect the ones who are really ill to choose to go to a doctor as it only takes one who doesn't and that you otherwise would have found today to result in mayhem.

There have to be guards and protections in situations that effect others.

You could, for instance, say there should be no barriers on a level crossing over a railway. Because people will know whether to cross or not and it should be a free choice. And even with barriers idiots will still cross.

All true but a society has to guard in some way situations where not just the idiot who ignores the rules would suffer but others too. As here someone driving freely over the crossing into the path of a train potentially hurts innocent passengers and not just themselves if we do not offer a degree of check to their action as a society.

Reallyanotherone - yes trans regret used to be very very rare. When it was very carefully controlled who did and did not transition physically under the NHS. But as numbers who decided to ignore the NHS and head abroad by Easyjet for a cheap op in eastern Europe or somewhere with less questions asked - guess what - the lack of checks and balances has led to more cases of regret.

You are absolutely right that there will be more lawsuits from those whose transition does not work out and they blame the lack of proper advice (I think a few have already been attempted by those charging inadequate safety checks and delays under present rules - so imagine if it was an instant free for all)

MipMip - money probably is a factor - though I think not in the sense you mean. As I pointed out somewhere (another thread possibly) the total cost to the NHS for GRS covering the 865 GRS carried out in the UK between over the most recent decade we have figures for was about £8.5 million. That is out of a total NHS buget of around £115 billion.

This is not disproportionate to the prevalence of the condition and is about 5 times only the £2000 the NHS spends every year on every one of us on average.

In fact one of the reasons GRS is regarded as a successful thing to do and why it is still happening 50 years on is that it is so successful as a cure that it limits the involvement of the NHS afterwards and works out cheaper than long term consequences of not applying this cure.

If there was a cheaper way they would have found it. However, you are absolutely right that they would not want to increase the cost by way of rising numbers of GRS conducted by insisting upon it.

But as the figures show numbers of GRS have been remarkably consistent over the past 50 years - from 90 or so in the 70s to 865 (86.5 per year) in the decade 2000 - 2009.

So those actually seeking this are not going to skyrocket based on those figures. And part of the desire for self ID to come in my transgender people is because they don't want surgery so feel they don't need to see doctors.

Medical assessment is likely not to create a big rise in those having surgery because only transsexual people rather than transgender ones seem to want that anyway. And those who do know they have to seek medical aid, so usually do.

Self ID is almost all about legitimising self expression and not funding medical transition.

"I am sure most will be innocent enough, but you know my view is that that as a minimum hormonal 'castration' should be required as a minimum access to spaces."

But how is this to be policed?

I think insisting on irreversible procedures as a form of 'admission' into womens spaces is irresponsible. It will force people to make life altering decision that they may live to regret. And, as I have said many times, it doesn't make a person pass. It doesn't guarantee that they are nice and will not be abusive to women. Similarly, someone without surgery may pass and not pose a threat to women.

You are expecting women and girls to risk feeling and being safe for a group of non passing transexuals.

@jayceedove "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."

I am really sorry about this. I think women are just sick of trans activists and the things we are expected to put up with and there will be a back lash. I do hope we can find answers that support everyone.

As you know, my own fear is for 'trans boys' swept omg on all this. Teresa May saying this is not a medical issue was do wrong.

It's transexuals that are pushing for hormones and surgery for teens and young people. The new transgender crowd don't think surgery and hormones are necessary.

Lostart - because the two things are different, that's why.

Nobody is suggesting surgery be offered before 18 and it rarely happens before 21.

Cross sex hormones are not given until 16 I believe.

These all seem sensible precautions.

Blockers are another matter simply because if you are transsexual rather than transgender they will make an enormous difference to the rest of your life. It is a one off chance that you get to delay puberty until you decide when old enough.

This is a major decision and should not be taken without very significant assessment and consideration involving parents, social workers, doctors and psychiatrists and long term persistence over several years.

Any doubts at all err on the side of caution.

But 100% had there been blockers in the 1960s I would have had them and be overjoyed that this was possible. It would have made a major difference to my life.

However, I am very aware of the number of children who are going through phases and who might just be confused or gay. So there will be cases where blockers should be given but are not because of the need always to always err on the side of caution.

t's transexuals that are pushing for hormones and surgery for teens and young people. The new transgender crowd don't think surgery and hormones are necessary

Some transsexuals are pushing for this. Others aren't.

Trans people have a wide range of views and opinions on subjects.It's just that some trans people have a bigger platform than others to be heard.

"Some transsexuals are pushing for this. Others aren't."

Evidently.

I would rather my children hung out with people who thought wearing a pink hoodie made you a girl, than people who think puberty is optional and hormones are harmless.

@LadyLance
"I don't know if there was a deliberate effort to sneak things in under the radar."

Actually, thinking about it, i do think that changes in the law have happened without consultation of people who may be affected. The current push for self id was, in my humble opinion, pushed with a hope it would go under the radar.

The push has Bern "we Don't need surgery" to be trans. And it's rude to ask what's in our pants. (Even though as a natal female everyone will know what is in mine) and so finally when you add this up there is no defining feature to being 'trans'.

If the activists have their way they will abolish what it means to be male, or female or trans for that matter! IMHO.

Some transsexual women do look like women and could just as easily be raped or attacked. I am talking about genuine transsexuals, a number of Transsexual women are attracted to males, they are not strong muscle bound males. The fact their body is male in anatomy does not mean they are not at risk. Personally, i Don't have an issue with these people on safe spaces.

This does not include make rapists on female prisons, whether or not they have a GRC or have had an op!

If the activists have their way they will abolish what it means to be male, or female or trans for that matter! IMHO

I agree - when I came out, I thought I was going to be a member of a very very very small group. The fact that there are very few operations in the UK every year shows that (I don't know how many just get HRT instead of surgery).

But there's this claim that 0.5% of the UK is trans? Or something like that. How does that work?

I do think that being trans has lost its meaning - and it does annoy me when there's this stereotype about what people think being trans means (If I hear wearing frocks and liking pink things one more time)

But that's the image now. And self IDing and wanting to rename 'gender reassignment' to 'gender identity' on the Equality Act does lose its meaning of what it means to be trans. I can see that some people will say that women is losing its meaning as well.

Lostart neither of those comments are true though. They are both huge over simplifications of the two facets of transgender.

And like yetanothertranswoman rightly says there are bound to be many shades of opinion in between.

I don't think there is any one way to be trans and I don't think only one thing is behind being trans.

Probably if more people posted on here who were trans there would be an even wider range of views than those of yetanother and myself.

We seem to have similar experiences and ideas on some things and different ones on others.

I don't know how old yetanother is but she may well be a lot younger than me as I have noticed quite a big generational difference in how these things are viewed from those I have talked with.

Which I guess is inevitable as being born when there was still rationing after the war and growing up either side of the Millennium in what would have been a science fiction future - like many of the trans people out there now - then it would be silly to expect everything would be viewed the same.

Cultural moods and ideas shift and often for the better. But also often you have to wait for the last generation to die off before the new wave can take root entirely within society.

So maybe the self ID, be who you want, express how you want, do not have surgery transgender is the future. And perhaps it will be a better future. I don't know.

Perhaps the transgender reality I was born into was a very old fashioned one and we dealt with it in ways that suited the age and these are changing.

So who knows if the men are men and women are women reality I came to understand - hence the need to transit from one to the other - is any more real than todays rather more blurred edges of multiple shades and expression where it is thought better to just find one that suits and not worry about definitions.

These may only look like two different versions of being trans - one that focuses on body and the other on identity. And neither is any more real than the other.

It is definitely a trap easy to fall into that you see what you experience as the truth and cannot see what others see differently.

If we want those who are not trans at all to grasp what we are saying I think it is probably important that we try to understand the way to be trans that is different from your own.

I admit I find that difficult. But I accept the need to make an effort.

Returning to blockers I am not suggesting puberty is an option. Only that those who are trans from childhood - and some very clearly know it from pre school - are usually different from those upon whom it gradually emerges in and around puberty. Some medical studies have discussed these differences and they have names but I forget what they are.

What emerges from them seems to be a very clear 'I am a girl' type statement by that child and repeated emphasis to their family over years. It is not confusion but manifests as certainty.

In those cases - and they are not common by all accounts - there should be scope to think seriously around what happens at puberty as by then this will have been going on for years, not days or months.

I know having been in that position that you cannot make a life changing irreversible decision that young. So I certainly do not support surgery that young or cross sex hormones that young.

I know there are concerns over long term effects on blockers as these are pretty new and so studies are necessarily needed to establish safety. And, as I say, if there is the slightest question or doubt by anyone then we should do nothing.

Most cases will resolve themselves through puberty.

But some never will. I am very sure of that. And given the benefit of putting puberty on pause to those 100% clear cut cases it seems wrong to impose our own doubts onto others who have none if all those involved - obviously including the medical experts involved - feel it is best.

Rare cases. Certainty only. After testing on risks. And in the majority let the kids be kids and grow out of it as 90% will.

And try to get better diagnosis methods at telling one type from the other by building up data as we monitor. As right now there is not enough data for a foolproof way to test.

Yetanothertranswoman, that is a good point I think about wanting to be heard.

It may be that this new wave of many shades of gender and self ID feel that in society today they can get along without the one way street of the old school of transitioning.

But that is proving harder to get society to understand as it asks more in return for the same.

And, probably more worryingly, it is turning a small thing that can be largely sidelined as a 'never going to happen to me' thing that by odds alone may never intersect your life into a movement that is large enough to be a potential everyday occurrence.

This is bound to be a game changer for everyone.

@MipMipMip
"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 absolutely think this is part of the issue. When Teresa May said trans wasn't a medical issue I think she was trying to do at least three things. Virtue signal to the youth (or her perception of them), get in on the media trans vibe and save money, IMHO.

Am I the only one who thinks this stuff, including the big operation, should be available on the NHS? But with a lot of safeguards. I don't like the idea of life changing surgery being only available to those who can pay. And if it isn't done privately I think people will have to be more committed - I suspect some surgeons (possible not UK) will just go along with it. Let's be honest, you see the evidence of cut happy cosmetic surgeons all the time - there was that woman with 36zzz (or something) boobs. So with proper checks and balances the surgery will only be performed on people who would really benefit and that they, and others who for whatever reason, get other help they need. People are less likely to go for the surgery with someone who may not be the best option if they know there is a chance of having it free.

Hope that makes sense!

Jaycee, denying a child a natural puberty cannot be right under any circumstances - you must have seen the tragedy in waiting that is Jazz Jennings, undeveloped genitals + sterility, no sexual urges, God knows what effects on the human brain but it can’t be good. There are very serious long tem side effects of blockers and cross sex hormones.
Adults often are denied sterilisation in case they change their mind, yet children are being allowed to discard their fertility without understanding what they are giving up.

I know someone who transitioned young but did go through puberty. She passes as a woman. I think puberty is essential. The reality of not going through puberty is that there might not be much 'material' to 'work with' for genital surgery. Also, the brain has not developed. There is more to life than looking a certain way.

Plus what about the use of drugs? How safe are these. Lupron is very dangerous. I don't know what other drugs there are.

khn.org/news/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems/

Also, adult women do not normally look like androgynous children. That is an image pushed by the fashion industry.

Gender apostate if you read my posts you will see I say what I think needs to be done first - including more knowledge of the consequences - but believe me if you had been an 11 year old transsexual or the parent of one you would want that work done and this road forward made possible if it was safe.

Not at any cost, obviously. But the value to a trans girl especially is potentially vast. As so many posters on here comment about things such as the trans person never passing and the scare factor they will cause in spaces because they still look male.

Blockers potentially can take all of that away and make such a difference because testosterone in puberty has a deep effect that is impossible to entirely eradicate. Once set it can never be entirely covered up with lifelong consequences.

Unfortunately puberty has two divergent effects on children who appear to be trans. The natural flood of hormones will push many to accept their natal gender and come to terms with who they are.

But on those who are transsexual it is such a deeply debilitating thing - it feels like a cancer has invaded your body - that there have been cases of the trans kids self mutilating and even attempting suicide.

It can be that deep as it seems to push the waverers into their true gender and those with a real dysmorphia are tipped over the edge in the other direction.

Like I said there are huge risks here. It should never be considered lightly and often should never be considered at all. And probably should be on hold until we know more from tests.

But it can make a lifetime of difference to those few who are deeply trans if we can be sure it is safe and appropriate.

Which I agree is much easier said than done and should never be done with an iota of doubt.

MipMip GRS is available on the NHS and it is not that costly.

Between 2000 and 2009 there were 865 surgeries carried out.

Total cost about £8.5 million. That is a tiny sum in the NHS budget because of the small numbers wanting this. That 86 per year average is almost exactly the same as the 90 cases in the year I had GRS. 42 years ago.

It is cost effective because the success rate is around 96% I believe and the money saved from not having long term care of the consequences of gender dysphoria, which is effectively removed in many patients, probably means the books balance long term.

If 600,000 people were going to have surgery I agree that might well have been a concern.

But it is pretty clear that the vast majority of them want to go nowhere near a surgeon (except maybe for a 46FF boob job perhaps) which is why they want medical assessment off the table in the first place.

I'm very glad to hear that Jaycee. As I said earlier, I'm not sure exactly what is available but I've seen many comments about people paying that I obviously got the wrong end of the stick. Excellent.

I feel very sorry for parents caught up in this because they will be pushed into things by their kids. The ever present threat of self harm or suicide. That's why the medical profession has to be so careful what they make available.

Did anyone see this? www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0603xz4

The ones who pay are those who may be impatient and can afford it. As some specialists offer designer vaginas that you can pick off a catalogue. And they also do extra surgery not often available on the NHS - such as FFS (Facial Feminisation Surgery) or vocal chord surgery to deal with a deep voice or one to remove a prominent adam's apple. Breast augmentation is often popular privately and sometimes the only one done.

In other cases a person who has been through the NHS system and been deemed clinically unsuitable for GRS either for psychological or physical reasons might choose to go elsewhere.

These days it is easy to get access to all the stuff the NHS provides via the internet and a cheap flight somewhere to a clinic in the far east where fewer questions are asked and this is a bit of a cottage industry.

So there can be many reasons why the NHS are not involved.

As long ago as 1972 one of the most famous British transsexuals - Jan Morris - bypassed the NHS and went to Casablanca. This was because she refused to divorce her wife of some years which the NHS then insisted upon before treating a married transsexual. As she would legally still be a man married to a woman until the 2004 act it was their policy not law. They did divorce eventually but have lived together and remarried recently in a civil ceremony.

Jan Morris is a celebrated travel writer aged 91 who started writing as James Morris and began transition in the mid 60s. She has a CBE and her writing is highly praised. She also was a big help for me personally writing to my parents when I started transition soon after her GRS. It helped them understand I was not destroying my life as understandably they initially feared given my then young age.