To not understand how this means a man can get a female passport?

[Brla]

A close friend of DH recently came out as trans. He’s had surgery abroad (FFS I think it’s called) and has set up an Instagram account with videos of the process and many, many, many outfits and make up videos. He has two sons and was married for 14 years before this.

I don’t really have an opinion as such on being trans. I think it’s likely that it’s a genuine feeling that I just can’t understand as I haven’t experienced it and don’t think it’s necessarily just a mental illness.

I don’t understand though that this person has not had his genitals removed or changed (not sure how you would express it) and yet has still got a new passport now saying F. Am I being thick for being unable to get my head around this? He still has a penis so surely that means he is male? How can he have had a passport issued as female?! Do you literally just need to apply and say you’re now presenting as female?

There it is folks.

At least you are honest .

I love these faux naive posts. Not transparent at all. Nice try op.

What are you saying - you think it's right that men can be classified as women on their passports?

These sentences aren't remotely similar. Are you ok?

There what is?

No, one is a question about trying to find out why the title is 'faux naive'.

I'm fine. I don't believe my reply was directed at you however ...

It's an open forum dear.

Agreed. But as you weren't the poster accusing the OP of being faux naive, I'm not sure why you feel in a position to answer the question put to her.

God knows!

loads of people post here honestly

People are complicated. Feelings about identity are complicated. Science is complicated too, in the sense that it's difficult for a layperson to understand the intricacies. However, as far as I'm aware, scientists have not discovered a third sex or given any indication that they are likely to be able to change someone from one sex to the other.

However complex or painful someone's feelings about their identity are, that does not mean that the rest of the world should be expected to deny reality. You say that being trans 'may well' have a biological underpinning, without any evidence at all. You say being trans is a 'real experience'. Well yes - any feeling us a real experience to the person who's feeling it.

I wasn't answering your question, I was pointing out that what you were accusing her of saying isn't remotely similar to what she actually said. As is usually the way with these threads.

Does the gender signifier on a passport serve any purpose? I am trying to think of when they have needed to know my gender when travelling and cannot think of any (except maybe matching “Ms” to “F” for gender to check but even that does not seem critical.)

And I was asking her why she was accusing the OP of being faux naive and asking her a question to clarify

Is this really the case? It would seem to be a fundamental gap that none of this history would become searchable especially within the same country.

This is a niche usage, but it was used by the IOC as a qualifying document for eligibility to the women's boxing competition this year.

I think it's obvious why she thinks the title is faux naive and you know what she means.

Saying What are you saying - you think it's right that men can be classified as women on their passports? isn't asking for clarification on why she thinks the title is faux naive, it's putting words in her mouth about her beliefs on trans women and their legal documents.

Posters calling themselves gender critical are always doing this, taking a statement and saying it means something entirely different, usually something like you don't care about womens rights then. It used as a way to steer the conversation to where they want it to go when it's not what anyone else is actually talking about. It's ridiculous and it needs pointing out.

What makes you concerned with raising, only to refute the idea of a "third sex"? No one said anything about a third sex at all.

What I said (which is true) is:

"For the most part sex develops broadly in one of two typical ways- we use “male” to describe one pathway of development and “female” to describe the other. In some minority cases peoples bodies develop differently, such that their bodies have some characteristics of male bodies , and some characteristics of female bodies. There are all kinds of possible variations with different consequences for health and medical interventions. People experience and interpret these variations differently".

You say that being trans 'may well' have a biological underpinning, without any evidence at all.

There may well be a biological component to transness, although the science is in its infancy. This is just a very quick collection of academic resources. There are many more.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30247609/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128159682000098

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25667367/

https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

https://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18980961/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19341803/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562024/

Posters calling themselves gender critical are always doing this, taking a statement and saying it means something entirely different

Amen to this!

Finally a definition from you! Shame it's so utterly meaningless.
Sex is binary whether an individual understands that or not. And you cannot know that your sex is different to that which was observed at birth....your sex is what it is and can never change.

You know as well as the rest of us that trans people are people who wish that they were the opposite sex and want to spend their lives pretending to be a different sex to what they are. You know that, and you know you know it, so the only real question here is WHY you continue at this pretence?

What's your game here?

Great books but if fiction is more your thing, read Drew Augustine's The Twenty Murders which is a crime thriller based on factual events

I think their definition is spot on though. In that for trans people their internal understanding of their gender identity is different to their sex observed / assigned at birth (whichever you prefer.)

And not all trans people view themselves as the “opposite sex”. There are transgender non-binary people.

Is this a joke? It’s exactly what the pro-trans posters do! Along with refusing to answer simple questions, and calling anyone who disagrees a bigot.

.You think that being trans is a "pretence"?

What's my game here?

To desperately try my best to share accurate knowledge and improve understanding about trans experience, so that people stop being so dogmatic, judgemental and prejudiced.

@Lostcat , let me rephrase to see if you will answer. So instead of

This is such an odd thing to say. Why are you suggesting that one characteristic of a person should “win” over another characteristic of a person? What does this even mean?

Ask you this:

If a facility or sport is organised around a certain characteristic, should it be legal to not allow someboy who does not share that characteristic to use or join that facility or sport?

For example, age. Sport for under 18 can bar anyone over 18, right?
Or religion, for example sunday school can ask a muslim person to leave if they want to?
Or trans support groups, anyone not trans should not try to join in?
Or sex? If a sport or facility is just for someone of the female sex, anyone male can be excluded.

This is what I mean when I say one characteristic 'wins' over the other. If something is sex segregated, then someone's gender identity has no meaning or role to play. I get that it is hard as a transperson feels strongly about their sex and want their gender identity to allow them entry but that is not fair as the segregation is not on gender identity but sex. Hence no males allow.

Now, the ideal or utopia we were discussing is that in sex segregation sex is the definer and no feelings, belief, knowledge of ones inner self can change someone's sex. what transwomen and their allies will find is that you cannot force women to ignore a transwomans sex and women won't be lied to. So if you cannot force women and women will find ways around the push to replace sex segregation with gender identity segregation, transwomen and their allies are in a no win situation. So now what?

It's not obvious to me why she's calling faux naive.

Can you explain?

of a person should “win” over another characteristic of a person? What does this even mean?

It means that material reality should win out over mental health issues.