Legal gender and sex - confused

[jellyfrizz]

Gender has nothing to do with biological sex (other than stereotypes). Most transgender people will agree with this and indeed argue that gender has got nothing to do with what is between your legs.

So why then are people allowed to change their sex on their birth certificate and erase their past? How you present or what you do to your body has nothing to do with biological sex. Why would you want to do this if gender is unrelated to sex?

I'm guessing it's because historically people were classed as transsexual rather than transgender but once it became transgender surely 'changing' sex legally should have been stopped rather than the two being conflated? I'm told gender is a spectrum so what are you transitioning from/to?

Transmisogyny is the biggest non-word I have ever come across seeing as even the last part of the word "gyny" refers to gynaecology... you know, relating specifically to the vagina.

Usui Thank you for those definitions

patodp

I've been told that 'gyny' relates to woman, not specifically vagina. Which is why they can appropriate it.

I don't think you'd be able to claim sex discrimination as a woman as a transwoman. I think you'd need to claim discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. I think a lot of these legal concepts haven't been fully tested yet in court

But isn't the point of the Gender Identity Bill (as I understand it, but please correct if I'm wrong) that it proposes two changes.

One, to remove any criteria for identifying as a woman, and two, removing the exemptions that currently allow for services, spaces etc to exclude transwomen from single sex female spaces etc.

So in effect, this is firstly, saying that gender = sex, as the definition of a woman is anyone who says they are, and secondly, then saying that there should be no legal rights to a single sex space, only to a single gender one.

So legally the sex based definition of a woman would be void.

I know the Bill isn't law, but it does seem to be the way we are heading.

So in effect, this is firstly, saying that gender = sex, as the definition of a woman is anyone who says they are, and secondly, then saying that there should be no legal rights to a single sex space, only to a single gender one.

This is my concern, it's not just the amendment but the CURRENT law that conflates gender and biological sex.

So legally the sex based definition of a woman would be void.

It already is.

This is my concern, it's not just the amendment but the CURRENT law that conflates gender and biological sex.

My concern is that it is being implemented, despite it NOT being law. Schools, institutions, pubs, restaurants, are all bending to the pressure, without legally being required to do so (Yet).

So legally the sex based definition of a woman would be void.

Oh yes, that's long gone.

Currently, you have to have a gender reassignment certificate. If you have that, your birth certificate, drivers license, passport, etc, can all be renewed stating you are female, not male.

If women want to gather officially in a woman only space, you cannot deny this transwoman entry.

Women are currently not allowed to gather together on their own without the presence of a man, if that man says so.

I don't think it is completely at present. As the law stands if you have a single sex job, for example, and you can demonstrate it would be a genuine occupational requirement for the job to be done by a (sex based definition) woman, you can legally not appoint a transwoman to the post on the basis of their sex.

But if the Gender Identity Bill goes through, it would no longer be legal to not appoint the transwoman, as only the gender based definition of woman would be legally valid, voiding the sex based definition.

I actually think too much emphasis has been placed on the "self identifying" part of the GIB and not enough on the removal of the sex based definition of women and the legal right to have single sex spaces etc.

Xpost.Mine above was in reply to

So legally the sex based definition of a woman would be void

It already is

My concern is that it is being implemented, despite it NOT being law. Schools, institutions, pubs, restaurants, are all bending to the pressure, without legally being required to do so (Yet).

The only part that is not law is the self-identification but which of course opens things up to a ridiculous extent.

What I can't get my head round is how the fucking hell was it first made law that people can change sex. It is a well known biological fact that it is not possible to change your sex. And sex and gender are not the same thing anyway!

I don't think it is completely at present. As the law stands if you have a single sex job, for example, and you can demonstrate it would be a genuine occupational requirement for the job to be done by a (sex based definition) woman, you can legally not appoint a transwoman to the post on the basis of their sex.

But how would you prove their sex if all their paperwork says they are female?

I notice that Maria Miller referred to women objecting to her proposed bill as "purporting to be feminists". It's so interesting how it all seems to revolve around language and naming. Are women not even allowed to define themselves as "feminists" now, without someone else's say so?

All minority rights (I know women aren't a minority but you get my meaning) are won by first being able to identify the group. I can't help wondering, and this is not meant to be defeatest, just realistic, if in the end, women and girls (sex based definition) will have to define themselves as a group with another label and them refight for their rights as an identifiable minority. It just seems the logical conclusion to me.

So, take refuges. This group, call it SBwomen, for arguments sake, would need to argue why there is a need for facilities for SBwomen only.

Alternatively, as a thought experiment, I'm wondering about identifying as a completely new gender (born women who identify as men in private, but want to present to the world as women - a sort of reverse Danielle Muscato) Then we would be even more oppressed than transwomen because no one would understand us and we could start asserting our rights and no-one could call us bigots or transphobes. Would it work?

WrongTrouser

I thought the same as you, but then I give myself a slap. I already wonder whether I should call myself cis, just for bloody ease of reference, and just to have a more definite identity to that of 'woman'.

But apart from almost every fibre of my being fighting that, I don't think it will work anyway. The trans narrative keeps evolving to counter any pushback from women.

It's enormous head fuck that should not be countenanced on any level. At all. Ever.

jelly "What I can't get my head round is how the fucking hell was it first made law that people can change sex."

I'm okay with it in the sense of people having surgery, hormones etc (that's over 18s, btw, not children). But I thought that any medical records would state they are trans, I didn't think they could erase medical history? In fact, would it not be important for a doctor to know about their medical history?

I do have a problem with "self identification".

But how would you prove their sex if all their paperwork says they are female?

Very good point

Datun I know

I'm okay with it in the sense of people having surgery, hormones etc (that's over 18s, btw, not children). But I thought that any medical records would state they are trans, I didn't think they could erase medical history? In fact, would it not be important for a doctor to know about their medical history?

Oh, I'm totally supportive of people presenting how they like and doing whatever they want with their own bodies too. But it doesn't make them the opposite sex and there should not have been a law made to say that they are legally the opposite sex. And yes it goes for medical history, birth certificate, the lot.

jelly - so the current status in law is that you can say you were born as the other sex?

I completely missed whenever that happened.

eek this is so blooming complicated - except it isn't.

To me, it's hugely transphobic, by legally filing people away in their 'correct' gender by presentation it erases transpeople's experiences. It keeps to nice little man and woman gender boxes that everyone has to fit into.

I've said this somewhere else on feminist chat but I think the whole 'changing' sex thing came about from historical patriarchy after all you can't keep women in their place if people are going around not conforming with their gender roles can you? Best to package non gender conforming people away in a tidy box that matches their presentation and then hide their dirty secret by removing records.

What a way to treat people! Trans people should not have to be ashamed of their past.

jelly - so the current status in law is that you can say you were born as the other sex?

Yes. Gender Recognition Act 2004.

eek this is so blooming complicated - except it isn't.

^^YES!!!

But at the moment there are a number of criteria you must fulfil in order to "change gender" and you need to provide evidence that you have met the criteria.

Goldfishjane

The current criteria is you have to 'live as a woman for two years' and then obtain a gender reassignment certificate. Maria Miller is trying to remove even that small criteria. She wants self identification. Which just means filling out a form. Many people think it won't go through, but it's already gone through in Ireland.

Most people don't have a clue what the implications are.

jelly

What a way to treat people! Trans people should not have to be ashamed of their past.

As Machiavellian plans go, I think this is a masterpiece. Unfortunately I think it will fall at the first hurdle. But I'm more than willing to support it to my last breath!