Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Legal gender and sex - confused

174 replies

jellyfrizz · 18/03/2017 09:39

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?

OP posts:
egosumquisum1 · 18/03/2017 18:46

She'll do you an assessment for £50

It cost me £250 to get a private HRT prescription as the NHS would have taken a year to 'prove' I was trans to qualify for HRT and then wait for the appointment with the pharmacist.

PencilsInSpace · 18/03/2017 18:54

How the GP decides to write that letter and the evidence they need to write that is up to the GP.

Helen Webberley says Is there a transgender test? As it is a subjective experience, the only person that can actually diagnose it is the person living with the feelings. There is no test, blood test or scan.

£50! Bargain! And you can do it all online Smile

PencilsInSpace · 18/03/2017 18:56

You was robbed ego. She does prescriptions from £20.

BetsyM00 · 19/03/2017 08:53

PencilsInSpace "This is not a 'self-identification' bill - that would require a change to the gender recognition act and I don't think Miller would try to do both in one bill."

All the links are on the reference thread but this transcript of the first reading in the House of Commons proposes exactly that: "by giving unequivocal commitments to changing the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in line with the principles of gender self-declaration and replacing confusing and inadequate language regarding trans people in the Equality Act 2010 by creating a new protected characteristic of gender identity."

egosumquisum1 · 19/03/2017 09:11

by creating a new protected characteristic of gender identity

From my understanding of Parliamentary procedure, the actual bill needs to be read at the second reading

services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/genderidentityprotectedcharacteristic.html

This Bill is expected to have its second reading debate on 24 February 2017.

"This Bill was presented to Parliament on 1 December 2016. This is known as the first reading and there was no debate on the Bill at this stage.

This Bill is a Private Member’s Bill. These are often not printed until close to the second reading debate. If the text is not yet available here and you wish to know more about this bill please contact its sponsor, Mrs Maria Miller"

Summary of the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill 2016-17

A Bill to make gender identity a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 in place of gender reassignment and to make associated provision for transgender and other persons; and for connected purposes.

Bills need definitions - so the actual definitions they choose will be interesting - and a possible minefield.

TBH - I'm not actually sure what the difference actually is going to be - as it's not a debate that I follow too much. I don't think someone should just say 'I have a female / male gender identity' without doing anything about it. I have been shot down in flames on some trans boards for saying that.

whoputthecatout · 19/03/2017 09:20

I wonder how long we have to wait for the first death certificate to be issued that says:
sex/gender - female
cause of death - prostate cancer

Will even this illustrate the absurdity of this pending legislation?

egosumquisum1 · 19/03/2017 09:23

I wonder how long we have to wait for the first death certificate to be issued that says: sex/gender - female cause of death - prostate cancer

I am sure that's probably happened already. Trans women usually keep their prostate gland after surgery so some will have already undergone a GRC change under current leglisation and will have attended a prostate cancer clinic as a transwoman and probably died of prostate cancer.

jellyfrizz · 19/03/2017 09:35

If I am understanding it correctly I've got no problem with gender identity being a protected characteristic and it's good that it replaces gender reassignment as it means that people can present however they like without discrimination and don't have to pretend to be the opposite sex in order to do so.

If people can identify however they wish and are protected by law to do so then there is no need for people to 'change' sex legally. This is the part of the issue that I have problems with; it is not possible to change sex biologically and so it should not be possible to do so legally. Biology is the reason women were given a separate label to men to start with and the cause of women being treating negatively.

I fully support transgender people in their wish to present how they like without discrimination but believe that biology does matter.

OP posts:
PencilsInSpace · 19/03/2017 09:43

I know Miller wants to change the GRA, BetsyM00, I just don't think it will be part of this bill. I could be wrong though - 'and to make associated provision for transgender and other persons; and for connected purposes.' could mean anything.

BetsyM00 · 19/03/2017 09:52

To be honest, even if this bill doesn't go through, I don't think it matters a damn - that horse has already bolted. The current legislation (Gender Recognition Act) says a man can already legally change sex and still keep his penis, and the current Equality Act says a man with a penis is protected even if he is only 'proposing' to change sex.

As previously said above in this thread what matters is protecting female spaces. At the moment a service provider has to be able to prove the exclusion of men is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. What we need is case law. The only test case is this one where Susan, who had lived as a woman for 20 years and has undergone gender reassignment surgery, won the right to use the female toilets in a pub.

It is worth noting that this case was referred to in Maria Miller's original report on transgender equality here, point 122 and it is clear this case was based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act - the person in question did not have a GRC!

Perhaps on the back of this case the government issued this guide for providing services for transgender customers, which states, "“Good Practice 4: Assume everyone selects the facilities appropriate to their gender. A trans person should be free to select the facilities (such as toilets or changing rooms) appropriate to the gender in which they present.”

So we have already lost the bathroom and changing room argument.

Point 113 of Miller's original report says Women's Aid are already committed to ensure transgender service users are not discriminated against and point 127 says that while Women's Aid currently exclude trans people for employment posts within the organisation, "this policy is under review".

We are losing here! We need providers of female only services to stand strong for our rights under the Equality Act and fight any cases brought before the courts. How can we do this best?

jellyfrizz · 19/03/2017 10:00

I think we need to push the distinction between gender and biological sex in law. Women's spaces were originally created because of differences in biology and are the reason they are still needed. It has nothing to do with how someone identifies.

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 19/03/2017 10:01

Gender and sex have become conflated in UK law when they are NOT the same thing.

OP posts:
BetsyM00 · 19/03/2017 10:05

egosumquisum1 "This Bill was presented to Parliament on 1 December 2016. This is known as the first reading and there was no debate on the Bill at this stage.*

This is the transcript from the first reading debate in the House of Commons on 01 Dec 2016:
hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-12-01/debates/D4F283FB-2C02-4C8C-8C7E-BEAB889D1425/TransgenderEquality
Maria Miller proposed the motion for "changing the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in line with the principles of gender self-declaration and replacing confusing and inadequate language regarding trans people in the Equality Act 2010 by creating a new protected characteristic of gender identity." Caroline Flint was the only dissenting voice in the debate.

I agree we need to wait until closer to the second reading on 24 Mar 2017 for more detail though.

BetsyM00 · 19/03/2017 10:10

Yes, I think a large part of the problem is that we seem to have a problem putting 'sex' as a tick box on official forms. No-one wants to say the word sex, so the politer word 'gender' was used instead. Who knew it could lead to this?!

Even when signing up for Mumsnet you have to select your gender as male or female.

PencilsInSpace · 19/03/2017 10:12

As I understand it, the debate on 1st December was not technically connected with the bill, even though it took place straight after the reading - it was a general debate on transgender equality, based on the Women & Equalities committee report and the government response.

BetsyM00 · 19/03/2017 10:21

I couldn't help but smile at the charity manager's response to a trans person's complaint of discrimination: "We will continue to promote his right to express his personality in any way he wishes."
www.highland-news.co.uk/News/Transgender-woman-tells-of-bullying-hell-01032016.htm

egosumquisum1 · 19/03/2017 10:26

I couldn't help but smile at the charity manager's response to a trans person's complaint of discrimination

Strangers in the street regularly shout insults at her and Miss Boyd said she felt discriminated against by staff and other residents at her Highland Homeless Trust (HHT) accommodation.

The charity denies any wrongdoing but Miss Boyd said things had become so bad, she did not feel safe living there anymore and had to speak out.

"I don't feel safe but if you can't be yourself, you don't have a life," she said.

"They way I'm being treated is disgusting. I've been called a paedophile and all sorts of other disgusting stuff by people who live there and people in the street.

"They have also shouted at me from outside my room.

"I've told staff the way I'm being treated is disgusting but they don't want to know. I was even told I can't talk about who I am because staff don't like it.

Yes, I can see why you would smile at that Hmm

OhGodWhatTheHellNow · 19/03/2017 10:51

With regard to changing official documents, you can already change birth certificates to change the mothers surname if she marries the father (in fact some people think it's compulsory...) so rewriting history for patriarchal bollocks reasons is already a thing.

CaroleService · 19/03/2017 11:10

Thank you, Pencils - that was a great analysis. I had been trying to read the two acts and make sense of them in relation to the proposed changes, insofar as they can be understood, but you have laid it all out neatly.

The McCann analysis demonstrates that the ship sailed long ago as regards keeping GRC holders out of sensitive female spaces. The residual fight must therefore centre on proposed / potential changes to the process of getting a GRC and the definition of GRC: ie, a move towards self-declation. Or so it seems to me.

whoputthecatout · 19/03/2017 11:13

It's ironic that in an age where there is more open talk about sex, where nothing seems to be taboo that there should be pearl clutching by officialdom when it comes to forms. It's bizarre, so I suspect it was more an appeasement measure than politeness.

It's similar to this nonsense about being "assigned" a gender at birth or "identifying" as a gender.

Gender is not a synonym for sex and I, for one, am going to use the word sex all the time when that is what I mean, and never use the word gender except in debate about gender being a social stereotype.

Nellooo · 19/03/2017 11:16

OP -

Try to "push" the distinction between sex and gender and this is what happens - check out the comments section:

www.facebook.com/chimamandaadichie/posts/10154893542340944:0

WrongTrouser · 19/03/2017 11:23

I think we need to push the distinction between gender and biological sex in law. Women's spaces were originally created because of differences in biology and are the reason they are still needed. It has nothing to do with how someone identifies

Gender and sex have become conflated in UK law when they are NOT the same thing

I believe this is the key point.

jellyfrizz · 19/03/2017 11:26

Nelloo OMG there are 1.8K comments there, which bit should I be looking at? Top comment is from a TW who completely agrees with Adichie.

Ego No, there is nothing funny about someone being treated badly. I think Betsy was probably talking about the quote in isolation "We will continue to promote his right to express his personality in any way he wishes." i.e. that gender identity is personality.

OP posts:
WrongTrouser · 19/03/2017 11:43

It's interesting how many of the negative comments on that article are essentially saying that women can't speak about/understand/describe/identify with the life experience of transwomen.

I would completely agree with that, and for me that points to why transwomen are a different group to women, not the opposite

Nellooo · 19/03/2017 11:48

Sorry, my post isn't clear. Sunday brain.

My point was that she's had backlash and has had to back-pedal and tie herself up in knots trying to un-offend.

The comments are interesting precisely because there are a range of views that, IMHO, all add up to exactly your original point:

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?