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?

I imagine he might have second thoughts at that stage.

Me neither. I wonder if he knows what HRT will do to his penis?

According to his blog, he does. That's part of the reason why he is vacillating. But he is desperate to have womanly curves and grow breasts.

Not being able to talk about AGP scares me to be honest. I know it's a thing, lots of people know it's a thing, but we're not allowed to discuss it in the context of gender. Weird and scary.

I know. Women should not be forced to be props in some boundary invading creep's sexual fetishes.

Has someone screenprinted tgat from Andie's blog in case they delete it.

He loves his penis and the pleasure it gives him. Just like every other man on the planet, then

From his blog:

""But, all being well, I have my first gender clinic appointment in September and, six months after that, I want to be taking estrogen. You all know why – boobs, hips, a waist, soft skin, less body hair. Heaven.

But one drawback is that the estrogen can cause issues “down there”. There’s no way I want to lose my little guy – he’s given me far too much pleasure over the years and the thought of going down the vagina route and dilating every day for the rest of my life does nothing for me.

But estrogen can causes issues – a loss of sex drive, shrinkage and even – though there appears to be some debate about this – the potential to make you sterile. She didn’t mention this today, but I’m sure it’s on her mind""

And if you don't follow sex stereotypes in what way are you trans rather than body dsyphoric?

Not sure I understand this question. I don't follow sex stereotypes. It doesn't make me trans or body dsyphoric. And it does not detract from the fact that I am still a woman.

Betsy I was talking about a self identifying trans person.

For me, trans has to do with either sex role stereotypes (gender) or body dysmorphia.

Ego disagrees that gender is sex role stereotypes and said that some trans people do not enact sex role stereotypes which is why I asked the question. It was specifically about trans people.

Ego disagrees that gender is sex role stereotypes and said that some trans people do not enact sex role stereotypes which is why I asked the question

There are trans people who say they are trans because they think they follow stereotypes and so that must make them trans. Boys who like wearing girls clothes etc. That's not what being trans means to me. I don't think I follow stereotypes - but there are trans people who definitely do.

But it's far more than body dysmorphia.

It's a very complex question and a long answer.

Interesting video on gender dysphoria.

spark.adobe.com/video/jx2QN9BbM24dX

They've started building unisex toilets in Glasgow primary schools.

I have been reading through the McCann evidence (barrister appointed in October 2015 as a Specialist Advisor to the House of Commons Women and Equalities Select Committee to advise in connection with its Transgender Enquiry).

McCann was asked to consider various questions pertaining to the proposed Bill.

Two things struck me.

(1)

The gender reassignment definition given in the GRA 2004 is quoted:

'The protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” in s.7 of EqA
will apply to any person proposing, undergoing or who has
undergone the process (or part of a process) of reassigning his/her
sex from his/her sex at birth by changing physiological or other
attributes of sex.'

Ms McCann's footnote then states:

“Changing” attributes of sex would include, for example, a change of name, appearance (eg, clothing; hair
style; or other aspects of appearance), hormone treatment as well as surgical interventions. However, medical
treatments are not necessary to demonstrate a process of gender reassignment.

Surely, changes to hairstyle and clothing are changes to the attributes of gender, rather than of sex, as the GRA requires? The fact that the GRA is uses biological sex as the fulcrum implies something a little more fundamental than putting on a dress, to me at least.

(2)

When considering which transgender individuals are covered by the existing legislation (in the context of why it might need to be widened), it is noted that:

" ... a Gender
Recognition Certificate is only available to an individual who meets
the criteria of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (which includes
evidence of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria). Many “transgender”
people (including intersex, non-binary, a-gender or gender fluid
individuals) would not secure a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria”
and so would not be able to obtain a GRC. Consequently, some
individuals may not propose to undergo any part of a process of
gender reassignment for that reason."

I think many people, when considering the trans issue, assume that crippling gender dysphoria is always present, and are sympathetic accordingly.

But if protection is given to non-dysphoric individuals, that means Andie, basically. And that's not on.

Oh drat. The references in (1) to GRA should be to the EqA.

My understanding of the Womens & Equality Committee report is that the whole gist of the recommendations is to move away from a medicalised dysphoria model approach where assessment and evidence is needed to show criteria are met and towards a self-declaration (no-one knows my gender better than I know it myself) approach.

So there would be no criteria whatsoever. If you say you are a woman, you are a woman.

I am still really struggling with why, if this is in no way a medical issue, the NHS is involved. It really does seem to be having it both ways. If it is entirely an identity issue, why is treatment provided on the NHS?

I am still really struggling with why, if this is in no way a medical issue, the NHS is involved. It really does seem to be having it both ways. If it is entirely an identity issue, why is treatment provided on the NHS

Because for some people, it is a medical issue that can be treated with HRT and surgery.

I'm not sure what the NHS can offer to someone who does not want HRT / surgery - except a 'diagnosis'. But what is the diagnosis?

Having a diagnosis of 'primary transexualism and gender dysphoria' gets you onto the pathway for HRT and surgery.

I think it also adds weight to any discrimination claim.

The current law is good law, it seems to me.

Ego:
There are trans people who say they are trans because they think they follow stereotypes and so that must make them trans. Boys who like wearing girls clothes etc. That's not what being trans means to me. I don't think I follow stereotypes - but there are trans people who definitely do.
But it's far more than body dysmorphia.
It's a very complex question and a long answer.

If an individual is happy with the sex they are born as, and happy with expressing themselves without feeling pressure to fulfill stereotypes, what else is there that defines them as trans?

Surely, changes to hairstyle and clothing are changes to the attributes of gender, rather than of sex, as the GRA requires? The fact that the GRA is uses biological sex as the fulcrum implies something a little more fundamental than putting on a dress, to me at least.

This is what I see as the crux of the issue. Sex and gender being mushed together.

ego because for some people it is a medical condition that can be treated

So why dilute the definition to include anyone who basically has a hairstyle change? People who have genuine medical sex dysphoria are protected already. Why do we need to include anyone and everyone?

Kanyewest What else is there that defines them as trans?

From what I gather it's simply the magical utterance of the words "today, I am trans".

Excellent article

The problem with Obama’s Department of Justice narrative is that it suggests “gender identity” is sex, and that, while gender is whatever a person feels it to be, the acknowledgement of biological sex is “transphobic.”

This narrative, wherein gender is medicalized in order to silence one half of the population and wherein biological differences (and the way those differences factor into the system of patriarchy) are now considered to be fictions, is an MRA’s dream. The result of efforts to “broaden the definition of woman” is that, now, anyone can be a woman, but actual women can no longer speak of their oppression or their bodies

www.feministcurrent.com/2017/03/10/invisible-woman-gender-identity-age-neoliberalism/