Trans rights and consultation on legal gender - cold hard facts and sources please?

[mrsroboto]

I've been reading with interest the various trans threads going on, in reference to this news item (I know it's been a longrunning discussion) Consultation on changing legal gender to be launched

There's been a lot of chat and theorising and I admit I had previously assumed it was the same as all the American hysteria over women with big hands using ladies' bathrooms. HOWEVER, obviously there's a lot more worrying things being implied. (I'm aware that people are worried about female-only safe spaces and medical definitions of male/female).

I'm not familiar with TRAs or their arguments so please can someone clearly answer some of my questions for me, with links to sources rather than generalising where possible? (I ask this respectfully as I know there is a lot of anger and disbelief and infighting which are making threads hard to follow, and I'd like to provide links for others - plus I tend not to believe stuff people write on the internet if there isn't a credible source - my STEM background).

1. From the news article, it looks like they want to remove the 'gender dysphoria' requirement for the 'Gender Recognition Panel' to allow someone to be recognised as the other gender. The 'gender dysphoria' definition in the DSM-5 looks fairly 'open' in that I would have thought most trans people would easily meet (things like 'A strong desire to be of the other gender'). The new requirement would be "a simple administrative process".

What is the trans argument for not even wanting to meet the gender dysphoria diagnosis? (Please don't just answer 'misogyny' - I'm trying to understand if there's supposed to be a reason - too difficult to diagnose? Symptoms that aren't listed in the DSM?)

1. What is the simple administrative process? Has this actually been proposed yet? (Ppl assuming one can just sign a piece of paper) Can you change back and forth regularly?

1. is there anyone who genuinely benefits from this? Are there distinct groups of trans people, such as 'genuine' gender dysmorphia people vs men who want to access women's prisons etc? what about in-between?

1. is there a question about lowering the age for physical transition? I'm aware of people claiming that children as young as 9 are starting to transition with drugs etc - any sources? I find this crazy.

As I said, I've read other threads with lots of good points about the implications so am familiar with a lot of the arguments but less familiar with actual facts, legislation, sources that might give an idea as to what could happen. Hoping a wise MNer or two can help but not wanting it to become a pile-on. AND apologies for not being up to speed yet.

Not sure who you're addressing that too ExplodedCloud?

Also not sure if you're being genuine or sarcastic!

The OP datun.
I am a woman. Not your typical woman but a woman nonetheless. I'm not happy to be redefined to meet the agenda of a different sex. That's the crux of the argument to me.

Me too. Or one of the cruxes...they keep piling up.

Indeed. Meanwhile I'm dealing with single sex state school admissions in a world of gender fluidity chaos.

Oh dear. I feel for you.

I'd be interested to know how that works? Since presumably they're all the same sex? Or are some of them identifying is the opposite sex now and you're wondering whether or not you've got to divide the loos!?

Good Lord, I'm yearning for the days when a safety pin through your nose and a pair of ripped jeans was the only sign of rebellion.

That's an interesting question in relation to school admissions, is there a minimum age proposed you can decide to self ID at?

OP, there is a Facebook page called Gender Critical Scientific Resources. For some reason I can't copy the link, but you can find it on Facebook. I'll post a photograph of an article that is currently on there that you might find very interesting. Hopefully the photograph will be enough for you to locate the article on the site. I believe it's the top post, anyway.

The comments from the Facebook page give very straightforward information about whether or not transgenderism should have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. (The women are scientists).

The article itself will link you to a discussion on Reddit. Again, the comments under that are fascinating. A real insight into what people think gender identity means, and why it is 'indefinable'.

I'm resurrecting the poor neglected wiki today There's a page here with details of the current law and how it works in practice.

To be fair, wrt point 1, posters on here have said the current requirement to "live as a woman" for two years prior to GRC is nonsensical because what does "living as a woman" mean.

I can't see it being a rule that certain clothing must be worn or stereotypes observed. It just couldn't be policed. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is living as a woman in my mind. It's likely to be something that just reinforces narcissism.

I've been doing some reading and I think I've got a better handle on this now.

The idea is that being trans should not be considered a mental disorder, but gender dysphoria should.

The whole definition rests upon the fact that a disorder can only be defined as such if it causes distress.

So you have gender dysphoria, you're distressed, therefore you can get treatment (this is the crux of it, having to pay for treatment in the US or qualifying for free in the UK.).

Once you have secured treatment, you're no longer distressed, therefore you no longer have a mental disorder.

It's a win/win. I have a mental disorder so I qualify for treatment, after which you can't say I have a mental disorder, therefore whatever I am now can qualify for civil rights.

It's genius. And chilling.

I think the key to understanding the new rules on gender identity is to realise that this is NOT about gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria requires a diagnosis, and the whole point of the new rule is that a diagnosis is no longer required. You will no longer need to be suffering from gender dysphoria to legally change your gender.

At which point, the whole concept of "gender" as a proxy for biological sex becomes meaningless. We now need legal protections for both gender AND biological sex. They will have to be different. Whether Corbyn's Labour or the Tories recognise that is a big question, as they're both essentially misogynistic parties who only promote women's issues when it appeals to their focus groups.

This debasement of what it means to be specific gender is a rejection of the idea that gender is something that happens to us. Gender is now, just like so many other aspects of our lives, reduced to the level of a consumer item like an iPhone or Audi. We're all beholden to Ayn Rand's libertarian ideal of the self as an entirely distinct, self-defining entity who can only reach perfection if freed entirely from the constraints of society. We can supposedly choose to be whoever we want to be. Yet the overwhelming body of scientific evidence runs directly contrary to this Utopian position - we are profoundly social creatures and our identities are essentially a product of our biology and our social experiences. There is no such thing as a distinct, isolated human "self", and no individual can shrug off their biology, years of social indoctrination and a dependence upon the ideas and beliefs around them.

British society is increasingly under the yolk of an understanding of humanity every bit as idealistic and blind to reality as that of Soviet era Eastern Europe. In my opinion, history will judge the last few years as a period when the UK moved away from socially sensitive cultural liberalism and towards right-wing cultural libertarianism. Looks like Thatcher has won - her radical economic philosophy has poisoned our cultural identity, and there is no longer any such thing as society (and shame on you, Corbyn, for ushering in this right-wing cultural change... but then the old-school socialists always did have a habit of throwing women under the bus).

Not sure, datun. Part of the proposal is to eliminate the need for any medical treatment or assessment. It's for people who have no dysphoria AND no medical treatment.

It's a massive bait-and-switch when you think of it. We've all been told we must be accepting and inclusive because dysphoria is so very distressing and leads people to self harm and suicide which is why we must affirm people's identities, even at the cost of our own rights.

Yet here we are with the proposal that people don't need to be suffering from dysphoria, let alone doing anything about it, we must still be accepting and inclusive and affirm their identities at the cost of our own rights.

Why must we do that?

Great post Frankie.

You will no longer need to be suffering from gender dysphoria to legally change your gender.

Exactly. It's just a lifestyle choice. Which, unaccountably, requires civil rights.

I agree, eliminating gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is going to be counter-productive. Because if you can get treatment without diagnosis, that means it's cosmetic. In which case any cosmetic surgery on the NHS should be free for anyone. Or no-one.

It's a massive bait-and-switch when you think of it.

This is exactly right. It depends what kind of trans-person you're talking to, as to what the criteria for trans should be, and whether it should be considered a disorder.

Taking away the gatekeeping, will take away the treatment.

So, surely, the people who are pushing this are the people who don't require treatment?

Want to present as female, don't have gender dysphoria, want to get into women's spaces.

To me that just says autogynephilia.

It's been my experience is that most of the noise is coming from that department anyway.

I'm also constantly amazed that an AGP motivation is so rarely spoken of or brought up.

I know the community has tried its level best to pretend it doesn't exist, but most people who have any kind of interaction with them see it everywhere.

Once again Rad Fems and the christan right on exactly the same page.

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/24/dont-make-it-easier-to-change-gender-urge-conservative-activists?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

It's weird, is all I'm saying.

Almost spooky in fact. All of these are right of Tory party quotes, but they could come straight from this board:

'rshe had read work by some who believed gender dysphoria to be a mental health issue. “Until very recently, that was the medical consensus and I don’t see that anything has changed'

“In my view, it should not be easy to do something as massive as change your gender and the law is there to protect us, normally from other people, but also sometimes from ourselves,”

“It’s certainly not intended to be insulting but if, for example, you have someone with anorexia who says ‘I am too fat’ ... it’s not actually respectful or loving to affirm that person in a belief that is false, that doesn’t tie up with reality.”

“What’s interesting is that many people who have gender dysphoria also have – not all, but many – other mental health conditions, like depression or drug addiction. They’re deeply troubled. And it has been proven that, when they change their gender, that doesn’t solve those issues. So, there’s an underlying issue here.”

Strange bedfellows indeed.

Do you have anything of substance to add Pansies?

Once again Rad Fems and the christan right on exactly the same page.

Well, no, in fact, the Christian Right has just as much in common with the trans activists - i.e. they want women at home, wearing dresses, having kids because they have vaginas while men go out and do manly stuff because they have penises, and never the twain should mix .

Where as rad fems want anyone to be able to do anything they want, irrespective of whether they have penises or vaginas.

Ie we both have a problem with the idea, but the reasons we have the problem, and the ideal solution societally are very different.

There's a group in the US called Hands Across The Aisle: For the first time, progressive and conservative women have come together to challenge the notion that gender is the same as sex. We are radical feminists, lesbians, Christians and conservatives that are tabling our ideological differences to stand in solidarity against gender identity legislation, which we have come to recognize as the erasure of our own hard-won civil rights. As the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, we are committed to working together, rising above our differences, and leveraging our collective resources to oppose the transgender agenda.

In the words of Natasha Chart: On the subject of whether a woman is an adult human female, feminists have been made thoroughly unwelcome on the left. So if liberals think it’s very strange for feminists to work with conservatives, they should probably stop telling us to “drink bleach” or looking the other way as online mobs demand that we be fired.

This comes up more and more. Look at who their allies are, it must mean they're wrong. It's an easy-win argument to present to those who don't want to think critically.

I think I can guess what the Christian Right's views* will be on, say, paedophilia. This doesn't mean that right-thinking people need to have the opposing view in order to be in the "correct side".

• the mainstream view ignoring the downright peculiar

Meanwhile, across the US 'bathroom bills' are being passed and lobbied for by conservative republicans - you know, the ones opposed to equal pay, maternity leave, contraception.

You decide if that's 'anything of substance'.

What is the trans argument for not even wanting to meet the gender dysphoria diagnosis? (Please don't just answer 'misogyny' - I'm trying to understand if there's supposed to be a reason - too difficult to diagnose? Symptoms that aren't listed in the DSM?)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I have this answer - there is no such thing as dysphoria, or, if there is it is produced by society not understanding that they were assigned the wrong gender at birth. It is argued that there are similarities between 'fixing' homosexuals (as happened until relatively recently) and not allowing perfectly normal people who just happen to have been mislabeled to change their labels. In other words, there does not need to be a diagnosis because there is no illness, just a case of mislabeling.

So what Pansies? The Left are notorious for throwing women under the bus. They have also swallowed the whole identity politics bollocks whole. I am liberal in my thinking. I believe in free speech, equality of opportunity not trying to enforce ridiculous policies to reach equality of outcome. I don't recognise much of the Left now, despite being left leaning. I'm fucked if I am going to be guilt tripped into supporting something harmful just because, gasp, conservatives oppose it.

Try thinking for yourself, and stop following the sheep

Well, yes, strange bedfellows indeed Pansies.

But, surely, an example of intersectionality for those who like that kind of thing?

Spaghetti has the right explanation IMO.

Just going back to my last post to clarify, we have single sex schools as our catchment schools. It's made me wonder what they do about children who id as trans. Could I id my dd as trans and send her to the boys school in a skirt and long hair? Or ds to the girls school in trousers?
I wouldn't but presumably I could! At 11 had I had the choice of our local single sex schools (in the 80s) I would have picked the boys school over the girls school. Not for the boys but because they did subjects that weren't done at the girls school like computing and woodwork. And wore trousers. As it was I went to a co-ed but I would have done anything to avoid the hell of our local girls school!