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.

The 38 degrees petition didn't have any links to sources on it so I can't imagine anyone would take it too seriously tbh. I never sign petitions with no citations.

To clarify my earlier post, it's been suggested that trans ppl want to lost the 'mental illness' stigma of gender dysphoria, hence the proposals, but it's already not classed as a mental illness. So that shouldn't in itself mean no diagnosis is required.

Marking my place as I want to understand arguments

mrsroboto

Currently gender dysphoria IS considered a mental disorder.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) provides for one overarching diagnosis of gender dysphoria with separate specific criteria for children and for adolescents and adults.

But the party line is that once someone has treatment, and therefore transitions, they no longer have gender dysphoria so they no longer have a mental disorder.

So they get their treatment because they have an illness, then they no longer have an illness, so the condition can therefore be considered something that should be accrued civil rights. Women's rights, in other words.

Of course, if the treatment is stopped, they will revert back to gender dysphoria. It's not a cure, it's a treatment. The same way that people who are depressed and have antidepressants - they are not cured. They are treated.

It's a workaround to have your cake and eat it too.

I have a disorder, I need free treatment. Thank you. Now I no longer have a disorder so I can have civil rights, because you wouldn't have given them to me on the basis of a disorder and I wanted to access free treatment.

Gender dysphoria is a disorder, being trans isn't.

www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

datun well that's what I concluded too, but then my OH pointed me to the NHS site which states "Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate. It's not a mental illness."

I imagine there's a distinction (in the UK only?) between a condition and a mental illness? I did puzzle over it.

In the US, something being a medical disorder or not can affect whether insurance companies treat it, so that's always going to play a part.

The DSM-5 seems to be the basis on which people accept or not whether something is a mental illness. It's the bible for mental disorders.

Trans people did not want to be considered mental, obviously. But they had to be in order to get the treatment.

You can come at this ideology from any angle you like, it's illogical. It moves goalposts like there's no tomorrow.

There's a bloody good reason why a public debate has not been held. It's house of cards. It makes no sense. Because the underlying motivation is partly sexual, partly misogynistic and a very small minority who have a genuine reason. But believe me those people are not the ones who are pushing for this.

The whole transsexual agenda has been hijacked. You are looking at the face of men who want to erase women. It's really, really nothing more than that.

A phobia is an irrational fear of something, fear being also described as hatred.

No one on this thread displays fear or irrationality against trans people. No one on the 38 degree petition did either. Simply put it's censorship. Blatant as well.

The question to be asked is are trans people enacting a phobia against females?

I imagine there's a distinction (in the UK only?) between a condition and a mental illness? I did puzzle over it.

The DSM-5 is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the US.

Whether any given entry into the DSM-5 is indeed a mental disorder, and further whether this entry into the DSM-5 represents a mental illness, a condition, or something else is a whole other thread.

NHS Choices is not a particular source of authority when it comes to conversations about the law and gender.

Thank you mrsroboto for starting this thread.

Datun

The DSM-5 seems to be the basis on which people accept or not whether something is a mental illness. It's the bible for mental disorders.

There is considerable debate around the role of the DSM-5 in psychiatry. It is not the basis on which people accept or not whether something is a mental illness. Some clarification comes from Wikipedia:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers together with alternatives such as the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, produced by the WHO.[1]

erinaceus

Is there a UK equivalent, in that case?

(I have a Psychology background as well, so should be familiar with the DSM!)

This is the NHS reference.

However, a non-NHS psychiatrist would be at liberty to diagnose a patient using a DSM-5 diagnosis, for example. Psychiatry is, in general, a political exercise as well as a medical one. One of the concepts that might need to be understood about diagnoses is that as entities they are transient over time. They cease to be entities as well as new diagnoses coming into being.

The canonical example is that homosexuality only stopped being a diagnosis in the DSM in 1987, but there are other examples.

It encompasses many fields, most of which I'd argue are sciences, some not

How come body dysmorphia is a mental disorder

Body dysmorphic disorder is a mental disorder in which you can't stop thinking about one or more perceived defects or flaws in your appearance

There is an alternative petition here
www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-a-review-of-how-laws-based-on-gender-identity-conflict-with-laws-based-on-biological-sex?

It encompasses many fields, most of which I'd argue are sciences, some not.

One for Academic Corner, perhaps.

Can anyone tell me if someone requesting a Gender reassignment certificate has to have a DBS check as part of the process?
I've looked at employment law and someone with a GRC does NOT have to tell a prospective employer about their previous identity - they are supposed to voluntarily contact the "sensitive applications department" of the DBS with details of their previous history instead.
If people don't have background checks as part of the GRC process, the potential ramifications are horrific.

There is a petition about 38 degrees silencing women here

BelaLugosisShed

Good Lord!!! It's insane!

BelaLugosisShed

I misread your post. I thought they didn't have to disclose their previous identity. They do have to. It's against the law not to.

They can however, have that information excluded from their certificate. So the certificate will have their current name, current sex and the fact that they have passed the DBS protocols.

But yes, their employer will have no way of knowing their birth sex, unless it's obvious.

So you could think you are employing a woman, when actually you are employing a fully intact male.

So they are DBS checked before being allowed a GRC?
That's some comfort then , can you imagine if a convicted sex offender was able to obtain a GRC to erase their past?

Although I still think it's insane that people can have a new birth certificate.

No, I don't think they are checked beforehand. It's not a prerequisite of the certificate. But if they are required to have a check, they are not required to put their previous sex and gender on the certificate. But they are required to disclose it to the DPS office.

The only area where there is any kind of lack of candour, is the employer may not realise that they were previously the opposite sex. Or, in fact still are the opposite sex.

I don't know how it works with other institutions though.

There was a transwoman on here last year who was mightily looking forward to getting a letter from his doctor calling him for a smear test.

There is obviously going to be some subterfuge going on though.

If you consider that 98% of sex offenders are men and then someone becomes a woman, and they pass, you're going to make different assumptions about them.

Although most late transitioning transwomen don't pass at all.

Someone who has been trans since they were a teenager, might well pass. But I don't know how much of their male socialisation would have been diminished.

Gawd.

There is nothing on any of the official documentation I've been able to find, or on any Trans-support sites, that mentions criminal background checks for gender recognition applicants.
The gender recognition panel looks at all supporting evidence for applications, but there is absolutely no mention of checking criminal records.
So it looks like a job applicant with a GR certificate and new ID or someone who wants to volunteer , does indeed have to be honest and contact the DBS themselves - and if they don't, the DBS will have nothing to connect the original identity with the new one.
I honestly hope I'm wrong about this .