Is this true? Paris Lees again

[MagicalRealist]

Just checking, do trans people have to expose themselves to their doctors and is there no law about changing room access?

From an article on the pool www.the-pool.com/news-views/opinion/2017/30/paris-lees-on-talking-about-trans-suicide-not-toilets

No they do not in the UK. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows for a transgender person to be granted a GRC if they are over 18, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, have lived as their new gender for 2 years, intend to continue to do so and apply successfully to the Gender Recognition Panel. There is no need for the transgender person to have had surgery I think this person is scaremongering so that everyone will allow the new proposals to legislation to go ahead because they are afraid of being called bigots.

Don't we all "expose" ourselves to our doctors when necessary?

"In transition for at least two years" sounds like this person just pulled up a shirt to show that there are indeed breasts underneath.

They clearly know nothing about the joys of regular smear tests.

"Exposing" ourselves to doctors, indeed

This is from the BMA website about gaining a GRC:

"To gain a gender recognition certificate, individuals must apply to the panel providing evidence from the applicant's medical practitioner or chartered psychologist of their acquired gender." The further guidance on this takes you to the GOV page with information on how to fill out the GRC forms. The section about medical information states that you need to have a diagnosis from a relevant expert, and also a report on what treatments you may have had, this can be from your GP. I don't see why you would need a physical examination from your GP if they knew the history of the treatment that you might have had. Perhaps in the case of Paris Lees' friend, they had had treatment but not got any record of it, maybe from somewhere abroad that hadn't passed on any documentation?

Regarding toilet access, it is correct that there are no current specific laws about who can access which facilities.

As far as I know it's got nothing to do with your body. You have to persuade the doctor that you are socially transitioned. What's the point in showing your body when it hasn't been medically changed?

And I don't think there is a law to say you have to use the toilet of your sex. Hence why women sometimes pop into the gents when there is a line.

Hence women not minding, in the old days, if a transsexual used their bathroom.

It's an understood necessity.

Paris Lees' assertion is counter-productive.

The reason bathrooms are separated by sex is because that's how everyone wants it. We are not legally forced to do it, everyone just likes it that way.

The Equality Act 2010 allows a person with a GRC of that sex to use that single sex service but if the service would be less effective if transperson was admitted then that person may be refused admittance but a similar service would be provided e.g. A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. At the moment this is lawful, with the proposed changes to the law this would not be lawful. If you read Women Analysing Policy on Women, Women only spaces and proposed changes to the Equality Act and Gender Recognition Act it sets the current and proposed legislation out quite clearly.

So the inference that trans people all have to show their genitals to their GP in order to get this letter signed isn't true then

If you have had surgery, surely the surgeon will have seen your bits or do they do it blindfolded now.

There is no need for any surgery or physical inspection to obtain a GRC.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Act_2004

There is no law compelling you to use either toilet. Women nip into the mens if there is a queue, and men use the womens if they are accompanying children. Most people dont see this as a problem.

Currently if you are a man in a woman's space you can be charged with various offences including loitering. For that to happen someone would have made a complaint about you.
The new act will give men the right to be in a space intended for women, and we wont be able to ask them to leave. Thats one of the problems. Another is we wont be able to request a female for an intimate exam or procedure.

Because of the statistics on male to female violence women at the moment have the right to request single sex services and spaces such as separate toilets, the proposed legislation would mean that there would still be single sex services and spaces but anyone with a Gender Recognition Certificate (I identify as that gender/sex) would be allowed to use that space even if it adversely affects the other people using the service. So all female only spaces will no longer be just for biological females and those who have a GRC because they are living as a woman, they will be open to all who feel like they are a woman and no-one can challenge this as it will be recorded as a hate crime. The safeguarding implications of this for women and children are horrendous. Think about who girls on school trips will be sharing their spaces with, it is an invitation for abusers to abuse the system.

So it looks like there's no actual law that says men are allowed access to women's facilities

BUT the government equalities office provides guidelines for service providers that strongly advise against stopping men from walking into women only toilets etc because it could be grounds for a lawsuit.

So what this looks like is that while there's no law forbidding a man to access women only spaces, it's effectively legal for them to do so because it would be easy for them to sue for transphobic discrimination? If the service provider did not adhere to the government guidelines that advise not to assume someone's gender?

Even IF it was true, why would Paris Lees bemoan the a bit of fanny checking? Actual Women have smear tests, internal scans for pregnancy, give birth though their fanny, all with various medical staff to view the proceedings. Public viewing, our fannies. Or they will be, if the likes of Paris Lees gets her way. Transwomen get privacy with their neo-vages, while demanding access to see ours in the locker rooms.

'Actual Women have smear tests, internal scans for pregnancy, give birth though their fanny, all with various medical staff to view the proceedings'

My thoughts exactly. Not to mention that having a vulva and a vagina are fairly crucial factors in actually being a woman, whereas long hair, dresses, heels and make up are not. Paris Lees is an idiot

Lees does seem to be working themselves up into a froth lately. In response to Trump's decision to ban transgender personnel from the US military, Lees has penned this - v in The Telegraph.

The comments section make heartening reading. Signs of peaktrans-ing methinks.

Pah. That was meant to be a paste (Ctrl-V), not a 'v' I inserted there. Try again.

Trump's ban on transgender military reveals a vile truth about how society sees people like me

WhereYouLeftIt

Those comments were definitely reassuring. All summed up by 'hysterical nonsense'.

No punches were pulled. And yet many comments were deleted. God knows what they said.

Even people who aren't fully informed, are just totally pissed off with it. Of course Lees whining about how suicidal transpeople are, wasn't the smartest thing to say in an article where you're recommending they go to the military.

God knows what some of the posters would've had to said if someone pointed out the regular neovagina dilation that has to go on.

Well the telegraph comments were interesting.

Meanwhile the Beeb continue with transgender characters in fiction. Where does entertaining and educating become brainwashing?

"Of course Lees whining about how suicidal transpeople are, wasn't the smartest thing to say in an article where you're recommending they go to the military. "
Exactly. Not really much of a writer. After all, what's your first consideration when penning an opinion piece? Shouldn't it be 'who is my audience?'. Lees is not preaching to the converted here, they're attempting to reassure. But instead, Lees trots out all the usual hackneyed phrases without regard to the topic or the audience. Of course the readers are going to go 'hold on a minute - we're talking about the military here, people we give guns (and more) to ... '.

I quite liked this comment 'Er... Paris, Two little words - unit cohesion. Get someone to explain them to you if you don't know what they mean.' And it is a good point.

the inclusion of the suicide stuff is because jsut the other day PL said that she wouldn't talk about trans issues except this one. Obviously she has shifted her rules slightly so that she will only talk about trans issues if she can also talk about suicide stats.

I was pondering the Pool article last night, and came to a similar conclusion as other pp about the "exposing herself to the doctor" comment. Welcome to our world, Paris's friend... From the historic "virginity tests" carried out as part of visa applications, to regular smears, to "internals" as part of regular healthchecks, to pregnancy and child birth, our genitals are frequently seen by doctors and people in positions of authority. Did PL not realise this?

Perhaps she might also think about the experience of her friend, and consider what consent her friend was able to give to the examination and how her friend would feel if she had consented to examination by a doctor of one sex and was then confronted with a doctor of another sex pulling on the latex gloves. Perhaps PL could just stop for one iota of a second and think about what this stuff means for women.

Perhaps PL could just stop for one iota of a second and think about what this stuff means for women.

She can't have it both ways. She bangs on and on about her sexual, gangbanging experiences and how empowering they all are and how fucking someone while they're crying is just the dogs bollocks.

All good and soooo sex pozzie.

And then baulks at some (invented) medical examination.

Being forced to expose yourself to a doctor - or a woman being forced to do so - is a common kink fantasy for men (not necessarily MTT) who get off on humiliation.

PL might also like to look at the article you posted on your other thread, Datun about consent for pelvic exams under aneasthetic (here for other posters' ease) and consider where her outrage towards medics and bodily dignity might best be directetd

A US chap* on the Today Programme was questioned (with a very long and inclusive question) about 'Trump's ban' and got a clear 'unit cohesion' answer, that the military were not there to reflect the make up of society, and that for a group with a 40% suicide rate it was a kindness not to put people in that situation.

*it was a bit early in the day for me to notice who it was..........

The thing is that Trump's phrasing was that transgender people cannot serve in any capacity at all. So presumably all support and non-combat roles are banned too? Does it mean that all currently serving transgender people are going to be sacked? That is discriminatory, no doubt about it. If someone presents as the opposite sex, but is mentally healthy, not taking any long term medication that could affect their work, nor has any ongoing physical issues (just like other personnel), then why can't they do a support/non-combat role? The only issue I can see is if they are in barracks and need to use shared facilities. But that is something that must currently be being dealt with.

Yes, the suicide thing will not work in this context. `Let us serve our country or we'll kill ourselves' is the least reassuring message they could give.