Gender ID Bill-bad for trans too?

[TheEgregiousPeach]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I was having a chat with a friend who is involved professionally in the area of gender (realise this is vague but don't want to be too specific).

We were talking about GID Bill and my concerns for women only spaces and she pointed out something that I hadn't thought of. By de-medicalising the process of officially changing one's gender and negating need for gender dysphoria diagnosis, it could actually make it harder for people to access medical interventions like hormones and gender reassignment surgery.
Her theory being, if we dispense with the view that it is a disorder then we don't need to provide treatment.
Her view is that in the long run it will create a lot more barriers for trans people accessing such treatment on the NHS as they would have to try and prove they really needed it; as after all nothing would be stopping them filling in a form and changing gender officially and living as their target gender.

It got me thinking. Are transactivists aware of this? that they are supporting something that could actually restrict them further? or is my friend wrong?

[TheEgregiousPeach]

And in the meantime women's rights are further erased.

[TheEgregiousPeach]

It really is very complex. And no, I cant see them getting what they want any other way.
I have no idea how well funded they are, but quite believe you when you say they have teams of people working in their interests. They must do to have pushed this illogical legislation proposal this far.

So yes, splitting GD from transitioning and applying different rules to both. Which suggests a reclassification of GD at the least, but I really don't know how. What I do think is that no the government will not make a complete volte face. But reclassifying and de-medicalising GD will mean medical pathways will need changing. My cynical view is that the govt. will be seen to be wholeheartedly supporting trans groups whilst making it more difficult to access the medical pathways.

I'm sure the lawyers they have must have thought about this and have plans in place but it's a big ask to reorganise medical and psychiatric approaches and treatment. I suppose what I'm concerned about is they appear to have the power to do this.

[Datun]

It’s really interesting to hear your take on it.

My take is that not only do transactivists want access to hormones and surgery, they want it quicker. At the same time making transgenderism into lifestyle choice for them, but it must also include a legal change of status.

What stops me from agreeing whole heartedly with what you say re GD is the fact that I know how well funded and well organised they are.

They have teams of people looking after their interests. They talk about ‘strategic litigation’. They have lawyers, investors, pressure groups, etc, entirely focused on getting them what they want.

They are not just a bunch of whackjobs - those are the violent fools. Who would show up anywhere to bash women.

And they definitely do want hormones and feminisation surgery.

So given that they want those two things, demedicalisation of transgenderism, but also treatment, I can’t see any other way of getting it other than splitting up GD from transitioning. And applying different rules to both.

I also can’t see a government that is so hellbent on accommodating trans pressure groups, suddenly doing a volte face and withdrawing the very thing they want.

Can you see them getting what they want any other way?

[TheEgregiousPeach]

Oh and yes, I get what you are getting at Datun in regards to the process of de-medicalisation, I just feel it won't play out like that.
I think all treatment ( therapy, hormones etc.) could eventually be withheld. Particularly therapy. Our mental health services are so underfunded, money will be diverted to recognised disorders.
But yes, it won't be a problem for those who want to legitimise picking and choosing a gender based on what they currently felt like.

[TheEgregiousPeach]

I'm pretty sure the TRA's will still want access to medical intervention whilst de-medicalising the process of transitioning. But they can't have it both ways. If gender is to be a choice not a disorder, then GD will be chucked out eventually. No disorder= no treatment needed. It will be self funded as I think it will be seen as cosmetic surgery.

I've heard it compared to homosexuality, once considered a disorder, now not. The move to do the same with GD is gathering support, but as we know the implications are very different. And frankly comparing it to homosexuality is idiotic- we all agree conversion therapy is awful and rightly outlawed. So what does that say for GD and implications for treatment? Should that be outlawed?

Interesting question about my friend- describes their sexuality as bisexual but in a long term relationship with a man. Very interesting views on trans in general, and refuses to 'collude' as she sees it with trans women who have a very narrow stereotypical view of femininity.

[shouldwestayorshouldwego]

I am concerned about the impact hormones will have on the fertility of the next generation of people who do not conform to gender stereotypes. It is almost like a perfect eugenics in which the people that the establishment are other to ask to be sterilised. It may raise income I guess in terms of fertility treatments which will probably at some point become all private regardless of reason for needing treatment. It may not be their genes however which are being propagated. It is a neat mechanism for swinging back the fertility door which has opened for many in terms of ivf and surrogacy etc.

[Datun]

TheEgregiousPeach

Also, out of interest, is your friend attracted to men? Are they a homosexual transsexual?

The reason I ask is that they tend to be far less La La Land about what constitutes a woman.

[Datun]

I will then not be able to offer a diagnosis of GD- even if the patient fits all diagnostic criteria. If I cannot offer a diagnosis, I cannot refer for treatment. That concerns me.

Yes, I can see how that would be worrying. For what it’s worth, I don’t think for single second transactivists want that demedicalised. The whole point has been to demedicalise transitioning, whilst still getting hormones and surgery.

They want to legitimise being able to pick and choose whether to be a woman all the time, some of the time or just on a Saturday night.

But that won’t work for many, without the hormones to give them breasts, etc

I might be cynical, but to me, the entire point of this exercise is to separate the two things. So you will be legitimate, have a lifestyle, and protected status, on the one hand, but still get what you want on the other in terms of meds.

In terms of transsexuals who have genuine gender dysphoria, I’m not sure how they will be affected. As far as I know, any treatment other than hormones is few and far between.

But I don’t see how that will be affected by the demedicalisation of transitioning.

The ‘affirmation at all costs’ protocols is what is damaging people who do not want hormone treatment, but do want therapy.

Does any of that make sense to you?

[TheEgregiousPeach]

With regard to gender dysphoria, I suppose I'm taking a clinical view. The bill proposes you can transition without a diagnosis of GD. But to get medical intervention like hormones and GRS you will need a diagnosis of GD. My concerns are that I can see a time not far in the future where GD as a recognised disorder will be chucked out- made not to exist so to speak.
I will then not be able to offer a diagnosis of GD- even if the patient fits all diagnostic criteria. If I cannot offer a diagnosis, I cannot refer for treatment. That concerns me.

With regard to male privilege, you are entirely correct Datun. My friend recognises this and accepts they will not be a woman in the sense you and I are, they will be a trans woman, which is very different. I think because they recognise this we can talk about it without calling me transphobic, which seems to happen in other conversations I've had, if I even mention concerns.

[GuardianLions]

This may sound tin- foil hattish but I'm wondering who the people behind this movement are.

Yes. I feel jumpy about this - poor Helen Steel and other eco activists had spies within their group living among them and having long-term sexual relationships - even co-writing the 'McLibel' leaflet with them .. Perhaps key agitators and 'thought leaders' among the TRAs are plants, perhaps with a wider political agenda?

Alternatively, I remember in around 2010 there was online discussion in the MRA community about deliberately joining up with the TRAs as a key tactic to split and divert the feminist movement.

Or perhaps it was all inevitable progression - the harassment and intimidation of Blanchard seems to have been the blueprint for the harassment and silencing of all trans critical thinkers since - and it has really snowballed into a kind of crazed but addictive witch- hunt that humans can be easily goaded into- particularly young/teenage humans - the ugly ape side of our psychology.

[Datun]

TheEgregiousPeach

It’s far as I know, gender dysphoria will remain treatable. It’s only transitioning that becomes demedicalised. I.e., you don’t need gender dysphoria to transition.

And male privilege is not generated by the person. You can’t dispense with it. Because it’s not about how you feel, it’s about how other people treat you.

Transwomen retain their male privilege, and frequently have added a little bit on top for being ‘oppressed’. It’s insane.

The only way a man might relinquishes his male privilege, is if he was treated as a girl from birth. Male privilege starts by not being aborted because you’re female.

If a man passes, he might get treated like a woman, but he would have already benefited from X number of years of male privilege.

And he will still mostly keep this privilege, because he will not be the one who needs female reproduction rights.

[TheEgregiousPeach]

Datun, yes, gender dysphoria will remain treatable. But will it still be recognised? If it is de-medicalised and dispensed with as a disorder, then it doesn't need treatment. It then becomes a choice- go fill out a form.People will still need treatment but will they get it? My cynical side thinks no, not recognised as a psychiatric disorder = go fund your own treatment.

Nauticant thank you for pointing out 'truscum', I didn't realise there were such demarcated hierarchies within the trans world.

How come the TRA's have such power and influence though? I know there are problems within LGBT organisations as members see their groups increasingly becoming all about 'T', marginalising other identities they are supposed to encompass.

Where do the TRA's get their clout? Because the very vocal amongst them do not seem to be gender dysphoric. A friend (trans woman in process of surgery) pointed out that her transition process was about handing in her male card and all the privilege associated with that and taking the female card including the oppression and lack of privilege with it.
But TRA's seem to want to call themselves female whilst retaining their male privilege. Which includes perpetuating male violence against women from the looks of it.

This may sound tin- foil hattish but I'm wondering who the people behind this movement are. I suppose we only see their foot soldiers on social media.

[nauticant]

Actually, I'm now going to do my regular dog-with-a-bone. The push to change everything in the sex and gender domains has some things in common with Brexit. One might think "but what if Brexit causes economic damage and instability, why would anyone push for that?"

Simple. The ones pushing for it have the influence/resources to manipulate situations and they're confident that if many things turn to shit, they'll be able to use their clout to go on a massive land grab.

[nauticant]

I don't think activists care about this.

In my view the one thing that TRAs would put above everything else is to blur as much as possible as many boundaries in the sex and gender domains as they can. The freedom this will provide is for those with sufficient clout to do just what the fuck they want.

[Datun]

Yes, I do think this is bad for those with dysphoria. And yes, I don't think the transactivists are aware of just how pyrrhic their 'victory' will turn out to be.

Transactivists have been pushing for this and they’re smart, organised and know full well what they’re doing.

Gender dysphoria will remain treatable.

But being trans is not an illness. Stigma removed.

So fetishist cross dressers, who are considered trans, can be legally women, with no criteria or gatekeeping. Hello ladies bathrooms.

Should they want any feminising treatment, breasts, etc, they can say they have gender dysphoria and get it. Bingo.

Win/win.

[HornyTortoise]

And yes, I don't think the transactivists are aware of just how pyrrhic their 'victory' will turn out to be.

I don't think activists care about this. I think they are well aware that the result may well be no treatment for dysphoria people on the NHS. I think they do not care, as better treatment for transfolk is not the ultimate goal. TAs consider those with dysphoria to be 'truscum' anyway and on a level, if not worse than, 'terfs'.

I am aware this is a bit conspiracy theory like.

I don't think its a coincidence that the majhority of TAs are the 'female penis' types. Or just flat out blokes screaming that they are women.

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Theresa May is quoted on PinkNews as saying “We’ve set out plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act, streamlining and de-medicalising the process for changing gender, because being trans is not an illness and it shouldn’t be treated as such.”

My very first though was that for May, demedicalising means that the NHS would no longer be providing hormones or surgery (maybe even counselling?) because it's 'not an illness and it shouldn’t be treated as such'; and so not the NHS's responsibility.

Yes, I do think this is bad for those with dysphoria. And yes, I don't think the transactivists are aware of just how pyrrhic their 'victory' will turn out to be.

[Betty184]

Magdalen Berns has covered this point in her latest video:

[Stopmakingsense]

Hello different - we are part of the same growing community of bewildered parents! to you too!

Gender dysphoria may soon be re-named "gender incongruence"?? And the TRA's aim is that there should be no gatekeeping by the medical profession, by which time any treatment is indeed cosmetic surgery.

So if you are poor and transsexual then that could be a problem for them, although there is always the threat of suicide card you can play. An anaesthetist I know says she has assisted in NHS operations to reduce women's labia in size - funded because it is "causing significant distress" (presumably to her sexual partner), so not cosmetic.

[TheEgregiousPeach]

Sorry, that should read ' I have heard arguments from trans rights supporters for it be removed'.

[TheEgregiousPeach]

I have heard arguments for it to be removed as they view being non-traditionally gendered not as a medical disorder but as a 'social phenomenon'. They argue that it is akin to homosexuality- once viewed as a psychiatric disorder and in the DSM, but removed (fully) in the 80's.

Difference being, you don't need a specific medical pathway to support you in your sexual orientation whereas with gender you may.

[DJBaggySmalls]

TheEgregiousPeach Both you and Datun are right IMO.

The Tories want to dismantle and privatize healthcare. Thats their agenda. 'Non essential' healthcare wont be covered by the lowest rate of care. AGP's are behind this move for their own self interests.
Actual transsexual people will suffer as a result.

[Datun]

Transactivists , I don’t think want gender dysphoria removed, do they? Just for it not to be a condition of transgender.

[TheEgregiousPeach]

The point my friend was making though is that the existence of gender dysphoria as a psychological disorder could be eliminated.

We were thinking of the move towards de-pathologising gender dysphoria, the ramifications of which are huge. If it is removed from the DSM-5 ( a contentious issue at present) then we could end up in a position where treatment is considered unnecessary. Rather like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which now doesn't 'exist', we have to talk about 'narcissistic traits' ( we're both psychologists by the way, but she works more with gender issues).

This is clearly not helpful to gender dysphoric people and leaves them in a horribly vulnerable position unable to access help.
It seems like this bill will only support certain groups of trans people and as pp said throws others under the bus. Not much equality then.
Off to google truscum

[Datun]

Course, I could be wrong. But one thing I do know, transactivists are pushing this so they really, really want it.