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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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