On Gatekeeping

[HairyBallTheorem]

As far as I can see, the main argument for self-ID (over the current system) is that expecting people to get two psychiatrists to sign off on their application for a GRC is gatekeeping.

But it strikes me that there are lots of places where we have, and expect to have, gatekeeping.

I can't just waltz into the post office and get a passport over the counter. I have to supply my birth certificate (or previous passport) and get someone to countersign the application to say that I am really me.

I can't just put my children into any school I want - I have to apply through the local authority's website, and they reserve the right to check that I live where I say I live.

I can't just collect earnings cash-in-hand (well, I can, but it's illegal) - I have to declare those earnings to the inland revenue. I'm issued with an official NI number in order to do this.

Pretty much anything which gives some official legal rights and obligations to an individual involves gatekeeping. Why should "getting one's gender reassigned" be any different?

If we accept that the whole point of a "sex change" is to gain (with, at present, certain limitations) the legal right to be treated as the opposite sex to one's birth sex in most situations, then why shouldn't it be subject to gatekeeping? And if you don't fancy the gatekeeping, well, the brilliant thing is we live in a remarkably tolerant country where dressing how you want and asking to be called whatever you want is perfectly legal (though you won't get the official paperwork that way - but then, I wouldn't get a passport that way either).

And I'm not the only manager I know who's had job applicants quite simply refuse to take a rejection and insist they'll have the job anyway.

I don't disbelieve you for a second but dying to know how this works in practice from the applicant!

@Ereshkigal, I hope I'm not derailing the thread by this, but mine went roughly like so:

Me: [bog standard rejection speech]
Candidate: I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way about me - however, your decision doesn't work for me.
HR Lady, colleague & me:
Candidate: [launches into a speech and declares he simply won't move from this chair until we make him an offer.
Me: [Vain attempt to explain how this works]
Candidate: [Threatens to sue us]
HR colleague: [Calls security]

I've heard similar from other firms. It's totally bizarre!

Might have to add: we may expose ourselves to this because we generally make offers or reject on the spot at the end of a 3-day assessment centre, as do some other firms.

Bossybitch also made me laugh!

I see the whole thing - trans, the alphabet soup, queer theory, social constructionism - as the inevitable evolution of SJW culture. The main protagonists are generally white and middle to upper middle class and they're all LARPing as oppressed. The internet bubble they live has led them to believe their own hype and that hype is now leaking into the real world.

Wow!! I've never thought of it in these terms. It's a growing 'self entitled' attitude isn't it?
"Call security" at a job interview

Bossy - I experienced this for the first tie recently - he’d been advised to do it by some weird group he was a member of on social media.

Goodness. I wonder if it ever works!

Agree

Am I the only one who is fantasising about how satisfying it is to say no to these self entitled twits?

Nope! I'd be grinning as I said "security!"

Or to say "what you're saying is that you don't identify as unqualified?"

Am I the only one who is fantasising about how satisfying it is to say no to these self entitled twits?

Definitely not

Am I the only one who is fantasising about how satisfying it is to say no to these self entitled twits?

I was thinking Bossy should install a public gallery in the interview room, like they have in courts. It could be occupational therapy for weary feminists.

Bossy Anti-psychiatry nutters such as Scientology excepted. I'm pre-supposing 'not obviously insane'.

I don't know the link between Scientology and anti-psychiatry (?) but please don't lump them together. Women are harmed by psychiatry (men too). Legitimate distress, often a result of male violence/abuse is repackaged as a fault of the individual. The sort of critical thinking and teasing out of cause and effect seen on these boards is not a staple in psychiatry, it's often not even an afterthought. I don't want to derail here, but it's an important issue - psychiatry is not an ally of women. (NAPALT!) And frankly, I think these problems with psychiatry are precisely why people are funelled down a medical route for gender/sex dysphoria.

The GRA needs to be repealed. There is no need for it anymore.

Agree. I do not see the need for it at all. It was brought in so transsexual people could marry a member of the same sex. We now have equal marriage so the original reason for the GRC is moot. Ergo, no need for it at all now.

It's just a huge mass willy waving exercise. Which is ridiculous really, given that what they are waving their willies about is the right to he recognised as women.

Genuinely laughed out loud at this

I've been brewing over this one, and it's just ridiculous (obviously) - that people, think they can come from outside and declare that the group should redefine itself to include them.

They only get away with it because women are socialised to be nice.

Imagine wandering into a working men's club and demanding that they make bankers feel welcome and lay on the champagne, or a gymkhana and declaring that you on your donkey is a perfectly legitimate entry (nb - I am not horsey), or a biker club and telling them that they were coming on the rideouts in their Porche and all routes needed to be suitable.