What would it mean to you "to live in the acquired gender" or as the opposite sex?

[MarSeeAh]

I plan to go and speak to my MSP next week and have been thinking about what questions I can ask him and how best to get my point over. I thought I could ask him what changes he would have to make "to live as a woman".

Then I started to wonder what changes I would have to make "to live as a man".

Not many. Even if I go along with the stereotypes of "presenting" as male, there's not much to do. Today, at work as Parish Minister, I am wearing Docs, jeans, vest top, sweatshirt and scarf. When I was out earlier, I wore an anorak which was originally my uncle's. I don't wear make-up or perfume, I don't wear any jewellery, and my haircut is more common for men than it is for women.

I work in a profession with pay scales which are agreed annually, published and are the same for men and women, so I wouldn't be able to demand extra pay as a man.

I am single, so wouldn't have the problems associated with telling a partner or spouse that I'd changed! Although, so far, I'm not sure that they'd notice anyway unless I told them!

Hmmm....

What would change?

I would pay less for a haircut.

Would I get my state pension at a different age? I think I should receive that when I'm 67 or 68. Occupational pension - no difference.

To be honest, I would have to change more if I were to try to live according to sexist stereotypes of what a woman is.

Anyone else? What would you have to change?

Oh, I agree entirely. I am not trying to disprove your point and I probably shouldn’t have posted this on what is a generally light hearted thread. I am just looking at it from the perspective of the panel that have to decide these things (and indeed of those seeking the certificate). There is no uniform as to how women, dress, but there are norms. I am not talking about stereotypical dress, but rather that even if a woman and man are both wearing jeans and a t-shirt the cut will very often be different. I entirely agree that it is impossible for someone seeking a GRA to truly live in the acquired gender, but dress is one of the few things that can be controlled and I don’t think that it is unreasonable for a panel deciding this stuff to therefore need the transitioner to dress according to norms. Sorry, struggling to explain what I mean.

Any way. As you were. Didn’t mean to derail.

But how do you know that men are men and women are women?

There must be a definer, otherwise there would be no need to 'pass' if transgender.

Just saying it is easy. No makeup or false dick required. Saves you tons of money.

And your new acquired family will love you. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the perspective of the panel that have to decide these things

As I said before, the panel that looks at these things doesn't usually even see people face to face. The evidence they look for is...

Copy of your statutory name change declaration.
Things from daily life - eg driving licence, bank account, bills.
Payslips in your new identity.

It's not like an exam or anything!

Managed to miss a bunch posts, including yours LangCleg, before I wrote mine. I had no idea that they didn’t even meet you or that you didn’t have to give some sort of statement! Maybe I am confusing things with the doctors who have to diagnose gender dysphoria? I have certainly read/heard accounts from people who have been through the process saying that they had to dress In a certain way, rather than how they actually wanted to dress, in order to get the certificate.

Sorry, PaleBlueMoonlight. I was posting quickly because I had to go out. I wasn't entirely sure where you were coming from in the post I quoted earlier.

Although my initial post was serious, I quite enjoyed the lighthearted turn the thread took because, if I didn't laugh I would cry. Or rant, and rage, which I've been doing a lot of!

I'm interested in all the various responses here - both the light-hearted and the serious. The question in the thread title is intended to show that the whole idea of being able somehow to live in an acquired gender is based on a false premise. But because that false premise is accepted, and has legal force, we focus on how it can be made workable - by adopting a certain form of dress, for example.

But forms of dress vary across history, culture and place. As do hairstyles etc. My first ex husband had long hair. Many years ago I had a boyfriend who had lovely, long, curly hair. They were both indisputably male.

For me, the only way to answer the question in a way which would satisfy the legal requirement to live in the acquired gender - which enables one legally to change their sex - is all about gender roles, which are sexist stereotypes by another name. Regression dressed up a progression.

drspsouse
I think you should, as if you identify as a man you should also identify as school pals/retreat pals with all of those men who knew when they were 18 or even younger that they were going to be ministers (at which point I'm assuming you may not even have been allowed to be a minister, or at least having no or few role models) - hence stepping on the career ladder earlier, getting preferential treatment from their mates. Also you would have had a wee wifie in the manse who would have baked cakes for the parish and the moderator, again pushing you up the career ladder.

So you should demand to be treated as if you had always been male and hence were now earning a higher salary, and in a better position career wise.

I see where you're coming from, and that certainly does apply in many professions, but not so much in my situation. My denomination agreed to the ordination of women as ministers some 40 years before I applied. I was successful at first application, and know both men and women who were unsuccessful. At least one of those men is the son of a minister. He reapplied and was successful second time round.

The stipend scale is based on length of service, so after 5 years you're at the top of it. There's not so many wifie's in the manse these days, as most have their own careers.

One significant difference is that as a woman I knew that there were/are congregations which would never call me as their minister because I am a woman. But call is a two way process, and I would never want to go to those congregations. And I know men who wouldn't want to go to those congregations either.

But, had I been born male and not female, I almost certainly would not have been a minister. If I had been a boy, I would have been able to follow my father, as he did his father, and he his father, into farming. As a child growing up on a farm, I was constantly outside, helping my father, feeding and bedding cattle, and so on. When I said to my father that I wanted to be a farmer, he laughed at me. I couldn't be a farmer, because I was a girl. And for some reason, the older I get, the more that pisses me off.

Pretty much the only thing I can think of would be to ask for a pay raise, which if my employers believed I was a man I might get.

This is the "proof" of living in your acquired gender the panel requires:

Proof you’ve lived in your acquired gender

This proof must cover the required time that you’ve lived in your acquired gender. It should include original copies of your:

passport
driving licence
payslips or benefit documents
utility bills or other documents of an official nature

All documents should be in your acquired name and gender. The earliest document must be dated before the beginning of the required time.

www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/documents-you-must-provide

As I say, it's just a bureaucratic exercise.

At present, you also have to send two medical reports - one from a gender specialist and another from either your GP or the surgeon who performed your SRS.

Again, details here: www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/documents-you-must-provide

You very rarely have to attend in person, as here:

Unlike most courts or tribunals, the GRP will not normally require a hearing to determine an application. Almost all applications will be decided ‘on the papers’. It is very important that your application is completed correctly and is accompanied by the correct evidence.

formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/t455-eng.pdf

The current proposals would mean that applicants no longer needed any medical diagnoses and no two year proof requirement.

I don't think it unreasonable that trans campaigners want to shorten the process - because of NHS GIDS waiting lists, the whole thing can take up to five years - by the time you've seen your GP and got a referral, to seeing GIDS, to GIDS giving you the diagnosis. But that's an NHS issue, not a GRA and GRC issue.

It sort of reminds me of the attempt to shorten the time it took for conveyancing when buying houses.

Stop wearing a bra? Or bind breasts?

Carry a rucksack instead of a big handbag...

Thats about it. Clothes and job gender neutral already.