Reasons to be anti self identifying.

[MillyTantTerf]

As a recent "peaker" I need succinct reasons why I am against self ID as I am coming up against prejudice and resistance when I talk about it at work and on FB. Am proud to stand up and be counted but conscious of how easy it is to get dragged into emotional responses which give no credibility to a dignified argument.

Have come up with a few financial ones;
Car insurance for under 25 males is higher than for females. Can they Self ID and get reductions?
Women live longer statistically so if there are more transwomen will this affect pension payouts?

Please add more.

I'm mostly against self-ID as I think the idea that ANYONE can legally identify as whatever gender they want is open to abuse. Moreover, it creates a general aura of mistrust around genuine trans-people which is ultimately regressive to their rights.

Moreover, gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia and not requisites for being transgender: www.medicaldaily.com/what-difference-between-transsexual-and-transgender-facebooks-new-version-its-complicated-271389 The issue is, that NO-ONE fully conforms to gender stereotypes. Does that mean we are all, therefore, transgender?

The whole debate is just a massive can of worms. I'm happy to allow externally verified gender dysphoric persons undergoing transition to be legally recognised as their choice of male/female. However I am not happy for some armchair psychologist/socialist/whatever to self-diagnose themselves as being transgender and then be afforded legal sex-based rights accordingly.

Bonus Argument:

Trans-genderism, to me, seems antithetical to what feminism has been seeking to achieve. Feminists have strived hard to abolish gender stereotypes. The whole point of feminism was to erode this concept that women should be feminine (insert 'feminine' traits here) and men should be masculine (insert 'masculine' traits here). To me, it seems that this discussion on trans-genderism only serves to perpetuate the idea that there is normative male and female behaviour, and that those who do not conform are 'other'. What we should really be striving towards is allowing individuals to express and present themselves however they wish without pigeon-holing their behaviour into male and female categories.

Honestly, we need to appeal to the powerful.

Tell a bloke that his ten year old daughter is going to be exposed to Girl Guide cock and it’s #peaktrans before your eyes.

Can I identify as tall, when I'm 5'1"?
Can I identify as a teenager, when I'm 70?
Can I identify as British and get a British passport just on my say-so, when I was born in Sudan to Sudanese parents, have never been in Britain and have no connection with it whatsoever?
Can I identify as black (as Rachel Dolezal did), when I'm milky-white?

It's pretty obvious the answer is no to all of the above. So why is identifying as a woman any different?

'Identify as' is a meaningless term. It roughly translates as 'want to be'. Whilst also basically acknowledging that you aren't.

Self-ID is an open door to predators.

One of the reasons they decided on self ID is that no one can define what a genuine trans person is, smellfunny. That is because it is not humanly possible to transition, transmogrify, transcend, or transubstantiate, from one sex to another.
The entirety of the shell game has been to turn a mental illness into a medical condition that must be accommodated by the general public.
Will we be providing liposuction for the anorexics to affirm their beliefs about their body? Will doctors remove limbs or sever the spinal column for those who feel they are trans abled?

If you can self ID your gender, you can self ID anything. Because according to this concept, 'feelings' matter over physical characteristics. But since no one can actually define what 'feeling like a woman' means, there is no actual definition under self identification. You can self identify as anything, as long as you 'feel' it. No one can challenge you because there is no way to say "no sorry, you do not feel like x", as you can't define what "feeling like x" is/means.

Now, trans activists will probably try to tell a story of how self identifying can only work for gender (but for example trans racial is nonsense), because somehow it's been 'proven' it works for gender. But that is neither true, nor logically consistent.

We have had divisions along the lines of sex for very good reasons. In health, sports, changing rooms, toilets, shelters etc men and women mostly have segregated spaces. Usually the protection of women and girls from some kind of attack or potential harm by men (or fairness in competition) is the reason behind these divisions.

Do these reasons simply dissolve just because some male people are insisting they are women? No of course they don't.

Is it reasonable to do away with these sex defined spaces because some men and some trans people feel they need access to them? No!! It is ridiculous and unreasonable to assert so.

Am I the only one who is feeling genuinely scared that no one in politics seems to be listening? The threads I've been reading about women no longer able to even discuss this through fear of losing their jobs is frankly terrifying?

It feels like we are being rounded up and herded onto cattle trucks to be ferried to a universal concentration camp where women only exist to be used as sexual objects and when no longer deemed attractive or young then made for slavery and cleaning.

I hope it's not already too late.

I've been thinking of the rule of thumb Caitlin Moran suggests - are men having to put up with this?

So, are TRAs going onto Pistonheads, and Reddit, and 4Chan, and chanting "Transmen are men", "Some men have vulvas"? Are some of the men on there turning round and immediately saying "yes, you're so right, and transmen are indeed men, and men can have vulvas, and anyone who doesn't agree is a trans-exclusionary radical meninist and is a bigot and should die in a fire"?

Funnily enough, the answer to all of this is "No".

If he can't get on board that the concept of woman isn't a feeling, which he very likely won't, since it won't effect him, you could just give him some examples.

Tell him that if self ID is adopted as custom, the crimes of voyeurism and flashing cease to exist.

It means that 14,000 men in prison for sex offences would have a legitimate reason to be automatically transferred to the female estate.

All women shortlists for Parliamentary candidates could be occupied entirely by men (he won't care because he's not a woman).

Tell him that customs and protocols are already being adopted.

Girl guides are now sharing overnight accommodation with boys, and parents are not to be told. This conflicts directly with NSPCC safeguarding protocols.

80% of tranwomen keep their penis and many are attracted to women.

Tell him about AGP. And how it is legitimately part of the trans umbrella. Cross dressing fetishists are now considered women. Men who fetishise women are women.

Ask him if he agrees with sex segregation. Because this will abolish it.

Tell him he is transphobic unless he adopts the term cis man. Because he has been redefined in relation to women who identify as men.

In fact, if he has no idea about the term cis, keep calling him cis and when he asks why tell him it's because it's dependent upon what a woman says.

Women identifying as men need to be able to have a new name for men.

if protecting the rights of women doesn't motivate him, maybe being redefined by a fraction of women might.

I stay away from engaging with "transwomen are women" now.

I don't do twitter wars anyway. People with too much time on their hands love to spend all day virtue signal tweeting. When enough RL people peak trans then I expect a good part of those twitter warriors will simply switch onto their new favourite topic and never touch a trans post again.

I don't do politics on FB either.

In personal RL conversation I stick to saying things like "For me, it isn't about fear, it is about reality. In this country we don't write laws forcing beliefs over facts. We don't allow creationism to be taught or to stop the natural history museum from displaying fossils, we don't allow flat earth theories to control satellite launches, we don't ban homosexuality for making people hell-bound, even though plenty of people in this country truly truly believe that those things are real. A person with XY chromosomes and a penis saying they are a woman is the same to me. They should be able to live their life according to their beliefs but the rest of us smile politely and know it isn't true. We certainly don't change public policy to match their beliefs over facts. Where would it end if we did?"

Tellseveryone That's a clever point. Will NHS have to now say women get prostrate cancer in their statistical records?

Elf id :)

Re smears. Actually depending on who does the exam, a vaginal exam may well be conducted at the same time. It is of course ,as others have said, irrelevant tho. The point is the womans right to set her own boundaries.

Tellseveryone That's a clever point. Will NHS have to now say women get prostrate cancer in their statistical records?

Possibly...well definitely.

Interestingly whenever I ask TRANS-activists the question about id-ing out of prostrate cancer they block me and flounce. Weird.

"For me, it isn't about fear, it is about reality. In this country we don't write laws forcing beliefs over facts. We don't allow creationism to be taught or to stop the natural history museum from displaying fossils, we don't allow flat earth theories to control satellite launches, we don't ban homosexuality for making people hell-bound, even though plenty of people in this country truly truly believe that those things are real. A person with XY chromosomes and a penis saying they are a woman is the same to me. They should be able to live their life according to their beliefs but the rest of us smile politely and know it isn't true. We certainly don't change public policy to match their beliefs over facts. Where would it end if we did?"

This is the nub of the issue. When men codify belief into law history teaches us how they punish non-believers.

Repeat posting:

I found this excellent political analysis that puts the current push for self-ID in a historical perspective: https://freerlives.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/women-biology-and-womens-spaces/amp/?twitterr_impression=true

It really does help clear up some of the knottiness of the debate.

Maybe we should call self ID 'pretending to be' or 'acting as if'.

'Identify as' is a meaningless term. It roughly translates as 'want to be'. Whilst also basically acknowledging that you aren't.

Exactly, WhereYouLeftIt. You either 'are' (something) or 'identify as' (something). The two states are generally not compatible. I don't 'identify as a woman', I am a woman (adult human female).

It looks tricky when they claim 'transwomen are women' (trying to claim they 'are'), the unpacking is really 'if transwomen are women, what makes them trans?'

HairyBall

I agree

The more you think about this the more pivotal it is to how women are vied and expected to feel and behave

And I am not scared. I think it may be our moment. There are a lot of us

viewed

P.S. it's prostate cancer

The main argument against self ID is that it erodes single sex spaces to the point of making them meaningless. Denmark has already introduced self ID laws, and there is an artist called Ibi-Pippi Orup Hedegaard who has legally changed their sex to female by filling out a form whilst making precisely zero other changes to their lifestyle or appearance/anatomy.
reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/35dm73/meet_ibipippi_the_lesbian_trapped_in_the_body_of/

They are regularly allowed into women's communal changing rooms at gyms and swimming pools, and sue when they are refused. Arguably, they are doing this to be provocative and highlight the stupidity of the law, but it doesn't change the fact that they are using women's spaces. The law is weak and if they can do it then do can any man who has voyeuristic tendencies or other bad motives. Under the current British law, if you see someone in a female changing area who looks like they don't belong there you could challenge them/get security etc., but with self ID they could easily have a legal right to be there.

There are other consequences of self ID but the above is my main concern.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Government's latest proposals were to scrap the limited exemptions in the Equality Act at the same time as bringing in self ID. This would mean that eg rape/domestic violence refuges are forced to accept transwomen (and anyone pretending to be trans) as both employees and users of their services. This is particularly concerning after what happened in Canada:
www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault
So this is technically a separate issue from self ID but has been tied up together with it because of the Government's plans.

So in a nutshell, the self ID issue isn't really a problem with genuine trans people, but self ID means that anyone can easily legally change their sex as there is no gatekeeping process in place. It risks making single sex spaces a joke.

Slightly off-track, but UndercoverSwede raises an interesting point: I've seen the blocking tactic of 'but other countries have this and seen no ill effects' used. Quite apart from the question of how do we know there are no ill effects when self-id renders any attempt to note them meaningless, there is the problem of how does it translate into different cultures. Britain is profoundly misogynistic and extraordinarily violent compared to European countries. It's naturally going to be more of an issue here than it is on the continent.

There's a mass resignation of women from the Labour Party tomorrow - if that includes you please sign up to the thunder clap - they need 100 to sign up and they're just a few short. https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/69765-labour-women-mass-resignation