If you're pro Self ID for trans people please could you explain it to me?

[ReluctantCamper]

I have never debated with anyone who's pro self ID because they invariably post 'transwomen are women' on threads and never return.

When I have arrived at a thought out position I'm keen to debate it with others who think differently to test my reasoning - that's how I feel now.

I know we have a number of pro self ID lurkers - anyone feel like explaining to me why it's a good idea?

I promise to carefully read what you say and take it seriously, I don't promise to agree.

Come on, it's my birthday, someone treat me!

Oh missed one - the acceptable number of women and children to die at the hands of their partner/father because the woman was afraid to take the refuge place she was offered and stopped accessing help?

Maybe it is naive, I just think there should be a way to protect people like you without stopping genuine people self identifying. Struggle to see ideal solution though.

Given that nobody else has a solution either, would you agree that we need to slow down and allow for a proper debate with nobody being shut down before we change any laws?

@flamingo

No I am not saying that.

But I am still not convinced there is no way to suit all. It is more difficult and complicated than I thought and I may agree with you after some more reading.

There is no compromise possible because trans identified males rights are antithetical to women's rights.

They are not even really rights bewilderness more like wants.

It is like transubstantiation.

It is. I wasn't quite right when I said there was only one coherent argument for self-ID. There are two:

1. You believe gender identity is a real thing that people innately have.
   In which case, you have a religious belief and no right to impose it on others.

2. You think the rights of males with an identity disorder should come before the rights of women and children.
   In which case, I think you are a misogynist.

That leaves you with option number three:

3. Self-ID is a bloody stupid idea that will have dreadful consequences and all political parties should drop it immediately. Hip hip hooray! You finally got there!

chambeni Very interesting post, thank you for sharing.

I do get that people can consider the GRC process demeaning. But since transitioning is serious and carries the risk of regret, I think people should go through a supported process.
As a woman I have to undergo medical examinations such as PAP smears and breast screening. Disabled people have to undergo rigorous, frequent screening for PIP. For many people its just a part of everyday life.

Personally, I think intersex people should have the right to self identify, and it shouldn't cost them anything. I would hope they have some support while making the decision.

Legal rights: all equal across the board. Marriage, inheritance, employment law, housing, family life, medical care, check check check. Human rights: all equal, discrimination protection under law, protecting right to freedom from violence, harassment, endangerment.

There is no such thing as a 'right' to subjectively declare yourself something that material reality and fact does not support, and have everyone else compelled to indulge it under threat of state punishment. That should never be framed in law, and if politicians are truly stupid enough to do it we will be paying the price in buggered up law and legislation for decades to come. It will be stupidity on the scale of Brexit.

Self ID is not the end of the road for identity political agenda, it's just the beginning. Take a look at Action for Trans Health's manifesto if you want a few glimpses of what the next campaigns would be once the self ID door has been legally opened. The legalisation of paedophilia as a legitimate identity and the rights of 'trans age' individuals will be one of the first, that one is already gently gathering steam.

being subjected to years of medical and psychological scrutiny to prove one is who one says one is is invasive, distressing and demeaning. Why should anybody have to go through that? I never had to prove my sexuality to a doctor or make anybody "believe" me

Welcome chamberini.

I have never had to prove my sex to a doctor and neither have you as a man. I'm pretty grateful not to have to pull down my pants to prove what sex I am for a consultation, aren't you? We cannot deny that there are sex-related health issues where being male or female means you have a much higher or lower risk. If we all self-ID, how will our doctors know whether we fall into the higher or lower risk category without asking us to pull down our pants and seeing if we have natural or surgically modified genitalia and having to make a judgement call on which is which? That invasive, distressing and demeaning IMV.

I am so not coming back to this because yet again the few sensible people who I really genuinely would like to debate this with have been drowned out. Just as I admit many sensible voices on the trans side are drowned out by some of the narcissitic idiots who happen to be trans. Which means we are unlikely to ever be able to find a solution for the moderate majority.

But flamingo you might want to read www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/it-racist-have-preference-whom-you-date. Many POC do see an absolutist form of race preference in romantic relationships as racist. Not being one, it's not something I can fully understand and I do accept that there are POC who don't see it as a problem, but it's not straightforward.

And Elendon. I so so hope you are in charge of campaigning for one of my Labour or Tory opponents one day, or that that's a common methodology in whatever party you have phoned for, because if that's how you canvass my data game will entirely smash yours and it maybe explains some of my wins. When GDPR inhibits your ability to benefit from throwing money at targeted social media we may even be able to level the playing field at a national level.

This thread is full of sensible and very patient women explaining over and over how self ID will damage women and girls.

We are still waiting for a counter argument as to how self ID can be implemented without that damage happening.

Flounce off the thread by all means but if you have some workable solutions wouldn't it be better to tell us?

LML83 wrote - "I don't think a male would ever be employed in a shelter/rape counsellor role. Even if he claimed to be a different gender."

I hope that the Women's Aid employment review will agree with you.

I've only read half of the thread and will carry on, sorry if this has been asked before already.

I was told other countries allowed self ID already. What were their arguments and what became of these countries?

@MrsMcGarry that's really disappointing. I was hoping for someone to put forward the clear argument that means that everyone here is wrong. If you know that all the points being made here are nonsense, it must be possible to write it down succinctly?

The latest from Canada is that they will begin separating prison inmates by gender instead of by sex. They have had some problems with rapists assaulting women, however they are unconcerned about the safety of females because the law is the law.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Anatole France

hyperspacebug
Men are going to get self ID because men demand it. Thats the only reason why. Women are not clamouring to let men into women only spaces.
Self ID erases women's rights and the rights of gay people. Its the only way its possible to achieve that in Western democracies.

Elsewhere, women have been silenced. A woman in Canada faces being prosecuted for hate speech for carrying a sign at the Women's March about biology and hate speech.
www.feministcurrent.com/2018/01/22/vancouver-womens-march-becomes-opportunity-misogynist-threats-women/

Crimes committed by men are recorded as having been carried out by women (and that is already the case in the UK). Google 'Wendy Jones extreme animal porn' or 'rapist Lisa Hauxwell'. Rape is a crime that can only be carried out by a man.

Men are in women's prisons - right here in the UK, a rapist and a murderer are in prison with women (double rapist Martin Ponting and murderer Alex Stewart – previously Alan Baker( they are not transsexual, they have made no attempt to transition. they just self ID as women.

I was told other countries allowed self ID already.

The usually cited countries are Malta, Pakistan and Ireland.

The first two have lamentable records on women's rights. So we can discount them. Women in those countries didn't have many rights to lose.

There was a long thread on here recently about Ireland with some good points made (Ireland is woeful on reproductive rights but does well on gender pay gap and other stuff). But Ireland has an important exception for prisons in its self-ID regime.

The main rebuttal to the "but what about Malta/Ireland/Pakistan" argument is this: how would you know if there were any deleterious effects? You wouldn't be able to measure them because those who would previously have been recorded as men are now recorded as women. The inability to measure outcomes is one of the big arguments against self-ID.

Thanks UpstartCrow and LangCleg

Interesting that Malta and Pakistan aren't the countries that you'd consider tolerant and accepting of diversity. How on earth did they manage to get rights to self ID??

Transitioning is the most binary attitude possible. Its not at all tolerant to trans your gay kids (and sterilise them in the process).
In Iran, the govt tells gay people to transition or face the death penalty.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11903290/Eight-of-Irans-womens-football-team-are-men.html

We need to expand the meaning of 'male' and 'masculine'. Not erase women by including everyone who does not fit a stereotype.

Self ID relies on trust.

The problem is when trust is broken. And that does happen. That's effectively what criminals do for a huge percentage of crimes.

You have to believe that there will be no crime to believe that self ID is a good idea. That comes either from a position of privilege or a position of naivety.

The trouble is when it comes to sexual offences, breaching trust is a key feature in a huge percentage of cases. These are men who actively breach trust with women in particular, but also men and children. To suggest that all men will act in good faith and respect others over self-id is absurd in this context.

And that's what you are in essence doing. It makes not one bit whether you think transwomen are women, if one of the issues is about how men might exploit this.

As it goes there are sex offenders who are claiming to be transwomen and they are held up by trans activists as being persecuted - so are readily accepted by the community as trans rather than opportunists exploiting a loop hole. So the trans community has to accept in doing so that they are supporting those who commit sexual crimes which is somewhat of a worry for women in its own right for obvious reasons.

It makes it hard for many to agree with this statement
Because we accept that trans people are the gender they claim to be and the decent thing to do is be inclusive.

Changes to the GRA to allow self ID, won't necessarily change other areas of law, unless this allowed to be properly debated. Issues need to be flagged up fairly and without the fear of being accused of being transphobic. Any changes which interact with other law might render other areas meaningless or create gaps.

I've just crossed paths with this example in which other law fails:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/victim-vile-bondage-paedophile-tells-8608834.amp?service=responsive&__twitter_impression=true

Owen, 61, admitted two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

But she was spared jail and walked free from court with a two-year conditional discharge when the judge admitted he had difficulty sentencing a transsexual because courses designed to help sex offenders reform were only available to men.

The thing is, that Self ID might sound like a wonderful thing to some. It sounds like a nightmare to others. Whatever you think about it, how it works in practice and the potential for its abuse MUST be given a proper airing. Safeguarding is stopping abuse of power by limiting the opportunity for potential crimes. This risk needs to be assessed and it needs to thought about critically.

Case examples that have happened and are happening, need to be taken seriously and not dismissed as transphobia or bigotry or prejudice.

They are important, not just to women and children but to other trans people to stop them being victims of a backlash or victims of a sexual offence themselves, from widespread abuse by men (or sex offending transwomen).

Not considering the possibility of abuse is short sighted and idealistic to the point of negligence.

I just can not get my head around those defending it for that reason: its not about the innocent transwomen. Its about the lowest shits in society who are happy to shit all over idealism.

Nice ideas don't work when you apply the shithead factor in life. I wish humans weren't capable of that kind of lack of respect for others and how their effects don't just harm their victims but also to the possibilities for making society a utopia in which everyone is free to live however they want without fear.

For men like Lily Madigan identifying as transgender is the ultimate male dominance display.

The network of other law is also a reason why you shouldn't come self id in other countries with the potential for it in the UK.

Our law and culture is unique to us. We might have gaps which others do not, and vice versa.

It has to be about how it would work in the UK.

Excellent post, @RedToothBrush