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!

Why pro self-ID? Because trans women transition in far more unwelcoming environments than England in the Twen-teens. In India, where hijra might work as beggars or prostitutes, people still transition. We've been doing it at least since 500BC- Deuteronomy would not forbid it if no-one did it. It was the most important thing in the world for me. So I saw the psychiatrists, planned and prepared, and started expressing myself female in 2002. I have not presented male since. Estimates of prevalence go as high as 1% of the population, but considerably fewer people actually transition, and self-ID is for those of us who do.
Are we to understand that your answer to the OP's question is that you do not think other's should have to go through the process you did? I cannot make any sense out of that last sentence as it seems to contradict itself.
Thank you for answering the question and reaffirming that it is an issue of men's right not to inconvenienced trumping women's right to safe spaces.

thanks for being honest enough to come here and explicitly argue that the right of a trans-identified male to be excused gate keeping procedures is more important than the right of women and children to have safeguarding procedures in place.

That was not what I said. People don't transition without being trans. Having transitioned, and intending to live in the acquired gender life long, we can get a passport and driving licence saying we are of the acquired gender. A GRC does not add a great deal to that. My cross-dressing friend spent a week cross-dressed, and was utterly sick of it at the end. Gender dysphoria exists.

Third services?

In Tate Britain last week I saw an "All-Gender toilet" but these are quite rare. All services are suffering under austerity.

No requirement to live life as a woman for self-ID

That is not my understanding, but the consultation has not been published yet.

How did I know I was a woman?

After a great deal of counselling, psychiatry and self-examination, all I can say is I am a complex organism in a complex social structure. I wanted to transition. Before transition, I thought there were two questions:
Am I transsexual?
Will I be happier if I transition?
I think the second is the more important. It is a concrete thing: what will you do? The first question is about how you conceptualise it. I am an asylum seeker rather than a colonist. Or, I am socially a woman. This is the fudge people have come to. Many women support that: I was delighted to hear two Labour MPs say specifically "Trans women are women". The trans woman on a recent AWS was not selected.

It might be easier to discuss this face to face. I don't want just to ignore further points, but I am worried about offending people here. "I am really starting to get tired of the argument that we're saying all transgender people are rapists" said someone. Well, that was not what I said. I can't persuade everyone here, but not everyone on the internet agrees with me about anything, probably, and I can live with that.

I don't know anything about Alex.

Oh, and- men's right not to be inconvenienced? Transition is not easy or convenient.

I'm glad you came back, Clare.

I for one will try not to pile on or get offended. Did you have a look at Alex's transition? Where does he fit, in your opinion?

People don't transition without being trans.
All the evidence refutes this claim.

Transitioning by signing a paper that you intend to transition is about as convenient as it could possibly be except for "because I said so".
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. We are talking about the effects self-ID will have on women's rights, while you assert it will have none.

But who is the gatekeeper for the places my dd and any other vulnerable female thinks are safe?
Of course I don't think everyone with a penis is a risk. Nor do I think trans women are all dangerous. Of bloody course bloody not.
But a small minority of people with a penis are dangerous to women. And they often do anything to get to places women and girls think are safe. Why should I expect my dd to take a risk?

Thanks for replying Clare.

I absolutely believe that gender dysphoria exists. There are several parents of gender dysphoric and trans kids and transwomen who post regularly on these boards, no one's in denial that dysphoria is deeply distressing, that transitioning can ease that distress and there is no problem with social transitioning. Everyone should be free to express their gender in any way that suits them, and to do so without fear of discrimination or harm.

The only issue for me is self ID, and that there are ways to meet the requests and preferences of the trans community without removing a century of women's legal rights. Social transition is one thing. Insisting that a biological male is actually a biological female the moment he says he is is another entirely. Refusing women the right to have a smear test from a same sex professional is not ok. Refusing women the right to change in privacy from biologically male people if that man states that in his mind he's a woman is not ok. Insisting that lesbian women must surrender their right to a sexual orientation and accomodate the sexual needs of male bodied people who feel they identify as lesbian, is not ok. And it goes on. And on.

I'm delighted your transition has worked for you, I am delighted to celebrate trans people and to fight for their right to third space specific provision for bathrooms, changing rooms, prison space, anywhere in fact where transwomen using male facilities is a concern to them - women get very much the anxiety, fear and indignity involved.

But requiring women to surrender their spaces, their language, their concepts, their rights - no. That is not acceptable to ask and it's not about being 'unkind', it's about protecting the rights of women and girls from badly thought out legislation that will have whopping side effects on British law and will increase the oppression and disempowerment of women.

Clare Thanks for coming back. Can I ask, do you spend much time on social media especially Twitter?

I ask because, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, you sound like you are missing some of the picture as to how the most vocal and militant Trans Rights Activists behave.

From the initial impression I get of your posts you don't sound like someone who would approve of the death and rape threats women, especially lesbian women get on a seemingly daily basis from TRAs.

You also don't sound like someone who would seek to prevent women talking about our own bodies, biological and reproductive functions as many TRAs are trying to do. (by the way when we talk about TRAs they are not always trans people many are just misogynistic men).

There are numerous transwomen who are also horrified at the way the lives and experiences of transsexual gender dysphoric people have been hijacked and weaponised into something they did not ask for.

Clare, do you worry that men may self identify as women and attack you or make you feel uncomfortable in women's spaces?

Yes, thanks for replying, Clare.

It might be easier to discuss this face to face. I don't want just to ignore further points, but I am worried about offending people here. "I am really starting to get tired of the argument that we're saying all transgender people are rapists" said someone.

That was me, and it was specifically in response to this bit: 'And then there are a small number of threads where people share at great length on the Transgender Threat. They talk of toilets, prisons, changing rooms, predatory males.' which to me came across as dismissive of women's fears. If I misunderstood, I apologise, but a LOT of the arguments for self-ID are coached in that sort of misogyny.

Please do stick around and please do get involved in the discussion.

It might be easier to discuss this face to face.

I'm very serious when I say this: I really think you should consider going to one of the Woman's Place meetings. There's one in London coming up and I'm sure there will be demand for other meetings elsewhere in the country. So far the meetings have been respectful and inclusive (the protesters outside less so).

I suspected from your first post, and even more from the second, that we are talking at cross purposes. I think you may be talking about making the GRC process simpler and easier for transexuals, (and I think many here would support that), but self-ID is opening it up to people for whom dressing as a woman is a sexual fetish, and allowing those people into toilets, prisons, etc.

And it's very interesting that you specifically use the words 'asylum seeker rather than a colonist', since many feel like the push towards transgender rights IS colonisation. Like insisting that events like a Women's March shouldn't be centred around the female reproduction system for example. Not trying to fit in, but trying to take over. (Let me be clear I'm not talking about trans women who simply want to fit in and live their lives quietly and respectfully.)

Honestly? I think you're being a little too reasonable and rational, and assuming everyone else is the same. How closely have you looked into the self-ID issue? Because I suspect you simply haven't realised how utterly utterly batshit some of the current trans-ideology is. It's not obvious at all until you start looking closer.

'peak trans' sounds like a horrible thing, but it's important to realise it's peak-current-trans-ideology and not peak-trans-people.

I am an asylum seeker

Other people on here may well disagree with me, and I've certainly not thought things through as much as either you or them, but actually I think the nationality thing is potentially helpful to a certain degree.

Having been through the naturalisation process, I know it takes years. And you have to learn the language (and it is accepted that you have to be fairly fluent but you will never be 'mother tongue' although a few can pass as mother tongue), you have to learn the politics, the culture, you have to take tests and be assessed on multiple occasions, you have to prove that you are fully integrated with the local community even though the locals will never see you as truly local, and even though you do the work and pay the taxes into the local system, there are times you have to step back and acknowledge that you are not local and that it will take many decades for you to be able to speak as someone who is "local"....

And I think the locals have already accepted that process and are - largely - ok with that but would never take a self-ID local seriously and would be understandably put out that anyone can just opt in and out of the community and expect the community to make room for that when ANY extra person into the community takes up resources. Becoming British doesn't mean you have to have a particular skin colour, or religious view, or political view or preferences because born British people vary so much, but you do have to show that you are prepared to do the work to understand them all and you cannot simply self-ID as British.

We provide spaces and support for asylum seekers but they cannot simply self-ID as British and expect to be treated as if they were so.

Regarding what I said about some of trans-ideology being basically batshit, here are some of the demands being made by Edinburgh Action for Trans Health, who I believe were the activists who picketed a Woman's Place meeting in Scotland. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that)

• We demand nothing less than the total abolition of the clinic, of psychiatry, and of the medical-industrial complex. We demand an end to capitalist & colonialist “medicine”.

• We demand medical training to enable us to safely carry out medical procedures & research for each other, for anyone of us who wants to learn. We will enhance our collective knowledge, so that the means to understand our bodies is universally accessible.

• We demand mandatory education, written & taught entirely by trans people, at all educational stages, from nursery to adulthood.

• We demand amnesty, recourse to public funds and indefinite right to remain for all trans, lesbian, gay and bisexual immigrants & asylum seekers. No one is illegal.

• We demand immediate release & pardon for all trans prisoners.

(It probably pertains more to Scotland really, but bear in mind if the last one applied to England as well Lian (formerly Ian) Huntley would be included in that.)

(and thanks to @Agerbilatemycardigan who first brought this to my attention)

We demand an end to capitalist & colonialist “medicine”.

Good luck with your sex change treatment then.

I am an asylum seeker rather than a colonist.

No. If you support self-ID, Clare, you are a colonist. Asylum seekers ask permission. Asylum seekers understand boundaries exist. Colonists come in whether they're wanted or not. Self-ID means coming in whether you're wanted or not.

Look, I support trans rights - no discrimination in housing or employment, no street harassment, the right to present how you wish, equal rights in marriage and for pensions, the right to adequate and timely medical treatment, etc.

I support trans rights right up to the point that they conflict with women's rights or undermine safeguarding and therefore increase risk for women and children. At that point, and I'm sorry to be blunt, I don't give two stuffs about your inner identity. All my stuffs are used up on women and children.

And the fact that you prioritise your own inner identity over increased risk to women and children? That tells me in no uncertain terms that you are no friend to women. Sorry. But there it is.

And, by the way, being gender critical means conceptualising gender as an external imposition, not a spiritual identity.

I forgot to mention that you also have to show criminal records in the process of naturalisation, and if your record is deemed too dangerous you will not be granted citizenship for safeguarding reasons. You cannot self-ID as being "of good character".

I'm always willing to listen to what trans people have to say. I'd like to be mistaken about some of the concerns that I have. Unfortunately the friendly comment killed it for me. I'm not sure why we're expected to be friendly while we're losing our rights.

Nearly all tims come here pretending they don't know anything about the wider issues or trans rights activists. Which is odd, because it's regularly discussed here. And I've yet to see a Tim say that they are frightened of being attacked by a man in a woman's space. Or that they are worried about children's safeguarding.

The post made by HubrisComicGhoul on Page 6 has been lost, so I'm going to repost it. Because its important, and the same reasons apply to other trauma therapy groups, DV shelters, Rape Crisis, and psychiatric wards.
Ignoring the needs of traumatised women adds another layer of harm for them to deal with.

HubrisComicGhoul Sun 18-Feb-18 12:30:13
''There are a few, sadly not enough, women only drug rehab programmes. These are significantly more successful than mixed sex programmes for women.

The vast majority of women, especially those starting methodone programmes, have been abused by men. The psychology of an abused women tends towards placating the man around them, keeping quiet and never, ever presenting their own opinion (even if it's in agreement with a man's) because experience tells them that no matter what they do, something will be wrong with it. So they do nothing, they don't engage with the group, or their counselling in general and get dragged back into their old life very quickly.

When you take men out of the equation they have a much higher rate of engagement and subsequently the programme has a much higher success rate.

Self ID will ruin these programmes, the women will read the trans woman as male and react accordingly, the success rate will fall and the programmes will be cut.''

I stand by what I said before upthread and repeat it in part.

Self ID relies on trust.

The problem is when trust is broken.

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.

You are asking women who have had trust with men broken, to just trust blindly. That just isn't fucking humanly possible. Even with the best will in the world.

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. To suggest that all men will act in good faith and respect others over self-id is absurd in this context.

Note here, men as in 'cis men'.

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.

Also there is an unfortunate problem here too. Women who are sex offenders are exceptional rare. And transmen who are sex offenders, are there any examples?

This means that sexual offenders will be allowed access to places they havent in the past, and gives the ability for others to exploit the blurring of lines.

So yes this is bloody relevant whether you like it or not, because its about how risk is assessed and how women have that removed as well as their own gut feeling, out of a culture of fear of being labelled as transphobic.

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.

Trust also relies on mutual respect. If the concerns of women are not held as legitimate nor coming from a place of truly terrible and bitter experience then there is no mutual respect. Yet women are asked to respect trans experience without so much as a thought the other way.

To use an analogy the relationship between the two has already broken down before the marriage has begun.

The creation of new law should always focus on the intent of that law and make it as narrow and as unambiguous as possible. It should always think about the unintended consequences and how it come be misused. How does that law work for you, but also how does that law work for your political enemy or someone who does not have the same moral compass as you.

Ideology is about the utopian potential vision which doesn't have to work out the practical application or the devil in the detail. It has the luxury of being able to gloss over and ignore the problems of it. It can use propaganda to mask faults.

Politicians who fail to understand how to navigate from ideology to law, are bad politicians as they make poor law makers.

Its tough shit, if that hurts the feelings of people in that process, because far too much else is at stake.

The creation of a bad law has long term consequences which are not easily undone because of the way they affect society. All of it.

Self ID is NOT just about trans people. Any attempt to suggest it is, is thoroughly dangerous and undemocratic.

It minimises the experiences and value of women to exclude them from the conversation. This has to be a solution that provides women with the necessary reassurance they feel they need balanced with the various and many different needs of the trans community which is not a monolith.

It doesn't matter what has happened in another culture in another time period. Its about the here and now and the cultural and societal needs and expectations of this country and its citizens. You can not just lift a system from another time, place or culture to us now. Even in a globalised world.

This will continue to be a circle argument until concerns are actually addressed rather than passed over, swept aside, belittled or just fucking ignored.

Even if this does come into law.

From mixed sex education to mixed sex drug treatment programs the facts are that they disadvantage females and advantage males every single time. Single sex education and treatment are best for women and girls.

Clare is aware of concerns about prisoners, women's safety and Agps. Clare doesn't think that lesbians are being harassed, but does think that refusing to sleep with one particular group is prejudice.

I couldn't really read the rest of the blog because of the constant references to Cis and Terfs.

clareflourish.wordpress.com/autogynephilia/

Though I fit the description of autogynephilia peddled by believers, I am happier transitioned.

Thing is, Clare, the definition of woman is not a man who fetishises womanhood. Neither do we want to participate in that fetish.

Your lack of concern for women makes a lot more sense now.

@LML83 thank you for replying to my "...just out of interest why do you think people should have the right to legally identify as the opposite sex to the one they are born?"

Sorry it has taken me all day to settle down and reply.

Re "why not?" We normally don't make laws based on why not, we make them for a specific reason. We hope they will make things better, clearer, safer. This law will make things worse, more obscure and less safe.

Re "those genuinely self id'ing don't do me any harm." To be fair you don't know that yet, you don't know that you won't feel uncomfortable having male bodied people in areas where you expect to find only females.

I don't know if you have any daughters, or nieces etc but you may find they don't like the fact that laws passed when they were still children may negatively impact on them.

So it sees for you that the issue is "If it makes them feel better/normal I don't have an issue." I think some trans people will feel better and I do understand your desire for that to happen. But some trans people, especially some transexual women, feel very uncomfortabel about the idea thta any male who identifies as a woman can go into women only spaces. Some transexual women 'go stealth' they are not on the internet talking about their transition and they are not always out to the general public. This whole issue has brought a lot of unwelcome attention and scruitiny.

So the people who may benefit for self id may well be the people who have not got the inclincation to go through a lengthy process.

"The issue of stopping people misusing self id is complicated though, and that may be a reason not to." I totally agree with you on this.

The 1% statistic was used by the Gender Identity Research Education Society, a pro-self ID group, in their papers to Parliament. It's their estimate based on Danish research of how much of the population would likely show some dysphoric symptoms. Based on that research, GIRES themselves report 4/5ths of the population with symptoms will never get medical treatment for it either because they aren't strong enough to cause distress or the cause is another condition being dealt with. 4/5ths, the vast majority.

Of the 1/5th that do, it includes everyone who does including those detransition, those detransition and retransition repeatedly, those who go but never begin medical treatment as well as the typically shown image of a trans person. All of these people deserve full medical assessment and care. They certainly deserve more than to have dysphoia treated as a paperwork exercise as if it's the paperwork what causes gender dysphoria. I've gotten a statutory declaration for a name change, it's less than 10 minutes with a solicitor I'd never met before and £20 to get 4 pieces of paper that I'd printed out, we signed and she stamped after I repeated after her. Dysphoric people deserve better care than that and everyone deserves better safeguards.

Exactly how will we charge anyone with perjury for these statutory declarations? How does a court decide someone is not living as a man or a woman? Am I presenting and living as a man when I wear a kilt and a woman when I wear a skirt? The idea that one can present as a man or present as a woman in any specific way should be challenged, not put into law. I can be a woman and present in any way I want. We don't have laws about proper clothes for each sex and arrest people for indecency for failing to follow that anymore.

Personally, as someone who has had dysphoria for as long as I can remember back in the GID days when I was diagnosed, I find it very dismissive that this is what is being fought for, that this is how TRAs are telling people to be inclusive of us when so many of us have fought for more access to therapies and separate unisex facilities and more for so long to be shouted down in the last few years. The proposed changes don't help anyone but those that can already muscle in. It's said that trans women need to be women spaces because it's safer - and yeah, that's true since every recorded murder of a trans woman is at the hands of a man though it ignores whether women are safer with trans women there - but do we think trans men are going to be safer in men's spaces? We all know that's crap. We have the stats, trans men are facing a lot of violence, more than trans women by most research, but nothing in this proposed changes, nothing in self-ID, nothing in the current popular conversations around trans rights is going to help them. How is that inclusive? We have high profile cases of trans men being targetted and their rapists - males of various identities - being very clear that they chose to rape those trans men because they're trans men. It's become a fucking power fantasy bragged about on various social media sites alongside raping TERFs. Lots of people love talking about how the proposed will more inclusive of trans people and all I see are a bunch of people who think dysphoric people only matter if it includes our male counterparts because no one seems to care if it helps or includes female dysphoric people however we identify.

We have research showing hormones without therapy increases the likelihood of further mental health problems and suicide and we have people buying estrogen and testosterone blockers online, even testosterone illegally as that's a controlled substance, putting their minds and bodies at risk as these are powerful substances with a range of side effects, and what do we think is going to happen once there isn't a legal requirement for medical professionals involved in GRCs because I'd bet those horrible waiting lists are just going to get longer as services as slashed. Why do we need them if we can just get paperwork that erases the medical reality of dysphoria and the biological reality of our bodies? What about these proposed changes is actually going to do anything for dysphoric welfare? It's already been said repeatedly that a GRC does very little that trans people can't already do without it - why is this needed then? Why is this what people are fighting for?

People want to drop the "gatekeepers" and compare it to sexuality but as said, it's a poor comparison. Last I checked, no one requires medication to be gay or bisexual but we do require very powerful medications to medically transition and, best practice also includes talking therapies facilitated by a professional. Dysphoric people deserve that. We deserve evidence-based care. It isn't about telling you who you are, it's helping you figure yourself out and develop coping mechanisms because as much as the media and TRAs like to forget this, dysphoria doesn't go away with transition. It can help, it can help a lot, but dysphoria is still there and there healthy ways to deal with it - and a lot of unhealthy ways. How is self-ID going to help people live full lives? The whole thing feels like a red herring that will make it very easy to shut dysphoric people down. We've got self-ID, what more do we want? Actual medical care?

Saying people don't transition without being trans ignores that there are currently people who identify as trans who will never medical transition - many have never been diagnosed with dysphoria - as well as dysphoric people who never identify as trans and dysphoric and non-dysphoric people who identify and then stop identifying as trans. Dysphoria isn't a choice but there is a wide range of ways that people deal with it and any dysphoric person deserves to have those choices and the full benefits and risks with professionals. That is what needs fighting for.

And, in response to that link, there is nothing in gender dysphoria that says we're aroused by ourselves in opposite-sex clothes or imagining ourselves as the opposite sex. That's very much not part of it - most dysphoric people I've met describe the idea gives relief or peace or something clicking into place after too long or hope - hope that this might make things better. Since I started getting therapy for it when I was a kid after being caught by an adult discussing my plans and desire for a sex change when I was 7, alongside the push for younger people to identify as trans seen everywhere, I find too many TRAs desire to connect gender dysphoria with arousal very disturbing. Many people endure a lot of shitty things for a very long time without being aroused by it. I think I need brain bleach because the entire portrayal of dysphoria just in the first bit of that link is just very creepy. Dysphoric people deserve better, everyone deserves better.