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!

A woman fantasizing about being sexy is not the same as a man fantasizing about being a sexy woman.

That's the Serano line, and all TRAs slavishly worship Serano. I don't really get that, personally.

He's a lousy writer. People keep recommending him as the one who'll make me a true believer and I'm all, wait, are you trying to undermine your own cause?

It's like having a white person who fetishes plantation themed race play show up at an NAACP meeting.

This. Exactly this. How happy it makes that white person to go there is utterly irrelevant, they are being deeply offensive to the people of the group whom they wish to exploit and alter the purpose of that group for their own needs, regardless of the effect it has on those people and their group.

He's a lousy writer. People keep recommending him as the one who'll make me a true believer and I'm all, wait, are you trying to undermine your own cause?

My sentiments exactly! Also he wrote a creepy piece about how straight men validated him as sexxxay more than lesbians.

"Cis women often fantasise about being sexy"

Reminded me of more than one thread on asktransgender reddit which go a bit like this

• "am I weird or even not trans [just a cross-dresser/AGP] for getting aroused by wearing women's underwear"

• "No, no! [real] women get turned on by their own silk panties all the time! It's another sign that you really ARE a woman!"

''India Willoughby may identify as a woman, but he does not identify with women.''
by Pris Corbett

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/02/13/india-willoughbys-not-men-response-feminist-activist-demonstrates-misogyny/

Very astute article Crow

This quote particularly interesting: recent research from the UK that suggests that trans-identifying males are two and a half times more likely to be imprisoned for a sexual offence than the male prison populace as a whole.

The facts exist in plain sight. And yet we're standing around arguing with people insisting this never happens.

Oh, now, be fair, unicorn! those results could clearly be skewed by chancers who are only pretending to be trans in order to-- oh hang on...

ClareFlourish wrote - "Well, I have a Y chromosome and a fused pelvis, but English Law, bless its weirdness, says I am a woman."

I think the fine print of the law probaby says that you are a legal woman, meaning for the purposes of law, you are to be treated as if you were a biological woman.

Yes, the law is weird. Another example is that companies can be legal persons. Some more details at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person .

Just because the law says something, doesn't necessarily mean it is actually true. Some more details at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction .

I hate the argument that you can't define a "woman" as being able to produce eggs and bear children because some women are infertile, hence men can be women because their inability to produce eggs and bear children is the same as an infertile woman.

Let's say I identify as a pigeon. Someone tells me that a defining characteristic of a pigeon is the ability to fly and that because I can't fly I'm not a pigeon. But, there's a pigeon on the pavement who can't fly because it's wing is injured. Therefore I am a pigeon because look, over there is a pigeon who can't fly, just like me!

It's bullshit.

Let's say I identify as a pigeon. Someone tells me that a defining characteristic of a pigeon is the ability to fly and that because I can't fly I'm not a pigeon. But, there's a pigeon on the pavement who can't fly because it's wing is injured. Therefore I am a pigeon because look, over there is a pigeon who can't fly, just like me!

It's bullshit.

This is brilliant.

I think the fine print of the law probaby says that you are a legal woman, meaning for the purposes of law, you are to be treated as if you were a biological woman.

Except not even then in all cases. There are exemptions allowed in certain situations for female sex only.

If all that self-ID meant was that someone with a GRC was able to change their passport, driving licence etc from M to F (and vice versa), then I would agree that there should be minimal gatekeeping.

But when it has such more profound implications, and many of the benefits come at the direct cost to women, of course it is right that there should be a process to go through other than ticking a box on a form.

That process shouldn't be overly expensive or onerous, I agree. But neither should it be a rubber-stamping exercise where everyone is granted.

The analogy that Italian made upthread about being approved for adoption is very apposite. I'm also an adoptive mother and birth mother: the process to become the former was far more onerous than the latter, and rightly so IMHO. Sometimes I forget that I didn't carry and deliver DD, as do other members of our family (at the weekend I had to gently remind an elderly relative that their plans to revise their will to "blood relatives only" would exclude DD, which was completely not their intention but in trying to ensure that a particular wife of a family member could have no claim on the estate they had forgotten that DD is adopted). But if I told the doctors that of course DD has a high risk of breast cancer because all women in our family do, I'd be extremely misguided at best and downright abusive at worst. It helps no-one to deny our reality, even if - in my DD's case - reality can be painful and cause hurt.

If all that self-ID meant was that someone with a GRC was able to change their passport, driving licence etc from M to F (and vice versa), then I would agree that there should be minimal gatekeeping.

Until very recently I was more or less ok with this, but increasingly with the pisstaking and stretching of reality and boundaries, I'm not. You want to live as a male, female, star fleet officer, cat, whatever, crack on. Whatever makes you happy. Change your name, do whatever you want to your body, free expression fine. But I am not ok with law misrepresenting reality. A man cannot be a woman. Transwoman, yes, fine. That can go on driving licences and passports, people will know to ask your preferred pronouns. But a woman is a specific, definite thing in material reality and in law, and I'm not ok with law or the gathering of national statistics and information being prostituted to do something it was never meant to do.

This is interesting to me because maybe years ago I would have been pro self-ID. Agreeing with the trans movement was just part and parcel of the circles I moved in. Thankfully I've seen the light.

This is interesting to me because maybe years ago I would have been pro self-ID. Agreeing with the trans movement was just part and parcel of the circles I moved in. Thankfully I've seen the light.

I don't think I would have been aware of it years ago. And I'm not sure I would be aware of it now if I hadn't got curious about the threads about JJ's AWS fundraiser. And that's scary -- how few people realise the implications. It's not really something I come across in my daily life. It almost feels like they're deliberately trying to sneak this through without people realising.

Theirs is a transphobic argument. They say a majority of women will be perturbed to see trans women even in shop changing rooms where doors to cubicles provide complete privacy; but they do not object, because they are socialised to care for others. They feel fear, anger and disgust, and rationalise that they are right to feel these things, and all women should

And yet you still go in there.

They deny they are hostile to us- they say they only object when we wrongfully enter women’s space. But they trivialise us, saying we play dress-up, and monster us, by referring to autogynephilia, drawing attention to transitioning sex offenders, and claiming we are perverts.

Yet you acknowledge you are an Agp!

I have never been tempted to “little girl” costumes like the ones in Prissy’s cartoons, but I was aroused, and that is the main motivation for collecting the pictures (through a Google image search). While searching, I found a picture of a transvestite I used to know, who is the only person who has admitted to me doing such role-play. Grayson Perry, who sometimes appears in “little-girl” dresses like no little girl ever wore is reducing shame- because of course I am tempted to the old line I may be a pervert but at least I am not as bad as him, which divides people and empowers kyriarchy

You acknowledge you are a pervert and are aroused by the idea of little girl roleplay. You call the women, who do not want you near their themselves or their young daughters TERFS.

Quite frankly claire, after reading your self obsessed blog about your sexual fetish, the thought of you in any womans space makes me feel sick. I challenge anybody to try and support self id after reading your blog.

Because heres the fucking scary part folks. Claire has a Grc. Claire had the counselling and went down the proper route. And not one proffesional person suspected that Claire had sexual motivations for wanting to transition.

We need to stop presuming that men with a Grc are harmless.

Myunicorn - you're right. I hadn't made the link between changing sex on a document and how stats and data will be collated. I was trying to think of something innocuous and failed.

But it's actually quite hard to think of anything that could be changed where it doesn't really matter.

Perhaps having the bank send a statement to Ms Smith rather than Mr Smith? Does that hurt anyone in RL? (Though pity the shop assistant who queries whether Ms Smith is using a card that rightfully belongs to her when Ms Smith looks like D Moscato)

Library card?National Trust membership card? (Not sure that they usually indicate sex, however)

Someone on Twitter suggested that the GRC procedure should include a mandatory psychiatric assessment to show that the applicant does not have a cluster B type disorder or similar and is able to perceive women as actual human beings, understand that others have boundaries that should not be crossed, and fully accept the principle of consent.

I think that would be wise, and Clare's appearance on this thread would seem to indicate the same.

Yeah. I'm good with that. It can say 'Miss' on your library card. Just that. No more.

I don't think there should be a GRC procedure. As I see no need for GRCs. The original reason for them is moot now, so no need for them to continue.

I completely agree, LangCleg.

I think it's disgraceful that, rather than be kept as far away from women and girls as humanly possible, deviants like Clare are classed as one of us based upon that deviancy.

The sexual predilections of these particular men is prioritised over the mental health and sexual, physical, emotional and mental safety of all women and children.

I read a comment by someone else on either this thread or another saying stop the world, I want to get off.

They are not alone.

I think it speaks to the fact that both the medical community and politicians view trans identified males as "failed men" and so therefor women.
The unspoken misogyny baked into the culture is now being codified into law.

Also hate the "well there are women with PCOS who have facial hair so you can't say I'm not a woman!" argument. In order to have PCOS you have to be female, it's a sex-specific condition.

I'd rather take my chances with a random bloke than a bloke with AGP in any sort of space where I'm potentially vulnerable. Saying this has caused me to lose at least one friendship, but it's still true - it's not just that men with AGP aren't harmless little lambs, the reality is that they're more dangerous than the average man is, and more misogynistic.

Perhaps having the bank send a statement to Ms Smith rather than Mr Smith? Does that hurt anyone in RL?

Well your sister who you live with and haven't told might be an example...

As for Miss, Mrs, Mrs etc
The proof I needed to change my title on my bank account from Miss to Ms was something else. They insisted I proved my marriage. The ridiculous thing, is its not a joint account. Nor did I actually change my name. And you don't need to be married to be a Ms.

I was pissed at that.

But we are proposing to make changing your sex easier than this.