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!

We all know that's not going to happen because there is no definition.

I am interested in why people think you can self ID your sex. Gender - no problem. But the GRA seems to allow self ID of sex, without any measure of thought as to whether aspects of society should remain segregated by sex rather than gender eg sport.

Thank you to those engaging in this thread with their views in favour of self ID, and I hope we can have a respectful debate and not pile on.

Because it's not for me to decide who anyone else is

Justanotherzombie do you feel as though you have a gender identity as a woman? That there's more to you being a woman than just biology? I'm guessing that women who feel that way are less likely to feel worried or concerned about 'trans women are women' because they would feel comfortable with the new gender feels meaning of 'women'.

I personally don't have a gender identity/inner sense of gendered self. My own sense of being a woman comes solely from my own biology. Therefore I feel that by saying 'transwomen are women' other people are trying to decide who I am. That's also why I reject the label 'cis' - it simply is not true for me.

yeah, you could be right BigDeskBob. I would certainly never attempt to get into a 'does god exist?' type debate with a roman catholic because I know we would just upset each other by not being able to see each other's point of view at all.

Maybe that's what I'm doing here. I am a mathematician by training and I'm used to testing a hypothesis. This all feels very 'social sciences' to me and I'm frankly out of my depth. I don't know how I go about reaching a position I'm completely confident in.

To those who are pro self id, do you have no concerns at all about middle aged men who have been imprisoned for sexual crimes against women saying they are trans and requesting transfers to women only prisons?

Or any of the other concerns with self ID that have been discussed endlessly.

My issue is not with people with gender dysphoria. Have no issue at all with them. My concern is with the unintended consequences of self id and its potential for abuse by predatory men who don't identify as female but who will say they do if it gives them access to women.

If transwomen are women, why have I not read a single report of one using their contacts, or male socialisation to benefit all women - because that I would be totally on board with!

Why am I only reading abuse towards women and concerns with trans issues such as being allowed hair straightners in prison; requests for cute clothes; women being expelled from the Labour Party by a LP Women's Officer; and complaints that they are not permitted to counsel female rape victims, fit bras or perform intimate body searches.

It can't be because the positive reports and stories are being blocked by a biased media. It's not that trans people are being 'no platformed' because they are the only group that does have a platform at the moment.

The transcommunity have free reign to tell us all the good they are doing for ALL women in order to portray their woman status. And not a single one is.

Apart from the old skool transsexuals who are just getting on with their lives, attending WI meetings, wearing ordinary clothes and doing boring mundane jobs that don't involve gaining access to women or their bodies.

And finally, how do you respond to the fact that gay men, lesbians and old skool transsexuals/those with GD/'Truscum' are expressing the exact same concerns as women.

ReluctantCamper, in relation to your comment about sex being important, prostate exams etc, I think that side of things is between the individual and their doctor when's medical need arises. It's really of no consequence or business to me if a (trans)man needs a smear etc.

MrsK, yes, I do feel there's more to me being a woman than my biology. I think I'd know I was a woman even if I was blind, deaf, dumb and had no sense of touch. But even if gender is purely a social construct (which may well be the case) I don't see why I need to stop people living within the social construct of their choice.

To the pro self ID people. How do you propose that we are inclusive to transwomen without damaging women in the process?

Or

Is it acceptable to you that some women and girls will be collateral damage in the quest for people born male to do exactly as they please no questions asked?

I ask this because I've seen similar debates recently around gun control in the US, that basically the right to bear arms is such an important principle it must be upheld even if that means some children being slaughtered periodically.

Do you basically believe that collateral damage is justified by the greater aim?

We all know that's not going to happen because there is no definition.

But clownfish! But strawberries!

Gah. Sorry, Camper. I'm in an exceedingly testy mood this morning and not up for tolerating endless gaslighting from the social constructionists. I'll wander off into actual material reality (weirdly enough, it does exist) and stop being tempted into derailing your thread!

I think you're doing a good thing in starting the thread Camper. It is important to try and understand other people's views.

I think the big sticking point is the definition of women though. Trans supporters don't see it as important- woman means something different to everybody, self-Id is key, the more the merrier etc.

Radfems think that it's important in some cases to segregate by sex and that therefore we should have a clear, unambiguous definition of 'male' 'female' 'man' 'woman'.

Thegoldenbough, no. Those people are not trans people they are criminals. Worrying yes, but this thread is about trans people, not criminals. Those people are not their fault.

There will of course be criminal trans people but thats not because they are trans, it's because they are criminals.

It seems to boil down to 'be nice' and 'mens feelings are more important'.

If thats all you need to erase womens sports or women only domestic violence shelters then admit it, you are supporting a hierarchy, not equality.

I agree with you Just except that there is nothing to stop the criminals or the perverts or the violent, aggressive predatory men from using the GRA for their own ends.

No safeguards are being put in place.

And if they are, no one knows about them because no one is allowed to talk about it.

Plus, the trans rights activists are aggressive and violent men.

This is not a move that trans people want either. They share the same concerns.

But is no to self ID really stopping people live within the social construct of their choice? I've never seen any post anywhere on MN that trans people shouldn't be trans or shouldn't live exactly the way that they want to. They just want to keep the few exemptions for biological women in some situations of nudity, vulnerability and intimate care.

And if we say women are adult human females with a specific reproductive capacity - that reproductive capacity doesn't have to be fully functional. It's a medical issue to an adult human female body. Some people are born without legs. We don't say that they are not human because humans have functioning legs, or say that the human race is not bipedal because a tiny number of people are born with a medical issue that affected the formation of their legs?

I've never seen any post anywhere on MN that trans people shouldn't be trans or shouldn't live exactly the way that they want to. They just want to keep the few exemptions for biological women in some situations of nudity, vulnerability and intimate care

^YES

As for women without fully functioning reproductive systems, it’s a red herring because many trans women have fully functioning male reproductive systems. Unless someone is intersex (which is a different issue), we all know what a biological male and biological female is so let’s not be silly.

From Rebecca Reilly-Cooper. This is pretty much how I feel

"We don’t know to what extent anyone would seek to exploit legislation designed to allow people to self-identify as women. But we do know that making gender entirely a matter of self-definition effectively eradicates current legislation designed to protect women from discrimination and invasion of privacy.

If you don’t think that women should be provided with these legal protections – women only spaces, or resources put aside just for women – then that is one thing. But if you do, then the category of “woman” as a matter of self-definition is self-defeating.

The logical conclusion of shifting our definitions of gender from objective characteristics to inherently subjective and personal ones is that the categories of “man” and “woman” effectively become meaningless. This is not a satisfactory outcome, especially for those who strongly feel that they identify as one particular gender. It is natural and understandable to feel empathy and concern for those who feel pain and distress at their socially recognised gender, and who wish to transition to live in the opposite role. But shifting our definition of what it means to be a woman so that it no longer has any grounding in the material or social reality of what it means to be a woman helps no one."

theconversation.com/why-self-identification-shouldnt-be-the-only-thing-that-defines-our-gender-57924

Actually, I would see this issue being about self id rather than transpeople.

The current wave of trans rights activitists and transwomen do not recognise those with diagnosed gender dysphoria ('proper' trans) as being like them. They are as abusive to them as they are to women.

I think the problem is that, ultimately, the self id issue is seen as inclusive and kind by a lot of people. But those most aggressively promoting it are concerned with men's rights and trans women's rights but not about aligning those with pre existing women's rights.

Most old skool transsexuals (hate to keep using that term but I feel it creates a distinction) accept that they are not women. They know they are men. But they also appreciate that women will stand alongside them in public toilets and pretend that they don't see it.

This new wave wants transwomen to be regarded as biological women.

I swear I’m not trying to be goady. Generally I can be found in an hour argument about changing chairman to chairperson because the little things matter.
But I also agree with OP that echo chambers are useless. So, surely a person can refuse a medical examination from anyone for any reason. There’s a nurse I won’t have smear test with because she is no fan of lube or sympathy, I never give and explanation just a no.
Also, sex offenders are a small class of men, I think they should be dealt with separately regardless of what gender they present as. I think it’s truley terrifying to have a sex offender have access to vulnerable women in prison but that is the case in male prisons. Surely the argument is to police them better for everyone’s sake.
Changing rooms and swimming pools is a cultural things. Lots of places in Europe nudity is commonplace. Lots of people would never like to be naked in front of anyone. Surely cubicles is the answer. And my every banging drum of penalties for being a pervert. Again self ID ing transwomen being kept of it changing rooms because of wanking AGF is the wrong answer. Putting the wanker on the sex offenders register and making is completely unacceptable would make more sense to me.
Honestly I think the whole thing is nonsense. I don’t feel female at all, I am biologically female, I have no desire not to be. But I’m fairly gender non conforming. (Also growing a beard but that’s all my natural hormones).

Those people are not trans people they are criminals. Worrying yes, but this thread is about trans people, not criminals. Those people are not their fault.

Bollocks. Under self-ID, those people are as trans as anybody else who says they're trans. That's the bloody point. The thread is about self-ID, as it says in the title. Try again.

The question you were asked is this: passing self-ID laws will undermine safeguarding for women and children so do you think this is an acceptable consequence of allowing trans people to change legal gender/sex without gatekeeping? Yes or no?

Simple question, simple answer. Yes or no?

(Am going now!)

Given that gender is a ragbag of expectations, stereotypes and justifications for discrimination, I more than understand people's wishes to pick and choose their own set of gender definitions or even reject the whole concept. However, don't impose your version of gender on me.
But mostly, don't confuse sex and gender and try to tell me that you can pick and choose your sex.

But clownfish! But strawberries!

Okay the clownfish thing I've heard before, but what's the strawberry thing?

"
If someone was born without a vagina or womb I would guess that they may be intersex"

Not necessarily. They may just have something wrong with them, like someone born with a missing finger is no less human. I'm not going to go looking for links for you as I'm on MN for fun, not as a job.

It occured to be the other day that, if this goes through, I might self identify as a man and use the men's changing rooms/facilities precisely because the men I would be at risk from will be identifying as women in the 'Ladies'.

@nonibaloni thanks for the response, it sounds like you fall into Becca Reilly-Cooper’s description of thinking sex based protections/segregation’s aren’t important, in which case I can see why self ID doesn’t concern you too much.

Do you have a view on eg women’s sport?

ReluctantCamper

It's an entirely understandable question to ask.

But I have yet to see an answer that didn't end up being, why can't you just be nice?

There's either a sort of neutral feeling that it's not a problem, or a less than neutral feeling that why wouldn't you? because it's only being nice/decent/inclusive.

You won't get any rebuttal to the analysis of why it's damaging to women/children/homosexuals.

You might by vocal transactivists with a vested interest. But they are actually quite thin on the ground here.

And the arguments you do get from transactivists will hinge entirely on the definition of the woman. (along with why can't you be nice).

Everything else is dependent on that one thing.