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!

LML83 wrote - "What are the women only services/spaces? what are the risks of a trams gender women needing access to this service/space?"

Before I give an example, I want to point out that it is a myth that trans-identifying males (also known as transwomen) all look indistinguishable from biologically female catwalk models, the moment that they self-identify as women. The reality is that most transwomen do not "pass" as women in appearance, voice and body language.

For example, a rape crisis centre. Access for transgender-identifying males is proposed for them as either service users or service providers.

If self-identification becomes law, a woman who is raped will not be able to refuse counselling from a trans-identifying male rape counsellor who may have taken no steps to become less masculine than any non-transgender male. The counsellor could still have a masculine name, a beard, a penis, a deep voice, male body language etc. This would not be a victim-centred approach to rape counselling because it is more likely to trigger trauma in a female rape victim than counselling by a biologically female counsellor. The risk is the victim's recovery will be negatively affected.

That's why no proponents of self-ID are prepared to make it openly. That's why they have to faff about with "don't be mean" (cos y'know, we're women and not supposed to go against our socialisation) or "there will be assaults anyway" (which is basically an argument against having any laws at all).

This is why I drew the analogy earlier in the thread about US gun laws. There are similar arguments going on around that with people trying to circumvent just being truthful and saying outright 'yes my right to bear arms is more important than some children being collateral damage'

Who would employ a man claiming to be a self identified woman as a rape counsellor?

And if you don't gel with a counsellor for any reason I would assume you can request a swap.

How often do you think this will be an actual problem? Hypothetically it may be possible but it would be very unlikely to happen.

LML83 - why are you prepared for the law to ever make it a possibility?

Wasn't it 12 years in court and VAST sums of money spent by one rape charity trying to fight a TRA who insisted on his right to be employed by them and counsel women who did NOT want to be counselled by a biological male.

If a TRA goes for a forced open application system they will have to be entitled to an interview (protected characteristic) and you will have intense scrutiny over any possible loophole for legal action regarding discrimination if they aren't given the job. Plus there will be a LOT of pressure behind the scenes about equality of representation and the necessity to tick the boxes and to be able to demonstrate the Transwoman Working In the Rape Counselling Shelter.

In reality it will look much like Madigan. Someone not remotely interested in the post, merely using it as a point for furthering their personal agenda, backed up by a lot of right on people with their own agenda.

Services for women like refuges are not popular, their funding is constantly cut, they are under constant pressure to sacrifice more space to men: these services are a centre of resentment for MRAs. They do not want spaces for women to talk to other women and reinforce ideas like 'he abused me'.

There is only one coherent argument - that the rights of TIMs to enter women's spaces trumps the right of women to say no.

I understand the Scottish state they trump the right of the disabled too, by colonialism of their hard fought for space, renaming it too, so the TIM is not stigmatised.

The same disabled people that the UN condemned the UK, I don't recall the UK being condemned for their treatment of men or TIMs.

mummybear701 wrote - "I though even someone with a GRC could be refused working in a refuge etc. just for the triggering effect of any perceived masculinity. Its vital such places continue to have that discretion."

In case you have not already read it, there is a recent thread about Women's Aid's review of their transgender counsellor employment policy, which was reported by The Times newspaper as "Mary Mason, the board’s interim co-chairwoman, said: 'We have agreed to start a review of our whole transgender policy, including the possibility of employment for self-declared transgender women without a gender recognition certificate.'

Here is the link to the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3158576-Women-s-Aid-considers-employing-self-declared-transwomen-i-e-men-in-womens-shelters

LML83

I think it will happen more than you think. These are very 'validating' jobs for someone who wants to be considered female.

As someone (Datun I think) eloquently put it trans identified males asking for access to these things is not a neutral ask. There is a purpose to it about breaking down the last of female boundaries and rendering it so we cannot say no to anything.

This person tied Vancouver Rape Relief up in litigation for over a decade almost bankrupting them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

There have been some recent UK cases too about women trying to refuse TIMs in medical situations and being accused of bigotry.

LML are you being deliberately obtuse? If self ID passes it will be unlawful discrimination NOT to hire a male self identifying as a woman as a rape counsellor/smear nurse/bra fitter/whatever.

That man won’t have to put on a dress, take hormones, shave his beard or anything. All he has to say are the magic words “I identify as” and legally he will be a woman. Legally entitled to shower next to your daughter, provide intimate care to your elderly mother, perform a smear on a Muslim woman.

If you can’t see the problems with that I really can’t explain it any more

LML83 wrote - "Who would employ a man claiming to be a self identified woman as a rape counsellor?"
Women's Aid are reviewing this employment possibility, as detailed in the thread link in my previous post.

"And if you don't gel with a counsellor for any reason I would assume you can request a swap."
What if your assumption is wrong if self-declared gender identity replaces biological sex as a protected characteristic for employment (which I think is the government's proposal)?

"How often do you think this will be an actual problem? Hypothetically it may be possible but it would be very unlikely to happen."
Where is your evidence that it is very unlikely? I hope it is not just wishful thinking. Even if it happened only once, it would be too often.

Safe spaces argument is punishing trams gender women for the actions of abusive men.

Sex segregated areas is punishing men for the actions of other abusive men. NAMALT. Etc.

Do you disagree with sex segregation?

What if a woman with an alterior motive becomes a rape counsellor? A woman who doesn't want to help but for some sick reason wants to blame the victims or for any reason not help?

There must be safeguards in place to prevent this, and those same policies should stop fake self identifying men becoming rape counsellors. If they made it past the interview in the first place.

Regardless of the possible ulterior motive of a woman, a male bodied person is not appropriate in a shelter/counselling rape victims. How is that not obvious?

How often do you think this will be an actual problem? Hypothetically it may be possible but it would be very unlikely to happen.

JFC - because, as the push for self-ID shows, these people are unable to perceive the boundaries of others AT BEST, and more often, actively seek to undermine them.

As for males who pose risk to women and children, they will actively seek out the vulnerable wherever the opportunity exists. Just as, in the past, they have spent lifetimes as Catholic priests, youth sports coaches, Scout leaders, gynaecologists, etc etc. Open DV shelters to them via trans self-ID, THAT'S WHERE THEY WILL GO.

Yes I get exactly where you're coming from Flamingo I do think getting down on their level and using their language is dangerous though, especially because, as you point out, sexual orientation as a protected characteristic may be under threat in the near future.

So much of this debate is about language: woman, female, sex, gender, transgender, transsexual, gender reassignment, cis, lesbian, sexual orientation, sexual preference, vagina fetishist, TERF, bigot, truscum, violence ... and the law is made of words so we have to fight to preserve clarity of meaning.

Sex and sexual orientation are protected characteristics in the equality act. I believe in most situations it's better to simply remind people of that where necessary, rather than go down the route of 'and anyway, even if they weren't ...' because that would suggest we might possibly countenance those protections being removed.

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.

Everyone is subjected to safeguarding proceduresn not because the number of offenders is so high, but because any place without safeguarding attracts abusers like wasps to jam. It's called gatekeeping. Why remove barriers to offending, just to make TIMs feel more like women?

Well what happens if you decide someone isn't a woman and she says she is? Are you going to do an on the spot exam? If their genitals are ambiguous are you going to do an on the spot DNA test?

Really great thread.

A really interesting point there about men and notmen. Self ID does make more sense if you believe men is the default and women is the other. It also makes sense how people say they feel like a woman because what they mean is they don't feel like a stereotypical man.

However, personally, I don’t see woman as notman so although I can see what the pp was saying I fundamentally don’t agree with it. I don’t see woman as notman as I see it as something else, so I don’t see how a Tim becomes a woman because woman is not a notman.

There must be safeguards in place to prevent this, and those same policies should stop fake self identifying men becoming rape counsellors.

Work around teaching, social services, psychology, police, you'll always find a very few people who got into the job for totally the wrong reason and are abusing it. Total straw man.

The issue is that there are a very few occupations and situations where biological women should continue to have the legal right not to be forced to accept a biological male providing care in a vulnerable situation. Do you really feel a raped woman should put her feelings aside to be inclusive and validating to a man?

Granny almost all the time you will know without the slightest difficulty, take a look at videos of India Willoughby who has had extensive treatment. Many who had seen pictures of her looking stunningly feminine were shocked when they saw her walking and talking on Big Brother, that there was no difficulty at all seeing she was biologically male.

Besides, we're mostly talking about men with no gender dysphoria and no history of treatment who under self ID wouldn't need to outwardly make the slightest attempt to present as a woman.

Hi all! I believed for a long time that I was a feminist and a believer in trans rights despite being a gay man meaning I didn't have any experience of belonging to either of those groups.

I don't have many trans friends but when I started asking questions to some of them that, unbeknown to me, were transphobic, TERFy, and gender critical I began to see that TRA's are not really willing to engage in a debate - and I'm usually all about the debate! My questions centred on the untested safety of giving puberty blockers to young people and the necessity of a mental health assessment for GRA to be granted.

Now, I am an empathic person, and in many ways I think my friend is fantastic, so I listened to her counter arguments wanting to understand and see if my feminist leaning mind could understand. It's also an argument I haven't really seen posted on any of the discussions in favour of self-ID here.

It came down to the fact that 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. When put like this, and knowing my friend is an incredibly genuine person who I do view as a woman, well, I did empathise.

Having considered it some more I don't believe it's a fair comparison for many reasons and, after listening to both sides of the argument I think women's rights (as natal females, for want of a better description) need to be protected more. I believe it's wonderful having trans people in society but, being gender critical, I can't help but think the TRA lobby is encouraging old fashioned gender stereotypes that are not built into our brains.

Anyhow, just thought this was an interesting possible pro point for self ID that some might agree with

Why are you so confident LML? Genuine Q