Unintended Consequences of Self-ID Proposals

[Winewinewinegin]

It is becoming increasingly clear to many on here that the implications of Self-ID are far, far wider to groups outside the trans community than seem to have been picked up by MPs and trans-focused groups.

I thought it would be useful to capture some of these (feel free to link to other threads that list them) here. These could be things you have noticed already happening, or things that you are concerned about happening if the change in law goes ahead.

The shutting down of talk about female biology (as transphobic) which has already begun can have no positive consequences. Uptake of smear tests is already too low. Breastfeeding rates are already too low. Sexual experiences are too often disappointing for women because there is already not enough focus on female pleasure in sex education.

It will make it harder for trans people to get mental health treatment. If doctors feel afraid to suggest there might be an underlying mental health issue, because they fear being accused of transphobia, they might not approach the subject unless raised by a patient first.

Some men will get a bit embarrassed by a TIF seeing them at a urinal!

Good point red. And teenage girls will have trauma and abuse completely overlooked when the cause of their problems is deemed to be their being in the wrong body. This will be useful for the government in the short term though because proper psychological treatment is expensive.

Much of the above.

And I'd like to highlight one of the shockers that another poster described earlier today on a different thread about her DH involved in medical research.

I know this isn't verifiable right now as we're all just anons on the internet, but it sounds realistic. So my caveat is this isn't hard evidence.

A clinical trial was skewed because one person (biological male) decided that, because they have a GRC, they should take part in a clinical trial for female health. Because of the biological differences between the sexes, their sole participation skewed the exciting data.

And, from the sound of it, the consequences would have been that a breakthrough in diagnosis was almost ruined.

I hope that poster can convince her DH to break the silence and highlight this.

As it is a shocking and inexcusable example of trans entitlement risking female health.

I was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and had a lumpectomy in day surgery a couple of weeks back. The day ward on which we went before and after the surgery was women only, so partners couldn't come in. It was fine for us as my DH had just dropped me at the door anyway (lack of hospital parking!) However whilst I was waiting in the main waiting area, there was another man there who wanted to go into the ward to see his partner, and was a bit agitated. As soon as they said the ward was female only he relented and I heard him say quite calmly on the phone to someone that he couldn't go in because it was female only, he was fine with it.

In a culture of self id, I don't know what would have happened in that situation? Would a man be able to just say 'well I am a woman' and be let in? After all we are constantly told that you don't have to show your birth certificate/GRC to gain entry to the toilets. I feel like it would just change the whole culture of being able to go into a female only ward and be guaranteed that there wouldn't be any men in there?

Call me a cynic but I don't believe any of these effects are unintentional.
Self ID is the new Clause 28.

I think it will lead to a fascist backlash, against 'perversion', in favour of 'family values', and I don't think that will be unintentional either.

There will be a backlash against anyone trans or perceived to be trans, this is terrible for trans rights.
There will be a backlash against LGB community as they have Aligned with the T.
people will apply for PIP, housing and a car on the basis of identifying as disabled.
Women will go out less as there will be no sex segregated Public loos or shop changing rooms and we will all be a bit nervous of this and. Spend online instead which will hit high streets.
Basically it will be sinister and Orwellian.

While the general public wont be able to ask someone if they have a GRC, will the police? will the courts? Or will that be deemed as transphobic?

How will transwomen be protected in womens only spaces - what if some bloke wants to come in and smack the transwoman (because transwomen claim that they are subjected to a disproportionate amount of violence...). If you cant ask if the bloke is a bloke or a laydee, how can we protect vulnerable transwomen? How about other females or minors using the facilities at the same time?

How will we be able to protect transwomen with a lady penis from allegations of indecent exposure? If both transwomen and women share changing facilities, could either side declare that the other was indecently exposing themselves? WIll indecent exposure then become location specific?

What is the difference between FGM and the interventions suggested by mermaids - if a child has puberty blockers and is then surgically altered before the age of 18, surely that is the same as FGM. What is the implication for the FGM laws?

If both transwomen and women share changing facilities, could either side declare that the other was indecently exposing themselves?

Anyone going to bet against showing your breasts in a female changing room being deemed transphobic and insensitive or inciting hate?

I can't given the current nature of debate. It could be used maliciously very easily.

@bellasuewow do you think that identifying as disabled will really open up PIP to abuse? Genuine question as I can't work that one through in my mind.

Reading the link on the 2nd page of this thread of the government review into sexual assaults in schools, its absolutely heartbreaking to read the following in light of the recent Girl Guide policy change:

In 2015 Girlguiding UK found that 75% of girls and young women said anxiety about
potentially experiencing sexual harassment affects their lives in some way. The same
survey found that 90% of young women aged 13–21 agreed that the Government should
make sure all schools are addressing sexual harassment and bullying in schools.

I don't understand how they can recognise the situation girls are in, but remove one of their safe spaces.

Another extract from the report:

Recent police data at the end of March 2015 also showed 30% of recorded rapes
were committed against girls under the age of 16

I think anyone who wants to remove sex segregation should be sat down and made to read the document.

As the mother of a young daughter it is extremely sobering

People with BIID do already use braces and wheelchairs and other symbols of disability to pose as disabled.

Final one (and giving up on attempting to bold!)

70. Several organisations made recommendations as to how the Keeping Children Safe
in Education guidance can be improved to address the issues of sexual harassment and
sexual violence in schools:
• It could ensure all schools are clearly instructed to respect girls’ human rights and
equality, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. Revisions to KCSIE
guidance should be made with the input of experts in violence against women and
girls (EVAW Coalition)

Self ID is a massive step in the wrong direction for maintaining girls equality, and flies in the face of the recommendations to try and improve the situation.

Does anyone know if Marisa Miller has drunk the koolaid? If so, I think a tweet to her to ask how her views correlate with this report may be needed.

I discovered the trick with bolding is that you can't have any spaces.
when I type this it works but if I leave a space it does not.
Now let's see what happens.

Nope. I am wrong.

Ellenripleysalienbaby There was similar circumstances recently which generated quite a bit of publicity when a male friend complained about being denied entry to waiting area for breast screening.
Link to The Independent here: www.independent.co.uk/news/health/men-ban-breast-screening-clinic-waiting-area-hospital-brighton-anger-a8243666.html

I'm too tired to formulate this one properly but I think there's some evidence that autistic females are more likely to present as TIF than non autistic girls. And how does that impact upon research, support etc for girls with autism who do or don't present as TIF? Support is almost non existent already.

@Nosetothesun Oh for the love of Mike! I wish I hadn't read that.

Why are people so bloody selfish. I want I want I want, so it should be my way regardless of how anyone else feels and no matter the rules.

They should be changed for ME! ( and so I can get my name in the paper as the latest SJW )

You need to put a * at the ends of every bit of text you want in bold - if there's a return in the text it doesn't work (often the case when C&P from other web sites)

So this is all in bold

But this
is not
all in bold

Unless I use * at the beginning and end of each line

So this
is now
all in bold

You've mucked that up by using a lone asterisk near the start, which is then pairing up wrong.

SecretsRSecrets... it was rebutted fairly quickly and firmly by the health trust (no doubt after they had been inundated by calls etc etc as it generated quite a twitter storm) of course because they could!!!

I'm used to reading weirdly bolded posts from recent years on gcse and a level threads - all the a stars play havoc with bolding

@Nosetothesun Thank goodness! I was worried they might cave. Hope they continue to stay firm. Absolute ridiculousness!