Can someone give me the background to the self ID legislation?

[whiteroseredrose]

I'm new to this so I don't understand who is driving this legislation through nor what their agenda is. Can anyone give me a quick round up?

I'm beginning to feel like the world is going mad. If this was a film you'd call it far-fetched yet it's true. And I'm getting very worried. I'm most worried that nobody dare debate for fear of being branded a bigot so it will get through because everyone is too scared to challenge. What the hell?

Look up the FairPlay for women website for a good overview.

Thanks I will.

This fact sheet might help
sages.org.uk/publications/pdfs/Quick-facts-Sex-gender-and-equal-rights-SAGES-2017.pdf

Many transgender people would qualify for GRCs today under the current legislation, but the complicated legal process of obtaining a GRC puts them off. Only around 300 gender recognition certificates were issued last year.

The government is looking to simplify the process to make it easier for transgender people to have their human rights protected. But even if the government makes the process as simple as Ireland, the process would still involve declaring a statutory declaration in front of a solicitor or other commissioner for oaths.

The idea that legally a man can say that he is a woman and march into a women's changing rooms is a myth.

This is a complicated area where medical and legal issues overlap. It is not surprising that many people are mislead. Also sadly there are a lot of people who hate transgender people - including hard right MPs such as David Davies and a rabid right wing press (e.g. Daily Mail, Times) - that are fuelling the myths.

This is a very well written article that covers the issues and references other articles that provide more detail rosieswayne.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/unqualified-lesbian-swerves-abruptly_23.html

But you can cut through all the nonsense about "self-id" with one simple question. How many issues has "self id legislation" caused in Ireland? The answer, none. See www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/26/what-will-actually-happen-if-the-uk-adopts-a-self-declaration-gender-recognition-law/

Or you could google "this never happens" to read about all the times that it actually does happen despite transgender advocates claiming it does not.

Not many here would agree with the PP who says there are no issues, and many transwomen have concerns about self-Id. See Debbie Hayton on twitter for eg.

A range of other views and resources here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3175252-A-trans-resource-thread

Brilliant article thanks Sarah

have a look back through some of the other threads to see some really interesting views from post op transwomen who are very concerned about the proposals and do not believe self ID to be a good idea at all.

The FairPlay website is very interesting thanks, but I still don't understand why a conservative government would be interested in getting this legislation through? Why now, what triggered it and what's in it for them? Is it 'the government' as a whole or some individuals driving it? My local MP is conservative, I think I need to ask him!

I'm not convinced by Rosie Swayne because I sort of agree with 'because biology'. Two men or two women can't produce a baby. They can be excellent parents but you can't claim that they're all genetically linked in the same way mum, dad and baby are.

I'd also be interested to know why the self ID woman insisting on using women's changing is a myth. What would be used to stop them?

It's pretty hard to know whether any unintended consequences have happened in other countries, if there is no way to identify or report that a crime was committed by a trans person (because they have to be described as their "preferred gender").

Also it's likely to be harder to report some potential crimes, such as voyeurism, if a) being in female changing rooms while sporting a penis and staring at naked women would be considered perfectly fine as long as the person says they're a woman too, and b) women risk being accused of bigotry or even hate crime if they challenge someone doing this

But even if the government makes the process as simple as Ireland, the process would still involve declaring a statutory declaration in front of a solicitor or other commissioner for oaths.

1. Many, many people think that filling out a form is not enough of a barrier to changing legal gender. Many of those people are those who already have GRCs under the old system, having gone through a long process of reflection.

1. Ireland already has protections in place for single sex environments, and for groups which don't recognise gender change, which simply aren't present in England. The combination of a simplified GRA and the Equal Opportunity Act would create a lot of problems in England.

The issue isn't the process of getting a GRC per se. The issue that in practice a GRC means you can insist on being treated as the opposite sex in all circumstances- even when doing so erodes the rights of others. If there were stronger protections for single sex facilities in place, few would have an issue with people defining their gender however they want.

The idea that legally a man can say that he is a woman and march into a women's changing rooms is a myth.

It really isn't. A number of recent events have demonstrated that some organisations are following this policy. That's why the #manfriday protests have worked.

Also sadly there are a lot of people who hate transgender people - including hard right MPs such as David Davies and a rabid right wing press (e.g. Daily Mail, Times) - that are fuelling the myths.

There are transphobes out there, and there are some on MN; but it's silly to suggest that a community which is largely progressive, gender critical and hostile to the hard right is just being tricked. Right wing commentators have always been socially conservative- what has changed is the nature of the loudest voices in the trans community.

You have people coming onto MN telling Lesbians that they are transphobic if they don't want to sleep with a transman. You have trans activists insisting that merely 'identifying' as a woman, makes you a woman. You have a few recent assaults on feminists and a lot of very unpleasant rhetoric. No wonder people think that changes in the law warrant careful thought. No wonder many genuine transexuals do not regard this agenda as representing them.

I'm not convinced by Rosie Swayne because I sort of agree with 'because biology'. Two men or two women can't produce a baby. They can be excellent parents but you can't claim that they're all genetically linked in the same way mum, dad and baby are.

Most (though certainly not all) adoptions in the UK stem from abuse by the biological 'parents'. The people who raise you are your real parents and our link with our children is just as strong. No adoptive parent would deny biological facts, but I think this is an unhelpful analogy.

Sorry donquixote that was probably a bad analogy but it was in response to the Rosie Swayne blog. She seems to dismiss biology so that someone who is biologically fully male can have his biology ignored because of what he thinks himself to be.

Sorry donquixote that was probably a bad analogy

No apology needed. I hadn't read the blog, so didn't realise you were referring to her analogy.

Many transgender people would qualify for GRCs today under the current legislation, but the complicated legal process of obtaining a GRC puts them off.
Do you mean the complicated legal process of seeing a doctor to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and changing their name on various documents? Or is it because they wouldn't get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, because they don't have it?

The government is looking to simplify the process to make it easier for transgender people to have their human rights protected.
So what human rights to transgender people not already have?

The idea that legally a man can say that he is a woman and march into a women's changing rooms is a myth.
Not really. And this individual didn't even say he was a woman - he calls himself 'trans-feminine'.

a rabid right wing press (e.g. Daily Mail, Times) - that are fuelling the myths.
Or stating the facts that the left-wing press, for some reason, refuses to print.

I still don't understand why a conservative government would be interested in getting this legislation through? Why now, what triggered it and what's in it for them? Is it 'the government' as a whole or some individuals driving it?

This is a brilliant question. I can't answer it fully (I don't think anyone can TBH), but I'll have a go at some of it

After the Coalition government legislated to allow same sex marriage (something championed by the then Conservative PM, David Cameron, and Maria Miller MP) a number of LGB lobbying organisations found that they had almost worked themselves out of existence: the big thing that they were working for (and fund raising for) had been achieved. Then more and more often, LGB organisations became LGBT (and LGB officers became LGBT officers etc etc), and suddenly there is purpose again to the likes of Stonewall.

Hopefully one day we will be able to look back and see why TRAs have been so successful so quickly, as it is somewhat of a mystery. On the face of it, it's because they have been very successful at infiltrating government (so schools are directed towards dangerous organisations like Mermaids and GIRES for training, for example) and they are good at social media. The money trail would be very interesting to follow

What do the government get out of it? Well, the narrative about "being on the wrong side of history" for saying things like "children should be allowed to be children" and "women don't have dicks" is very pervasive, and politicians generally care very much indeed about legacy. TBH I can't work out why Maria Miller is so supportive or TRA demands, given that she is a lesbian, but it's worth remembering that the Committee that she chaired and which recommended self-ID only took oral evidence from TRA groups and individuals - no womens' groups or GC transpeople were invited to speak to the Committee.

I think it's individuals within the Government who are driving this, but until recently many MPs had simply not engaged with the issue, seeing it as something of a minority interest, side issue that had nothing much to do with them Thankfully, over the past few weeks that is starting to change, and people are waking up to the far-reaching implications of self-ID (and some of the wilder TRA claims and demands)

I think the current conservative government took it up after the election as JC seemed to be in a good place, he seemed to be getting a rise from the 'youth vote' (which on further analysis does not seem to be bourn out). There was a private members bill that had already gone part way through the process, and the W&E committee report in place.

So it was a cheap way to steal Labour's thunder, in the same way as they did when Labour was putting forward changes to inheritance tax and a previous conservative government introduced the transferrable allowance between spouses which undermined it, which worked out very well for them. The gay marriage law change had also worked out very well for them and there is often conflation with this (although that seems to have gone quiet recently).

After the election debacle where they came out of it with a smaller majority, they needed something to put their ratings up.

I don't think any of the implications had been thought about before they announced it in July. They just thought it looked a good thing. There are probably people around who would like it to go through, loopholes and all.

I have no idea why Maria Miller and her committee were so for it, and why they consulted some of the people they did, and not people like the prisons etc. as well as women.

The whole concept has as many loopholes as a mega lacy jumper that the moths have eaten.

@SarahAr

Its always good when you pop up here to remind us you think women's views are all nonsense. It reminds what are doing is right.

Many transgender people would qualify for GRCs today under the current legislation, but the complicated legal process of obtaining a GRC puts them off. Only around 300 gender recognition certificates were issued last year.

One minute we are being told that they are in psychological torment because they are trapped in the wrong body and the next minute we are being told that they cba to do the paperwork.
How have such a small number of people created such a legal and social storm. It's all out of proportion.

Oleanna and Melamin. Interesting. Thank you.

OldCrone many transgender peoople have diagnosis of gender dysphoria but have not applied for a GRC. Obtaining a GRC is not as simple as getting a note from a doctor.

Two independent medical opinons are required - and these have to been paid for, they are not covered by the NHS. If the specialist doesn't know the trans person, then the transperson might need to see the specialist a number of times before the specialist will write an opinion. Very profitable for the specialist and costly for the trans person.

At least one if not more statutory declarations have to be obtained. Evidence of change of name and living in role has to be provided.

Most trans people do not bother.

living in role
What does that mean? It sounds like playing at being a woman to me. I find that rather offensive.

Ah but SarahAr cares not a jot if you are offended Little

I don't think Maria Miller is a lesbian, is she?

She's married to a man.

She was also thought to oppose gay marriage as she abstained on votes on the matter and yet she's all for redefining womanhood.

The fact she overstated her expenses makes her untrustworthy in my opinion and probably easily leaned on by lobby groups.

If the specialist doesn't know the trans person, then the transperson might need to see the specialist a number of times before the specialist will write an opinion. Very profitable for the specialist and costly for the trans person
Do you not think it is important that the specialist should be sure that the individual is really suffering from gender dysphoria, and is not faking or confused? Do you think they should just write an opinion based on one meeting or a phone consultation like Helen Webberley? It could be very costly for the patient if they were mistaken about their trans identity and went down the route of hormones and surgery only to find that they had made a mistake. And the specialist would want to be sure about their diagnosis in order to 'do no harm'.

Evidence of change of name and living in role has to be provided.
If that's what they want to do after they get the GRC, why is it such a hardship to do it in order to get the GRC? Agree with LittleLebowski about 'living in role'. What do you think that actually means?

remember - sorry, you're right. Maria Miller is not a lesbian