Trans unpeak moment

[Sunflowersforever]

Have really been tuned into the whole self-Id issue and subsequent discussions through mumsnet, and appalled at the encroachment into women spaces and the silencing of women's voices. Was so glad to have read Hadley Freeman's article and how she summed up concerns in such an articulate way that reflected my views.

Ok. Here is the unpeak trans bit.

On HFs twitter feed, someone posted about selfid saying. "It means swearing a statutory declaration that you are living as a woman (and there are legal consequences if you lie), changing your name and documents, telling friends, colleagues, family".

Is that correct? If it is, I didn't know that and it changes the whole 'any man can enter a woman's space unchallenged' argument a bit as surely documented proof can be produced if challenged?

Someone else also said Ireland had adopted this law with no consequences? Really?

Anyone aware if any of this is true?

It costs enough for some trans people in poverty not to be able to afford it.
Why am I against gatekeeping??
Seriously?

because gatekeeping has done tremendous amounts harm to trans people worldwide for decades.

Then change the gatekeeping. If you don't have any it is massively open to abuse.

Yes, seriously. I don't think it's an unreasonable question.

Btw it's not just about trans people. Other people have rights too.

Its means tested.

Thanks UpstartCrow.

Simply saying those who for instance, cannot afford to go through the GRC process, simply aren't trans enough, or want one enough, doesn't really fly with me

Do you think that - if the GRC was free - that people should get one?

Personally, I think that there should be a distinction in law between people who have had medical treatment and those who haven't.

because gatekeeping has done tremendous amounts harm to trans people worldwide for decades

You mean getting HRT and then surgery?

It's not that much gate keeping in the UK

Personally, I think that there should be a distinction in law between people who have had medical treatment and those who haven't.

Agree.

Btw it's not just about trans people. Other people have rights too

This

crispbuttyfan
However the equality act says to be protected from gender re-assignment the person does not have to undertake specific treatment. Without treatment it is impossible to obtain a grc, so a grc is still not required to be a protected characteristic.

Correct. They have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as soon as they propose to undergo gender reassignment (or whatever the wording says). From that point, without making any changes to their appearance, name, etc they cannot be discriminated against on the grounds of gender reassignment.

The law does not say that from that point they have to be treated as though they have acquired their new gender. That part is covered by the clauses from the EHRC which I quoted in my 2 previous posts. The ones you said were red herrings. They are not.

To put it another way, when someone decides to undergo gender reassignment, they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment immediately. But a man cannot get up one morning, say 'I am now a woman' and immediately be treated as a woman in all circumstances. He cannot be discriminated against for being transgender, but he is not immediately a woman in the eyes of the law.

because gatekeeping has done tremendous amounts harm to trans people worldwide for decades.

And in the UK? What harm has been done?

No gatekeeping has the potential to do enormous harm to women and girls.

No gatekeeping has the potential to do enormous harm to women and girls

Exactly - there should be gatekeeping.

Being trans is rare. Transsexualism is rare. It does surprise me how many trans people seem to just want to 'look different' without HRT or surgery.

@jayceedove

I wish we could frame your post somehow.

Whilst I tend not to like the 'but they have it harder than you' arguments, I do find the argument that the gatekeeping shouldn't be there because some do not have enough money very difficult to agree with when there are girls and women in period poverty every single month.

You know, not much in life is free, why should the GRC be any different?

Crispbutty, if cost is the issue make it free for those who cannot afford it. No problem at all with that. I was a full time carer when I got mine. Had to give up my job and so had very little to live off. But I found the £100 or so to get a GRC because the rest of my life was worth it.

Do you mean the necessity of being assessed by psychiatrists and so on and waiting on the NHS (which is free isn't it still I imagine?) or paying to go private to speed it up?

If so you cannot put a price on ensuring you are doing the right thing about the rest of your life and do not have some other problem or reason you have never considered for wanting to change gender. It might seem like a choice. Sometimes it is more.

In any case, transition can happen without a GRC and you can live quite happily that way. I managed it between 1973 and 2004 as there WAS no GRC, no birth certificate and no rights whatsoever.

If you need this enough you make it work.

And this is absolutely not about two tier trans people. I accept that some people do not want to physically change their body. That is fine and does not mean they do not deserve rights.

But it does make a huge difference to those they are asking to live amongst and be accepted as one of them if they are expected to redefine a woman as someone who might have been born a man and who might or might not still have a penis and who might or might not have done anything to alter their body and so still have the muscle strength and even sexual feelings of that male body.

Without at least the assurance that this person has no other issues that might pose a risk to women surely you can see why someone who has fully transitioned would be less of a perceived threat.

Some women will never accept any of those people, however much we change our bodies, as being women. Because XX/XY cannot be altered as yet.

So this is not about being more trans than someone else or only letting through those who physically transition.

It is all about doing the right thing by those we wish to live alongside and be accepted by as non threatening. Perceptions matter. Bodies matter. And awareness of the mental well being of the person granted status as a woman matters.

If you exclude every one of those things by removing all gatekeeping this will not end up in cutting out poor or non threatening trans people who just do not want to be assessed because they do not think they are ill.

Women will simply have to treat anyone as a potential threat because how otherwise can they ever be sure what is what or who is who?

Gatekeeping protects all people. Including trans people. It is the key that opens the door to acceptability.

There has to be a key of some sort. Because if there is not and you just leave the door open anyone can walk in.

If you believe in self ID so much just ask. Are you going to lock your front door tonight?

If so, then why?

Not because you think your neighbour is going to sneak in and rob your purse.

But because you don't know who might be out there wandering the streets taking advantage of the fact that you left the door open.

It costs enough for some trans people in poverty not to be able to afford it.

But, its currently means tested. People on low incomes can get a reduction or (I believe) it free?

thebewilderness
Male bodied person with female ID gained entry to a women's shelter, is the first one that comes to mind, LostArt.

thebewilderness. It's just so frustrating that because non of the gatekeeping involves having surgery or looking female, male bodied, male appearing TIM can enter women's shelters. I can't imagine how those women feel. It shows that little of the process consider the experiences of women and girls.

Women who object are told they must leave. That is what clarifies women's position in all this. We are still not a player. We are still the ball.

I think many women are falsely reassured by the term "gatekeeping". The process doesn't help protect women and girls.

I am confused by the posters who say they unpeaked. They seem to be saying that despite previously agreeing with all the arguments and that trans women are not women, once they come across a thread or two they disagree because they find a particular approach distasteful all prior arguments are dismissed? Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

I have heard people say that sort of thing in person, but it is mostly an internet thing. I would understand if they were convinced by the info provided but that is not the claim. The claim is that because the information was provided in a way I do not like by people I do not like I shall cut my nose off to spite my face.
I think it is mostly posturing, but people do vote against their own interests often so it is hard to be sure.

Are they real though. Strikes me as quite useful for TRA that ou have a cohort of 'unpeakers'. They hate #peaktrans.

I wonder about the un-peakers too.

There might genuinely be some people pondering their position - I think I've seen one genuinely gender critical poster here who has rowed back to a slightly more moderate stance. Not changed mind - just said "here and no further". Which is fair enough - not everyone will agree on everything and I wouldn't want to be in a space where that was required. That's what we're trying to get away from!

And there are always posters like bewilderness describes, who could frankly start a fight in a phone box, but they are ever with us and don't give much of an indication of anything other than they enjoy being contrarian.

But I've yet to see someone genuinely, whole heartedly move from gender critical to trans ally.

and by "trans ally", I don't mean someone who supports the likes of jaycee and yet, because I think we all do (great posts, BTW jaycee*). I mean someone who would look at D. Muscato and proclaim that they saw a woman and that TERFs who don't should DIAF.