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?

How are we ‘going after trans women’?

We are saying they should live their lives free from discrimination but there should be some gatekeeping for the GRC and we should be able to keep some sex segregated spaces.

Yes women commit violent crimes but not at anything like the same rate as men.

And I don’t think it should be down to us to stop Male violence to be honest, I’m not really sure how you expect us to do that, as feminists we’ve been trying for years but it’s not up to us.
It lies at the feet of men to stop Male violence I’m afraid.

Langleg, that is an entirely simplified view of feminism.

Trans excusionary rad-fems who want to curtail trans rights very much and do condone mocking gender expression such as julia long, who has spent 30 minutes doing exactly that....

vimeo.com/246577189

However trans exclusionary radical feminism, is a small subset of radical feminism, which is a subset of wider feminism, there are 2nd wave feminists and 3rd wave feminists..

Within these groups, you will find intersectional 3rd wavers who entirely support trans rights, and self-id and many things trans exclusionary rad-fems find abhorrent.

There is no overall consensus in feminism on most things, that is why different people with different beliefs have different subsets.

When we have actual male and female paedophiles and sex attackers who exist and are free to use any facilities of their natal sex as a matter of course, it seems entirely disingenuous to suggest stopping trans rights suddenly makes anyone safer.

Sorry to be blunt, but the difference is that a woman would have a hard time raping another woman. As has been repeated many times, most women are to a lesser or greater extent wary of men, and many women are specifically worried about men because they have penises.

teacup you are still stuck on the idea that self-id has any relevance to sex-segregated spaces.

I know of a trans woman who had her gender marker changed on her nhs records without a grc, and has just been processed into a female ward for an operation, no one so far has raised any concerns.

This has nothing to do with self-id GRA.

Great post at 16:35, Jaycee. One comment:

sometimes it IS a medical or psychiatric concern that is manifesting as being transgender

Actually, I think what drives my resentment, such as it is, of some (but not all) of the trans people I know IRL is the opposite of this. It's the strong feeling that sometimes it isn't a medical or psychiatric concern: it's basically a desire to feel and be treated as special, or to put it even more harshly, just selfishness. I can think of at least two people I know well that this applies to, sadly. Maybe we could say there's a psychiatric cause for that need to feel special - but that's a bit deep for me. These people just look like spoiled adolescents or stuck-at-adolescent people. I emphasise, not ask trans people are like that! But some are.

People are capable of discernment and critical thinking, most of us here have put ourselves through some exceptionally tough thinking.

It's polemical to characterise everything as anti trans rhetoric. We are women talking about women's rights.

I do see aggressive tweets on twitter. I have ceased to use the site as it is tricky, even though I had some great conversations with transpeople. I do understand there are women there who have been driven to anger there on Twitter by the relentless shouting of transphobe.

I've had it shouted at me. Its a bizarre process to go through especially as I work professionally in equality. The reason some women are angry is the failure to be listened to. There are some stuck in that loop.

We are hopefully moving into a place where we can be listened to.

Self ID is the legislative signpost to which people are drawn, once there we find a more complicated picture.

Your reaction actually lags the thinking here, you are here to tell us we've got self id all wrong. We are able to see what has happened and is happening. We are all interested in the solution.

Ask/all

crispy
And that’s supposed to make me feel better? That we essentially have self id already, without any debate or safeguarding checks?

And you wonder why women might be uncomfortable?

crispbuttyfan From that post its you that is 'stuck'. You haven't spoken to the women on the ward.

Self ID would legally prevent them complaining.

okmaybeimaterf, that is totally unfair to paint some trans women you know as acting adolescent, selfish or attention seeking to imply a position, when equally cis people are just as likely to exhibit all these behaviours too.

no one so far has raised any concerns.

I don't know anything about the ward your friend is on or the nature of your friends illness or the nature of their transition.

However, in general terms if somebody has asked for a single sex ward, I don't think it's ethical to put somebody of the opposite sex on that ward and either hope that nobody notices or that they feel too uncomfortable/ill to complain.

teacup you should take assurances from the fact that has been the position since 2010 and hardly anyone realises it because it causes no problems.

Upstartcow, youhavent spoken to the women on the ward either.
Rightly or wrongly If they complained now, the trans person would not be moved due to the equality act, self-id would not make an iota of difference to the situation. Laws are laws.

@crisp butty fan, I found this helpful - this is the abstract from a paper written by Stephen Whittle

www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

Gender transformations are normatively understood as somatic, based on surgical reassignment, where the sexed body is aligned with the gender identity of the individual through genital surgery � hence the common lexicon �sex change surgery�. We suggest that the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 challenges what constitutes a �sex change� through the Act�s definitions and also the conditions within which legal �recognition� is permitted. The sex/gender distinction, (where sex normatively refers to the sexed body, and gender, to social identity) is demobilised both literally and legally. This paper discusses the history of medico-socio-legal definitions of sex have been developed through decision making processes when courts have been faced with people with gender variance and , in particular, the implications of the Gender Recognition Act for our contemporary legal understanding of sex. We ask, and attempt to answer, has �sex� changed?

Well the answer is this. Sex will be changed to have the meanings ascribed to gender. So female will in practice mean male and female and male will mean male and female. Demobilising sex, demobilises sex protections. Replacing them with the gender definition.

Stephen said this in section 8.8.
Changing sex for the purposes of legal recognition then, is not about changing biology or changing bodies to �match� genders, but about changing how sex is legally defined. In that sense �having a sex change� has a different meaning with new political consequences and challenges.

We can talk about the political consequences and challenges without being anti trans?

Are we permitted to do that?

teacup you should take assurances from the fact that has been the position since 2010 and hardly anyone realises it because it causes no problems.

The Stonewall training on this advises anyone one raising problems to be educated our of their transphobia. They don't advise people to email crisp butty fan. In fact there is absolutely nowhere to take a problem.

How could anyone possibly know if there was any problems? There’s no way to measure the women who felt uncomfortable so just left and didnt feel they could report it.
Same sex wards in hospitals are important, they tried to get rid of them and it was very unpopular and people missed important treatment.
How can we measure this?

crisp I'm not just saying they have these traits. I'm saying that's why they identify as trans.

That Julia Long video is quite powerful. She names male people as men in order to name male violence. She explains it better than I could. Again, people can watch it and make their own minds up.

If you listen carefully you can hear TRAs shouting 'burn it down' in the background (outside a building full of women). Earlier in the day, three of their group physically attacked a 60 year old woman at Speakers Corner. One of them is in court in a few days time.

I don't think it's transphobic to raise questions about possible harm to women. I'm concerned that trans women competing in women's sport could be harmful to women. I'm concerned that awards and bursaries intended to recognise or increase women's participation in a variety of (often male-dominated) fields could be harmful to women. And I'm concerned that silencing of discussions about women's biological experiences could be harmful to women. So I really don't think it's reasonable to dismiss women's concerns about the social and legal changes we're going through. This isn't a hysterical response to anti-trans propaganda. It's a careful consideration of the possible effects of social change.

So I really don't think it's reasonable to dismiss women's concerns about the social and legal changes we're going through.

It isn't. And it's an entirely counter productive tactic.

I meant, of course, awards etc offered to trans women self-identifying as women in male-dominated fields.

Within these groups, you will find intersectional 3rd wavers who entirely support trans rights, and self-id and many things trans exclusionary rad-fems find abhorrent.

Feminism is the political movement for the liberation of women, not a self ID. Driving women out of the public sphere is the anti-feminist goal of MRAs and transgender advocates.
Since you are now simply going round your tautology a third or fourth time, Crispy, I am not interested in continuing.

Okmaybe, not disagreeing with you. My post was that denying the need to be assessed because someone feels they are not 'ill' has to be judged alongside the possibility that - whilst sometimes that may indeed be correct - other times it is feasible that there could be a hidden condition the person themselves does not recognise, part of which might be to create a desire to change sex.

Having this condition is not necessarily even a preclude to transition being a way to deal with it. But you are not best judged to know the ins and outs of how best to handle such a condition. A psychologist or psychiatrist who has had cases of this type before is.

It is just another reason why assessment should not be an option but a prerequisite.

If this was just a choice that only effected you and was easily accepted by society as one that a person would be free to make then I imagine most would say - your choice, your consequence of that choice.

And perhaps in the near future society will come to that conclusion.

After proper, open debate with all sources who should have a say getting a say it might even be what is the outcome here.

But right now this feels like it is being taken on trust because it is what some people want and other areas who might have things to add are not yet being given a say. MN even had to create a petition - which I signed some weeks back - to ask for women to get given a say in the government debate.

That it was even necessary to ask rather shows the problem. This has a feel of a change in law with wide implications almost being smuggled through hoping nobody notices and asks too many questions.

Whether it goes ahead or not in due course, it is too important not to ask those questions.

Well I wonder if that will be reported back as a failure of the mums to understand anything.

Best go and check with the right wing infiltrators on what to do now?

Mouthtrousers, it an opinion piece written over a decade ago before we even had the equality act, and so the opinion is based on a time that precedes evidence and further undertanding.

Pencils
it is illuminating that you think Julia's propaganda is perfectly fine, and honest, if you can't see the incandescant transphobia and judging people on appearances, I dont see theres anything we can discuss.

Juzza,
your opinion of people on twitter does not undebunk decades old studies that relies on decades old criteria for diagnosing gender dysphoria that relies on a transient condition, that is not valid, or deemed to be valid by any medical association in the world.
Far from claiming all trans women are the same, I am saying trans people are naturally diverse and different, just like cis people, it is agp proponents that suggest there are only two types of trans people.

Bewilderness, "Driving women out of the public sphere is the anti-feminist goal of MRAs and transgender advocates." this is hyperbole and nonsensical.
Many cis women support trans rights, in fact the women and equalities commission that also proposed Self-id is made up of women. This simply is not the case that it is trans women against women. It is trans women, with the support of cis women, who find themselves coming up against a vocal minority that disagree.