Transexual people are rejecting 'transgender'

[Pratchet]

There is a new twitter hashtag #tsraincrew for transexual people who feel that the push for self ID is very damaging. They are speaking up against self ID transactivists. There seems to be a decent take up.

Viago - yes, black bloc refers to the protesters at marches and demos who wear black and are masked. Usually from anarchist groups. They're often unfairly characterised as a whole as vandals when often the masks are to avoid being identified by the police (see all the undercover cops scandals) but sometimes a few get nasty. Regardless of actual behaviour, my dad is right. The public overall associates them with violence and vandalism and hates them. Bad move for TRAs, IMHO.

Sorry - I've derailed somewhat.

I should say that I think Seven Hex on Twitter is absolutely brilliant. And I'm really encouraged at the signs TS people are beginning to tentatively organise together. It's as scary for them as it is for the feminists who are putting their heads above the parapet.

Thanks Lang.

Seven hex makes a lot of sense. And it is brave of her and other transexuals to put their head above the parapet. I wish them well and hope that they are able to break free of the trans umbrella and avoid any backlash.

I'm glad to see a link that sevenhex Twitter thread. I thought it was excellent and was going to link to it.

I hope they can avoid any backlash too. Sadly I expect that, as usual, the only ones to avoid any backlash will be the straight males.

First time I'd heard Black Bloc too - interesting to know!

It is interesting to see how often this has started happening.

If you check back through threads in here over the past month or two you will find several transsexual people reclaiming that word independently of one another.

Every week or so a new one does so.

This is the result of the extremists out there desperate to make everyone share one umbrella so that self ID seems reasonable.

But the ones who want self ID mostly do so because they do not wish to face the current system of gatekeeping and be medically and psychiatrically assessed first.

This is because it is not a medical matter they say. Theresa May has even stated that.

Yet IF you believe that your inner self is in total conflict with the biology of your body then what else can it be? It is either your mind or your body that is out of synch and the obvious first thing to do is find out which one and why by consulting experts and following their advice on the best resolution.

That is what transsexuals have always done. Not seeing it as an imposition. But because we understand reality and what is or is not possible and we therefore go and try to comprehend and resolve the appearance of a medical impossibility in the best way possible.

If it is neither of these things (mind or body) that is out of synch then it is a lifestyle choice - an expression of your self through clothing, interests, sexual preference etc.

It is perfectly fine for anyone to want that, but it is not what it is to a transsexual.

This is not to say that one thing is really being trans and the other is not. But it is to say that one is clearly a medical issue that needs proper assessment and if the other does not then it might be of a different cause and consequence.

The trans activists have wanted transsexualism removed as a term because it is the main reason that at present all who want to legally change gender have to be medically assessed.

You remove that definition, you remove the barrier and anyone can choose to be whichever gender they prefer.

The argument over whether that should or should not be true and the consequent risks to women in particular if such a fundamental change means that those who are really transvestites (loving to dress up) rather than transsexuals or those who have fetish fantasies now gain legal status as women is important.

But for me so too is the consequence of removing the medical assessment because it means alongside thousands of people who get easy passage into women's spaces, it is also may mean that those who are transsexual are not getting access to proper medical assessment and might even be led into dangerous self diagnosis and medication.

So I believe that the term transsexual is important and a first step in any case of applying to change legal gender is for it to be established for your own sake whether you have it or not.

Maybe transexuals should identify out of transgender, and those of us who don't identify with our gender stereotype should identify in?

This would expose what a wide umbrella it truly is, and has lost focus on those who maybe do need special provisions and understanding .

If I look at the definitions I am definitely not cis. Don't think I'm a transman, I think agender or non binary. I am transgender!

There is certainly a debate to be had here, sorenipples. On the point that you make.

But debate is only happening reasonably in a few places as the push for self ID sees the medical needs of being transsexual as a bridge too far.

They all could get a Gender Recognition Certificate NOW if they followed the existing rules like those of us who do have one already did.

Yes, they might want the rules made simpler. By all means fight for that.

But you have to ask why only 5000 or so have got a GRC in 14 years by following the rules and 595,000 have not because they are 'too onerous'.

If you want something like a complete change of legal status that you are asking from society, and specifically in this case from women understandably concerned over this free for all, then how important and necessary can it be if you do not even bother trying to get one unless or until the law is changed so you can basically just fill out a form and sign for one.

I am all for making it easier, cheaper and improving access. But I do think there is a disconnect here between wanting something so badly and yet apparently having no willingness to do more than the bare minimum or you will not bother.

I found Sevenhex’s thread very moving. I felt a connection with her as she described looking in the mirror and knowing she was never going to be the perfect woman she wanted to be and had to learn to accept that.

And it reminded me that many of us - feminists - do feel connected to and supportive of transsexuals. We do have feelings in common because of who we are.

And when I compare that with how I feel hearing transactivists speaking about their “right” to define womanhood in their own image, demanding that women deny material reality and accept there is such a thing as a female penis and a ladybrain, I see how far apart they are from us, and from our transsexual sisters.

My opinion is that only transexuals merit legal protected status. Yes, of course everyone else should be treated with respect and express themselves however they wish, but at the moment, as far as I can see, many of those under the 'trans umbrella' are appropriating the experiences of transsexual people and using them to gain legal protections they have no justifiable claim to.

The judge in yesterday's court case insisting that male aggressor had to be addressed with their preferred pronouns is a case in point. They shouldn't have had any such right. It's heinous.

Jaycee
They all could get a Gender Recognition Certificate NOW if they followed the existing rules like those of us who do have one already did.

Could they? Don't they have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria under the current rules?

A man who declares himself a woman, but has no dysphoria and intends to keep his penis should not be able to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, so, quite rightly, under the current rules cannot get a GRC.

The reason they want self-ID is surely because they would never be able to get a diagnosis to get them a GRC under the current rules.

Old crone - they could APPLY through the system, but they would have to get through the gatekeeping.

That means being assesses by doctors and psychiatrists, being correctly diagnosed, then need to spend two years demonstrating that transition has been successful and has benefitted them and they do not change their mind. And that they are mentally stable and contributing to society not taking from it - for instance that they have a job in their new identity.

This is there both to protect society against anyone transitioning inappropriately and protecting the transitioner from themselves by not spotting undiagnosed medical or psychiatric conditions or by having unrealistic expectations about transition that do not get fulfilled leave them no better off than before.

These precautions will be removed if current plans go ahead. A statutory declaration is all that will be required.

My point is those who believe that they could be legally recognised under the current rules could apply rather than await a new law to be created. Even if it takes two years that will still be less time than the new law.

Which begs the question - why are none of them doing this?

There are really only two answers I can see.

That they cannot be bothered to try and will only get around to it if the law is made easier.

Or they do not think they could get through the gatekeeping. So they will wait until it is removed.

In both these cases you have to ask should we be changing the law to franchise either category?

Because anyone genuine, sincere, confident in their need to transition and willing to submit to the existing process would at least have a chance of success. And would at least demonstrate that it matters to them enough to try.

I am very suspicious of all who will only take if it is given and not if they actually have to offer anything back in return.