Trans unpeak.

[Regularhuey]

After reaching peak trans I have followed a few well known Radical Feminist groups on SM to learn more.

Sadly I have come across actual genuine transphobia in GC groups which I thought was just propaganda put out by TRAs.

Because I only ever hung around in naice intellectual spaces such as here, I thought they would all be a bit like MN feminist chat.

One summary of a conversation went along the lines of

Group post
"There's a Transwoman fitting bras at a London branch of M&S" Shock face.

Replies include "oh no (angry face) I'm never taking my daughter there"

Me:
"Men can work as a bra fitter. We should be able to ask staff for a female fitter if we want one"

Cue loads of hypothetical scenarios that we don't know will ever happen and predictable posts about AGP and boycotting M&S.

Anyway this is just one example of many I've come across recently.

I just suppose, as GC feminists perhaps we should be doing more to call out transphobia when we do see it because it seems lots of people are using GC feminism to express their hostility to Transpeople.

Exactly, that is the main reason why so many transsexuals are coming out of seclusion and speaking up.

Often being considered by trans activists as traitors. Probably because they fear the impact of realisation that it is not the people for whom the current laws were created who are demanding changes. But instead the ones who want an easy ride into what we feel should be a very serious and hard fought journey if you wish to do something as serious as alter how society legally regards your gender.

This is not because we want to disenfranchise those who wish to simply express their own identity differently. If they want to create a self ID gender expression act that makes life easier but does not offer open access and inevitable legal loopholes that could be exploited by the likes of sex offence prisoners, fetishists or someone looking to manipulate short lists or women's equality then fine.

I will be right behind it.

But if you want to change legal gender in the way the GRA does, then sorry but I think the world - and most transsexuals - feel you have an obligation to demonstrate that this really would be in your best interests and the rest of society.

And require more than just your say so.

What’s needed is a way to protect the people like yourself jaycee and dofferentiate you from the AGP individuals who are a completely different kettle of fish. The problem also is that ‘how can we protect women and girls?’ Is not actually a starting point for most of the media and political discussions. It’s solely focused on how to meet transgender wants. That to me is not how you do it. You start from a position of ‘these rights are inviolate- now how can we ADD to them to protect group x?’ Not ‘how do we give group x rights regardless of damage elsewhere?’

I’d probably also reword the GRA because the language is in my mind incorrect - there needs to be a much clearer definition of the different between sex and gender in the law.

What’s changed as these new vocal transactivists have arisen is the type of person who classes themselves as trans. Previously it’s been people who have transitioned or been living quietly without demanding a reduction in women’s rights. I could live with that. Very much a live and let live stance I had before.
But now, in the face of an increasing number of men who want to use self ID to access women’s spaces I’ve changed my mind. And unfortunately, people like you, Jaycee will be damaged by this - because I can’t see a way of legally filtering out the genuine transsexuals from AGP individuals who are a sexual threat if self ID goes ahead. You will all be tarred with the same brush.

jaycee if I may ask you - how would you like to see the future pan out? What could protect the rights of people in your situation AND protect the safety and rights of women and girls without removing their existing protections under law?

LangCleg: Even post-SRS transsexuals rarely pass. Under self-ID, most of these people will not have had surgery and may not even bother with hormones.

OK, a bit of clarification that most are not aware of - there is a bit of a difference between 'transsexuals' and 'transgenders'. They are miles apart, even though under The Trans Umbrella.

Transsexuals - old school - gay guys (primarily with internalised homophobia) that go the full monty with SRS/GRS, and for the most part, do actually 'pass'. Mostly because they 'trans' so early.

Transgenders - the problem. Up until recently, late 'transitioners' who are heterosexual males that suddenly claim they are 'lesbians'. Generally the TGs will not have GRS/SRS, because they like their 'lady dicks' so very much. These are the inventors of the cotton ceiling. Now there a load of earlier bandwagoners who claim to be 'lesbians' (transbians).

While I do feel a modicum of sympathy for the transsexuals (even though annoying and preening in the ladies loos), their transgender bros are the actual problem (for women). They are the ones with the actual connections and pounds to push through legislation. They are the ones pushing for 'self identification' and the obvious problems it will cause females in female-only spaces. They are the ones that have the huge history preying on women and children. They are the ones that want you to think it is one happy sparkly rainbow under the 'trans umbrella' and that butter would not melt in their mouths. Fox, meet henhouse. Because that is what it is.

Jayceedove: If they want to create a self ID gender expression act that makes life easier but does not offer open access and inevitable legal loopholes that could be exploited by the likes of sex offence prisoners, fetishists or someone looking to manipulate short lists or women's equality then fine.

It's a big 'if', isn't it? Because that is NOT what is on the table. What is on the actual table is a free-for-all 'self identity'.

It's possible that fitting bras wasn't their dream career.
Perhaps they just needed a job.
If M&S refused to hire them because they were trans, they would be breaking the law.
I don't want men fitting me for bras, but neither would I assume a male bra fitter is a pervert.

bowl, it is quite simple really, as I have been arguing on here for weeks and elsewhere.

The GRA should remain completely under gatekeeping with its current necessity for both physical doctors and psychiatric assessment first and transition only if no other ways are found but severe dysphoria exists. Then with monitoring and a two year period to assure transition is permanent (as after then it would be hard to reverse even without surgery) and that the person has adjusted successfully, the dysphoria is resolved and they have successfully integrated into society as a contributor and not a taker.

This is the basis of transsexual protocol and it offers a degree of protection to women as it means only those with actual dysphoria reach legal transition and those with other psychiatric problems or who cannot or do not want to permanently transition do not.

It will mean modest numbers every year minimising risk. Which was the bass on which the GRA was created in 2004.

There should also be a government assessment of the legal position between the GRA and the Equality Act. The latter seems in some ways to confuse the position of the GRA and is the reason why many places seem to be pre-empting self ID by assuming they need to allow wider access via the EA.

The GRA has exclusions in it even for holders of a GRC, where it is allowed for, say, refuges, or health workers, to be based on biology not legal recognition. These should remain and should be clarified.

It should also be made clear what the GRA conveys post transition that the EA does not. It is a little muddled and open to interpretation because of the fuzzy wording of the EA. At the moment many places are defaulting to making the EA almost the equivalent of the GRA so bringing self declaration forward.

I believe this needs resolving and guidance issued so that everywhere from guides to swimming pools and changing rooms to refuges know the situation. As in some are not open to anyone even with a GRC but can be with local agreement. Others are legally protected with a GRC but subject to local decisions without one.

Just clarification for all instead of defaulting to just a free for all.

The GRA should be an accessible data base to anyone with a legitimate reason to ask to see it. Just as natal birth certificates currently are for those with a GRC who have a new birth certificate. You have to prove legitimate cause for access but with such cause (eg fraud investigation) it is. I do not see why the GRC list should not be on a similar basis in the way that it is accessible to a restricted department who have specific need at the DWP but not to all workers there.

As for the call for self ID, those wanting to express their self in a new identity but do not want to do so via any safeguards in the GRA, should call for a new Gender Expression Act where self declaration creates a kind of interim certificate that does not legally change gender, or allow a new birth certificate and does not offer guaranteed access to spaces but allows it on local agreement and also facilitates changing documents such as passport.

This seems to me a sensible balance between giving those who want freedom to express themselves without much commitment in return and those who are committed to full time, medically supervised transition and the needs of society, notably here women, who get to continue not to have to automatically include hundreds of thousands of newly self declared women as legally being women.

I would also suggest that both acts have a caveat applied that says nobody who disputes the legal gender of the individual concerned and chooses to express that belief be regarded as having committed an offence unless it is clearly disproportionate or malicious and intended to cause harm.

jaycee if I may ask you - how would you like to see the future pan out? What could protect the rights of people in your situation AND protect the safety and rights of women and girls without removing their existing protections under law?

Would be interested on your views on this too Jaycee

My own are that maintaining the basic current GRC criteria expectation as is would be a good start, although even with my limited knowledge I know it's far from perfect. For example I remember a MNetter sharing that they were expected and required to demonstrate extreme stereotypical femininity at appointments which would certainly not be expected of women in general. Costs also could be means tested.

Crosspost Jaycee thank you, interesting reading and I need to re read carefully but that all seems very sensible. A third way is something desperately needed.

That seems very sensible to me jaycee.

If right-to-challenge is allowed (so that no woman would be committing an offence by challenging a male in a female space) and the sex based exemptions of the EA are upheld, I think I’m OK with everything in your outline. Thank you.

We then I suppose have to ask ourselves if the GRC system works as is, why the sudden challenge from vocal TRAs? What’s changed? Who is funding this? Because it’s not people with GRCs who are functioning in society.

I agree with the means testing if cost is a factor.

As for the extreme stereotypical femininity - that was certainly not what I was ever asked to do. One psychiatrist was rather old fashioned and did look for that at first, as I recall, but I was never put under any pressure to do that.

Not having been a cross dresser prior to transition, which quite a few transsexuals were not (as we were seeking body transformation not playing dress up 24/7) we were not really ever so likely to present this way anyhow.

I think they were a little concerned over the issue of passing - as back then nobody knew much about these things and it was not in the papers every day and there was no social media to spread panic - so the whole aim of transition was to blend in, not stand out.

The concept was to establish you as your new self and to get on with your life. Which means acting and dressing sensibly and not to draw attention to yourself. Whatever the case it was never a pressure I have ever felt under.

I think there are many differences between transsexuals and transgender in a wider sense. This may be one of them.

bowl, the GRA works for the ones it was designed for. Transsexuals.

New transsexuals get GRCs at the rate they always have. So it is still working for them.

The ones who are pushing for self ID do not think that they have any medical condition, or psychiatric problem, regard it as an affront and not a sensible first place to look, to even be assessed that way.

They regard this as a free choice and lifestyle expression and cover a huge range of people.

In the past the NHS assessed around 1000 people a year who wanted to 'change sex' and progressed about 100 of them. The others they did not because they felt they did not have dysphoria and unlike a transsexual, where transition is not a choice but a survival necessity, wanted to transition because they preferred it as an option. Others had psychiatric conditions that had the desire to transition as a side effect. Others still were not sure and flip flopped from one day to the next from wanting to transition to wanting to try to live on as their natal sex.

So the pressure for self ID comes from the 90% who have always been declined transition as none suitable candidates by doctors.

This is not to say that some of them do not actually have dysphoria. They may well do, but possibly mild enough to defer transition as it will be possible to do that, unlike with transsexuals where it is not something you can just out off and consider years later.

Nor that those who have a preference to be another gender because it helps them express themselves better as a person should not get recognition and have less hurdles placed in their way.

It is just to say that there is a fundamental difference between those who are happy to follow the needs of the GRA because transition is a survival necessity and not a lifestyle choice. And those who wish to transition as fully as possible physically and those who only want to do so socially and not necessarily full time.

In modern society there is room for all and nobody should be disenfranchised. But just as women argue that there is a difference because of biology between women and transsexual women that has to be relevant in some circumstances - with which I agree - then transsexuals argue there is a difference between them and the wider transgender population which also has to be relevant in some circumstances.

It then becomes a free choice. Women are secure in knowing access to their spaces is restricted or guarded. Transsexuals know their limits but get legal recognition in exchange for the commitment they put in to attain them. And transgender people who just want to get some respect via self ID can do so.

And they have the option, as they do now, of fulfilling the checks and balances of the GRA and going for full recognition if they want.

Think of it this way.

If someone wants to drive we grant a licence that allows them to learn and take part in day to day driving with limitations.

They can apply to get a full licence to give them broader access to the roads but we have to gatekeep that because they could put others at risk of harm if allowed to transition from a provisional to a full licence.

So we create a test and basic things that the driver has to demonstrate before we accept that it is safe to accept them in the spaces of our roads.

As for the call for self ID, those wanting to express their self in a new identity but do not want to do so via any safeguards in the GRA, should call for a new Gender Expression Act where self declaration creates a kind of interim certificate that does not legally change gender, or allow a new birth certificate and does not offer guaranteed access to spaces but allows it on local agreement and also facilitates changing documents such as passport.

Jaycee you've posted about this idea a few times. I'm really unclear what such an Act would achieve. People already have these rights

My problem with a gender expression act that it would need to be codifying what each gender is.

I’m for almost the opposite - just less of the pink=girls stuff and an expansion of the narrow and narrowing gender stereotypes we have now. I’ve really noticed even since I was a teen the change in how narrow the stereotypes are becoming. I don’t think that’s good for society.
I’m all for anyone wearing anything and for the breaking down of gender stereotypes. I don’t like the idea of codifying it because I think that actually creates a climate where the opposite of what you intend happens.

Once we free ourselves from all the daft stuff, whether we are girls or boys becomes far less restrictive and only the truly important sex related stuff that reflects on safety is left.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if no one even felt like they were ‘being a girl wrong’ ? But they were still protected by single sex spaces etc. So freeing.

pencils, my concern is really to provide something codified.

I do think self ID will otherwise be introduced, either by stealth as it almost is now, or via some government who sees it as a way to appease the younger voters, as I suspect most pressing for this are of the younger generations, and to demedicalise being trans and so save money.

I feel that this would be a real problem from so many perspectives.

For women, primarily, of course.

For transsexuals, who will find themselves part of a large set of people many of whom they have no affinity with.

And for trans people themselves if it means that more and more do what that investigation in the Mail on Sunday today is about.

Children and young adults bypassing the NHS entirely out of impatience and using dodgy drug companies on line to buy things they could not get on the NHS at their age or without massive safeguards and monitoring.

If we do net separate out the people for whom transition IS very much a medical matter from those for whom it is a lifestyle choice then - the lifestyle choosers will be happy and the ones who badly needed that medical support will end up killing themselves or putting their entire futures at risk.

"safeguards in the GRA"

I agree that safeguards and gatekeeping is very important - no one should make life changing, often irreversible decisions about their life without being completely sure.

But it is important to remember, for the purposes of this discussion, that the safeguards/gatekeeping are for the benefit of the transsexual, not women and girls. No one, no therapist, no gender specialist would be able to guarantee someone is no or reduced danger to women and girls.

Havoc, the psychiatric assessment does minimise the risk of anyone with a psychiatric problem who would be such a risk from being allowed to transition.

Unless testing is much less good than it was in the 1970s it involves months of analysis and tests looking for other causes that they might treat by psychoanalysis.

Back then it was not a case of - okay, tell me why you want to 'change sex' - followed by the doctor signing a permission slip.

That's why so many were turned away.

And if it is much less rigorous we need to know why.

@Jayceedove how can natal women stand with transsexual women in this matter?

I almost feel it is also a generational 'war' that 'young people' think men are 'safe' now. I think this has shown the way some men will control the narrative and frighten and intimidate women.

Every time men do the violent, aggressive thing they add furk to the fire. They make us more determined to stick up for ourselves, for women and especially girls.

When will men learn they need to start reforming from within. They don't need to get in touch with their feminine side, they need to learn to be male in a non-toxic way!

What's odd is, some young women will vehemently defend the idea that men are safe, but remember the large man at Speakers Corner who turned on one of his own female allies and how quickly she backed away?

Young women know men aren't safe, they've just been convinced that it's bigoted/unkind/unfeminist of them to feel that way.

I don't think we necessarily have to stand together.

We both need to keep making our individual cases to the people that matter.

I think it will start to become obvious that two sets of people who are in many ways on opposite sides of this argument are in reality saying very much the same thing.

That is more powerful a message done independently than if done together.

"Havoc, the psychiatric assessment does minimise the risk of anyone with a psychiatric problem who would be such a risk from being allowed to transition. "

I'm not being confrontational, if that anecdotal fine. But have you anything that proves this, I have been trying to find that information for month, but can't find any.

pencils, my concern is really to provide something codified.

Rights for trans people with no GRC are already codified in the EA. It's already possible to change your passport with just a doctor's letter.

Access to medical care is a separate issue. This is partly a matter of funding, as it is in every other area of medicine with unacceptable waiting times. It's also partly to do with the exponential rise in the number of people wanting treatment. Even with loads of extra funding, services would still probably struggle to keep up.

A new Act wouldn't change this. Nobody is blocked from medical treatment because the law forbids them.

Perhaps they just needed a job.

And there is literally no other job that they could do? Really?

Rights for trans people with no GRC are already codified in the EA. It's already possible to change your passport with just a doctor's letter.

Actually, the Equality Act only protects people who break "gender norms" as part of a process of gender reassignment. It specifically doesn't cover transvestites etc. who just do it because they like dressing in clothes which are generally viewed as women's clothes.

I would like to see something explicit so that men can't be punished by their employers for wearing skirts, make up, heels, nail varnish etc if the female employees are allowed to wear those things, and equally would like to see an end to any dress code that says women must wear skirts/dresses and high heels, make up etc. You could possibly try and go something already with sex discrimination, but something more explicit would definitely be helpful. I'm the drafters could find a way of drafting that wouldn't involve saying X, Y and Z are girl things and A, B and C are boy things.

Jayceedove If my post above is mischaracterising what you'd like to see then I do apologise by the way. It's what I'd like to see. And then if we still need GRCs for dysphoric people then do be it but the majority can just be happy dressing how they want/living how they want etc.