Yogyakarta principles

[Trousersdontmakemeaman]

yogyakartaprinciples.org/

At the Bristol meeting Shelia Jeffreys refers to these principles which are behind the worldwide drive to include cross dressing males in the legal definition of female. I haven't read them all yet, it is long, but I thought it may be of interest.

KittTheCar wrote:

"This is a difficiult one to navigate:
Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to adoption or assisted procreation (including donor insemination), without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;"

So - state must pay to sterlise people if they wish it, but also pay for them to procreate.

I also wonder, what does this mean for surrogacy? Is there an argument that it is a human right for men who want to reproduce and don't have a woman handy, that they will be provided with one? They don't mention surrogacy specifically, it's a complex area (and one ripe for exploitation and of course poor women around the world are already being exploited)."

That is scary. No one has a "right" to children. "assisted procreation" could include surrogacy, though it says without discrimination on the bases of gender identity or sexual orientation. I suppose if surrogacy was illegal for everyone it would also apply to transgender people (i.e. they shouldn't get special dispensation to use a surrogate if it was being denied to others).

MargeH
Who gave this particular group of experts the authority to make a worldwide declaration?
They were not given any authority to do this. A lot of the principles are to do with not being discriminatory towards gay and trans people, and not criminalising them. Despite being an unelected bunch of human rights lawyers and academics, they have then made recommendations about 'best practice' regarding legislation around trans people, which has, it seems, been accepted, without any analysis, by various governments - including the Scottish government.

JustAnotherSpartacus
Everyone does seem to be just applying the Yogyakarta Principles as 'best practice', without any thought or analysis.

Principle 3 is about legal recognition. This is the one that was quoted in the Scottish GRA Consultation.
3.10. The view of the Scottish Government is that the 2004 Act requirements are unnecessarily intrusive and do not reflect the best practice now embodied in the Yogyakarta Principles and Resolution 2048.

Principle 3: THE RIGHT TO RECOGNITION BEFORE THE LAW
...Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom...States shall:
...
B. Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to fully respect and legally recognise each person’s self-defined gender identity;
C. Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure that procedures exist whereby all State-issued identity papers which indicate a person’s gender/sex — including birth certificates, passports, electoral records and other documents — reflect the person’s profound self-defined gender identity;
D. Ensure that such procedures are efficient, fair and non-discriminatory, and respect the dignity and privacy of the person concerned;

Whole text here yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf

It's fascinating isn't it.

"...Each person’s self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom...States shall:"

Sexual orientation - As animals we have a drive in general to have sex to procreate. Obviously it gets more complicated than that but essentially, fancying people and wanting to have sex with them is a thing that is fairly universal - for sure there are sexual people and the focus on sex from a male perspective throughout history is a bit of a bummer, but even without all the external stuff, teenagers will still have sex drives and most of them will fancy people and so on...

Gender identity... Now I question whether this is universal. It's hard for me as I have literally no idea what this means. So it's like - I'm an athiest, I went to a religious school, I was always ??? about it. I just don't have the capacity / whatever it is that makes people want / need / feel meanings and reasons beyond the here and now. I know that lots of poeple have this spiritual feeling - but I can't imagine what it's like. Another one - I can't see things in my "minds eye". Apparently most people can do this (I only found out recently). I had no idea that something was not "normal" as I've never lived another way. I can't imagine what it is like to have this. So, internal gender. I do not have this, I can't imagine what they mean. So, when they assert this is unusual, have they checked? Who have they asked? Have lots of studies been done to see if most people have this? I mean aside from associating with or preferring one gender role over another (social / societal). This is a thing inside. What is it? I can't imagine.

My guess is that most old school feminists will be similar as we are the ones who notice how ridiculous gender (sex role) is when we are young and therefore say this is stupid and work to get rid of stereotype etc. Many feminists are GNC, one way or another. This is one reason we notice how we are treated based on our sex. Because we are NOT comfortable with our gender role.

Anyway my point is that the idea of an internal strongly held gender ID being a global, always, basic thing that pretty much everbody has is unproven and as a person who does not have it, I struggle as what on earth do they even mean, I can't begin to imagine.

This is putting the cart before the horse and you know what if it turns out that most people do have a strongly felt internal sense of gender (unrelated to sterotype or sex role etc) then OK. It still doesn't get rid of the oppression of women and girls around the world who are oppressed based on their SEX, any internal sense of gender is wholly irrelevant to tackling that.

I have seen online the idea that it is not people of the female sex who experience oppression but "femme" or "feminine presenting people". This idea erases the entire factual experience of women and girls across the world in favour of including GNC men in the group. Women and girls across the world cannot escape what will happen to them due to their sex, by donning a pair of trousers, cutting their hair and saying they are called Dave. Well, I tell a lie, some can (see girls in Afghanistan whose parents do this so they get educated) but in general it is the fact of our sexed bodies and assumed reproductive capacity that causes all the trouble, not because we are "feminine". GNC women get loads of shit FGS let's just turn a blind eye shall we?

Sorry that was an essay!

afghanistan

Not read it for ages but I seem to remember they struggle when they have to switch from pretending to be boys, to girls in a society where women and girls are very repressed.

@SweetGrapes
They don't seem to say anything on including cross dressers as female unless I missed it.

The Rights to Equality and Non-discrimination

f) Take all appropriate action, including programmes of education and training, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes or behaviours which are related to the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of any sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression.

Gender expression is cross dressing masculine one day and feminine the next (or any number of hours that suits you). Effectively you have legal rights as female at those times.

So this means on a man's woman day he is entitled to go wherever he wants. This principle means we have to be trained to submit to this man's wishes.

Ah, I see. Thanks

C. Compile statistics and research on the extent, causes and effects of violence, discrimination and other harm, and on the effectiveness of measures to prevent, prosecute and provide reparation for such harm on grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics;

Surely accurate stats will be impossible to produce if transwomen are women & transmen are men?

L. Combat the practice of prenatal selection on the basis of sex characteristics, including by addressing the root causes of discrimination against persons on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, and by carrying out awareness-raising activities on the detrimental impact of prenatal selection on these grounds;

Apologies if this has appeared elsewhere, but I read this to mean the combatting of abortion because the embryo/fetus isn't the desired sex - yes, no quibble there - but the rest of the listing? How can you know what the gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression of said embryo/fetus will be? Does that make sense to anyone?

Trousersdontmakemeaman

f) Take all appropriate action, including programmes of education and training, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes or behaviours which are related to the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of any sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression.

So this means on a man's woman day he is entitled to go wherever he wants.

I read the bit you quoted as saying that people should not be discriminated against for their gender expression, not that if a man dresses as a woman he should be treated as a woman.

I think this bit is designed to enable men who identify as women, but dress in a typically male way, to be accepted as women:

UNDERSTANDING ‘gender expression’ as each person’s presentation of the person’s gender through physical appearance – including dress, hairstyles, accessories, cosmetics – and mannerisms, speech, behavioural patterns, names and personal references, and noting further that gender expression may or may not conform to a person’s gender identity;

So gender expression is a person's physical appearance, and this may or may not conform to their gender identity. Why don't we just do away with gender identity, and accept that someone's physical appearance may or may not be typical for their sex? But their sex can never be changed.

Oldcrone

This is the source of all the fuckwhittery. Thing is this. The cross dressers have been trying for decades to legitimise their behaviour and they are close, hell they are close.

Meet Pip

www.fnlondon.com/articles/mistranslated-i-split-my-time-as-pippa-and-philip-20171002

Not one single woman that works at Credit Suisse is permitted to say a word about this.

Phil describes anyone that disagrees with him like this:

they will sadly never amount to anything anyway

twitter.com/PippaBunce/status/949597497147691008

Phil won an award for being one oft he top 50 women On Finace.

Phil Bunce
Head of Global Markets Technology Core Engineering Integrations Components
Credit Suisse
Pips took the conscious decision to be ‘out’ at work as gender fluid to embrace and advocate the importance of authenticity as well as to shine a light on the power and diversity of women in the workplace. Multiple aspects of our identity, including gender identity/expression, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability and religion influence our experiences at work. Our sex or gender may be the same, but our identities, our successes and our struggles are different and it is for this reason why Pips is proud to be a female champion in business. She is a member of the European Women’s Network/IT Women’s Council and had many external publications relating to gender equality published. Additionally, she has been integral in providing reverse mentoring to management board members of the firm and is co-lead of the LGBT & Ally program at Credit Suisse where she places much importance on intersectionality and how the voices of all types of women and our allies need to be heard to drive forward gender equality – our differences make us stronger and diversity should be celebrated, not tolerated. Pips is also a regular panellist/speaker on gender equality, and often interviewed by external publications on the topic.

providing reverse mentoring to management board members

WTF does that mean?

Whilst the author holds some questionable opinions, this is an interesting read:

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/03/18897/

Pip explains it so clearly in that first link, Trousers

The best analogy is that it’s exactly the same as when you are choosing what clothes to wear. You have an internal preference and think, ‘Right, today I have a preference for wearing a dress or trousers or a peplum skirt or trainers or high heels’. It’s purely a preference.

Except that that's not an analogy, that's it. A peplum skirt doesn't make a male into a woman, and feeling like a woman doesn't make you have to wear a fucking peplum skirt. It's purely a preference.

KittTheCar
Anyway my point is that the idea of an internal strongly held gender ID being a global, always, basic thing that pretty much everbody has is unproven and as a person who does not have it, I struggle as what on earth do they even mean, I can't begin to imagine.

No one ever defines what they mean by gender. The Yogyakarta Principles only defines 'gender identity', but uses the undefined word 'gender' in the definition:

Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.

I also struggle to understand what it means to have a 'deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender'. How does this manifest itself?

They say that gender 'may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth', so they are not using 'gender' to mean 'sex'. 'Expressions of gender' include 'dress, speech and mannerisms'. So gender is just an aspect of personality. In which case, why does it have anything to do with anyone's sex?

I know, ildcrone, it's very confusing.

I think the activists would say well if you don't get it you don't get it but it is real.

I say fair enough I believe you, my issue is not how anyone dresses or anything (I mean to accuse GC feminists of trying to enforce gender norms and stereotypes?!!! WTF are they even on it's so insulting), but with all the things that we talk about endlessly. Sport, female reserved positions, how we are going to do stats about anything from crime to pay gap to women in STEM and everything. Prisons. The fact that women will no longer be able to have a woman look after them or be with them as a preference at any point in their life, from shared accomadation to hospital wards, and just everything.

And of course there will be no words (are already getting to be no words) to describe women and girls as a group (cunty ones) to talk about the things that affect us (no stats no proff no leverage for action) and a lot of the words around our biology which only recently are being spoken about more openly are being vigorously suppressed again.

I don't get how people can't see this.

OldCrone Yes, the more I read about gender identity, the more I think, isn't it just a (sexist) term for 'personality'?

And I think, this suppression of women who are saying hold on a minute this introdcues RISK as there is a significant minority of creepy men in the world - enough that pretty much all women habe had multiple encounters ranging from creepy to illegal -

And the reason they say no you're over reacting exaggerating is because they ?do not no this because the main activists have not expereinced it for an obvious reason.

With #metoo you see it as well - the testimony of women is discarded. Especially if it conflicts with something men want. I also think there is this thing that the older I get the more I realise that many men only really care about women they know. The rest are a sort of facless 2D mass of objects. I suppose this is why the "it's somebodies mother / sister" is often used - to try and get those sorts of men to care. And it's widespread - the men who shout at girls from cars - she is irrelevant. If you went to one after and said she went home crying and has been having nightmares ever since, he'd probably be surprised and a bit upset that had happened. But at the time, they don't care because they don't actually see her as a person, she's an object to enact their male bonding out on. I mean of course plenty of men do want to scare / upset, but I think most of them just don't think about it.

I've just found the transcript of the HoC debate about Maria Miller's bill to reform the GRA, where she mentions the Yogyakarta principles.
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-12-01c.1692.2

If we are looking for a reason why so many politicians are being swayed by the self-ID argument, it could be because they look for an authority on the subject, and they find Yogyakarta.

As Joanna Cherry (SNP) says in the debate:
Since 2007, the Scottish Government have been using the Yogyakarta principle, a fully inclusive definition of gender identity, in all their trans equality policy work. Does she agree that the use of that principle is desirable because it was devised by an international commission of jurists in recognition of the fact that gender identity is a human right?

The MPs seem to be taking this document as the most authoratative voice on the subject of transgender issues.

in recognition of the fact that gender identity is a human right?

This is a complete misrepresentation of what it actually says on the Principles website

In 2006, in response to well-documented patterns of abuse, a distinguished group of international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to outline a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. The result was the Yogyakarta Principles: a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.

The principles are a guide. Human rights are binding legal standards. The Yog principles affirm or state emphatically or publicly these principles or a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

So lets ignore biological sex for this fundamentalism or system of belief.

To misread this as gender identity being a human right is an inability to read on the part of Joanna Cherry.

Fucking terrible. Deliberate distortion or naive incomprehension.

Male means male and female, and female means male and female, that is a human right is it? Idiotic people.

But thats the weird thing - people are seeing and presenting the Yogykarta doo dah as part of "human rights" I'm not sure where that has come from?

Deliberate conflation.

all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.

Unless your birthright is female in which case we are giving that to men