Trans women are women answers to Terfmore's questions

[SupermatchGame]

Terfmore. I don't want to override the ASD discussion that's developed...
but SupermacthGame: you gave your explanation why "trans women are women". I was hoping for a coherent argument.
Could you respond to my request that you clarify your position; I found it difficult to understand tbh I found it incoherent.
You could start a new thread if you like.

Ok, as you suggest:

upthread you say -
"Trans women are women because 'woman' (or female) is not only a legal designation but having a gender identity of 'woman' is a legitimate female gender identity with some basis in biology and physiology. No-one said this is an exact science. It's pragmatic." -
Could you break this down -

1. what do you mean "woman" is a legal designation? what law are you referring to? do you mean "adult human female"?

I mean the category ‘female’ not only has a biological definition, but it is also a legal category that can be conferred to a person following GRC. I’m using ‘woman’ and ‘female’ interchangeably here. Eg as specified in the Royal College of Psychiatrist’s Guidance on gender dysphoria:
"Once a Gender Regulation [sic] Certificate has been issued, the applicant must, in accordance with the provisions of that certificate, be identified as a man or a woman and not a ‘trans man’ or ‘trans woman’. "

Quoting the Gender Recognition Act 2004:
"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)." (my bold)

2. what does "gender identity of woman is a legitimate female gender identity" mean.

It means that regardless of natal sex, if a person identifies as a woman, and they have been diagnosed or confirmed as having a ‘female gender identity’ then to all intents and purposes they are classed as having a female gender identity that legitimises medical and legal transition. I’m not sure taken in isolation this clause makes much sense because it is part of a larger sentence.

3. in what way is an identity legitimate (and presumably there will be non or illegitimate identity?)

Legitimate as in confirmed by psychiatrists and/ or psychologists. As in a (cross sex) gender identity that is not caused by some co-morbidity or underlying pathology. (Not caused by anything other than GID/ or 'transgenderism'). An identity that can then be further legitimised by changing legal status.

4. do you mean identity "has some basis in biology and physiology"? what do you mean by identity? (it means different things to different people).

I mean gender identity (the sex with which an individual identifies with or feels they are) has genetic, biological, environmental and societal causes. (Although you could say that about most aspects of identity - using the biopsychosocial model). What evidence there is points to this. I’ve highlighted a lot of it on the other thread. I was abbreviating my language and focusing on the non environmental causes - by biology I meant genes and biochemistry including hormonal influences. By physiology I meant the physiology of the brain as in brain structure. Is There Something Unique about the Transgender Brain? www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

5. What is "pragmatic"? I think you are referring to "trans women are women" not being exact but we just have to live with it. but I may have that wrong?

Not 100% perfect solution. No-one has yet found a way to ‘cure’ transsexualism. Treatment alleviates dysphoria. In many cases it supports the person to lead a happier life in which they can function better psychologically, emotionally, socially and occupationally. Sometimes also in terms of sexual relationships. It’s not a perfect transition - trans women do not acquire wombs, trans men do not have real testicles (not that they all want to?) Not all trans people can resemble their new sex as much as they would ideally like. But it can be good enough. It can support improved health outcomes for some individuals. It is also a solution that most of society (and it’s main organisations) seems to accept. Hence pragmatic, not perfect, solution.

Peak says it would conflict with our obligations under the ECHR.

I do wonder whether there would be other ways of protecting people's privacy involving having forms of ID which do not mention people's sex rather than having this legal fiction that people can change sex (I would need to reread the judgment). I do think the judgment is fundamentally wrong if the only way to protect people's privacy is by effectively endorsing a lie.

The Tories do keep mooting the idea of replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights and letting UK courts have the final say on its interpretation, so never say never I guess...

Ereshkigal
When we all know they'd like to get rid of all the exemptions and that they are very aware that they don't generally get used because of TRA pressure.

I agree with you about the TRA pressure with regard to people who don't have GRCs acting as though they do. But as I said, earlier, I can't see how the exeptions which also apply to those with GRCs can actually be enforced.

If someone has a female birth certificate, and swears that they were born female, how can anyone prove otherwise? Other than by taking DNA or a full medical examination?

AnchorMum I truly sympathise with the situation with your daughter. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for you as a parent. I also agree with you regarding the many different issues involved. What are your thoughts on how we can address these and raise awareness? I think what we're trying to discuss on this thread is how gender and sex can each be framed legally to avoid conflicts between the interests of women and those of transgender people as far as practicable.

@peakpants why are you happy with the current definition of woman meaning adult female or male with GRC? The definition already includes males. It will still include males- it’s just that a doctor won’t certify that the male really believes he is a woman.

1. Gender dysphoria isn't a belief, it's a neurological condition that can be detected via brain imaging (see www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8) that is arguably a disability, at least under the social model of disability. The GRA, when viewed through that lens, is a reasonable adjustment to meet the needs of people with a very specific disability. Women don't have to add "male with GRC" to our definition of "women" in order to recognise that male GD patients need access to some female spaces as part of the reasonable adjustments needed to live safely. Most of the people under the trans umbrella don't have GD and so don't need any reasonable adjustments made.

2. I don't get to self-id as having a disability in order to get reasonable adjustments made, I have to provide medical evidence. Why should a GD patient get a right that the rest of us don't get and that can be misused by dishonest people?

3. Trans people are highly prone to suicide attempts. Any population that is prone to suicide attempts should be seeing a mental health professional for risk assessment and to develop a care plan if that risk assessment shows a high risk. That waiting lists are so long is a symptom of mental health services being chronically and severely underfunded and hurts people outside the trans umbrella too. Allowing people to opt-out of assessment by demedicalising a serious condition is IMO outright negligent.

AnchorMum  I truly sympathise with the situation with your daughter. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for you as a parent. I also agree with you regarding the many different issues involved. What are your thoughts on how we can address these and raise awareness?

Thank you Flowers. I honestly have know idea how to address these issues and raise awareness - apart from tell the truth. The difficulty we have found is that our child, along with many other transitioners, will not engage in meaningful discussion. It gets closed or shouted down. Unless they receive affirming 'cheerleading' from the side, they are encouraged to block communication and will say things like, "I can't keep discussing this with you..I'm too tired to keep debating my identity with you."
No real, truthful or meaningful discussion has taken place of course - just a shutting down of discussion. This is what I was trying to call attention to, having seen a number of these smokescreens in various forms on different threads. I don't want us all to lose the reality of the bigger picture when we're discussing very specific issues.

I think what we're trying to discuss on this thread is how gender and sex can each be framed legally to avoid conflicts between the interests of women and those of transgender people as far as practicable.

I'm am so pleased that different parts of the debate are being discussed in various threads - this is so important and really helps us all to understand the issues involved.

Lang you old scallywag, you! You only quoted part of that subsection!

General
(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

(2)Subsection - I've omitted this because it's irrelevant to the point.

(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."

Soooooo your legally acquired gender becomes you gender to all intents and purposes.... EXCEPT in all of the exemptions listed in the act itself (e.g. sport), the Equality Act or others.

RatRolyPoly The comment you were responding to was this.

In that case, yep, the GRA needs updating. Any updating needs to reinforce that getting a GRC does not mean you change your biological sex, and that, in some limited circumstances you will be legally obliged to reveal your natal sex.

That IS what it says!

The GRA doesn't actually say anything about being forced to disclose your natal sex and as far as I am aware there is no independent way of checking. So hypothetically you could end up in a situation where a passing transwoman works/resides in a single sex women's refuge because they have failed to disclose their biological sex. I would hope that this situation will never arise but it's bad law if there's no mechanism for checking someone's biological sex in those rare instances where the exemptions are enforced.

Also, I think the main problem with the exemptions is that they are not enforced. Everyone is too scared of being sued so it's easier just to provide services in the basis of self ID even if that's not what women want. There's no clear mechanism for women to force service providers to envoke the exemptions for the sake of their safety/dignity/privacy etc.

Rat the problem with the current wording is that implies that the person with a GRC does change their biological sex. Indeed, Stephen Whittle wrote a paper indicating that he believes the act enshrines the notion that you can change your biological sex.

In contrast, I would like to see a clear statement to the contrary. Plus an indication that there are circumstances where it is an offence to lie about your biological sex.

Ereshkigal, re: repealing gender recognition laws vary across Europe (they don’t even exist in some countries) so I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be possible to go back and start again.

as far as I am aware there is no independent way of checking

Well look, I agree that a degree of good faith is assumed with regards to the exceptions. And actually the practical opportunities for anyone to lie are, in my opinion, fairly slim - but I do agree they're there.

That's not to say there's no independent way of checking...

The thing about the birth certificate changes though is that one is simply issued with a new certificate. The original record in the register is not changed! And that, I hear, is centrally linked. For privacy it is not available openly but on genuine requests - such as from a police officer investigating a crime - it will be accessible.

Would you be in favour of extending that access to places like refuges, so as to facilitate the exclusions already in place under the Equality Act? I know I would. And I know I'm not the only one on this side of the fence who would.

In contrast, I would like to see a clear statement to the contrary.

Flowers but why? Why bother? If it would have the same practical effect - and surely it would - then why would you want the wording to explicitly bias either belief?

You want the wording to exclude anyone from believing they have simply been recognised in their lifelong sex (or believing that they have truly changed it), but the TRAs aren't calling for the wording to be changed to specifically say that is what's happening. And if the ambiguous, neutral wording is doing the practical and legal work, why open that can of worms? Noone wins!

Ereshkigal, re: repealing gender recognition laws vary across Europe (they don’t even exist in some countries) so I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be possible to go back and start again.

Me neither. Perhaps Peak will elaborate?

then why would you want the wording to explicitly bias either belief?

Because anyone who believes you can actually change sex has a false belief. It's not "equally valid" so bias isn't an issue. This is why we should never have gone down this Orwellian road in the first place.

I agree we need more clarity, plain speaking and honesty.

You want the wording to exclude anyone from believing they have simply been recognised in their lifelong sex (or believing that they have truly changed it)

Yes. Yes I do. You can pearl clutch about it as much as you want.

Yes. Yes I do. You can pearl clutch about it as much as you want.

I'm not pearl-clutching about it, I can completely see why you'd want that. I just think you'd be opening a whole can of worms for the sake of achieving bugger all, in practical terms. So why bother?

I'm much more the sort to get the job done, if at all it can be. Why muddy the waters with unnecessary animosity when it doesn't change the outcome in the slightest?

And if the ambiguous, neutral wording is doing the practical and legal work, why open that can of worms?

Because I don't think it is neutral or ambiguous really. It can easily be read in the way Whittle described. Once that is established, then the sex exemptions in the EA are effectively nullified. Clearly separating natal sex and gender identity would allow the EA exemptions to be effective and help to prevent them being undermined in the guise of being progressively trans friendly without thinking about the sex-based implications.

"And if the ambiguous, neutral wording is doing the practical and legal work, why open that can of worms?"

It's not doing the practical work though. It is endorsing the idea that everybody has a gender, that gender is binary, that it is necessary to group people by gender , that there is such a thing as living as a particular gender, and that gender and sex are interchangeable. It doesn't begin to approach the problems faced by people who don't want to conform to any gender expectations. It just tries to sweep the entire issue under the carpet.

Meanwhile, the effects of being born male or female are unavoidable, nobody can explain what gender is and there is a concerted effort to silence women who want to talk about the biological roots of female oppression. It is a mess.

Why muddy the waters with unnecessary animosity when it doesn't change the outcome in the slightest?

It does. Why give legitimacy to a lie?

There really needs to be clear blue water between gender identity and sex.

There really needs to be clear blue water between gender identity and sex.

Completely agree.

It can easily be read in the way Whittle described.

Well yes, that's the ambiguity I'm talking about I suppose. Perhaps it is a courtesy. But the thing is you literally can't change your natal sex in terms of legality and the documents, because as per the above you may get a new birth certificate but you can't change the sex recorded at the registration of your birth - your natal sex , quite literally!

So whilst I see where you're coming from, I'm performed personally not civic convinced the EA will become nullified by that interpretation. Because it's not actually backed up by what happens in the legal and administrative sense. But I do get why you'd worry

Ignore the words "performed" and "civic" in that last post; no idea what my phone's playing at

But the thing is you literally can't change your natal sex in terms of legality and the documents

The problem is you can't change your actual sex either. The law might as well decide that the earth is flat.

It's really not animosity rat, it's clarity, and seeking to reinforce sex-based protections. ...

Because I don't think it is neutral or ambiguous really. It can easily be read in the way Whittle described. Once that is established, then the sex exemptions in the EA are effectively nullified. Clearly separating natal sex and gender identity would allow the EA exemptions to be effective and help to prevent them being undermined in the guise of being progressively trans friendly without thinking about the sex-based implications.

Thank you. Yes. It is a poorly drafted law and therefore has unintended consequences. One only has to read the Hansard debates during passage to see that it was understood to be a stop gap to close loopholes for a tiny number of people and not to entirely reorganise society.

EqA 2010 functions as acknowledgement that rights are contested and sometimes conflict and to provide a framework for adjudicating such conflicts. It cannot function properly unless its protected categories are clearly defined and so the GRA needs to be clearly defined also.

Rat can womble on about courtesy and ambiguity in some kumbaya fantasy all she likes. It won't change the fact that this kind of woolly nonsense just makes for bad law - for everyone.

Laws are being used not as intended to benefit the trans lobby at the moment - but how will the trans lobby feel when the pendulum swings, as it always does, and laws are similarly weaponised against its interests? We all need good law.

A poorly drafted law that doesn’t think about all the consequences? I would have thought that May be Ruddy impossible!