Letter in The Guardian from Transexuals saying self ID not the answer

[invisibleoldwoman]

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/04/standing-up-for-transsexual-rights?CMP=share_btn_fb

letter cleverly creates the position that transsexuals are no longer male bodied and are no longer to be considered as men.

It doesn't need a letter to the Guardian to do that. The GRA/ law does it already:

"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)."

Male to female transsexuals are no longer considered as men.

Wander - exactly.

But it is not. They are men. Stand up and say it.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it.

Yum. Cake. Now we're talking.

super - in this respect the law is an ass.

They are NOT women. They REMAIN men.

There have been laws denying full legal personhood to people of non-white races, in comparison to white people. Does the fact that this distinction has been made in law mean that there is a de facto distinction to be made between people of different races? Or does it point to the fact that some laws are unjust, nonsensical and not in any way rational?

If truth and reality consists in what is enshrined in law at any particular time and in any particular society you are going to have a pretty tough time trying to construct a coherent account of reality.

Wtf some people said thanks, some people said we don't owe thanks, big deal, what is this argument even about? Deliberate sowing of discord by TRA.

I don't think we can blame TRAs for this one, Pratchet. Seems to be sisters doing it for themselves.

well this is going swimmingly.

How the actual fuck are we suppose to make ANY headway with this, when some on here won't even allow small victories, just because they have not been done to their approval.

This argument is so new to so many people, most of the time you have to go through it step by step to reach conclusions.

On Mumsnet posters my see arguements and think WTAF you're all Mad, but then lurk for awhile and read stuff until for some the penny drops.

When putting things in a reluctant media, and to many people who haven't glue. You just can not go in all guns blazing.

dividing the way forward doesn't strengthen anyone's positions.

We need to hear from different groups acting in coalition and speaking together to show (from their particular group’s perspective) the multiple adverse effects of legalising gender self ID. I hope we see more letters like these from sports players and competitors, women’s literary prize winners, child protection specialists, women who want female changing rooms and toilets, the list goes on.

Another group of radical separatist feminists who are not only against self-id but they do not accept any trans women (or 'TIMs' as they would say) as women and do not accept them in women-only spaces at all, no matter what process they have been through.

I know you like to play fast and loose with the meanings of words, but I dont accept male can become female and I'm not a radical feminist or a separatist. I'm just a woman who understands biology.

I don't think anyone really believes transwomen become female do they?
It's more a matter of whether you'll say it or not.

You think it’s an ass Uterati because you don’t agree with it but that’s not the case for those whose rights are protected by it.

There have been laws denying full legal personhood to people of non-white races, in comparison to white people.

Yes and there have been laws in the past denying full legal sex to transitioned people, in comparison to non trans people. But fortunately we live in a different era now.

you are going to have a pretty tough time trying to construct a coherent account of reality.

Ontological issues aside I’m doing ok with reality. I think. (Therefore I am).

Lass

Do you agree that its magical thinking to imagine that anyone can change sex

If the GRC works to protect women and children from sexual predators then I will accept the legal fiction. I haven’t seen any longitudinal studies for the UK so it’s an act of faith. I’m open to being wrong on this because I have no evidence to prove that safeguarding is sufficiently rigorous. You strike me as open to persuasion given credible evidence too.

I’m not prepared to extend that faith to just any Tom, Dick or Harry in the way self id requires. Because I don’t trust strange men no matter what they identify as. Do you trust men you don’t know?

I don't think anyone really believes transwomen become female do they?

In many respects yes Barmer. In some, no.

Cisters: I hear you 🙂

Yes and there have been laws in the past denying full legal sex to transitioned people, in comparison to non trans people

Do you believe that humans can literally change sex?

I keep asking this. No one answers.

How can you be partly a female @SupermatchGame? We are a binary species

I don't believe transsexuals become female, but was OK with the old status quo. I was thinking about this when I was walking my dogs. There's a lovely meadow near where I live that I like to walk in. It's privately owned, but we've walked there for years and nobody complained. I guess (but am not sure) the owners knew some people walk there and didn't seem to care as there was free access without any barriers. Recently teens with bikes have decided it would be a good spot for dirt biking. This has clearly pissed the owners off and they have put up metal gates across the entrances with padlocks, which they have every right to. Bit of a shaky analogy I guess, but it strikes me as similar to the situation we find ourselves in (women = landowners, transsexuals = me and my dogs actually trespassing but not pissing anyone off (much), dirt bikers = TRA genderists). I find some of the hard line posters on here harsh, but appreciate that theirs is the logical extension of my position. I would hope there is a way to get back to how things were. Gender dysphoria clearly is a genuine condition and I would like to be accommodating to people with that condition, as far as that doesn't impinge on sex-based protections. I worry a lot about the changes to language and feel we need to be firm, without being wilfully unpleasant.

But another message that the letter conveys is that transsexualism is a real and valid thing

It is, to the people concerned.

I don't understand or have a religious belief but accept that others do, to the point that for some of my friends it defines their every waking moment.

I accept, I think, that this is the case for many transsexual people. They cannot live as their birth sex in the same way that my evangelical friends could not live an atheist life.

I draw the line at having to pretend that it means the same to me and that I share their religion. I think 'gender atheism' should be an accepted viewpoint.

Sex dysphoria is real.

It doesn't mean you are the opposite sex, or can change sex. It means you have sex dysphoria.

GRA certification is a legal fiction.
It means people can legally change their sex on some of their official paperwork. Not all of it, I think, not their birth certificate.

They haven’t literally changed sex because that would require magic.
To my mind this is part of a spectrum of being gender non conforming which most people will sit on, but I am happy to use (some of the) labels or descriptors or pronouns for how people wish to present, on a basis of mutual respect.

Yes we are a binary species, in terms of chromosomes Orchid

But as Stephen Whittle puts it a lot more eloquently than me in his article (not sure where I stand with the penis/ vagina bit but it makes the point about binaryism):

"The Gender Recognition Act enables legal ‘sex changes’ - what legally constitutes male and female has changed. We share Sandland’s (2005) view that as we can now have men with vaginas and women with penises, the act does undermine the binary of two morphologically distinct sexes."

Whittle is dangerous

I have very good reasons for not offering thanks but instead saying well done, I'm pleased to see this letter, and admiring the bravery of the signatories.

The TRAs have, for a long while now, been framing the gender critical trans voices speaking in support of WPUK as 'oh look - the TERFs have wheeled out a tame tru again'. That weakens the legitimacy of the trans voices and makes it look like we are simply using them to lend legitimacy to our campaign.

I spent a couple of days nosing round the #TSRaincrew tag when it was first launched. It was eye opening. There are quite a lot of TS people who want out of the umbrella, who oppose self-ID but who disagree with GC feminists on pretty much everything else. Uterati has described this well.

It's not simply a case of not wanting to align myself with their views, it's also not wanting to appear to co-opt this campaign as part of feminism because that risks the campaign losing the backing of lots of TS people who will not want to be associated with us.

When nosing round the hashtag I saw feminists trying to dictate how TS people described themselves in their own campaign. It didn't go down well.

We are two different groups with radically different world views, who coincidentally have found a few common aims. We could spend the rest of eternity debating whether they are allowed to call themselves women or we are allowed to say TIM. Or we could allow a bit of healthy distance so there can be a strong, uncompromised feminist campaign and a strong, uncompromised TS campaign. We won't agree on much but where we do, we can lend support to each other while acknowledging our differences. A bit like Hands Across the Aisle.

To express gratitude risks giving the appearance that this letter was written in support of feminists. I think it's important that the letter is not seen in that light but instead is seen as TS campaigning on their own behalf.

None of this means I think it's a bad thing that TS people speak at WPUK meetings, or that there are not individual TS who have much more in common with GC feminism. These really are a tiny group though and for a TS campaign to be successful they will need the support of lots of anti-self-ID TS who want nothing to do with us and with whom we have almost no common aims.

So once again, well done, I think you are extremely brave and I wish you success. But not thank you.

Eloquent my arse

We share Sandland’s (2005) view that as we can now have men with vaginas and women with penises, the act does undermine the binary of two morphologically distinct sexes."

But this is a totally contradictory statement. He states he believes in two distinct sexes then states that members of one can have a physical feature ONLY associated with another. It would be like me saying ‘yes I believe in fish and monkeys, and I believe that we can have monkeys with gills.’

He’s talking of course about the legal relabelling of someone who has a GRC. This was done because at the time you couldn’t have same sex marriage - it’s no longer legally necessary and it was never scientifically correct. The GRA was always a legal fudge.

Anyway I’ll ask again, and I’m sure I’ll be ignored again do you believe that humans can literally change sex?

Sorry why is W dangerous?

"In many respects yesBarmer."

Can you name those respects?
Because breast growth isn't exclusively female.
And oestrogen levels aren't exclusively female.
And lack of testosterone isn't exclusively female.

These are human characteristics that mean very little in isolation.
Altering one aspect makes no difference to the whole. This is why you never hear feminists arguing that a hysterectomy makes a woman less of a woman. Or being 6 feet 4 makes you a bit male. That straw man argument belongs to the TRAS.