Legal self-id - what are the problems?

[SarahAr]

Legal self-id - what are the problems?

Assuming that the government goes ahead with legal self-id in-line with its announcement that it only intends to change the Gender Recognition Act to simplify the process and demedicalise it, but it does not intend to change the Equality Act.

And also assuming the legislation is no more permissive than the legislation in Ireland, which requires a statutory declaration stating that the individual intends to live as a women for the rest of her life. This is a safe assumption given the far right government in power today.

What are the problems with legal self-id? More specifically how does it help predators to prey on women and how does it impact women's rights?

This is not intended as a goady post - I genuinely cannot see the problems.

It will mess up statistics.

It will mess with women's sport.

It will mess with biology. What will they teach in GCSE human biology for example?

www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/male-liberal-staffer-pretended-to-be-a-woman-to-win-student-executive-position-20161020-gs6reg.html

This for starters.

Problems for women: where Equality Act exemptions aren't applied, it is easier for a man to claim that he is trans and therefore harder for women to challenge him. The current requirement to live in-role means that women can reasonably assume that a male in men's clothes is actually a legal man, self-id takes that away.

For trans people: gender dysphoria, like any other illness, should be formally diagnosed and properly treated. Trans people are statistically more likely to have suicidal depression and it's irresponsible to encourage self-diagnosis and remove an opportunity to screen for depression.

@Fairenuff

Re statistics. When transwomen without a GRC give their gender to people e.g. at work - they don't say hey my gender is male and I am transgender person - they say their gender is female. So for instance the gender pay gap statistics already include transwomen as female. Therefore, the GRA reforms won't change that.

Re women's sport. The GRA explicitly excludes sports. Anything that happens with sport is due to the sport's governing body.

Re biology. Not sure how this is relevant to self-id. The GRA exists today and men can change their legal gender to female. GCSE Human biology seems to have survived over the last 15 years!

Not all trans suffer from gender dysphoria, which at the moment is a prerequisite to obtain a GRC.

I read that the Government was intending to lessen the protections in the Equality Act. Organisations are already allowing mixed sex spaces.

Political Parties are saying that transwomen are women, that goes beyond the GRA and has wide ranging implications.

@ToeToToe

I am not sure how this is relevant to GRA reform in the England and Wales. This relates to affirmative action in Australia (which we don't have) and to a self-id policy, not change of legal gender.

From what you are saying Sarah the issue is not with self ID it is with the GRA in general. Perhaps the answer is to beef up protection for those who are gender non-conforming, and abolish the legal fiction of pretending you are of a different sex.

Please don't @ me. I'm on the thread, I don't need another email.

We do have affirmative action - for example, Labour Party all women shortlists. Which are already being utilised by transwomen without GRC - and are allowed to be - according to the LP itself - "in anticipation of self ID legislation".

When transwomen without a GRC give their gender to people e.g. at work - they don't say hey my gender is male and I am transgender person - they say their gender is female. So for instance the gender pay gap statistics already include transwomen as female. Therefore, the GRA reforms won't change that.

Yes we know that statistics are already being affected this way. If self ID becomes law other statistics will also be affected. Crime is a big one.

The GRA explicitly excludes sports. Anything that happens with sport is due to the sport's governing body.

If self ID becomes law this would also change. Do you think it should be protected?

@Kyanite

I agree that not all trans people suffer from gender dysphoria. In particular historic transitioners, intersex people and detransitioners may all struggle to meet the requirements of the current GRA, but would be able to legally change their gender are a reformed GRA.

Maria Miller's committee recommended changing the exemptions in the Equality Act, but this was rejected by the government. This is the link to what the government intend to change www.gov.uk/government/news/new-action-to-promote-lgbt-equality

Mixed sex spaces and political parties going beyond the GRA are not relevant to GRA reform.

how does it help predators to prey on women

It basically beaks down all same-sex customs and laws that women fought for generations ago.

No one checks your birth certificate on entering female only spaces they shouldn't have to.

You should be able to say just by looking at someone "excuse moi but this is pour les femmes only" and to be able to say you object to someone who is blatantly male being there (dignity, privacy, fairness etc)

A world that supports a legal fiction that allows anyone to grab a female birth certificate just on their own say-so creates a culture where you end up not being able to say "excuse moi but this is pour les femmes only" due to accusations of being transphobic.

It's not the GRA in and of itself but the cultural implications, which is predators dream come true. They just have to utter the magic words "But I am a woman" and they can invite themselves into absolutely any female space.

It's actually also a dream come true for any below average sportsman.

@Fairenuff

Crime is the only statistic I can think of where legal gender might be used. But if that is the case, I think it is a poor statistic. For instance take two transwomen, both who qualify for a GRC and both who commit the same offence. If only one has a GRC, then one offence would be committed by a woman and one a man. This is nuts. Surely it should be recorded as two men or two women or two transwomen. This is at least consistent.

Why would GRA reform remove the exemptions for sport? Nobody has proposed this. I think sport should definitely remain excluded from the GRA. I also think that rules for participation of transwomen in sports should be set by the governing body of the sport in a way that ensures fairness - using an evidenced based approach.

Some transgender people might actually benefit from psychologist/psychiatrist support and if that is stripped away or reduced drastically it could actually be to their detriment. To answer the question we need to know what cases require a legal change of gender (if not in biological reality) and it sounds like most are exempted under the EA. (prisons, sports etc.) If these exemptions are applied properly.

I could be wide of the mark.

ToeToToe

The labour party also say that have always accepted women who self-id on AWS.

The problem with self-ID is that it accepts the assertion that a person is whatever they say they are, regardless of material reality.

With the current situation, there is gatekeeping that at least ensures you have gender dysphoria, which is a recognised condition relieved by transition.

I have serious issues with the wording of the GRA as it stands to be honest. It is badly written and conflates sex and gender in a way that makes it incredibly likely that the sex-based protections in the equality act will become meaningless, if not immediately, then in the near future. That is, if a trans woman is a woman.

I would like to see it amended, but in a different way that ensures clear distinction between sex and gender.

Transwomen don't need a GRC to compete as females in sport or win various other female awards. The changes to the GRA won't change this but it will legitimise the unfairness further.

It's not just crime statistics. It's all statistics.

Opheliah

Today if someone who is "blatantly male" is in a female space (e.g. a changing room) you call the police. The offender is arrested for voyeurism and/or exposure.

In a world of legal self-id the same happens. The only difference is they are also arrested for making a false statutory declaration - and could have a further 2 years added to their existing sentence. (The maximum sentences for voyeurism and exposure is 2 years for each offence)

Labour Party have specifically used the sentence "in anticipation of self ID laws" and "getting ahead of the legislation" in legal documentation to Jennifer James.

Plus eveything ophelia said, particularly regarding changes to cultural norms.

The only difference is they are also arrested for making a false statutory declaration - and could have a further 2 years added to their existing sentence.

What would be false about their statutory declaration?

In a world of legal self-id the same happens. The only difference is they are also arrested for making a false statutory declaration - and could have a further 2 years added to their existing sentence. (The maximum sentences for voyeurism and exposure is 2 years for each offence)

How? How can it be proved that someone "blatantly male" does not identify as female? Apparently beards and penises can be female now. So we're being told.

Anyone will be able to say they identify as the opposite sex, and be legally treated as such.

How could anyone "be arrested for making a false statutory declaration" when you are whatever you say you are?

Yes, the statistics for certain types of cancer will be interesting. There might be a big rise in the number of women with prostate cancer, for example. Of course, in this case it can be easily seen how trans will skew things but for other cancers it could affect the ability to properly target drugs / treatments (if you can't rely on large databases to separate out the biological sexes it affects your ability to do epidemiological analysis and identify any statistically significant ways in which the sexes differ with regard to morbidity)