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.

Haha, I'm worried I'll cross post again. So, a male predator doesn't currently need a grc to enter women only spaces but as things stand would anyone looking like a man not just be refused entry in the first place?

Would I try to prosecute any and every man who looked at me in a changing room? Probably not. Would I feel comfortable being looked at by a strange man as I changed? Definitely not. Maybe I would just stop going into changing rooms...I can think of many more vulnerable women and many more precarious environments where this would matter far more.

Secondly, due to the impact on the other users they can be excluded from changing room under the exemptions of the Equality Act.

Do you think that is likely to be seen as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

I have ptsd, officially diagnosed by more than one psychiatrist and am receiving treatment on the NHS for it.

Many women survivors of domestic violence have PTSD related to the male body. Sometimes, the children of those women also have PTSD related to males. Triggers can even include a male voice in the vicinity.

Who is thinking about these people? Why are they not acknowledged as important stakeholders by everyone in the debate?

Sorry for being so slow posting! So a trans woman who looks like a man would not allowed to use changing rooms?

Ereshkigal

See www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66 for the definition of the offence of exposure.

Given it is blatantly obvious that if a transwomen exposed male genitals in a women's changing room, then people would see them and be caused distress or alarm - they would find it hard to argue this was not their intention.

The only exception I can see to this if there was a genuine accident - e.g a towel slips.

In general, I don't think this debate should be focused on changing rooms. But that's easy for me to say as I am lucky enough not to have any specific issues that cause me alarm or distress.

However this:

deliberately expose their genitals knowing that it is likely to cause other people distress or alarm

makes me

Because wouldn't a trans woman with a penis just claim that there was no distress intended, in the same way that exposing your breasts in a changing room is not intended to distress?

How would you in any way police that, if it's now OK for a "woman" to have a penis?

*Secondly, due to the impact on the other users they can be excluded from changing room under the exemptions of the Equality Act.

Do you think that is likely to be seen as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?*

Yes. It is certainly a legitimate aim. Is it proportionate? It would not be a blanket ban - it would apply to one user. There are plenty of other options - use a cubicle - use the disabled changing room. If the individual rejected these options, then I believe it would be proportionate.

Given it is blatantly obvious that if a transwomen exposed male genitals in a women's changing room, then people would see them and be caused distress or alarm - they would find it hard to argue this was not their intention.

It is blatantly not obvious that everyone believes that. We have had thread after thread where some people pop up to tell us what prudes we are for not wanting to engage with unexpected penises. And the Swim England guidelines, that I mentioned. And such an attitude would be seen as transphobic by transactivists. But as you appear to be a transactivist yourself I can only conclude you are disingenuously trying to deflect from the issues.

Because wouldn't a trans woman with a penis just claim that there was no distress intended, in the same way that exposing your breasts in a changing room is not intended to distress?

They could claim that - but they are unlikely to be believed - given the distress that would be caused was obvious and they then continued regardless.

If I expose my breasts in a female changing room, I don't expect anyone to be caused distress (also not exposing breasts is not covered in the offence of exposure).

Anyway in this scenario, the girl should call management.

And how the hell does she 'call management'? They don't have security staff on duty outside the door.
The young girl will be shocked and dismayed. She will not be thinking clearly and may well pick up her things and run.
If she does find a staff member, the person who frightened her will be in the pool by then.
Even if the person is found and spoken to, they are protected by self-id as a woman 'who has only got changed as she is entitled to do'.

What will happen of course is that the girl will never want to go there again, or anywhere similar. Or is she a candidate for 're-education' ?

Also, I am not aware that you can choose the gender/sex of your surgeon. So the right to have a health care practitioner of the same gender/sex is already limited

It’s not as simple as that.

I can give a personal example.

I miscarried last year. My gynaecologist was a man. He had to be chaperoned by a female nurse when he was giving me an internal examination.

A female gynaecologist would not have to have a chaperone.

If he identified as a woman he wouldn’t have a chaperone.

I was asked if I was comfortable with a male gynaecologist (I didn’t mind)

If he identified as a woman I wouldn’t be given that courtesy.

You can request a female doctor/nurse/surgeon.

If a male bodied, woman identifying HCP then arrived to carry out your treatment, under self ID, you would either have to accept it or not have the treatment. To refuse them would be transphobic and against the law.

I was the most vulnerable I had ever been and had I not wanted a man, whatever he identifies as, to examine me, I should be well within my rights to vocalise that.

Transwomen are MEN. Nothing can change that. Ever. And I should be well within my rights to vocalise that too.

YY and will be deterred from making further appointments, might have to go to back of waiting list, treatment will be delayed. I can see women dying preventable deaths à la Jade Goody because they don't want to get a smear from a male

This is a scary prospect, and something that I’m going to bring up at our mandatory diversity training.

ifuckinghatethatdog

I just feel like the scope of the implications aren't being being address and the solutions seem unrealistic so I remain unconvinced.

Just stick up a bloody sign in your changing rooms saying,

"Please do not hesitate gratuitously expose your genitals or you may be asked to leave."

Or, "When using these facilities please behave with appropriate modesty and allow others to do the same".

Or, "No flashing, no gawping. Management decisions are final."

I don't mean to be flippant, but honestly it's like some people have never shared the world with other human beings before. I can't understand the point blank refusal to believe that we might possibly, in our ingenuity, find a way to make that work.

X-post Ifucking, for what you've been through.

Also, I am not aware that you can choose the gender/sex of your surgeon. So the right to have a health care practitioner of the same gender/sex is already limited

In some cases you can for sure. My second child will be arriving by elective section in the next few weeks. Even though the rota was already set up by the time I got my date, the hospital are planning on changing it so that all the theatre staff are women, obstetricians, anesthetist, midwives etc. That's based entirely on their reading of my medical notes, it's not something I've asked for.

And how the hell does she 'call management'? They don't have security staff on duty outside the door.
The young girl will be shocked and dismayed. She will not be thinking clearly and may well pick up her things and run.
If she does find a staff member, the person who frightened her will be in the pool by then.
Even if the person is found and spoken to, they are protected by self-id as a woman 'who has only got changed as she is entitled to do'.

Sarah knows all this. Sarah doesn't care. Sarah focuses only on winning the argument and getting women to shut up about self ID.

They could claim that - but they are unlikely to be believed - given the distress that would be caused was obvious and they then continued regardless.

Well, I don't know. If it is OK to be legally certified a woman and to have a penis, then you're OK to expose your legally female body in a female changing room, presumably, no matter the "distress" to others. The laws around indecent exposure would have to change, I'd assume?

Like I say, changing rooms and toilets are not really my concern. Changing laws that make distinctions of different groups difficult to ascertain or uphold are my concern.

@sarahar "If a transwomen and she intended to cause distress and alarm, and it would be hard for her to argue that she didn't (unless a towel slipped or something), she could be arrested for the offence of exposure (up to 2 years in prison). She can also be excluded from the changing room using the sex based exceptions of the Equality Act."

I used to attend sex-segregated sauna and steam room sessions, at a facility that is now sadly closed. We were required for reasons of hygiene to keep our bikini briefs on (except in the unscreened and uncurtained showers, where we stripped naked to shower), but could go topfree in the warm areas. As a woman who can only get bras from Bravissimo, being able to remove a considerable area of fabric from my chest to sweat freely greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the sauna, and being able to go topfree in a female-only place was incredibly liberating. (Bear in mind that men always get to go topfree in these places and do not feel at risk in them, this was a sauna where I felt truly free from misogyny, free from risk, and fully-equal to a man.) If one male-bodied person had entered, whether a man or a trans woman, I would no longer have felt comfortable going topfree. Would I have even been allowed to go topfree or would I have been accused of indecency? Also, would a trans woman with a penis be able to use the shower?

I have not been to a sauna on my own since that place closed because I do not feel safe in mixed saunas and have not gone topfree even when attending with a chaperone. My fear is that the vocal trans lobby, wielding "bigot" and "transphobia" against anyone they disagree with, will coerce more and more saunas, steam rooms, turkish baths, etc into going over to mixed sessions or segregation by gender (which is mixed by another name) instead of by sex. This strips the most vulnerable womenthe religious minority women and the rape and abuse victimsof access to these places.

When the council who ran the sauna consulted on the closure, I wrote in to tell them that women who were victims of sexual violence benefitted from the female-only space and would lose out if it were closed. They didn't even have the decency to include that in their equality impact assessment, but they wrote about how gay men would lose access to the men's sessions run on the same premises, even though there are numerous privately-run gay saunas nearby. That's how little women matter in the UK.

Ifuckinghatethatdog - I totally agree. It is a matter of dignity that women should be able to specify a female practitioner. Someone who shares her biology - not just a "female identity".

Women's healthcare is undignified enough, without being presented with male bodied practitioners when you're expecting female, and then fighting off accusations of transphobia.

Under self ID, A male HCP, dressed in male clothes with his male penis tucked inside his male pants, can use his male hands to examine these women, and there’s not a thing they can do about it legally, because this male HCP says that he is a woman. This is the case today under the current GRA and has been the case since 2004.

You're leaving out that under the Equality Act providers can make exemptions to this if proportionate and necessary - ie a woman not comfortable with the self identified woman who has arrived to do her smear test is able to say no, I want a natal hcp. This has happened, the NHS apologised to the woman for it.

Under the proposed revisions to the act, the woman either gets her knickers off and suffers the distress in silence - and many will because as Swim England guidance has demonstrated, women and girls will not be supported in any feelings of embarassment or distress at having their lifetime of a right to sex segregation whipped away without consultation or time to change gear and will be told they need 're education' - what a bloody terrifying phrase that is - or that they are committing a hate crime. Or they can just go home and forgo that medical care. Or refuge. Or going to the toilet. Or going swimming. Or having carers in their home. Or using a changing room.

Anyone who gave a flying fuck about women and their specific needs and rights would see this is a major problem. You would think people who identify as women would care/have some kind of clue.

Can't think why some - incidentally the shouty ones also threatening rape and violence to women who don't abandon all their personal values and feelings and put them first - don't. [confused[

If it is OK to be legally certified a woman and to have a penis, then you're OK to expose your legally female body in a female changing room, presumably, no matter the "distress" to others.

Exactly. Unless the Equality Act exemption was invoked. Which is not a duty for a service provider but an option carrying a significant risk of litigation.

The laws around indecent exposure would have to change, I'd assume?

These incidents, if women dared to report and were not accused of transphobic hate crime, would likely be "no crimed" like all the other sex crimes police don't investigate.

In the guidelines drawn up by Swim England - influenced by Stonewall - women distressed by a penis in a changing room were to be "educated" - presumably as to how she was a hateful transphobe, and didn't she know, ladies can have penises too now.

Can't think why some - incidentally the shouty ones also threatening rape and violence to women who don't abandon all their personal values and feelings and put them first - don't.

Quite.

In the guidelines drawn up by Swim England - influenced by Stonewall - women distressed by a penis in a changing room were to be "educated"

Yes I've mentioned that twice myself and others also have. It's been ignored.

@Dinosauratemydaffodils flowers I have no words.

@sarahar "What management would continue to allow a man or transwomen to commit a crime or cause distress to a large number of other users of the facility."

So causing distress to one user is OK? One male's feelings are deemed as important as a "large number" of women's distress? Don't look now, but your misogyny is showing.