The Big Questions BBC 'should you be able to self declare your gender?'

[R0wantrees]

On at 10am

I watched all of it and some people who spoke on different matters did not watch the other person designated to speak. Did this make them hostile?

They were men by the way.

Another reason for re-framing around sex-based protections rather than arguing whether someone is a man or a woman is that biological males are ALREADY in female prisons. So if you say that this is your reason for opposing the law, someone like Jane will just say 'well this is already happening, nothing much will change'.

And the fact that self-ID only refers to the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate and someone like Jane doesn't even have one (but no doubt could if she applied) shows that the procedure for the GRC is not the prime importance- it is that biological sex remains a protected characteristic and that there are some exemptions from treating someone as a man/woman based on biological sex.

I know I am not popular on these boards, but after watching that car-crash, I would urge you to at least consider what I am saying rather than outright dismissing it.

I watched all of it and some people who spoke on different matters did not watch the other person designated to speak. Did this make them hostile?

They weren't sitting right next to the person with that person turned towards them. Just saying how it came across to someone watching. You can pretend that it was a perfect interview/debate if you like. Most people on here agree it was awful.

Trans people have been around for decades, they’ve got on with life and have gone into female only spaces. BUT they have had 2 years of therapy etc. The whole argument should be that self ID will mean Trans people will get no help/therapy AND it means anyone can say they are a woman and enter female only spaces.

As others have said the whole debate about whether Trans Wonen are women is for another time.

Why are you saying "you must" "you need to" "you do this" "you do that" when you are supposedly gender critical yourself? It's weird. None of us were actually on the TV show. Why don't you do it if its so easy and you're so concerned it's done in a particular way and selflessly giving the benefit of your expert opinion? This is why some people find you disingenuous.

Erishkigal seriously let your dislike of me be irrelevant here. Leaving that to one side, do you think that was a good interview that clearly explained to the general public what the issues were?

It's not weird, no more weird than you constantly launching into personal remarks about me. I obviously believe in the argument I am making, which is why I am pushing it. Same as you believe in yours.

Attack my argument if you wish, not me.

As others have said the whole debate about whether Trans Wonen are women is for another time.

Yes, Lizzie! People already know trans women are biologically male. Maria Miller knows this, Theresa May knows it. They won't suddenly have some road to Damascus moment and realise that people cannot change their chromosomes. They know they cannot but they are saying that trans people need rights anyway.

The law is bad because it doesn't help trans people to get support. At the same time, even if the government choose not give trans people support, it must recognise that those born biologically female need a certain amount of legal protections. This includes some same-sex spaces. These are not incompatible with trans people having legal visibility and recognition.

Surely better to discuss what was said? It's one of the first open discussions and so much better than Genderquake.

It's not weird, no more weird than you constantly launching into personal remarks about me. I obviously believe in the argument I am making, which is why I am pushing it. Same as you believe in yours.

If you believe in it so strongly then you can act on it, rather than preaching about what others should be doing.

Thirdly, Jane is actually right that there is no automatic right to go into a female prison even if you have a GRC and there won't be once the law is changed. Heather and anyone else who goes on media needs to be absolutely 100% bang-on with what they are saying.

I'm getting bored of posting this but I will continue every time this comes up.

Prison instructions for trans prisoners can be downloaded here - scroll down to '17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders'.

The prison service go by legal sex, first and foremost. They're not allowed to ask to see a GRC but they can ask for a birth certificate (the sole remaining thing a GRC is good for). If a prisoner has a female birth cert (original or obtained via a GRC) they will be housed in the female estate unless they present an exceptional risk, in which case they may be moved to a men's prison, purely because this is where the facilities are. They will still be housed separately from men and will be accommodated in line with PSI for female prisoners. TW prisoners with a GRC are treated as female in all circumstances.

There is case law directly referenced in the prison rules linked above that says that even if a tw is in prison for attempted rape, if they have a grc and hence a bc that says 'female', they must be sent to a women's prison. The bar is very low as we have seen in various cases that have made mainstream media.

Only for trans prisoners without a GRC - i.e. those who are legally male - are decisions made on a case by case basis. And the Transgender Case Board are no fools, which is why all those self ID trans sex offenders are still treated as male prisoners in the male estate.

Changing the GRA to a self-ID process would allow all of them to be treated as female. The vast majority would have to be moved to the female estate, with only the few exceptionally dangerous ones remaining in the male estate, but housed there as female prisoners.

Today's article in the DM contains quotes from prison service staff expressing their concerns.

Pencils if there are exceptions, it is not automatic. Yes, the new rules make it easier to get a GRC, but there is already a problem, as identified in the DM. Those problems exist under the current law. Is it not better to argue that prisons should be single biological sex, but that trans prisoners should be housed on a separate wing and not in the male estate?

Dunno Peak, you go and do that then come back and tell us all how it went.

Try actually reading her post PeakPants. She said that the males with GRC would be accommodated with high risk female people in the male estate.

They will still be housed separately from men and will be accommodated in line with PSI for female prisoners. TW prisoners with a GRC are treated as female in all circumstances.

Is this the thread where we were talking about international law please. I have lost my place.

The law is bad because it doesn't help trans people to get support.

Self-id will mean they get less support. The requirement to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria means that they will seek medical help. Self-id means that they may not seek that help.

Is it not better to argue that prisons should be single biological sex, but that trans prisoners should be housed on a separate wing and not in the male estate?

Can't see that going down very well with transactivists somehow

I don't really care where trans identified male prisoners go. Aslong as its not in with the female population. If they want to be segregated but in the female estate, fair enough, aslong as they get no contact with the actual females. There is also the issue of the staff and that though, like is it ok to expect a female officer to search a male who says they are a female?!

is it ok to expect a female officer to search a male who says they are a female?!

No. And I believe in a case of this in Scotland female prison officers have involved the union.

Just watched it - had to turn it off because Heather was so bumbling, repetitive, long-winded etc. Agony. What a waste.

People, here’s some media training, if you ever need it. Rehearse your points and get them out evenly and quickly. E.g

‘This affects us all because self ID will impact on women’s safety and women’s aspirations.

No longer will women’s be entitled to women only spaces where they are at their most vulnerable: changing rooms, prisons and refuges.

No longer will women be able to compete fairly in sport. Nor will the assistance such a women only shortlists maintain any true meaning.’

I watched this on iPlayer. I admit I did wince a bit. I think on a different platform or format Fae would have been toast.

I watched this www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0b5t4v2/the-big-questions-series-11-episode-18

Middle section (22 minutes and 45 seconds in, until 44 minutes 33 seconds).

I was prepared for the worst after reading some comments here but actually I was quite pleased that Heather managed to make lots of really good points.

Jane was awful, making lots of stupid jokes, making some points directly at Heather in a really unpleasant way.

Asking the audience is fine but did the audience know anything? One woman made a very clear and sensible comment about the fact if her friend or relative were going through this she would want them to have access to medical help, counselling etc.

One person said they would get this anyway and Heather was able to be clear and say that they would not, it simply would be self id.

I wish someone like @PencilsInSpace had been on the programme, why can't they get people on the programme who know what they are talking about!

@PeakPants "I wonder if this was very last minute for Heather, whether she stood in for someone else. She refused to look at Jane Fae too, which made her come across as hostile. I wonder if they had an altercation earlier on or something. "

Jane made some very cruel and unnecessary comments, which I think were to illustrate a point but came across as very poor 'jokes' about Heather doing something awful like pushing her under a taxi or stabbing her or something, and also made references to using the loos. Her whole tone was gleeful as she feels she so in the right. I don't blame Heather for not wanting to look her in face.

Jane waved her arms around when she spoke and made funny 'I know it all' faces when anyone else was speaking. I really would not want to have to sit and debate with her. I don't blame Heather at all for not wanting to look at her.

Heather made relevant points, she was a bit bumbling but she didn't make stupid, crass, incorrect statements.

“Jane made some very cruel and unnecessary comments, which I think were to illustrate a point but came across as very poor 'jokes' about Heather doing something awful like pushing her under a taxi or stabbing her or something”

Yes, and many in the audience laughed at them...

Gosh, did the audience think it was Mrs Brown's Boys.?

I think that might make me out of sorts if the audience are laughing along with the man parodying women whilst ridiculing me.

Sociopathic.

Well the problem is that Heather didn't make sense and was just rambling a bit.

If that was the first time audience members had seen JF then they came across the better out of the two simply because JF was coherent

As I said previously, when people.aren't sure of the details, they warm to the person who appears the most 'accessible' and Heather, for whatever reason, was not.

I think some of the people saying H cane across well and JF was awful were seeing what they wanting to see, if I'm pwrfectly honest. Don't forget, it's easy to fill in the blanks and interpret JF when you know the context and JF's background in a previous life but most of the people watxhing that won't have a clue about that.

It must be very hard putting this complicated issue to a huge audience and being clear, focussing on the 'right' issues while being compassionate, especially if you're nervous and squashed up against the other side. A quick scan of this board shows how hard it is to always come over clearly.
The media is a tough environment and it's a steep learning curve for many women, and we're never going to get it right all the time.