Would you back self ID if...

[daimbars]

Once a trans women got their GRC they had to wait a period of time (say 5 years) before they were able to have the same rights as all women? For example they would only be able to apply for a job as a women’s officer, appear on a female only panel or to compete in women’s sport after five years of lived experience as a woman?

Someone I know is meeting with her MP to discuss how to propose this legislation. She thinks it will address possible repercussions from self ID and stop it being abused. I thought it was an interesting idea I could get behind.

And I completely forgot to mention Jane Fae's creepy love of porn, which should be enough to make every female person wary.

Daimbars, when you talk about the difficulties MtFs face using single sex facilities before they have started to transition, you're assuming that they'll "pass" eventually.

But, although it's more likely for men of some ethnicities, on the whole British males just aren't ever going to convince people that they're female.

I saw the loveliest, most glamorous MtF a few weeks ago. The sex of this person was, however, still apparent.

Research shows we decide which sex someone is in an instant. It's the first distinction we make. If there's something "off" it mentally stops us in our tracks. I wouldn't be surprised if this distinction wasn't significantly stronger in women as for all human history our lives may have depended on it. We can identify sex very accurately.

None of the MtFs I have known passed, however hard they tried. Their proportions are all wrong for a start. Nearly every detail of a mature adult's body betrays a person's sex. Caitlin Jenner's hands for instance.

I can imagine using woman only spaces as an obviously male person might be humiliating, though this is not for women to solve. However I am also aware that being humiliated by being dressed as a woman is a very common turn on for many MtFs. Sissy porn and forced feminisation are examples. I couldn't link to anything about sissy porn because I couldn't easily find one that was safe for public viewing. Just porn.

It is not unreasonable for women to reject and resent the idea of being used as a prop for someone's paraphilias.

I don't understand the relentless focus on self-ID and how hard/easy it is to get a GRC rather than focusing on amending and enhancing the Equality Act provisions based on biological sex. I have been called a TRA for making that point and a troll, a man, a goady fucker and whatever else. Yet the fact that so few trans people have a GRC shows how useless it is and why the debate over the procedure for getting one is a waste of time. It is the fact that they have bio-sex segregation (ie what is in the EA) in Ireland that means that self-ID has not had a huge impact. Arguing the toss over whether a trans woman is a real woman is a waste of time imo.

YY very keen to have this discussion too! I am all for keeping and strengthening the current Equality Act exemptions. It's easy to campaign for this without arguing the toss over whether a trans woman is a real woman .

Isn't the point that allowing self ID, plus the blurring "transwomen are women" is quite possible to lead to a point where biological sex is seen as anyone who says they are a woman.
If the EA provided women with the right to debate and fight for their spaces, which it already does, why are we now in a position where on paper women have the protection, but the protection offers nothing!
Labour have announced that anyone saying they are a woman is allowed on AWS - illegally?
Many companies have changed their policies to allow gender rules.
Local authorities have eroded sex based policies in favour of gender - that woolly non-thing!
Despite having these protections in place, they're being ignored in favour of TWAW.

I wonder how many gender dysphoric men starting the process say "No, I won't use the female toilets and changing rooms as I look like a man and it would be unfair on the women and girls to have my male body in their facilities"? That's what a man who cares about and empathises with women and girls would say

This.

I will never back self-ID.

In order to apply for a passport I had to send proof of my identity from someone who could vouch for me, having known me for several years.

To get my professional qualifications I had to go through vigourous checks including police checks, I had to send medical notes to show I was healthy and had regular checks to make sure I was still compliant.

In order to prove my name change I had to go through a marriage ceremony and present a certificate proving that to my bank, passport office, DVLA etc.

FFS even to pick up a parcel at the post office I have to prove myself with verified ID - I can’t just say “I am who I say I am, give me the parcel.”

Sometimes there are hoops we have to jump through in order to get the recognition that we are who we say we are.

Self-ID to prevent trans people from having to prove themselves is pointless and fraught with potential problems as we have all read many times. When infamous child murderers and sex offenders are able to opt out of their previous identity and demand to be included within the 51% of the population who are women, on nothing more than their say-so, there is something very wrong.

I think the GRC should only be given after bottom surgery for trans-feminine people and after hormone treatment for both sexes/genders. Then the GRC counts as proof that for single sex spaces such as hospitals, prisons, refuges etc that this person’s body matches the gender identity they are presenting. The GRC can then be used to apply for other documents stating the person’s gender as they present it. I do not believe that you can ever change sex, so wording should be changed where necessary to reflect the difference.

If they don’t look outwardly of the gender they are claiming then it should be taken on a case by case basis in hostels, swimming pools etc, as it has been previously, with the ‘honour system’ being used to weed out anyone who appears to be up to no good. Challenging someone’s sex or gender should not be a crime any more than being asked for ID to buy alcohol.

The sex recorded on crime stats, medical notes and birth certificates should not be changed for any reason.

Even after medically transitioning there should still be accurate records. Even such a tiny percentage of trans people can start to change official statistics so that they are no longer accurate, such as increasing the number of sex offences committed by ‘women’ or showing a decrease in the number of gynae cancers per 1000 in women due to biological males being included in the figures.

If someone would prefer to retain their original sex organs then in my opinion they have not actually transitioned as a penis is male organ. It is more difficult in the case of transmen, but taking hormones and having top surgery seems to be enough to convincingly recreate masculinity in female people. The fact that they will retain a vagina, (with or without an enlarged clitoris as a ‘penis’, not sure how common that is) still does not pose the same contentious issues as a male person retaining their appendage.

Whilst I do not believe that anyone can change sex, you can only really pretend to have done so if you do whatever you can to present as the opposite sex, so if you wish to present with traditionally male sex parts, with no feminisation surgery then there’s no way you’re a woman of any kind, even a transwoman, regardless of how long your hair or how pretty your outfit.

If you have breast implants but retain your penis and balls, then you’re still not really buying into what it is to be a woman and can’t pretend to have any understanding of what it means to be a woman if you are still walking around with your meat and two veg. Spoiler alert - women have no idea what it feels like to wield one of those things so if you want to live an authentic womanly experience, it’s got to go.

If women could have penises I’d have one, as they look like a lot of fun! However, we cannot have and will never have one (hence Freud’s penis envy theory) so they’re not a woman’s thing. It’s a sacrifice you’ll have to make and if your own biology is so upsetting to you that you want to completely disown it, you should be more than happy to wave it goodbye. The fact that so many don’t would suggest that they want to retain the privilege of being male while also co-opting the perks of being included with women.

I have the utmost respect for any trans person who is wholly committed to becoming as close to the opposite sex as they can in order to live an authentic life, by taking the relevant medication and having surgery to recreate the body they believe they should have been born with.

I respect gender fluid/non binary people who freely admit they don’t buy into either gender as it doesn’t matter.

What I don’t accept is that the shackles of femininity that have caused so much distress for women over the years should be reinforced as the modern definition of womanhood, or that the female biology which impacts our lives is up for grabs, being twisted, contorted and used by anyone who chooses to use the word woman to suit their own agenda, while not dealing with the inconvenience and vulnerability that comes from living in a female body.

Yet the fact that so few trans people have a GRC shows how useless it is and why the debate over the procedure for getting one is a waste of time.

Don't you think making it really easy and removing the need for any medical involvement at all might make those numbers rise? Just a tad?

Another point re the EA exemptions - Stonewall appear to only have consulted trans people on whether or not certain EA exemptions should be abolished rather than both women and trans people. This is ridiculous in my opinion.

The exemptions are in place to protect women so it's ludicrous to not even consider the views of people the exemptions are in place to protect!

Pushing for women to be consulted in any change to a law which affects them is something concrete to fight for and will likely get a lot of backing. I'm surprised I haven't seen more suggestions along these lines.

Thanks for responding to the point about the two years 'living as a woman' being humiliating, daim. I think I can see where you are coming from.

I imagine that this part of the process might be awkward and humiliating for some. Women are only too aware of how it feels to have their appearance scrutinised and commented upon. I feel sympathy.

However it's still a no,for all the reasons above.

You asked for alternative suggestions:

Ideally, I would protect gender expression by law and do away with the legal fiction of GRC. And strengthen single sex provision.

If that's not possible, I would strengthen the GRC, raise the gatekeeping bar. And -crucially- make the GRc worth something. It should not be legal to get a passport, driving license or access female provision without one.

Also, I would make sure that dysphoric people have access to MH support. Dysphoric trans people note that MH support had been decimated thanks to 'trans is not an illness' style campaigning.

And before any cries of sexism, my only hesitation around female trans people having bottom surgery is that I how successful or easy it is to build a functioning penis and close up a Vagina. I certainly thing that if you want to present as a man you should have a hysterectomy - these stories of “pregnant men” who are in fact females with their uterus etc intact but just with a beard are exactly the type of ‘have your cake and eat it’ people who are making this whole thing such a mess.

There’s no sex discrimination because now men get pregnant too, so if this person loses their job or is demoted due to being a parent, hey it’s all good, that’s not something that only happens to women any more. Just no.

Isn't the point that allowing self ID, plus the blurring "transwomen are women" is quite possible to lead to a point where biological sex is seen as anyone who says they are a woman.

The issue I have is that many seem to presume that the general public is labouring under some misapprehension that in fact people can change their chromosomes and that they just don't understand that trans women are in fact men. The point is that people do get that, but despite that, many think it is okay to treat trans women as women and to use female pronouns. I do understand the reasoning behind people's anger, but from an outside perspective, actions such as insisting on using male pronouns, making thread about 'X is really a man' etc can give a negative impression. Yes, yes, I know the TRAs give as good as they get, but to the average liberal not involved in the debate, it is likely to come across as six of one and half a dozen of the other. I guess it might feel like you are taking action, but long-term, is it going to pay off? Will it actually lead to laws being strengthened to protect women, or will it just be ignored by most people as a petty debate over who is a real woman and who is not, with the law being weakened in the meantime?

If the EA provided women with the right to debate and fight for their spaces, which it already does, why are we now in a position where on paper women have the protection, but the protection offers nothing!

Which is why the EA needs to be strengthened. It currently allows exemptions on the basis of biological sex. However, this is framed as 'it is not a a violation if an organisation chooses X'. There is limited guidance, which is why a lot of councils have confused sex with gender. How about if it was reformed to put a positive obligation on organisations to at least do a risk assessment to see whether any proposed measures may have an adverse impact on those of a particular biological sex? How about if proper guidance was drafted in order to assist organisations with their duties.

The way the debate is going now, it looks like 'oooh, people are being mean to trans people- I had better clarify that trans people are definitely welcome at my swimming pool etc'. I think long-term that is ultimately not going to help anyone. It might make you feel good to point out that trans people have AGP on twitter, but it will alienate people that you want as your allies. I personally think it is more palatable and acceptable to frame the debate as 'we respect and value trans people and their rights and we will respect their choices. If they want to self-ID, that should not be cumbersome or humiliating for them. However, there remains a small category of situations where biological sex must be the determining factor and all we are seeking is to retain those'.

Pushing for women to be consulted in any change to a law which affects them is something concrete to fight for and will likely get a lot of backing. I'm surprised I haven't seen more suggestions along these lines.

Er there's a government petition asking for women to be consulted in changes to a law which affects them. Women's Place take the position that they mainly want the EA exemptions upheld and strengthened to he truly single sex. But the GRA goes together with that like it or not.

"PeakPants yes that makes it much clearer. Thanks.

'I don't understand the relentless focus on self-ID and how hard/easy it is to get a GRC rather than focusing on amending and enhancing the Equality Act provisions based on biological sex. '

Because if we cannot prove who is or is not a biological female then what does it matter who can be included or excluded from places or services, or jobs or whatever. If we cannot identify who is who/whom? Self ID is very important and so anyone who appears to be saying don't worry about, well, that naturally lots of people are going to think we should worry about it. And I, for one, think we should.

And before any cries of sexism, my only hesitation around female trans people having bottom surgery is that I don’t know how successful or easy it is to build a functioning penis and close up a Vagina. We hear a lot about neo-vaginas and how wonderful they are but not so much about neo-penises.

Sorry corrected missing words.

Don't you think making it really easy and removing the need for any medical involvement at all might make those numbers rise? Just a tad?

To be brutally honest, no. I don't. It doesn't offer them anything that they don't already have. Jane Fae could get a GRC easily but has chosen not to. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the cumbersome process. Persuading a doctor that you have gender-dysphoria is not particularly difficult- there will be doctors who specialise in this sort of thing and someone like JF who has had surgery would surely qualify. But what is there that JF can do with GRC that she cannot currently do? I struggle to think of anything.

the fact that so few trans people have a GRC shows how useless it is and why the debate over the procedure for getting one is a waste of time.

If self-id becomes all it takes to get a GRC, there will be no time wasted on establishing the cases of genuine dysphoria and I'm pretty sure the number issued will increase dramatically.

Transwomen have to start "living as women" at some point, and you're right, that might be humiliating if they don't pass. But I still don't understand why doing it, and making full use of women's spaces for two years, to demonstrate their eligibility for the GRC is an issue, when, (as you imply in your OP) getting the GRC at the start and living for FIVE YEARS without being able to access women's spaces isn't. Surely that would be worse?

And getting the certificate doesn't represent a threshold between not passing and passing anyway.

All your question has done is consolidate in my mind the conviction that the GRC, and the fictitious status it bestows on transpeople in the eyes of the law, should be scrapped altogether.

many think it is okay to treat trans women as women and to use female pronouns.

This is no way means they think they are actually women.

Daim, that is exactly what everyone is campaigning for.

Sheesh

I disagree Peakpants. And will continue to say so, and to oppose changes to the GRA, and informing others about it.

Thanks @Dragoncake - I'm interested when you say:

Make the GRc worth something. It should not be legal to get a passport, driving license or access female provision without one.

So this would mean keeping the existing GRC process? As as far as I'm aware once a person has a GRC they are legally considered female bar a few Equality Act exemptions.

I guess it's whether to focus on the GRC process itself or whether to focus on the EA.

Because if we cannot prove who is or is not a biological female then what does it matter who can be included or excluded from places or services, or jobs or whatever. If we cannot identify who is who/whom? Self ID is very important and so anyone who appears to be saying don't worry about, well, that naturally lots of people are going to think we should worry about it. And I, for one, think we should.

OK, I see that. I just think that as you can get a new passport with F in it without having a GRC and are protected from discrimination whether or not you have a GRC, it has become a somewhat useless piece of paper. It is not some gateway to a magic kingdom and even if the process is changed, I don't think most trans people will bother.

Biological sex is biological sex regardless of a GRC. I don't think someone who has lived as a woman for 2 years and has gender dysphoria (ie satisfying current rules) should be in a DV refuge or a female prison (possibly unless they have had surgery to remove their penis). So to me, it makes little difference whether it was hard or easy for them to get their certificate- it is their biological sex that excludes them.

This is no way means they think they are actually women

Exactly!!! That is my point. That is why people will be turned off by someone refusing to use preferred pronouns when debating a trans person on TV because it comes across as hostile and rude. They KNOW they are not actually women- someone refusing to call Jane Fae 'she' isn't going to magically change people's minds because they were labouring under the misapprehension that Jane is in fact biologically female. It's a fight that cannot really be won.

Pushing for women to be consulted in any change to a law which affects them is something concrete to fight for and will likely get a lot of backing. I'm surprised I haven't seen more suggestions along these lines.

I thought that's what people here have been doing???

Late to the party but my answer to the original question is no.

I'd go further and abolish the whole GRC system altogether. Men cannot become women.

If self-id becomes all it takes to get a GRC, there will be no time wasted on establishing the cases of genuine dysphoria and I'm pretty sure the number issued will increase dramatically.

Why does 'genuine dysphoria' matter when you are talking about male bodies in female spaces? If I am in a prison and my cellmate has a penis, do I really care whether that person has 'genuine dysphoria' or whether he is trying it on? Not really. The issue is his male body. Same with sport. I don't give a shit whether Lauren Jeska is genuinely dysphoric. I don't want to race her because of her male biology.