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.

I guess this question is only relevant for people who accept the current GRA and the fact that people can legally change gender at the moment.

If you would like to see the GRA repealed then obviously you wouldn't back self ID!

There is a time I maybe would have considered this.

The TRA campaign has put paid to that. I have always supported minorities and equality but I won't support terrorism.

Women are women are women.

Men are not women and redefining the word woman is not and never will be acceptable to me.

I am for the preservation of women's identity and will not support the destruction of it.

I think im pretty much where peak is

Hardly any [acronym] get GRC as it is. Why would more want one under this proposal? Ridiculous.

I guess this question is only relevant for people who accept the current GRA and the fact that people can legally change gender at the moment.

Well, yes, I accept that the GRA exists. I also accept that it's highly unlikely that it will be repealed due to the judgments from the European Court of Human Rights.

But once you accept that social gender is pretty meaningless, you can see that giving a GRC to someone doesn't really signify anything other than the state promising that it will treat you as if you are a woman. However, it does not change your sex and nobody can ever argue that a piece of paper could ever change chromosomes. Therefore, if you focus on sex-based protections, you can continue to make a token gesture to trans people by granting a GRC, yet retain the ability to segregate based on biological sex. As they seem to have done in Ireland.

No I wouldn't and I also think we need to go back to the start with this and have a separate space for trans, we need to maintain single sex spaces based on natal sex. I'm afraid experience tells me that often in these situations people ask for extreme, then say they will accept less making them look they are negotiating and listening to the other side whilst knowing that once they have a foot in the door they will gradually continue to wedge it open bit by bit until they've achieved what they wanted in the first place ie. acceptance in law that people can change sex and go where they like.

I also don't understand what is humiliating about having to live as the opposite sex for 2 years, if you want to live as the opposite sex permanently what difference does 2 years make? The idea that trans people shouldn't have to jump through any hoops is bizarre, have you seen threads about women trying to access sterilisation/ contraception, support with health problems?

The process of legally changing sex SHOULD be difficult, because the stakes are so high both for the members of the sex the trans person wishes to live as, and for the individual themselves who may be making permanent alterations to their body, fertility and health.

@PeakPants I guess if there was no immediate 'advantage' of becoming a woman and you had to wait five years before being able to do the things mentioned, being a women might lose its appeal. But it wouldn't put of the genuinely gender dysphoric and will allow them full equality once the time period had lapsed.

No.

With regard to sport, it isn't all about testosterone levels. That is a red herring. Males have larger hearts and lungs etc and you only have to look at photos to see the very obvious difference in physique (eg the transwoman competing in the women's weightlifting competition in the 2018 Commonwealth Games). Like it or not, males have an advantage over females when it comes to (most) sport and reducing testosterone levels does not make it a level playing field.

No.

I support the law recognising the material reality of SEX.

I also support legal protection for GNC individuals and very tough penalties for anybody discriminating or using violence against GNC individuals.

No.

Access to single sex spaces cos of nakedness or vulnerability is all down to the penis. If you have one, you cannot enter.

Access to female only political office --- no, NEVER. Because this is to address historical female underrepresentation.

Access to female sports --- omg this really is too tricky for me.

But it wouldn't put of the genuinely gender dysphoric and will allow them full equality once the time period had lapsed

But the point is that you can never have full equality in cases where sex does make a difference, such as sport. So whatever process you impose for someone to get a GRC doesn't change their actual biological sex and there will always be some cases where exceptions have to be made (sport, rape crisis etc). That's why it's all a bit of a red herring to focus on which process is used to get a GRC. It doesn't matter if it's easy or hard, it still doesn't change sex.

The issue isnt really about a GRC but about the boundaries of women only spaces/jobs etc and how you police that. Also the definition of woman legally.

No, what difference does that make?

This man cannot be a rape crisis counsellor today, but he can in five years, because why?

This male HCP couldn't do your smear five years ago, but he can today, because why?

If a TW rapist goes to prison and serves five years, do they get an automatic transfer?

It doesn't make any sense. It's not about for how long someone identifies as a woman. It's not about for how long you have incurable gender dysphoria.

Just how is having to live as the opposite gender for two years before getting a GRC “humiliating”?
Isn’t that the whole fucking point?!

Yes. I have never understood what is so humiliating about committing to the huge life change you are undertaking. By undertaking it

I can think of a dozen humiliating things that I've experienced in my life as a woman. Things that happened because I was a woman. Others can think of many more, I'm sure

Saying "I suppose I could support X if Y" has given us men encroaching on women-only spaces, the craziness around schools and Girl Guides, self-ID nearly being put into law, and all the rest.

"Would you support X if Y?" is just a way of getting women to agree to their erasure by stealth. It's time for women to say "no" to all kinds of nonsense.

Can I ask the OP how self IDing as a woman and then having to wait 5 years to access single sex amenities will give a trans person the 'lived experience of a woman'? Also how does self IDing as a woman and then waiting out a 5 year period make participating in women's sports fair?

Nope.

I’ve come to the conclusion that I will support self id etc WHEN and only when a woman can (self) identify as a man and inherit title/land etc...something that is currently not possible (its a specific exemption in the GRA I believe).

So never in other words!

Ditto what picassos and lama said. How can it be humiliating to have to do the very thing that you want for two years to get the certificate?!🧐

Waiting five years will not magically bestow a life time of socialisation will it. NO, absolutely no!

I haven't seen any proposed variation of self-ID that I could support. I can't envisage any self-ID proposals which would address the concerns that have been raised.

With regard to sport, my understanding is that the physiological advantages obtained through undergoing male puberty (including fast twitch fibres, muscle density, bone density, haemoglobin and VO2 levels) aren't undone or reversed. Such a person could be on female hormones for several years, and will retain a massive physical advantage over sportswomen. There can never be a level playing field in sport between women and transwomen. The only feasible outcome is that sports should be single-sex. Trying to adopt some kind of middle ground with monitoring of hormone levels will do incredible damage for women's sport, and for the participation of women and girls in sport.

No. Five years is an arbitrary length of time plucked from the air. the only people that need self ID are those who are intersex.
Men who have a conviction for violent crime should never be allowed to legally transition, since it effectively erases their past.

There will always be a need for women only spaces and services. It would be better for trans activists to recognise that's the case instead of causing increasing amounts of conflict, and more stress for women than we already have to deal with.

According to the MOJ Being trans has no legal significance so all of this is moot as you cannot change sex.

I have a lot of sympathy for trans people and I want to include them in as many things as possible. The trouble for me is that gender reassignment is not a politically neutral act. It's not simply private or personal. In a male-dominated society gender reassignment has implications that go further than the individual. So for me it's important to consider those implications.

I think lots of people have to do this to some extent. In my case, for example: I'm married to a man but have had relationships with women. I 'feel' bisexual. But I also think it's important to be careful about how I interact in queer spaces because by getting married to a man I have made a political investment in compulsory heterosexuality. Different kind of thing so not a perfect analogy, but for me it's important to be aware of the political implications of personal acts.