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.

No. Never. Under no circumstances will I support legal self-ID.

Nope
It's bad enough that you can get a GRC and keep your penis. A lot of people don't know this..it's been kept rather quiet I think.
Had enough of the lot of it. No penises in women's spaces full stop.

No, I strongly believe that trans people need their own protections that recognise the trans aspects of their experiences and lives.

Identifying into sex based categories and protections is bad for women and trans people because it erases sex based discrimination and trans based discrimination.

ChickenMe

I agree. Most people I have spoken to have no idea of this

People who want to take advantage of something will wait any length of time if it serves their purpose.

You seem to be labouring under the assumption that self ID as a woman requires some sort of outward change. It does not. In fact if one feels they are a woman then that is the only acknowledgement needed. Your entire male body is now a woman's body. To suggest any changes are needed is transphobic.

No, this makes no sense as a compromise whatsoever. Neither group gets anything near what they are campaigning for. What you've proposed might be called 'self ID' but in practice sounds like you just increased the amount of time a transperson has to wait before they get their full 'recognition' so I can't see them going for that.
And from a female perspective, the proposal adds nothing to reassure women that their concerns about possible abuse/inappropriate male-bodied encroachment in single sex spaces will result in proper safeguards - in fact the entirety of the safeguards you propose is '3 more years' which doesn't address any of the issues I have seen GC people bring up.

@Datun

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

This wouldn't replace the current Equality Act exemptions, so it would still be legal to make certain sensitive job roles only open to natal women.

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

Five years should be long enough to demonstrate this person is not motivated to change gender in order to conduct smear tests. And if this was their motivation the would be unlikely to pass DBS as I'm sure they would have a criminal record.

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

Sex offenders would never be housed with women. They are always kept separate and that won't change. A trans women in prison for a non violent or sex related crime, say drug dealing, yes if they have had a GRC for more than 5 years they go in a female prison.

I also don't know why you think the 5 year wait would put off opportunists. Under your proposal they would literally just have to self ID and then pop their GRC in their drawer as something handy to have in a few years time. The whole point of self ID is that there is nothing arduous about it.

No, the Y chromosome isn't going to mutate into an X, even after 5 years as a "woman". I don't really believe in Lamark's theories.

What is ‘living as a woman’? Does having a beard, wearing a suit, doing diy, watching football, manspreading on the train, and assuming woman are inferior to you, count so long as you say ‘I identify as a woman’ once every couple of months or so? And if not why not?

My answer to your question is no.

I just see the GRC as a token of validation. I.e. 'we will treat you as a woman'.

The only reason we 'need' it because society has treated men and women differently for ridiculous and baseless reasons (ie women are caring and better at humanities and men are rational and better at maths). That is why the word 'woman' has come to mean something else culturally than merely biological female and the word man has also become something else than biological male. It is sexism that has contributed so very much to transgenderism in the first place. That is why people feel their body is wrong, because their mind aligns so much more with the traits associated with the opposite sex and they cannot square this with their own body.

So in an ideal word, gender would not exist and we would simply have some segregation based on biological sex, but for the most part it would mean nothing. But in a non-ideal world, we have to accept that gender and sex have become so incredibly interlinked that it's impossible to see the distinction. So in a non-ideal world we have to accept that some people hate their bodies (because of what their bodies have come to symbolise) and will only feel better if they are given validation to live as the opposite sex in a cultural sense (name, clothes, pronouns). That's why I see a role for GRCs but with a retained emphasis on biological sex in certain circumstances.

I find the idea of 'living as a woman' extremely offensive. There is no such thing as feeling/thinking/living like a woman, to say so is inherently sexist and misogynist.

Women are not stereotypes, therefore men, however they may feel or live, are not women. Women have the feminine gender coercively imposed on us to subjugate us because we are female. It is not what we are. And we are punished for the ways we non-conform. Men are not female, nor do they have the feminine gender imposed on them, and nor are they punished for non conformity to femininity. We have no shared sex or gender experience.

Men have male privilege - i.e. they are not subjugated due to being female and they benefit from our subjugation - so they have no right to take a woman's place anywhere. And men who say they are women usually remain fully male bodied and capable of rape, so men in female only spaces - however they identify - are the same threat to women and girls.

The issue about male hcp doing intimate examinations has got little to do with the fact they may or may not be a sex offender and far more to do with the fact that women should have the right to dictate who gets to carry out those examinations.

Fuck me Daim, can't you just accept many, many women do not want a smear done by a man? A GRC will not turn an [acronym] into a woman and that would mean a biological man doing a smear. Do you really care so little about women and their dignity?

@LunaTrap that is true a man could self ID, pop it in a drawer and use it in the future. But don't forget he has just given up all his rights as a man and his male privilege. That's a pretty big sacrifice for someone who doesn't really want to be a woman.

And I don’t care what the motivation of a man might be - I still don’t want one doing my smear

It's just more frog boiling.

It's a simple approach. "Would you accept self-ID if we were to include a wholly arbitrary obstacle?" Once it's in place, the cry goes up "But if it's OK for them to be a rape crisis counsellor/do smear tests/etc at some point in the future, why not now? What's the point of the arbitrary "qualifying period" obstacle? It's humiliating."

So what you are saying daimbar is that someone is motivated to wait 5 years before becoming a rape counsellor, but not sufficiently motivated to get a GRC. Pleas explain what is so humiliating about obtaining a GRC

daimbars

Okay, we're on the same page about rape crisis centres.

A male HCP? It's got nothing to do with how long they have been a TW in order to demonstrate anything.

Women who don't want a male HCP don't give a toss about the reasons for that male being an HCP. It's completely irrelevant.

Sex segregation is not dependent upon the way the person demanding access claims they are thinking!

Sex offenders would never be housed with women. They are always kept separate and that won't change.

Wrong. See Martin Ponting.

A GRC gives a TW automatic access to the female estate. The only times when this is not allowed is if the person is in the highest possible security category, but that's only because there is no such facility in the female estate.

Common or garden sex offenders get transferred to the female estate with a GRC. If they don't have a GRC, they are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

What rights as a man does he give up under your proposal? How will someone who continues to look like a man lose his day to day privilege because of a piece of paper?

diam how has a male person a male person with a grc in the sock draw given up male privilege? They will have had it all their lives and will continue to experience it even if they choose to socially transition, albeit they may then experience discrimination due to being trans but only if they are ID'd as male and not just female.

It's an interesting suggestion. A while ago I might have been okay with it. However, having seen males take advantage of the current situation, I now agree that it just means kicking the can down the road. It's clear that some non-dysphoric males would still abuse this.

Serving 15 years for rape? Transition immediately and expect to spend at least some of your sentence in a female prison. Nothing to lose there.

Sport: no, never. For all the physiological reasons above.

Also, children need society to demonstrate that sex is unchangeable but everything about gender is up for grabs. Gender expression should be protected by law. Not gender identity.

How does a man lose his male priviledge by getting a GRC through self id? He doesn’t need to change anything about himself to obtain one.

It's so sad that this is your agenda, rather than supporting the few rights and privileges that we have managed to get for ourselves.

You have no right to give them away on behalf of other women.