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.

Interesting @nauticant about frog boiling. Someone said to me recently that civil partnerships were like frog boiling, it was too much to launch straight into gay marriage so we needed a compromise for a few years. So I can see where you're coming from with not wanting to compromise in case giving an inch means losing a mile.

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

pop what in a drawer? The whole point of self ID is that you don't have to pop anything anywhere!

It's the concept not the qualification period that's problematic. So no.

But don't forget he has just given up all his rights as a man and his male privilege.

How does filling in a form get rid of male privilege?

No. It wouldn't give them the experience anyway. And no to sport. And no to shortlists. And no to spaces where women are vulnerable and or naked. Just no. If someone has full surgery then I can accept some of this, although I'm still not convinced when it comes to sport, but without full surgery then no.

Just leave things as they are. I've just been through the NHS GIC gate keeping system. The gate keeping is designed to stop those who are unsuitable from making a huge mistake and those may have an underlying mental health issue rather than actually being trans. These days the rules are relaxed and bars to treatment are lower also. For instance to be entered onto the transsexual care pathway, receive treatment i.e. electrolysis, counselling, vocal training & hormones, a mtf does not have to be camp as a row of tents, arrive plastered in make up and wearing a skirt like the "old days". Bottom surgery however does require at least a year living "in role". Again not unreasonable.
They have your best interests in mind.
I have no problem with a person having to live 2 years in their acquired sex before they're given a piece of paper making it official. It's still possible to live and work presenting as your none birth sex, hold a driving licence, bank account and passport without a GRC anyway. Which is why only a small minority of transsexuals actually bother with the GRC process.
I've yet to meet or communicate online with anyone who particularly gives a hoot about self id or thinks/thought the current process was humiliating...

Am I stupid?

I feel stupid right now

What you are saying makes no sense

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.

The whole 'faking it' is also a red herring in my mind. It doesn't matter whether someone is trans for good or for bad reasons. Trans people are people and you will get some good ones and some bad ones. The bottom line is that in some circumstances, it is inappropriate to have male bodied people in the same space as female bodied ones. It doesn't matter how 'genuine' someone is in their motivation- it is their body that is the issue, not their mind. Therefore to me, a lengthy system to make sure there are no 'fakers' is neither here nor there.

Do I think a man will realistically apply for a GRC then pop it in a drawer and wait 5 years? No, this sounds completely ludicrous. Does it matter? No, because the point is male biology and even someone with severe and genuine dysphoria is biologically male.

But don't forget he has just given up all his rights as a man and his male privilege.

What rights? List them.

Name a transwoman, that I might be familiar with who does not have male privilege. And describe how they don't. Just one will do.

Poula

Thanks for giving your experience

How could this possibly be adjudicated? How could someone ever prove that there has been no single moment in the past X years where their increased physical strength or stamina due to their biology gave them some advantage? How could you measure the extent to which someone's privilege as a member of the dominant sex-class affected their confidence? How can you possibly define that someone is 'living as a woman' given the huge breadth of experiences that womanhood covers? I don't think there is any number of years that should be spent performing a narrow gender stereotype using clothes, hair, makeup and shoes that therefore qualifies anyone to be able to adequately represent women, no.

All-women shortlists were born out of the recognition that overall, on average, women are less likely to consider themselves as leadership material and put themselves forward for positions of responsibility, whereas overall on average men are more likely to have more self-confidence. Of course there are confident women and shy and self-effacing men, because there is a huge range of varieties of people. Unfortunately self-confidence doesn't correlate very strongly with actual competence. AWS doesn't exactly resolve this but they help the competent and capable but less self-assertive women to be noticed. There is no amount of performance that a person with XY chromosomes can put on that makes it OK for them to require women to surrender a place to them - obviously they can and should stand for positions of responsibility if they wish but these should be on mixed-sex shortlists and not for women-specific positions. I would support the creation of other kinds of shortlists to broaden representation to have fewer wealthy white alpha-males - eg shortlists of people who went to a bog-standard comprehensive and either a non-RG university or no university, and other similar categories. Certainly someone with XY chromosomes who does not conform to the expected stereotype for men will be at a disadvantage compared to the likes of Boris Johnson so I would support some accommodation to redress that balance - but that accommodation should be at the expense of the patriarchal majority currently in power, not at the expense of women who are still far from achieving equality.

All female panels should ideally be chosen to broadly represent the whole population of women so on a panel of 10 there should be 5 who have a below-median income and 5 who have an above-median income for example. Given the size of most panels transwomen are already massively and ridiculously over-represented even if you consider them to be included as a subcategory of women.

I find this notion that a man gives up his male privilege and rights when he goes through the 'arduous and humiliating' process of gaining a GRC fascinating. I can't quite articulate why it sounds so off, but it seems to be begging the question all over the place.

And yes, I'm with mossandclover here - I don't care if a man's only motivation for doing a smear is a deep human altruism that drives him to help people, I still don't want a man doing a smear test on me. I don't need to psychically analyse my HCP. I just need them to be a specific sex in certain circumstances.

@Datun Jazz Jennings doesn't have male privilege, I'm pretty sure you're familiar with her?

I wonder if 'giving up your male privilege' means: making yourself vulnerable to being attacked by men??

I've yet to meet or communicate online with anyone who.....thinks/thought the current process was humiliating...

Paula, that's really interesting. Why do you think that is? Where is the noise about the process being humiliating coming from in your view?

No

Once a man got their GRC they had to wait a period of time (say 5 years) before they were able to remove equality rights from 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 man overturning the definition of a woman?

Is how the OP should read.

I wonder if 'giving up your male privilege' means: making yourself vulnerable to being attacked by men??

Even that gives them an advantage over us, they are bigger and stronger than the vast majority of women.

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?!

^ This.
OP can you clarify why it is "humiliating"?

I’m familiar with Jazz Jennings. Unfortunately my views on that would be deleted.

So I’m just going with

Thanks @PoulaFisch for sharing. What are your thoughts on women's only panels / jobs etc? Do you think they should be open to trans women from when they get a GRC? Or when they identify as women? Or after a certain period of time? Or not at all?

@Datun Jazz Jennings doesn't have male privilege, I'm pretty sure you're familiar with her?

Interesting. I disagree since they've got their own TV show and are a multimillionaire on the back of not being a natal female. But I'm interested to know why you think they don't.

Could it possibly be because the physical transition that they have gone through is proving less than advantageous?

spontaneous

That was going to be my next point.

I've had no answers to my questions yet though, so...

The issue of time as 'lived experience as a woman' becomes particularly significant in the treatment of male prisoners who are serving mid-long sentences.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3282596-Ministry-of-Justice-being-sued-by-a-transwoman

Oh i didnt answer

I did in my head

Its a no from me