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.

It's impossible to measure male privilege and whether it is retained or given up and at what point this occurs. It means different things to different people and obviously intersects with race and class. The constant though is biology and it is biology that makes it inappropriate for transwomen to compete in female sport. That's why all the debate about whether someone is still privileged is becoming white noise to me. It doesn't matter- they could have been discriminated against like nobody's business, but the point is their male biology renders them unsuited for certain things.

Shortlists etc I am out on. I think for instance an all-white female shortlist comprising middle class, educated women, does not particularly help diversity either. I think rather than AWS there should be inclusive shortlists with members from diverse disadvantaged groups being represented- including trans people. AWS are about cultural aspects of womanhood rather than biological- they aim to address oppression rather than being based on a biological necessity (even if biology was the reason for oppression).

Self ID is disagreeable in all circumstances.

To gain a GRC I believe you should need to strictly have been diagnosed with genuine gender dysphoria based on body dysphoria (not occasional cross dressing or strange beliefs around gender).
In the case of transitioning to a woman you need to have already undergone a course of cross sex hormones and breast and genital reassignment surgery
In the case of transitioning to a man - breast surgery and hormones but not phaloplasty because it does more harm than good and is rarely a success.

In other words to be a true transsexual = GRC.
No one else.

Then people with a GRC can be afforded/granted the protections of ppl of the opposite sex with exemptions in place for specific sensitive scenarios and everyone has confidence that we know what it means when someone has a GRC.

But no to any variation of self ID.

@CrochetBelle If you want to have gender reassignment surgery you have to live and dress as a women every day - it must be pretty difficult to walk down the street in women's clothes at the beginning of the journey when a person hasn't taken hormones for long.

No.

You mean walk down the street in jeans, t-shirt and a hoodie?

daimbars

How does anyone know whether they are dressed as a woman daily, hourly, or never?

And again, you'd hardly agree to removing someone's penis, if they were baulking at living in the role in the first place. That sounds more like transableism, than transgenderism.

What is ‘living as a woman’?

But daim, surely trans people are doing precisely that- living as the opposite sex? Can you explain how it is humiliating to wear women's clothes for 2 but not humiliating to do it for 5 years? A GRC has no impact on physical appearance at all. If the lived experience bit is humiliating, then surely it will be humiliating even under your new proposals.

Plus you have overlooked the fact that you can have gender changed on passports etc before you get a GRC and that the only thing a GRC gives you is a new birth certificate, which isn't really a document you use often in day to day life.

TransplantsArePlants Oops

Daimbars

What is ‘living and dressing as a women’?

And why would it be humiliating to do this is you think are a woman ?

This all an exercise in trying to persuade women that if men really, really, really want something, they should get it.

No.

I don't know Daimbars but it's an interesting idea.

No to all your questions, Daimbars. Self ID is a crap idea and it doesn't become less crap by kicking it down the road for 5 years.

Now that we have gay marriage I can't see there's any reason for the GRC either. It's an unhelpful legal fiction and arguably among the reasons women are facing this shit. The behaviour of trans lobbyists makes it very clear that invading our boundaries is all part of the fun for many of them.

No.

It just seems like a list of random exceptions, which make little sense.

Yes to all-women short lists
Maybe to sport
Yes to offenders in prisons
Except no to sex offenders
Yes to smears (where people insert things into my body)
But inexplicably no to rape crisis (where no one touches me)

Wouldn't it be easier to throw out all the stuff about what the person has to do or not do and just work out what things relate to sex and what things relate to gender?

I don't see how having a delay before a man can impose on women helps.

If a man wants to dress as a woman I support his right to do so right now with no delay at all. If he wants to wear make-up that's fine too.

If I see a man in a dress in the toilets/changing rooms (I'm a man too) that will feel a bit odd to be honest, but that is my problem and I'll soon get used to it.

I'll stand up for him against anyone who objects as everyone has the right to dress as they like. If it happens often enough other men will get used to it too and it will cease to be an issue at all.

He can take on any of the stereotypes that some people still associate with women without harming anyone. He can't be a woman though. That's just the way it is.

There will never be a time when a man can represent women as a woman or compete fairly in sports.

Oh and I hope no one minds me posting in here. My rights are not being threatened, but those of people I care about are.

Dragoncake. Tbh I have no effin' clue. The trans people I have conversed with over the last 25 years just want to get on with their lives without aggro. Did a do-gooder in government have a light bulb moment and kicked off a massive stink?

Daimbar... My thoughts change on this regularly, partly because of coming here and reading. However, my current position is; if one goes through the gate keeping process, takes all the treatments offered to them, completes bottom surgery and intends to live as a woman for the rest of their lives, then they should be treated as a woman in law.
I don't think an extra piece of paper should make a difference. On a day to day basis for the average person having that extra certificate in practice doesn't actually matter anyway.
There are those here who will disagree with that and especially here there are some women who oppose a male born person ever being treated lawfully as a woman, whatever treatment, surgery or length of time spent living as their acquired sex. Unfortunately I doubt anything I say or probably any other person can say to change those forthright opinions...

It's a crap idea, op, and frankly; an 8 year old could have advanced a better argument. Sorry.

No Daim. Because it's not about inoffensive transwomen sharing toilets, if it was just a live and let live there wouldn't have been this pushback.

Self-id strengthens the position of the transgender people who already bully us such that women can't talk about women having periods they can only refer to menstrators, they can't talk about women getting cervical cancer they can only talk about people with a cervix, they can't talk about being a mother and so on until we are reduced to a voiceless collection of seemingly 'reviled' body parts.

You talk about living in your chosen id as humiliating, you truly don't understand how humiliating it is for women to the likes of Munroe Bergdorf given a platform to speak for all 'women'.

The transactivists censoring of women's voices has strengthened my resolve to resist this curtailing of women's rights.

Daimbar and don't even get me started on the impact on women's sport

@Datun if trans privilege was a thing then I admit Jazz Jennings is a lot more privileged than most trans people. But I don't think she has male privilege.

I guess you could argue a male interviewer could interview a woman and a trans woman who were both equally competent and think to himself 'hmmm only one of these is likely to go on maternity leave' or he could think to himself 'hmmmm I don't think a trans women is the right fit for my team, she looks a bit weird, she probably has mental health issues and I can't really send her out to client meetings'

in reality I think a male interviewer would choose a biological woman over a trans woman every time.

Oh and as for stopping self ID from being abused that is impossible if self-ID exists at all.
Just the fact that a man might be identifying as a woman means that any man must be allowed to go everywhere without question as this man might be someone who has the right paperwork and might have waited the required time.

daimbars
I think you are underestimating employers critical thinking skills and recruitment processes.

All this rubbish about waiting for hormones. Many of them get them from the internet. Read any forum including UK ones to see that. They could be on hormones for years before socially transitioning.

I think we need to get rid of the legal fiction that a male can ever become a woman, or that a female can become a man, and instead look at ways of ensuring that transwomen and transmen have their safety and rights respected. I can understand that someone who has had surgery and hormones and may pass quite well doesn't want to have to explain all the damn time -- there are many situations where their sex (as opposed to their expressed gender) should not matter. Or rather, they should not always be having to explain their exact transition status. That if someone has transitioned and does not pass, they should not be harassed or disadvantaged because of their use of surgery/hormones or choice of clothing or presentation. But the solution to that issue is not just to legally make us all pretend they are a woman when we know they are actually a transwoman. Or legally pretend someone is a man when they are a transman.

Perhaps somewhat akin to lesbian and gay folk at work, where for monitoring purposes, you can indicate your sexual orientation, but you should not be forced to announce it to everyone unless you wish to. I was pondering having sex/gender on some forms, whilst having a secure sex/transition status held elsewhere (so a transwoman or a transman gets counted in the appropriate set).

Legal protection, yes, but we need to know sex for various official purposes, like who can be a womens officer, or count as females promoted to management positions, or who is eligible to take a smear test from a woman who has requested a female HCP.

But fannying about with the GRC isn't the way to go about it, we need to start afresh.