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 think we should either abolish the GRC or narrow it's scope to be about 'presentation' so that a male, for example can wear the female uniform at work, but it doesn't extend to being allowed to use women's facilities or be classed as female.

Being that so many men are perverts, their GRC should be a certificate to prove they aren't wearing women's clothes/etc as a sexual fetish, bacause it is inappropriate to indulge fetishes at work and creates a hostile environment for women.

The GRA needs to be repealed. It was rushed through, ratifies lies and is harmful/insulting to women.

spontaneousgiventime Tue 19-Jun-18 16:41:34

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.

Hormones are available from abroad, however without medical supervision it's inadvisable to self medicate. Also, self medicating is more expensive than visiting a private doctor.
The twenty year old UK trans forum I frequent doesn't even allow people to discuss self medicating. Most trans people will advise against self medication. To avoid NHS waiting times, they most likely route is through a private practice.

You can't live 'as a woman' unless you are one.

You can live 'according to culturally-determined sex-role stereotypes' if you want and I see no reason for that to be gate-kept at all. I'd be happy for people to self-id as feminine or whatever.

But protections designed to mitigate against sex-based disadvantage should be sex-based.

Male privilege in its rawest form is not being female and therefore not being subjugated due to your sex by and for the benefit of the opposite sex. Men who say they are women are not female and are not subjugated due to their sex, but rather they are the sex that benefits from the inequality of females. This is structural.

But also most trans people have not only grown up with their sex being clear, but continue to live with their sex being clear and known to most if not all around them, regardless of whether they are in the tiny minority that 'passes' or not.

So even when it comes to how trans people are treated post 'transition', changes in their appearance don't erase their male privilege on the level of structural privilege or socialisation, anymore than a white person with a tan erases their white privilege.

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

I personally think JJ has male privilege, even if they were not famous. The position they have in the family is so obviously due to their sex, the sister hardly gets a look-in.

This is not just the way they get treated but how they feel and act about themselves. There is so much positive feedback where self esteem is concerned.

PoulaFisch I am fully aware that taking medication obtained from anywhere but a Doctor is risky. That doesn't stop some of them though does it? That is my point, some take hormones from irregular sources, so claiming they might be walking round in their heels and make up with no hormones is crap.

Daim I disagree about Jazz benefitting from male privilege. Jazz hasn't sought that privilege IMO. But that's a different matter.

Male people who transition like Jazz are generally feted in the media and given prominent voices. Female people who transition are given no such prominence unless they have a baby. Surely that's male privilege in action?

daimbars I've just read this thread quite quickly, so apologies if you've answered any of these questions and I missed it.

How is living "as a woman" for two years before being able to obtain a GRC humiliating but having to live "as a man" for five years after obtaining a GRC through self-id isn't?

Who is the arbiter of what living counts as living as a member of one or the other sex?

If any individual self-identified transwoman chooses to not make any alteration to themselves by surgery, hormones, etc, are they really to be considered for AWS and women's sports just because an arbitrary length of time has passed since they made the declaration that they are trans?

I don't think this idea has been very well thought through. I believe that transpeople are the victims of discrimination, and they shouldn't be, but as a feminist, I don't believe that the discrimination of transwomen is because they have become women. Men cannot be women. Biological sex is important, and whatever provisions are made to enable transwomen to live their lives fully, safely and adequately represented in politics, the media, etc, shouldn't come at the expense of provisions that are necessary if women are to ever have the same.

*I disagree about Jazz not benefitting from male privilege

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

Why would you think that?

Because in other situations, it's the opposite. Transwomen are being picked over women for all women shortlists, as representing filmmakers, as woman of the year, as one the top 50 women in business, as women's officers, on TV reality shows, as the first woman to do something, as medal winners in sport, representing the suffragettes on magazine covers and over lesbians in representing the L in LGBT.

It is male privilege in action. Show me the women, identifying as men, who are ousting men. Show me.

The GRA has vital protections for women built in which also protect the person saying that they want to change legal status permanently.

Because some feel that way but later regret it. Growing numbers in fact.

And it involves some degree of assessment and analysis to identify those with other issues or problems that need to be addressed before - or instead of - transitioning.

We should never create the idea this is some magic 'cure'. It is a last resort and always should be.

These barriers exist in order to protect the person from themselves as well as protect everybody else such as their family who they might hurt by this going wrong and others they might interact with.

This is a totally fair trade off for expecting society to legally grant rights that you are not by default meant to have in the first place.

Anything that makes mistakes more likely so that the person regrets it and/or others pay the price for someone transitioning who is not ready and/or might never be ready is a bad law.

Self ID as a concept is dangerous as it gives all the rights to someone who in some cases (probably many cases) is likely to have a degree or mental instability by virtue of living for years in what they are sure is the wrong gender.

And it removes all the existing reassurances from those who are ceding these rights to them for reasons that seem odd in my view.

This process is and always should remain a two way bond of trust. It should not be a smash and grab for rights with minimum effort.

Having been through transition and the GRA it is NOT humiliating - not if it is the right thing for you to do. And if it is humiliating it is a good thing you find that out and desist before you get access to lots of places by right.

If you find it humiliating to talk to a doctor and wait a year or two for legal acceptance then how on Earth are you ever going to adjust to living successfully in your permanent new role without falling apart at the least comment.

Those things seem like excuses - to deflect from the removal of the need for psychiatric assessment that judges suitability of the person wanting to transition and gain these rights.

We should not be granting legal status to someone unwilling to do the bare minimum to demonstrate their suitability to have that status.

And the sports thing is a red herring. Like refuges and shortlists sport is protected and so should be decided by the places that enforce their own rules.

They are not codified as a right within the GRA and never should be.

If anything the nature and degree of exclusion needs clarifying in law.

I live as a woman (because, well, I am a woman so anything I do is ipso facto done as a woman).
Today it involved getting up, showering, putting on trousers, T-shirt and DMs, taking my DS to school, fiddling on the computer and phone at work etc. etc.
I struggle to understand how a man living like I do would a) be living as a woman and b) how it would materially differ from his living as a man. I do not understand why a man would be humiliated to live my life but it is OK for me.

i welcome "men in dresses" - even the hairy ones - into any many spaces! MOST of the time women are not actually seeking sex segregated spaces.

however (sorry if already said, am in a rush and haven't read whole thread) it might be more useful to think of "womanhood", where segregation is necessary, as more of a handicap than an exclusive club we are trying to keep people out of.

handicap meaning that people in the class of woman are disadvantaged by our current society throughout our lives. these disadvantages range from customs and socialisation; misinformation; harmful social stereotypes; actual physical differences in strength and aggression; and the short and long term risks to health, bodily autonomy and employment that come with being of the class of person who bears babies.

if there was not this enormous structural imbalance between the classes of man and woman, i don't think many people would have a problem with any of this.

Transwomen are being picked over women for all women shortlists, as representing filmmakers, as woman of the year, as one the top 50 women in business, as women's officers, on TV reality shows, as the first woman to do something, as medal winners in sport

@Datun are you saying trans women should be excluded from entering the above altogether? Trans women with a GRC are legally women so you would have to try and repeal the GRA to stop them being eligible. That just isn't realistic.

Hence my OP, if trans women had to wait five years to do all the above then at least it would limit it to those who are genuine rather than any old chancer.

ugh my "men in dresses" was not supposed to be an offensive or antagonistic term by the way anybody and MNHQ.

i had misremembered OP's post which said "No risk of a burly, hairy man abusing self ID" as no risk of men in dresses abusing self id (as i have read it put that way several times).

apologies i have a furious baby screaming at me.

We see male privilege throughout trans activism, not just in terms of the focus on men who say they are women, but also on the way these men approach women who won't submit to them and the fact that violent misogyny is now definitive of trans activism (*note not trans people, but trans activism).

But also look at how the feelings of men who say they are women in prison is trumping the safety of women in prison; look at how the humanity of each group is understood where that is happening.

Men who say they are women are treated the same way other men are both in the trans movement and in wider society. They are at the forefront. Their needs and demands come before those of women. Women are expected to accommodate and definitely not resist. Same old story....

Oppression and privilege is invisible to the privileged oppressor.

Some males display such extreme male entitlement that they want female compensations for not having male privilege as well as keeping their own (to them) invisible privileges.

They need to fuck off.

I think living as a woman essentially boils down to telling others that you are a woman and asking them to refer to you using female pronouns. Presumably also dressing in a manner typically associated with being female. Beyond that it doesn't mean very much.

As for workplace discrimination, I think the glamorous faces of trans like Munroe Bergdorf and Shon Faye do portray a false image. Yes, political parties have trans 'postergirls' but I think the reality is different. Trans people are likely to be quite socioeconomically disadvantaged, and I certainly think the run of the mill employer is not going to jump to employ them. So in the workplace, unless you happen to work in media or maybe IT, being trans is unlikely to help your career. It's the same with being gay- yes, there are may high profile spokespeople but in reality, discrimination still exists and if anything it is likely to count against you. But as I said before, I don't think it helps to try to work out who is more privileged, especially based just on one named individual.

daimbars what is the point of having an all women shortlist if it isn't all women? How does it help representation of people born female of everyone on a AWS was born male?

What is the point of women's sports is the people winning them are male?

What is the point of having a list of the highest paid women when the top spot is taken by someone born male?

What is the point of the first woman to achieve something being born male?

Do any of these things improve the status of women? Improve their life chances? Show them a path to success?

Jazz Jennings doesn't have male privilege, I'm pretty sure you'r

Isn't Jennings something like 13 years old?

What is 'living as the opposite gender' anyway? A man can't live as a woman because he is a man, however much he might want to. Neither can a woman live as a man.

Let's stop with the harmful stereotyping, and change society so that people are happy with their bodies fgs. GRC or transitioning are not the answer.

Yes the law gives men who say they are women access to female only spaces and places, but that doesn't mean it's right or defensible. There is absolutely no reason a man with a GRC should be on any kind of all women's shortlist, that the law allows it is irrelevant to any discussion re whether we think it's right or not that it's allowed to happen.

daimbars

Yes. Men should not be taking the place of women, trans or not. They are not disadvantaged for same reason that women are. Therefore their 'leg up' should not be at the expense of a leg down for women.

Plus their goals and agenda couldn't be more different to that of women.

Trans people should be represented as trans. Not as women.

Haven't read the whole thread but NO.

Soap exactly; AWS are meant to address the under-representation of women because females face sex based inequality. The inclusion of males is an act of validation and nothing more, it is certainly not a redress for sex based inequality, and it takes a place from a woman where it would be. Men who take women's places are beneath contempt imo. They just do not care about the inequality of other groups of people. Nothing stopping the trans community fighting for their own inclusion initiatives.