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 don't understand how the GRC law was passed without consultation with women's groups in the first place. The whole law needs looking at properly. We need legally agreed words and full protection for women and girls. No more of this sly, subterfuge and confusion.

How does Jazz not have male privilege? Surely it is the very height of male privilege to talk about your sister's gentials in cosmo and be proclaimed as brave for attempting to coerce her into carrying "your" future offspring. Of couse ignoring that it is her egg(s) with your future husband's sperm! If that isn't male privilege, I don't fucking know what is!

This is a thought exercise to find a place to insert the thin edge of the wedge. Not just to divide women but to change the subject from women's rights to transgender advocates desires.

3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
Unless, of course, they are talking about how better to serve others.

At the moment the process of getting a GRC is humiliating for a trans person (having to live as the opposite gender for two years)

Haven't read the full thread, but why is it humiliating to live as the opposite gender for 2 years when what they want is to live as the opposite gender?

To original question: No

No. Sex cant actually change so I don't think AWS, sports, woman specific jobs etc should be open to them whether it be two years, five or twenty.

No.

And as for it being humiliating - welcome to our world.

What are these super special rights that only women have? What rights do trans people not have?

TheLocalYokel

Absolutely spot on.

To the original question: no. Of course not.

Another example of refusing to take 'no' for an answer. 'But what if..? How about..? Say it was like this? ...'

No. No.

fairenuff I cant say for sure but I am pretty sure that women’s groups (apart from maybe the odd feminist like Germaine Greer) did not raise objections to the 2004 law being passed. In fact it was probably broadly supported by feminists. Maybe there is some evidence of objections in the Hansard debates but I think on the whole there was a lot of support for the law, especially e.g. with trans characters like Hayley in Coronation Street with outrage from viewers that she should be excluded from female spaces etc. Obviously Hayley was a played by a woman which no doubt altered public perception.

Daim - I think the underlying question of your OP is "how could the GRC process ensure that only genuine trans people are able to get a GRC?"

If this is the case, you have arrived at the wrong answer IMO. It's not time that separates out the chancers from the genuine, it's the process involving a range of interaction with professionals that does that. And of course, like any process, it's not infallible plus the current GRC process is not some test of character so we end up with transwomen who have a GRC who behave in the most outrageous ways towards vulnerable women

And of course, like any process, it's not infallible plus the current GRC process is not some test of character so we end up with transwomen who have a GRC who behave in the most outrageous ways towards vulnerable women

Exactly. You could have a genuine trans person (meaning someone who genuinely has gender dysphoria) who is also a serial killer. You could have someone who decides his life will be easier if he IDs as female (e.g. in prison) but who is no physical threat to anyone. Having a GRC now means nothing in terms of safety- you cannot be denied a GRC for being violent for example.

There were many Feminists cautioning that the GRA was a destructive way to provide marriage rights to Gays and Lesbians. Passing a law that sends the message that if you are Gay or Lesbian and want to marry your partner you have to transition was a terrible mistake and they knew it when they did it.
It was immediately upon passage of the 2004 GRA that the Trans Umbrella was raised in an effort to subsume all gender non conforming people.

A male will never have experience of being female, so should not be entrusted to represent and champion female people's concerns as a women's officer, or to present a female perspective on a panel. A male person who is trans is never going to have a female body, so should not be allowed to compete against females in sport.

Why can't you grasp this? It's not about what someone has to do before they can join the club. It's not a club. A male can not become female. There's no waiting period, no hoops to jump through, nothing to self declare.

It's not about excluding anyone from anything. It's just a biological fact.

THIS.

Hell will freeze over before I would support self ID. I don't trust men. They would take the hand out of it left, right and centre. Plus, it's a pile of shite!

OK, but I don't think the GRA was ever intended to give an option to gay and lesbian couples to marry. The small number of transsexuals it concerned largely regarded themselves as heterosexual, not gay. Plus of course the Civil Partnership Act was progressing through Parliament at roughly the same time and gained Royal Assent the same year as the GRA, so I would find it unusual if gay rights campaigners were excessively focused on the GRA, although if you have evidence to the contrary, I am happy to be proved wrong of course.

According to Wikipedia, Julie Bindel first started writing about the issue in 2007. Germaine Greer had of course raised it much earlier but was widely condemned when she tried to block a transwoman from becoming a fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge.

Jazz Jennings is a child.

The entire history of her transition has made her famous world wide, incredibly wealthy and she will, I promise you, become hugely vocal and significant in articulating trans issues. That's pretty much a definition of privilege.

I am really struggling to see how vulnerable, not very bright Lily Madigan would have gained her role without her male privilege.
If an equally inarticulate and slightly hopeless young woman applied for her role and then posted 'I've accidentally spent all my money, could you send me some' on social media I suspect she would be sacked

She's also about to get some very exciting role as a lesbian . She's trans and a lesbian and I think her entire career is based entirely around the fact that she was born male. That's male privilege

No. Also I don't get why having to live as a woman for 2 years is humiliating?

When people say 'genuine transperson' do they really really mean person with the opposite sex brain? Really?

The reason we're in this position now, is because we gave them an inch and they've not just taken a mile, they've gone into fucking orbit.

PMSL but yes I agree. Had enough of the lot of it - not budging on anything.

The constant pushing at our boundaries has had the opposite effect to that desired...I for one am fucking raged and telling everyone who will listen all about why...

When people say 'genuine transperson' do they really really mean person with the opposite sex brain? Really?

I think I used the phrase below. I meant genuine trans person as in someone who genuinely suffers from gender dysphoria and seeks a GRC to get affirmation of gender identity. As opposed to man who wants to enter female spaces and gets a GRC solely in order to be able to do that.

Thanks. I would assume generally it meant 'person with genuine dysphoria' but for transadvocates surelyvthat isn't acceptable as it implies a mental disorder.

According to Wikipedia, Julie Bindel first started writing about the issue in 2007.
Would you be surprised to hear that Wikipedia is incorrect regarding Feminists? I know for a fact that this claim is incorrect
Pam's House Blend is the place for you to begin your research on when the Lesbians and Gays were discussing the arguments being put forth by transgender advocates promoting the advantages of using the GRA to legitimize their illegal marriages in 2004. That will provide you with many links though link rot has set in on some.

No. A man is still a man with or without a GRC. Changing 'gender' officially does not change behavioural patters.

A separate legal category and specific rights relating to being transgender - yes.