House of Lords debate on 'gender recognition process'

[bakingdemon]

There's a 'short debate' in the House of Lords on 'gender recognition process and the Government's LGBT action plan' this afternoon.

The Conservative peer Lord Lucas (does anyone know anything about him and what his views are likely to be?) has called it and so far the other peers who are listed as speaking are Baroness Barker, Lord Cashman, Baroness Featherstone, Baroness Gale, Lord Scriven and Baroness Williams. As at least four of those of Liberal Democrats I'm not optimistic that women's concerns about self ID will be reflected.

Details are here: calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Lords/All/2018/7/12/Daily

Crap. If they're Lib Dems we're screwed.
Mind you the others listening might hear a lot of word salad and not agree with any of it (hopefull)

If Cashman's tweets are anything to go by it will be sneering misogyny and contempt for women dripping from every pore.

Interesting. Lord Lucas is editor of The Good Schools Guide.

twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/status/1016955119483711488
I want to be optimistic.

Sorry wrong link. Meant to show Lord Lucas retweeted above.

Lord Lucas article posted today

Wow. Someone that knows the difference between sex and gender! I’m amazed!

At least the lords aren’t scared to be forthright for fear of not being re-elected.

I used to think an unelected chamber was a bad thing, with this and Brexit, I am having to rethink my opinions.

Thank goodness someone has had the good sense and courage to mention biological reality and the impact on women. Thank you Lord Lucas. The debate needs to look at EVERYONE's needs, this is another significant step in the right direction.

Gosh, that piece by Lord Lucas shows an understanding of science and reality. I would be very interested indeed to see what the counter-arguments look like.

Why would us trans-inclusive sorts want to counter it? He's in favour of reform to make changing one's legal gender easier, good, that's what I want too.

He wants sports bodies to be supported in their implementing criteria for participation for trans women, wants establishments to be supported in protecting women where necessary, wants great care to be taken when the medicalisation of children's bodies is deemed beneficial to them, and wants the complex intersectionality of discrimination to be recognised.

I would have thought the only people who would counter him would be anyone who didn't want the GRC process reformed, didn't want trans women in women's sports, wanted the universal exclusion of trans women from "women's" spaces, and wanted to ban any treatment for gender dysphoria offered to juveniles.

I'd imagine plenty of TRAs would take issue with this:

"Once everyone has freedom to roam in the gender space, what justification will there be for such treatments*?"

• allowing children’s bodies to be chemically and physically altered in the cause of helping them be comfortable with their gender

There are other things in there I'd expect TRAs to find problematic.

I don’t think anyone on here wants to ban any treatment for children with gender dysphoria - we want to ban surgical and pharmacological intervention, especially experimental intervention on children.

I don't see what's so objectionable about the second one there nauticant. The first, yes, I suppose someone might try very hard to take issue with it; but it's such a pie in the sky musing; you know, with us all "roaming free in the gender space"; that personally if I were trans I'd forgive Lord Lucas' for overlooking the treatment of bodily dysphoria as a justification and take the phrase in good faith.

Maybe we're closer to being on the same page than we realised?

that personally if I were trans I'd forgive Lord Lucas' for overlooking the treatment of bodily dysphoria as a justification and take the phrase in good faith.

To be fair, that's easy for me to do. Perhaps I was flippant. If i were trans I might very well want to correct Lord Lucas that bodily dysphoria would likely still persist in a gender-free world, and that that would justify treatment.

But then again I don't think anyone on the GC side would necessarily disagree with them making that correction, would they?

Rat
If i were trans I might very well want to correct Lord Lucas that bodily dysphoria would likely still persist in a gender-free world, and that that would justify treatment.

I thought the proposed reforms were about removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. How would this help people who suffer from that condition?

What does being trans mean to those who define themselves in such a way, but do not suffer from gender dysphoria? And what would being trans mean in a gender-free world?

I thought the proposed reforms were about removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. How would this help people who suffer from that condition?

Surely it would neither help nor hinder them, necessarily?

What does being trans mean to those who define themselves in such a way, but do not suffer from gender dysphoria? And what would being trans mean in a gender-free world?

These are very interesting things to ponder, but to the second one certainly I don't think anyone has the answer. Neither do I think it matters right now, as the fact is we do live in a world with gender.

Personally I don't know what it means to be trans, dysphoric or not. I can try and understand, but I'm afraid I can't answer your question because I simply don't know.

It'll be interesting to see what gets discussed in the short debate - not that they will have much time to get into anything substantive

Rat - if the "gender dysphoria is not a mental illness" statement is taken to its logical conclusion, it means that the NHS is not obliged to fund anything to help ameliorate the condition, whether that's counselling or top / bottom surgery. I can't see how that is helpful for those who have GD

I believe that the push for "gender dysphoria is not a mental illness" is to turn "gender dysphoria" into an umbrella term that people will be able to identify with, or not, as their preference requires. A flag of convenience, if you will.

Rat - if the "gender dysphoria is not a mental illness" statement is taken to its logical conclusion, it means that the NHS is not obliged to fund anything to help ameliorate the condition, whether that's counselling or top / bottom surgery. I can't see how that is helpful for those who have GD

That's not my understanding. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition, not a mental illness. One can still get treatment for conditions that are not considered "illnesses".

Surely it would neither help nor hinder them, necessarily?

The European Court of Human Rights thinks that a medical diagnosis is necessary for the protection of the transgender person. In this case last year, in which an applicant wanted to be able to change their legal status from male to female without a medical diagnosis, the court ruled against them, saying:

“this requirement is aimed at safeguarding the interests of the persons concerned in that it is designed in any event to ensure that they do not embark unadvisedly on the process of legally changing their identity”.

There is recognition that people who suffer from gender identity issues need to have some contact with a medical professional and a psychiatric diagnosis before making major decisions regarding their identity.

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition, not a mental illness.

Can you explain this in more detail?

Can you explain this in more detail?

No, but I can paste you a link to an explanation I read recently...

"Yes, the definiition of medical condition includes mental illness, but not all medical conditions are mental illnesses. I am sure you understand that. To aid your understanding,, I refer you to the NHS guidlines, and I'll quote directly:

[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/ NHS Guidelines]

"This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate. It's not a mental illness."

You are more than welcome to argue with experts in the field of medicine, and assume that there is a massive conspiracy by the super-powerful trans lobby to corrupt the WHO, NHS, APA and other bodies, but that seems a little unlikley, certainly less likely than the other option. So which is it, massive world-wide conspiracy, or a reevalution?

As for the kind of medical condition it is:

"Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender incongruence."

From this thread

Not so happy he thinks we don't need single sex facilities like toilets because the young don't seem fussed.

Maybe he doesn't realise that the majority of 'the young' have not yet experienced the rapes, assaults, stalking, miscarriages or motherhood which makes the 'older' appreciate them?

For clarity, the paragraph about corruption etc. is referring to the fact that all the bodies mentioned (WHO, NHS etc.) do not classify gender dysphoria as a mental illness, rather a mental condition. The poster being responded to, if I remember rightly, said that was due to pressure from trans-lobbyists.