Self ID - should it be more like getting married?

[Thethiniceofanewday]

Bear with me. Thinking about Self-ID in preparation for filling in the consultation.

The Government seems to be looking about Self-ID as though it were the same as a name-change - you make a statutory declaration of your new name, start using it, and off you go.

Maybe it isn't like that.

Maybe it should be more like a marriage contract. A marriage is a public contract between two people, as a result of which they get certain social benefits which used to include tax breaks, inheritance rights, etc.

Changing from a man to a woman, or vice-versa, isn't just a personal decision. It's a social one too, it affects your family, your children, if you have any, your employers. It means you can conceal debts or past crimes.

So maybe Self-ID should be more like getting married, in that you would publish 'banns' and anyone who objected would have the right to be heard.

But the TRAs would never accept any exernal constraint, would they.

But ...erm....changing from man to woman isn't actually possible . Beam me up Scotty , you cannna change the laws of physics ( and chemistry and biology )

Thats a red herring of an argument, you need to get with the programme. We're changing gender not sex.

And marriage only ever affects the people that agreed to it at the time (I suppose you could argue it affects the kids but there's social services etc to mitigate for that) and either one can decide to end it. Self id will affect every generation and presumably couldn't suddenly be terminated by someone who isn't the transperson so it's even more serious than marriage.

You are misinformed Billy

Anyone can change gender just by doing so - there is no formal process.

Self-ID is about changing sex in the eyes of the law. That's the whole point.

• and that is why it is problematic.

Banns or notice of marriage are published so people can object if the marriage is unlawful (not of age, married already, too closely related, either party incapable of understanding)

It does not seek to assess whether someone's reasons for marrying are worthy enough.

Trans people are advocating a legally binding declaration which would acceptably invoke legal proceedings and potentially a custodial sentence if malice was proven. Hence, a cis woman could not self-id as a man legally for a day for a publicity stunt

First of all, the only grounds to object to another person's intended marriage is that they are already married, are under 16, or are closely related to their intended spouse. Other than that, nobody gives a crap if Johnny from next door said he slept with the bride to be and is in love with her. That doesn't stop a marriage being able to go ahead. So I am not sure on what basis anyone could object to a GRC.

Secondly, I really don't see how this is like a marriage. Who is the second person involved? Marriage is a contract between two people, but the state also has an interest in it. How does that work with gender recognition?

I can't see how this would change things for the better I am afraid. The point is that sex is fixed, not changeable, and the state should not be pretending that it can be changed.

Hence, a cis woman could not self-id as a man legally for a day for a publicity stunt

What's a "cis woman"? And how does the requested recognition for non binary gender identity work then?

Trans people are advocating a legally binding declaration which would acceptably invoke legal proceedings and potentially a custodial sentence if malice was proven. Hence, a cis woman could not self-id as a man legally for a day for a publicity stunt

Yet nobody can ask for ID.

And there is no suggestion of time limit before starting to self ID, ie when your documents arrive. According to the all the guidance, you simply use whatever facilities best suit your gender anyway. Jane Fae is a well known personality who doesn't have a GRC and doesn't intend to get one, Pip Bunce uses whichever facility they ID on as that day. How on earth would you prove a 'cis' woman (see posting guidelines) was not trans without the aid of a Vulcan mindmeld?

The state already acknowledges that trans women are women and trans men are men. The current application process for a gender recognition certificate, legally identifying the applicants gender identity, is based on outdated gatekeeping procedures primarily defined by men. It also excludes non-binary identities and does not allow under 18s to be legally recognised. The impact on cisgendered people to the current legislation is none. The impact of simplifying the application process is equally none for cis people, but is a huge benefit to trans people.

You might want to read a few threads around here where all that has been thoroughly debunked, many many times.

As soon as you impose conditions it's not self-ID. The TRAs don't want any conditions.

Ideally the GRA would be repealed. This gets lots of screams of outrage when you suggest it but in fact it would only affect 4910 people whose day to day lives wouldn't change because everywhere's swallowed self-ID whole anyway.

Given that 'repeal the GRA' won't fly it should be left to dwindle into obsolescence.

It is actually obsolete already. The last two remaining areas it makes a difference on paper are prisons and all women shortlists. Neither of those are working in practice.

The push to reform the GRA is dodgy as all fuck. It's not reform it's repurposing.

Sorry, midge, I worded that poorly.

I agree that changing from man to woman isn't actually possible, I meant the legal fiction of change that is created by the GRC.

ButterflyT

The short answer is that you have been given incorrect information.

Transwomen are women for legal purposes only if they have a GRC. In the absence of that, they are protected from discrimination under Gender Reassignment alone.

I don’t agree that I’m misinformed. The current GRA legislation does legally define a trans man as a man and a trans woman as a woman. However, the legislation as it stands requires a burden of proof which is obtained though self I’d with medical professionals through self declaration. After all, you cannot be referred to a gender identity clinic if you haven’t self declared

You are suggesting a way of gate-keeping. I applaud you. We need to encourage ideas, if there are to be solutions.

Someone needs to bloody well stand by the floodgate, since medical professionals won't be doing it for much longer

The push to reform the GRA is dodgy as all fuck. It's not reform it's repurposing

Excellent point.

The impact of simplifying the application process is equally none for cis people, but is a huge benefit to trans people.

Didn't you know the trans lobby wants legal recognition for non binary gender identity? Seems you are misinformed.

And the meaningless bullshit word "cis" is against talk guidelines because it's offensive to many women and considered goady. Perhaps you didn't realise. I don't personally report anyone to the mods except in extreme cases of abusive trolling but others might do.

The state already acknowledges that trans women are women and trans men are men.
Nope

Didn't you know the trans lobby wants legal recognition for non binary gender identity? Seems you are misinformed.

Ah, just read your post again. It seems you do know but think you can gaslight us to believe it's irrelevant to women and doesn't contradict your previous "nothing to see here" statement. No.

The only system that would work would be one that male predators cannot take advantage of in order to intimidate women and girls.

I can't think of any system that would work other than the sex segregated spaces that women already have a right to under law.

Humans cannot change sex.

There simply should not be any legislation that pretends they can.

There should be legislation that protects people from discrimination on the basis of gender non conformity. That would allow everyone to wear what they want, and play with whatever toys they want. Breaking down gender would be a very positive thing for society.

Any type of legal fiction that goes against a very basic scientific fact is counter productive. You don’t make planes fly by banning gravity by enshrining the idea of what each gender ‘should’ be in law we create an incredibly regressive situation. It denies biology and it’s pretty homophobic too.

So no, is the answer to the OP. With a reminder that when women say no, they mean no, and it’s not the start of a negotiation.

Agree, as always, with Bowlofbabelfish .

Personally, I think a deed poll type thing could work fine for gender identity.

But ONLY IF SEX AND GENDER ARE COMPLETELY SEPERATED IN LAW.

Thus IDing as trans will give you anti discrimination rights at work and in housing etc (same as ‘gender reassignment’ does now under the EA 2010).

But it will not entitle you to anything reserved for people of the opposite sex (such as all women shortlists or prisons).

This removes the ‘gatekeeping’ and allows people to present as they choose (and not be held as suspicious when going through border control etc) but doesn’t infringe on sex based protections.

Data (inc average wage and crime stats etc) should collect both F/M and T status, and then we can review it and see how effective it is an protecting everyone in 5/10 year intervals.

Personally, I think a deed poll type thing could work fine for gender identity.

Break it down logically. First off, you can’t change sex.

Gender - so you want a sort of deed poll to say what gender you are? Well it sounds nice. But here’s the problem: first you need to define a gender role in law.

How do you do that? In effect you’re setting down in law what is expected from each sex.

So you’d end up with a law that says ‘this is how a woman behaves.’ And you can bet your arse it’ll be all fluff and lipstick. But anyway.,

Right. Think about that a mo. What negatives occur now? What about women who don’t conform to the stereotype laid down in law? What are the consequences of having societal stereotypes laid down in law?

I’m thinking about this and it’s like some sort of hideous dystopian vision.