Self ID questions

[TwistedStitch]

I've just come across somebody on twitter encouraging people to support self ID because they are desperate to have their gender legally recognized but won't 'demean' themselves by applying for a GRC. I've seen others saying similar before, stuff about not wanting to 'lower' themselves or prove themselves to a doctor etc.

I've also seen LM stating that self ID is vital for them to be able to marry as their true gender- I'm unsure why LM cannot currently apply for a GRC.

I've seen TRAs arguing that the process is punitive as not every trans person has dysphoria- silly question but if you don't have dysphoria how are you trans?

I guess I'm wondering- is the real push for self ID because many who support it know that they don't meet the current criteria for a GRC? Also if something is as fundamental to your identity as this apparently is why wouldn't you engage with the process as it is now? It feels like those who have genuine dysphoria will take these steps. Then there are those who either don't meet the medical diagnosis or want to put in any effort but will jump at self ID because it is easy.

How can this not be open to abuse?

Because anyone who identifies as trans is lovely and innocent and misunderstood?

but if you don't have dysphoria how are you trans?

This. If it would give such rights normally reserved to females and often for good reason I have issue with getting a GRC without so much as a doctors assessment.

According to the transwoman I chatted to while leafletting (who had a GRC) the process is designed to weed out fetishists and other dodgy applicants. The questions are quite searching. If you don't have serious dysphoria you are unlikely to be approved. She thought that was an important part of the process which she described as partly to protect the applicant and partly to protect society.

I can see very good reasons why some men who identify as women wouldn't want to answer probing questions about their motivation.

but if you don't have dysphoria how are you trans?

Please could someone answer this question?

but if you don't have dysphoria how are you trans?
Because some people feel they should be, no questions asked.

She thought that was an important part of the process which she described as partly to protect the applicant and partly to protect society.

She is right and she is not the only transwomen to express these feelings, self ID is not for her and other disphoria suffers benefit.

I saw one transwoman write that she didn't get a GRC because she didn't need a piece of paper to tell her she's a woman.

I can't help but think that we don't need pieces of paper to tell us we are married...
Until we need to prove it legally.

Its a medical condition. There should be no shame in consulting doctors to get official paperwork

Because for Genderists it is a faith position.

I don't have to prove anything to be a Catholic and attend Mass. Because it's a faith position, and I don't get stopped at the door and told I need to prove I'm religious.

If I wanted to join in any of the Children's work, I would be DBS checked and I could not just insist that I was perfectly safe because I was a Catholic (let's not go there, eh?)

The distinction is that the adherents of the Genderist religion are free to believe as they wish, but when their beliefs bump up against real life issues like child welfare, or women's rights, they don't get a free pass because of their religion.

The trouble is, the nature of the Genderist religion is that one of its main pillars is the hijacking of other things in the manner of a greedy magpie, and it has always been understood that transsexuals had dysphoria and that was a condition of them being afforded certain societal protections and in some cases privileges.

Therefore Genderism parasites on this idea, like they do other things like the acronyms AFAB and AMAB. But of course it is very restrictive in reality (as it should be), so, like a lot of religions, the adherents bend the original ideas to better suit their purposes.

TL;DR Genderism is a religion of zealots. Fantasy trumps reality.

It's that bloody massive 'umbrella' that's the problem

Because simply put, "everyone believes what we tell you".

If I wanted to join in any of the Children's work, I would be DBS checked and I could not just insist that I was perfectly safe because I was a Catholic (let's not go there, eh?)

How do you feel though about safeguarding within the church in light of the historical abuse? Or to phrase it as it is within the trans gender debate - no one is saying that all priests are abusers but how are we to know which ones are?

Can you explain the difference to me?

Sorry floral I was still typing when you posted -didn't mean to diminish your excellent points there!

How do I feel about safeguarding in my Church right now? Appalled and ashamed. I think it has been a historical travesty and I think much more needs to be done especially by the current hierarchy in dealing with the appalling lapses in decency and common sense.

Obviously not all priests are abusers. But there are now proper safeguarding measures in place, as there rightly should be, and in the main priests do not have the same sense of untouchable authority that they did in times past.

It is a sad thing, but my very decent priest has talked to me in the past about how hard it is to walk around in a cassock now. It used to be because he would get stopped so much for spiritual advice, and now it's because he gets paedo yelled at him on the bus. But, he would never in a million years suggest that the current protections around DBS and safeguarding were too stringent, and has in fact put a notice in the news sheet for the past few weeks advertising a diocesan consultation around safeguarding and training.

FloralBunting

I don't for one minute think that it is all but how can we know who is safe and who isn't?

Are there safeguards in place now so that it can't happen again? But realistically how can it be prevented? How difficult would it be to prevent priests from being alone with a parishioner? I would imagine that would be difficult to implement. Priests going into schools or running communion classes and such like. Just how can we be sure that potential abusers are kept out?

I can imagine that gender dysphasia must be incredibly distressing for the sufferer. And I believe that medical support is essential. While I don’t believe that major surgery on a healthy body is at all good-idea adjacent, I accept that for some people, it might be necessary to their wellbeing, (although I’m pretty sure that if believed I was Lord Nelson, surgeons wouldn’t be queuing up to hack of my leg and gouge out my eye).

But the idea that “becoming” a woman (or a man) is a matter of so little consequence that filling out a form does the deed, fills me with rage.

Being a woman might be an accident of birth, but living in a woman’s body is significant. If self-ID is allowed, it will be more work to join the army and live as a soldier.

It seems that their understanding of womanhood is that it’s a costume and a performance - that all along women were just man-lite, so slipping into being female is no harder than slipping into a bad wig and some size 13 heels.

Actually, thinking more about this do you think this should open a debate now within the catholic church to allow women to become priests? Priests would have access to some safe spaces - hospital wards for example or prisons, where vulnerable people are. Why should we not view priests as men first, when many have shown as that they are exactly that - men first?

Weetabix, well, there's nothing wrong with a vetted priest going into a school or teaching a class. The same is there is nothing inherently dangerous in a vetted transwoman doing the same.

The only really obvious places where a priest is in a position to abuse nowadays are the vestry and the confessional - at our church the vestry door is always open, and the confessional is a room with one glass wall.

No, you will not ever remove all risk from any situation. But the answer to that is not to jettison all possible sensible measures to protect, the answer is properly and continually assess so that any possible loopholes are plugged.

This is pretty basic stuff, isn't it?

DancelikeEmmaGoldman

I have been thinking about this a lot.

I wonder if a lot of this confusion is happening because of the need to label everyone now, or so it seems?

It used to be male and female. Now I believe there are 70+ labels. It seems as though soon there will be as many labels as there are people.

I am a female. Born female. I look like a woman but don't think that I act particularly female - wear mainly trousers but sometimes dresses, not much make up but some sometimes. I don't like my body because it has lots wrong with it. If someone could fix that, or offer me a body transplant, I would go with it. I don't feel like I have a sense of being a woman, though don't really know what that feels like, but I don't want to be a man.

I think what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure what label describes me. Woman I guess because I have no great aversion to be called that but I don't feel like I belong to that group particularly. I dare say that I could look at the list that is included under trans and find a label that fits but I really have no need to label myself. Because I am simply me. That's it. I can understand why others though would have a greater sense of who they are and if the internal image doesn't match with the external I can understand how difficult that might be.

I often catch a glimpse of myself in a mirror and am honestly shocked at what I look like because that is not the image of myself that I had in my mind. Is that dysphoria? I have no idea.

Wish we could do away with all labels really and then we could all just be ourselves.

FloralBunting

Absolutely, robust vetting is the main safeguard. I'm just not sure that every potential abuser has as yet been identified. Not that long ago it would have been unthinkable to suspect a priest. I'm not convinced that there aren't still individuals to be identified and so I can't be assured that there is no risk. Are hospital clergy chaperoned for example? I understand that I can choose not to go into a church if I have concerns but if I am in a hospital I can't control who can enter a ward, possibly unchecked if they are considered trustworthy simply by virtue of the office that they hold.

Weetabix, yeah, not really sure what you're driving at here, tbh. You may be just rolling ideas around of course, but if you have a specific point you're trying to make, please feel free to get there.

FloralBunting
I am rolling ideas around.

Also been thinking about the safeguarding implications of self ID - that safe spaces are important to keep women safe from men who would be a risk, whilst acknowledging that this isn't all men but that you can't know who is a threat and who isn't.

Your post about the church just made me think that there are some men that we used to just assume were "safe" and because of this assumption they were trusted more than men in general. Just thinking about whether that assumption needs to change now because some have shown that they are men first and foremost. That means some are a danger. How do we mitigate that risk now?

A reasonable question in one sense. But I think the answer is that all that has changed is our awareness that all men are men primarily. There never was a time when some men were safe, it was always an assumption.

Oh yes. Viewing it sociologically, I'm fairly sure you could probably pin point a few secular sacraments in Genderism, but it is a very broad church and I should think the sacraments would be specific to what you are under the umbrella, or if you are supportive ally type.

Weetabixandshreddies - I think that’s the human condition. The magnificent eddy of thoughts and feelings and sensations which make-up our insides never match the outsides. As I get older and my body ages, I’m often shocked by my appearance, because inside I’m still 25.

I often spend a day in boots and old jumpers mucking about outside. I rarely wear make-up or dresses. In many ways my life has been very atypical, but I’m still a woman.

I don’t have any particular sensation of being a woman, other than the inevitable sensations from living in a female body. Although for women, being embodied as a woman is like fish in the sea, there is no other sensation but that of a female body.

Beyond that we are all human and individuals, doing the best we can with the tools we have.

I think womanhood is conferred by biology - and surely that biology impacts on how we think. Even something as simple as walking is different for women, lacking hanging genitals and differently angled hips.

An accident of biology had created female oppression. Society reinforces gender stereotypes because it is advantageous to the patriarchy. If we could create an equal society, we would be free to be ourselves regardless of our biological packaging.

This current issue is doubling-down on gender stereotypes, piggybacking a backlash against women’s rights on the distress of a few.

In some ways I have more respect for the Danielle Muscatos of this movement, because at least they’re honest about their desire to colonise women’s rights, without performing woman. It’s no less brutal, but it is, at least, truthful.