So what rights do transpeople think they don’t have?

[YuhBasic]

Because I’m still not clear.

Sorry if this has been answered before 😕

Did you quote the wrong post, DadJoke? You quoted my post but didn't answer any of my questions.

What should the process not be medicalised, DadJoke? Do you think 'being trans' is a medical condition? Or is it just a lifestyle choice? Or something else?

And woman is not a 'gender' it means 'adult female human'. A male person (man) cannot be a woman.

just getting that source for you, Dad. I didn't realise that hate crime was defined, and that definition sounds highly subjective (which is why I'm pretty dubious about hate crime in general), but transgender definitely isn't so the stat is still meaningless.

Interesting reading the Hansard thread linked to. Basically, a bunch of homophobes didn't want same-sex marriage to be legalised so they came up with the GRA instead???

My logical extension, I don’t have the full scope of my rights because no-one is funding my wheelchair and I need a wheelchair because I self-define as disabled. It’s a feeling. I can’t qualify it. I have no intention of breaking my legs because it’s not about my body, it’s about my essence. I just feel like my legs don’t work. So, wheelchair please.

Just realised that there was a typo in my post earlier. Should have said
Why should the process not be medicalised? If being trans is not a medical condition, then isn't it just a lifestyle choice or an aspect of personality? Like being a goth or something.

Interesting reading the Hansard thread linked to. Basically, a bunch of homophobes didn't want same-sex marriage to be legalised so they came up with the GRA instead???

So there's no need for it now, and it should be repealed.

230 replies to the OP. Has anyone worked out what rights transpeople don't have yet?

Dad here you go: transcrimeuk.com/2017/11/16/trans-homicides-in-the-uk-a-closer-look-at-the-numbers/?fbclid=IwAR3S7xkCO22bl1rRp1lQ55AkSKsr2S3bjGOHgxa6Cjrae4UvourlUdh9CaU

7 homicides of trans identifying men (though 2 seem to be occasional cross dressers) versus 12 murders committed by trans identifying men. Of the murders, I can't see that any where definitively murdered because they were trans.

so, nearly double the number of murders committed to victims, and 7 murders over 9 years versus 2 women murdered a week on average.

Still convinced that 'Transwomen are more likely to suffer violence and sexual violence, and are subject to very specific abuse because they are transgender. They suffer gender based and trans-based oppression, though not oppression based on their male bodies.' ?

oldcrone I answered your main question "what is a 'being trans'? That wasn't my opinion, just a statement of the internationally recognised definition, which doesn't currently match with the broader Stonewall one.

I didn't answer the question about medicalisation. To be honest, I just don't know, which is why I am here. If there is literally no way other than asking to find out what someone's gender is, and a person can be quite happy with their body as it is and still be trans, then medicalisation makes no sense. But if you don't accept that transwomen are any kind of woman, then nothing, medical or otherwise, will persuade you that any approach in law will work. That said, the GRA and the new act put sex segregation at risk by conflating sex and gender. Pretending sex isn't real and biologically rooted is frankly ridiculous.

So my view is, be certain in law that you are treating sex and gender as different but related protected characteristics, and ensure both have the necessary protections, and allow self id, taking this into account. The alternative is to not recognise rights arising from being transgender at all.

how is that trans? That's just someone who doesn't buy into the gender sterotypes associated with their sex, which is to say like gazillions of people how don't feel the need to make a bloody song and a dance about it. You're pathologising a perfectly normal state of affairs.

Again, you are conflating my views with the generally accepted defintions of what trans is. I don't necessarily agree with them.

The definition is that if your gender identity doesn't match that typically associated with your body, then you are trans. Are you a woman? Do you have a male body? If so, you are a transwoman. If not, not. It used to be you had to want to change your body to be trans, now there just has to be a mismatch. I am not making these rules, just reporting. The scope is increasing. I am confused by the whole thing.

If we leave the EU, you'll be pleased to hear that the UK goverment will be able to remove the rights transgender people have already gained, repealing the ERA and the GRA.

Just for the OP, there is a great article in the Guardian setting out six legal views on the new act and discussing the rights.

DadJoke
So my view is, be certain in law that you are treating sex and gender as different but related protected characteristics, and ensure both have the necessary protections, and allow self id, taking this into account.

So would you agree with what Rosa Freedman and Rosemary Auchmuty say in this article?
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate

The definition is that if your gender identity doesn't match that typically associated with your body, then you are trans. Are you a woman? Do you have a male body? If so, you are a transwoman.

What if you don't have a gender identity? And what is a gender identity anyway?

*OldCrone Largely, yes, bar some specifics.

What if you don't have a gender identity? And what is a gender identity anyway?.

I don't know why you keep asking me this. The WHO, the NHS, the PAHO all have the definition posted. You might not agree it's a thing, but it has a defintion, and I am not the owner of it.

As for the swathes of people who don't think they have a gender identity, here is a simple way for you to find out what it is. Do you know you are a woman? Then, that's your gender identity. It doesn't matter whether you know you are a woman because of your body, or otherwise. That's the definition. Your definition of woman is adult human female and rooted entirely in biology, so, of course you dispute gender identity is a thing and deny transwomen are women,

But transwomen KNOW they are not women. They just want to be one. The genitals between their legs prove that they are not women so they can't know that they are a woman because biology proves otherwise.

no, me being a woman is not a gender identity, it's my sex. I don't have a gender identity because I reject gender stereotypes as regressive and damaging. Gender identity is a feeling, and laws and policy should not be made on the basis of subjective feelings.

And people are aiming this at you because you appear to be endorsing it.

As for the swathes of people who don't think they have a gender identity

How rude...

You might not agree it's a thing, but it has a defintion, and I am not the owner of it

Even if you believe that some people have a very strong sense of their gender identity, why on earth would you want to segregate people according to gender identity?

It’s possible to accept that somebody has a very strong sense of their gender identity and also see that that has absolutely nothing to do with the physical reality of actually being male or female.

Similarly I can absolutely accept that some people have a sincere belief that they have a soul that is separate from their physical body. However, there is no law anywhere that forces me to agree that they are right.

It is a big step from agreeing that some people believe they have a gender identity to agreeing for all practical purposes that the law should define everyone according to their gender identity.

Please don’t pretend that redefining ‘male’ and ‘female’ only affects trans people, or that definitions of gender used by organisations like the WHO are in any way adequate.

Do you know you are a woman? Then, that's your gender identity.

You might as well say “Do you know you are British, then that’s your national identity”.

No - I am legally a citizen of the U.K. because of my place of birth and the nationality of my parents. It has sod all to do with my identity.

Your definition of woman is adult human female and rooted entirely in biology, so, of course you dispute gender identity is a thing and deny transwomen are women

Please explain why the definition needs to have anything to do with anything other than biology?

As for the swathes of people who don't think they have a gender identity

Strictly speaking according to Stonewall they are trans.

You also can't insist that 'everyone has a gender identity' when they insist they haven't, any more than you could insist that everyone has as an immortal soul. You can believe it if you wish, and can order your own life accordingly, but you have no place to insist people who do not share you belief to change the world around in the way you feel your belief requires.

people who don't think they have a gender identity

I don't have a gender identity. I know that I am a woman, ie an adult human female. But that's biology, not an identity.

Feminists are pro-women, not anti-trans. Feminists do not attack and assault trans people, we just know that for women sex-based rights are crucial. When the trans movement is deliberately intent on misleading schools, businesses and institutions, to the detriment of women and girls, the time for being ‘nice’ is over. We have to be honest instead. We have to defend our rights. In every new case of changing trans policy, if there is anyone who needs to budge up, shift over and lose out, it is women and girls. The only way this could be acceptable is if you believe that women and girls have too many rights already. Do you?

From the not in the news link.

How fucking true.