Bristol Law Professor Joanne Conaghan weighs in on the Gender Debate

[Needmoresleep]

legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/2018/12/sex-gender-and-the-trans-debate/

Enjoy!

What I meant was that self-id advocates don't differentiate between dysphoric and non-dysphoric transgender people. They see gender recognition as formal recognition of someone's inner identity rather than a change that needs to be justified.

Which comes back to my original question -slightly differently phrased - why should anyone have a right to a change in legal status based on a subjective sense of their own identity which can't be observed or defined objectively by anyone else? We have to take the word of that person who is defining that identity.

The difference between such a person and one with gender dysphoria is that the identity of the latter is supported by a medical diagnosis made by a third party.

Other similar self defined identities have been rejected by courts (age) and by society in general (race). Self defined sex is more comparable to these than to someone with a medical diagnosis of a recognised condition.

why should anyone have a right to a change in legal status based on a subjective sense of their own identity which can't be observed or defined objectively by anyone else?

It's an excellent question that neatly summarises the problem, but I'm not sure the TWAW brigade see it as a valid question.
Conaghan sort of mentions it:
Gender critical feminists have also expressed concern about the perceived elevation of gender identity rights over those of other legally protected grounds, the assumption being that equality categories, such as race, religion, sex, gender reassignment etc, should always be accorded the same level of consideration.
...and then twists herself into knots trying to explain it away with word salad and vague references to third sex and 'narrow conception of sex' (like Sally Hines did when she was put on the spot).
These people are incapable of considering the practical meaning of legal status or its real-world consequences, because believing that TWAW prevents them from questioning anything. To them it's like asking whether someone is really gay. Of course it's completely bonkers, and it's scary to see how widespread this belief is.

Hansard report on the Self-identification of Gender debate

Layla Moran: There are many forms of the human body. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.

The proposed reforms are proportionate and considered. They are not knee-jerk and they understand that such decisions are some of the most personal that a human gets to make. It is about who they are, and how they fundamentally identify.

Dawn Butler [to David T. C. Davies] You made a comment about people who are “unfortunate enough” to suffer from gender dysphoria. That has very negative connotations, just as it used to be said that people were “unfortunate enough” to be gay, to be a woman or to be black. The way you speak was picked up in your talking about simplifying—

Dawn Butler seems to be confusing the small number with genuine gender dysphoria with transgenderism. She is placing the rights of a few ahead of the rights of many others without a decent explanation.
In any case, neither equate with being a woman or black neither of which can be physically denied. It may be argued that it could have a tenuous link with being gay but there is stil no physical differentiation; but only if you believe being gay is a medical condition, a state of mind. This belief is incorrect and homophobic.
A better analogy would be anorexia. It is unfortunate to have gender dysphoria and not in any way unreasonable to describe it as such.

Really it's just a question of why should someone without gender dysphoria 'have access to a legal process of gender recognition' at all? Why do they need it if their 'gender change' is simply a lifestyle choice rather than a medical condition?

I agree. And one asks what they actually need it for.

It's not to help alleviate the crippling effects of genuine GD (because they don't have GD). So what purpose does it serve?

So what purpose does it serve?
To gain full access to everything women (or men) do, presumably? Because why not, if TWAW. They believe they are being denied something that is rightfully theirs. I don't think they are asking for a practical solution to a practical problem.

Yeah, I think the trap a lot of GC people fall into is thinking that rational argument is going to have the slightest effect on those whose main point seems to be, "I want it! Gimme!"

I've decided that when someone can give me an answer other than "Because I want it", I'll reconsider my opposition to self-ID

to gain full access to everything women (or men) do, presumably?

In an article written by a transman on another thread, they mention the need to be perceived by strangers in the way they want. The validation is the core of it. If there is a space not open then they are not being perceived as they wish to be perceived.

Other people , those people having needs or feelings or independent thoughts or rights, doesn't enter into it. It really is about boundaries on their internal image being validated, regardless of who needs those boundaries or what harm the removal of them may do to others. The similarities with the massive self obsessions, selfish thinking and ruthlessness of anorexia is quite marked.

My understanding of dissociative identities is that it stems from childhood trauma and is a normal reaction to the brain being faced with unmanageable situations. In dissociation people are not aware of what is happening and the personalities surface in reaction to triggers. People eith dissociation need trauma therapy.
Gender dysphoric people are very much aware of their inner feelings, they do not switch from say a male to female personality because of triggers but need to present as female because that is who they always feel they are.
The two are not comparable.