Continued from my AIBU thread - a newbie to the trans issue with some questions

[unexplaining]

I considered posting on that thread but didn’t want to derail it after PencilsInSpace made such an amazing contribution.

As someone who’s quite recent to the trans issue - I first read about it best part of a year ago on feminism chat - and my thoughts were reignited by the thread on that cyclist - I had some rudimentary questions.

So, I felt heartened by the Times letter; the signatories I thought had the grace to categorise themselves not as women.

Which made me realise: I consider ‘transsexual’ correct terminology for those who have medically transitioned: I don’t feel that those with XY chromosomes can ever be called ‘woman’ (and vice versa). Is this considered radical? If so, is considering such a point of view radical, a recent development?

Roughly what proportion, nowadays, of transsexuals are happy to be termed transsexual rather than ‘woman’ (or ‘man’)?

Also, regarding the ‘gender recognition certificate’: what is the quantum of proof to convince the ‘gender recognition committee’? Medical transition? Or reversible ‘changes’?
Who makes up the panel, and who decides who makes up the panel?
Could an advantage be conferred if the certificate is issued to someone who falls short of a ‘gold standard’ of proof, whatever that may be - thinking of eg sports etc

Are trans people eligible for grants, scholarships and affirmative action quota positions that are for women? Are there any cases of it having happened?

Thanks.

Is this not better posted on a Trans forum?

I’m a woman so am really only interested on how these things impact women. I’m worried about getting into a ‘debate’ with someone again so wanted to have an idea about whether my worry that trans rights impinges on women’s rights in these areas is accurate; and, to what extent how I feel about the terminology - aka, is it okay to feel that a transsexual is not a woman - is alright to talk about or is it now considered a leftfield view. Also whether people feel I am in fact wrong to think how I do about the terminology. The thread had an amazing amount of information and these are simply the next questions that occur to me. I don’t see myself ever posting on a trans forum.

Have you read this?

Break it down for me? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

It might be worth asking your Qs on there.

Many transsexuals don't bother with a grc probably for the reasons you outline but have fully surgically transitioned. Debbie Hayton has talked about this.

In a way a grc is obselete - I believe it was brought in before gay marriage was legalised.

It might be worth you reading the blog run by Miranda Yardley, there might be some answers to your questions there.

I'm not sure I understood your question, OP, but would say that a more accurate term is "transgender" as humans cannot change sex. Not even through surgical / medical / hormonal / psychological intervention can this happen.

TS are kinda pissed that TG is now seen as the 'same', Genderqueers and TransGender folk are demanding attention and declaring they have a girldick belittles the massive step Transsexuals take by committing to surgery and trying to pass unnoticed.

Language is shifting fast around this issue and it's a shame that the loudest are being listened to while the rest are ignored.

The GRC is seen as irrelevant by most people.

Also, regarding the ‘gender recognition certificate’: what is the quantum of proof to convince the ‘gender recognition committee’? Medical transition? Or reversible ‘changes’?*
Who makes up the panel, and who decides who makes up the panel?

I believe there have been GRCs issued with no medical treatment undertaken (there was a prison case that springs to mind). There is no minimum level of medical intervention required, so yes, a GRC could be issued with only fully reversible changes made. It just requires two doctors to say you have gender dysphoria, but that's not really an objectively measurable condition, and means different things to different people.

Trans Activists also want this requirement of Gender Dysphoria removed from the GRC process.

Are trans people eligible for grants, scholarships and affirmative action quota positions that are for women? Are there any cases of it having happened?

Yes and yes.

Sorry, bold fail in quoted first paragraph.

Are trans people eligible for grants, scholarships and affirmative action quota positions that are for women? Are there any cases of it having happened?

There are many many examples of male transgender people taking up women-only positions such as in the Labour Party
Lily Madigan
Heather Peto
And another who's name escapes me!
All 3 have gained positions as "women's officer" despite the fact there is a transgender officer role available if they wanted.

Many transwomen have gained awards and grants meant for women.

Hi OP
If you haven’t already, I’d recommend you check out the Fair Play for Women website, which has a lot of great information on the GRC
fairplayforwomen.com/gender-recognition-act-2004-explained/

As far as I can tell, the language in the “trans activist community” changes somewhat rapidly. Even in the short amount of time I have kept an eye on it, we’ve gone from transsexual to transgender to transwoman to trans woman (the space is apparently super important!) to woman with a trans history? Transsexual is considered out of date and medicalised. It’s also unclear how many trans people there are as the umbrella is so wide (includes cross-dressers, part-timers, drag queens, etc) or how many transsexuals agree with current “trans dogma” which AFAIK, now it’s all about how someone identifies, and it’s considered to be wrong to even acknowldege the simple fact that someone is of their sex.... some transsexuals will acknowledge their biological sex as male or female, but insist they really truly are/have the identity of the opposite sex internally somehow.
There’s no clear definition of any words around sex and gender (honestly) in trans activist lexicon. Sex is endlessly conflated with gender, they say it’s all too complicated to explain, but somehow we all KNOW whether we are inherently masculine or feminine. Or that we all fall on a gender spectrum of Barber to GI Joe and that’s totally natural, permanent and inherent to our personalities which means our biology doesn’t matter? And it’s healthy to amputate healthy tissue and permanently medicalise our bodies so we can follow those supposedly innate gender stereotypes?