Self ID is a misnomer

[Mermoose]

I'm stating the obvious here but 'Self ID' as a phrase is a sleight of hand that has left me floundering at times. Whenever I contact organisations or talk to TRAs about the implications of self ID, I am usually told something along the lines of 'Someone's gender identity is of no concern to anyone but themselves'. The term 'Self ID' reinforces this idea, I think.
The thing is, that Self ID is not about someone identifying themselves as a man or a woman. It is about making it the law that everyone else identify them as such.

Under Self ID, I must identify a person as female or male in accordance with their wishes even though it's contrary to their sex when assessing

• the risk of sharing a space with that person when I'm vulnerable
• whether or not I am allowed feel that my privacy is invaded in a single sex space
• that person as a political representative, role model (in sports for example)
• that person as a potential sexual partner

This is anti-democratic, illiberal coercion. What someone identifies themselves as, is one thing. But nobody should have the right to dictate how others identify them, if that contradicts physical reality.

Well said.

Yes, exactly.
I’ve always thought that, from the position of the person they are “self Id” ing themselves to - eg woman in changing room, girl in girl guide camp, it is NOT someone who “self ids”. It someone who SAYS they self id.

Yes I agree.

TRAs are very ready with the deflection tactics. Like:

• It's only an administrative change to make things easier for transpeople.

• This won't affect anyone except transpeople.

• It's no business of yours how someone identifies.

• It's no business of yours what genitals someone else has...

But just as C16 was compelled speech, so is self D. It's not just about someone's own identity, it's insisting everyone else treats that person according to their self identity. Anti-democratic is correct.

Yes, it is a problematic phrase. It allows activists to spin objections as interfering with an individual's right to self-determination. And I've seen many activists claim (often in the same argument) that on we already have self-id because anyone can say they are of the opposite sex and GRA reform would just bring the law in line with practice and also that it is unreasonable for the state to interfere in someone's self-determination by asking for a medical diagnosis.

When you consider that we do indeed have the right to determine which religion or ideology we want to adhere to or reject, this often makes perfect sense to the uninformed. They don't have to ask the government's permission to self-identify as a Christian or a libertarian or an environmentalist or a feminist. And for many, those aspects of their lives can be hugely significant.

So, I often say that the debate is about changing one's legal status to that of the opposite sex and gaining access to the rights and protections of the opposite sex without safeguarding or gatekeeping.

And then compare it to similar situations where we gain advantages via a legal or social status, such as citizenship or visa, membership in professional bodies like becoming a Chartered Engineer or Accountant, disability allowance (PIP), maternity pay, adoption, pension or a driving licence.

But all of that wordage is often awkward to get in on social media. A new term would be great actually. Until then I'll probably stick with changing your legal status or something like that when talking to people who know little about the issue.

It is not Self ID, you're right, the language is designed to confuse.

It is misappropriation, a co-opting of another's inherent identity group. Theft.

Sex can't be chosen it simply is. Using the word gender to try to over ride that knowledge and do a forced rewrite of the societal contract is absurd.

Creating law or environment that demands a majority people have their language and innate knowledge labelled wrongthink punishable by exclusion or worse is absolutely undemocratic and actually an appalling infringement of human rights.

There is no kindness in this sort of dishonesty.

People have the freedom to be who ever they like, that is enough. For those pushing legislative change it will never be enough and controlling other people's perception or right to express is terrifying and hypocrisy.

Sexism still means what it says.

Would it help to use an analogy, when trying to explain the risks to people who don’t understand the problem with self id?
For example, imagine a group of people who want to self id as doctors. They’ve never been to medical school, they have no medical experience, but they claim they “identify” as doctors, and, crucially, - they want to insist in law that everyone else must accept them as doctors. And allow them to treat patients.
It would never be allowed, because of the risk of harm. And yet what the hell is the difference in allowing any
men, who claim to be women, to invade female changing rooms, showers, refuges and prisons? Without any assessment of the risks involved?

You have articulated something that has been bothering me all week. Why the emphasis on pronouns? Because it is all about coercing others, nothing to do with 'self' id .

I left some training I wanted to do this week (voluntary, not work) because it started with introductions and 'pronouns'. Respecting 'pronouns' was the second ground rules. I just couldn't. ..if it's in work I would suck it up but in my own time...I can't.

I felt really sad about it though.

Pronouns are a kind of gateway to everything else but many feminists (Linda Bellos i remember and i think Julie Bindel) have said they are happy to use people's 'pronouns'. It lets everything else in (thinking of Barracker 's Rohypnol).

It’s not just self ID, it’s false ID. If I were to give a police officer a false name, as an actual woman, I would be arrested. However, if I use the excuse of self ID and call myself John and say I’m a man, then voila, I’m the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and must be respected. One breaks the law and the other doesn’t. Now tell me how vulnerable they are?

If men can self id as women then surely you think 13 year olds self identifying as over 18 to buy alcohol etc is just fine and dandy too. Paedophiles can self id as children to enrol in schools/youth groups and get to sleep in the same space on residentials.

*TRAs are very ready with the deflection tactics. Like: This won't affect anyone except transpeople. It's no business of yours how someone identifies.'

Tell them that you identify as gender free or gender atheist and so won't be playing, and you'll discover that how you identify is very much their business, and certainly not something to be accepted. This a freedom and respect only for some, not for all and certainly not for women. Good old fashioned redefining of women and women's socially acceptable behaviours to better enable and privilege men. The 8th century is back with lipstick on.

Fortunately, all Human Rights legislation, be it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; the European Convention of Human Rights 1953; or the UK Human Rights Act 1998, affords each and everyone of us the freedom to believe or disbelieve.

So people are free to believe in "transgenderist ideology" and "self-ID" and the rest of us are free to disbelieve.

Those who believe have no human right to impose their belief on those who disbelieve. And, more importantly, those who believe have no human right to impose their belief on the rest of us via nay law.

This is where all the Trans Lobby organisations have made their mistake, especially Stonewall UK, who guide all the other Trans Lobby organisations.

Fortunately, all Human Rights legislation, be it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; the European Convention of Human Rights 1953; or the UK Human Rights Act 1998, affords each and everyone of us the freedom to believe or disbelieve.

I'm in Ireland, so we've lost that freedom according to the current law. That's one of the many things I just don't get about this whole thing. It seems to contradict that law, but also, isn't there some set of human rights or some UN thing to do with women having the right to single sex spaces? It's just crazy. It over-rides everything. And in Ireland we have prominent feminist lawyers fully supportive of the GRA.

Pronouns are a kind of gateway to everything else but many feminists (Linda Bellos i remember and i think Julie Bindel) have said they are happy to use people's 'pronouns'. It lets everything else in (thinking of Barracker 's Rohypnol).

I personally find it very difficult to get ahead of my social conditioning on this, which says that unless there are special reasons I will call anyone by whatever name and form of address they like in a personal interaction. If some elderly Chinese lady tells me she is James Dean, and I am not her doctor or child or doing her taxes, I am not going to argue.

That's really about etiquette and not a bad practice really, and I suspect that for many of us the pronoun and name issue was accepted initially on that basis. And it's difficult to reject when it seems like the respectful thing in a personal interaction with nothing to be gained from insisting it isn't so.

The problem for many of us came when it became about telling us we had to use new and bizarre pronouns and that these all had to do with some concrete reality, and political agenda, that we also had to support.