To those who visit the board and believe in gender identity, what is your solution?

[Doyoumind]

I've been on Twitter again and seen another interesting thread but I'm not going to post it here so it can be picked apart.

Instead, although I know it's been asked before, to those of you who believe someone can be a woman without biologically being one I ask the question: What do you think should be put in place in law to provide safe spaces for trans people and women and what are you doing about it?

If you say so, stick fingers in ears la la not listening if you want

Forgive me if wrong, but aren't you the one who did OP disrupted by a disruptor robotic on loop post the other week when you didn't like the way a thread was turning out?
If so, only way is to smile and nod with you lol

Yikes presumably spam cross post

@StevieSW Only a tiny number of trans people have a GRC, or have had bottom surgery.

What do you think of self ID? The proposed waiting period of 3 months in Scotland with no medical evidence needed?

What do you think of men, some with beards, who say they are a woman and demand access to female spaces? They say being a woman is a feeling inside, and no need to change who they are physically at all.

Stefoknee Wolscht identified in 2015 as a 6 year old girl:

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html

So to Petrol and Roses, is the girl part of this ok, but not the 6 year old part? One is delusional? The other not? Both?

Incidentally, I’d be interested to know if Stefoknee now identifies as a 10 year old girl, or perpetually identifies as a 6 year old.

Roses and Stevie what do you mean by 'treated as a woman'? Apart from people recognising your biology, that's surely based on cultural ideas that vary between groups? But those cultural ideas are ultimately based on the biology people believe you to have, not on a role you've chosen for yourself. 'Woman' is not a costume.

NotBadConsidering

Why is it that you use a very tiny minority a being representative of the group? Why are we not concentrating on the majority of people who aren't like that?

It would be absurd to use minorities of any group as examples of the group as a whole. There's a thread currently running describing how one branch of feminism is against women marrying men or having children because it is anti feminist to do so. So that's a minority of both women and feminists who believe it. Would it be of any use to say that this minority are representative of women, or feminists, as a whole or to make policies about the whole group based only on this minority?

When Roses, Petrol etc. are talking about a feeling or sense of being female, are you talking about sex or gender?

(Hopefully this will aid my confusion!)

Why is it that you use a very tiny minority a being representative of the group? Why are we not concentrating on the majority of people who aren't like that?

A tiny minority? Didn't Stefonknee speak in front of Canadian mps?

Tiny minority or not, it's the extremists driving policy change under the radar.

The police are now collecting crime stats based on gender, not sex. When did that happen? Were we told about it?

Are those minority branches of feminism forcing through changes to the laws?

I agree they're extremists and should be ignored but extremists use your silence to power ahead anyway.

StevieSW, sorry to hear about your experience.

As for transwomen using womens facilities, I think women just accepted the rare occassion this happened. I also think the reason women are now objecting is that the demands and threats have gone too far all over the world. You cannot say anything bad about a transwomen, even JY gets defended. Really?
Rapists in prison, really?
Hampstead Heath womens pond mixed sex when there was already a mixed sex and a mans pond.
Parttime crossdressers and everyone has to go along with their version of realit. By day.
Any womens service has to accept transwomen as part of their funding, so basically being forced.
Government pays trans organisations to lobby them for trans rights and womens organisation get peanuts.
Transwomen, more and more, winning in womens sports.

We have been had by our own government, we have been too nice and we have been played. This is the pushback

“I’m not getting into a discussion about age” no, I can quite see why you wouldn’t want to do that. Tee hee.
Do you think people don’t see through this? Why are you doing it? What do you get out of it?

Why is it that you use a very tiny minority a being representative of the group?

Where did I say Stefoknee represented the group? It’s an example. I want to know how, as OldCrone questioned, it is not considered a delusion that you’re of the opposite sex, but it is if you think of yourself as a 6 year old. What’s the difference? I merely used Stefoknee to point out that this is not a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t exist in real life (“it never happens” ).

So, what’s the difference?

Stop asking hard questions!! It’s too cruel.feelings, you know. Feelings. They rule everything now, apparently.

NotBadConsidering

I don't understand what drives people to behave like the example you give. I don't understand why many people do what they do, but is it necessary for me to understand? As long as what they do isn't breaking the law I don't really have a view on what anyone else chooses to do.

So in that case, anyone can identify as any age they want? You may not understand why they want to, but if they don’t break any laws, it’s ok? So could someone go back to school and be the English schools under 15 athletics champion? If a 45 year old priest decided he wanted to go back and be an 11 year old choir boy again, would that be ok? No laws are being broken, we may not understand, but is it necessary to understand?

for anyone who keeps saying only a small number of trans people have GRS and and a GRC then maybe if you campaign for both of these to be far easier to get the numbers will go up. the reason GRS is so low is its a 5 year wait and lots of hoops to jump through.

Random thought, the ironic thing about "let's just be nice" is that it's my solution too - men should be more nice and accepting of men who don't conform to typical ideas of masculinity.

Telling boys that they are girls for not conforming is not new - run like a girl, throw like a girl, don't be a girl. I've heard it aimed at boys throughout my life.

Why can we not just be nice and say it's ok to be male and prefer things that are stereotypically thought of as women's things and you're not a girl just because you don't conform to some ridiculous standard of masculinity.

That makes much more sense to me than making it easier for people to have parts of their body surgically removed and/or give children irreversible medicine - especially when those options might not ease dysphoria anyway. How is that in any way nice or kind?

Yes, it’s considered “cruel” and “transphobic” to want to deny children the opportunity to render themselves sterile and never experience an orgasm. Part of doing the kindest and best thing for children is to tell them no.

The GRC take up is not low. It's as expected, as stated in Parliament when the GRA was passed.

The GRA was for a "small number of people who have severe gender dysphoria - around 5000 in the UK" - since the law passed, there have been around 5000 GRCs granted. As expected.

What TRAs are now doing is changing the goalposts - saying it's not just people suffering sever gender dysphoria, as medically diagnosed.

Now, they want anyone who says they are the opposite sex - or who have some magical feeling of "gender essence" - to be able to self ID, without any medical diagnosis, and to be able to get a GRC.

I'm going to try and discuss a few disparate things here. Also I lost half my thread in a page refresh and so apologise if my thoughts are a little jumbled.

I feel quite uncomfortable when I'm aware that I'm being treated 'as a woman', because it usually means that people are doing something like being patronising, or they're ignoring me, or they're giving me special, 'fairer sex' treatment (implying I'm weak, or in need of special treatment), and I can't understand why anyone would seek out that sort of experience.

So when someone says that theywantto be 'treated as a woman', I just ask myself why would anyone want that? I just want to be treated like a human being, which is probably more like being treated as a man.

I can understand why if seeing being treated as a woman is only seen at through negative aspects of interactions it can be taken that way.
I understand that they do happen that woman are spoken over, our abilities and capabilities, and commitments to things such as work challenged, but that isn't the entirety of being.
I haven't tried to seek out the awful parts, I don't think anyone would, but am aware those parts are something that occurs, and also need to be challenged when they do.
There are thousands of subtle changes to interactions that occur between men and women depending on whether they perceive you as a man or a woman. And I don't think I have the language to able to articulate how all these interact.
I don't subscribe to being a woman being needing to fulfill a stereotypical presentation of one, with prescribed hobbies, interested, style etc., I don't think that is what a woman is but I also know that I am never going to be able to give a definitive explanation that most if any are happy with.
As I say I'm not sure I possess the language.

...
If someone is able to see themselves as the gender identity they are and are treated as their gender identity in all interactions the impact on a trans persons mental health is lessened as they aren't experiencing that mismatch to a large degree. However if they don't believe that they, or certian body parts, appear in line with their gender identity, are constantly getting misgendered etc., then they are more likely to experience more severe gender dysphoria.

Most trans people will always have parts of their body that they dislike as not everything is able to be changed, as well as they are always going to have memories of incidences in their past that were either negative or of the period before transition which they can't just get rid of, therefore there can always be triggers to the dysphoria, but treatments can help lower it.

I also happen to be anorexic and i know similarities are brought up all the time but there is a clear difference between the two, changing how I am perceived and my body alleviates the dysphoria, and improves my mental wellbeing, giving in to anorexia will kill me.

Even in an non-gendered world I would feel uncomfortable with wearing the body of a man, I have done since before puberty and it caused me severe dysphoria, I needed to change it to be able to be comfortable in living.

With regards to the GRA I think the current process is arbitrarily complicated and doesn't address any of the issues most people seem to be concerned with as updating forms of useful ID such as passports and Driving licences follow much less intrusive procedures.

One of the main ways I think the system is broken is because the way it was originally designed to work alongside the NHS pathway which is unfortunately now unable to cope with the waiting lists and is out of step.

The current system relies on two medical reports and as waiting lists for the GICs can run to over 5 years, it means that that accessing recognition takes far longer than ever intended. For adults in the UK it can take more than 5 years to get access to any medical treatment, and up to a decade before people can 'fully transition' if they wish to. Therefore I do feel trans people need protection from discrimination before this point in their transition as otherwise they would be living large chunks of their lives without any protection.

Obviously if you have enough money you can pay privately and speed things up but there are a lot of less well off people that don't have this option and I don't like the idea that they shouldn't be able to live their lives and be treated respectfully because they don't have money.

I can understand there are concerns with people potentially using systems for nefarious reasons, however if we were discussing crisis shelters etc., it is my belief that people should be accommodated and assessed based on individual risk and not a generalisation. If a trans woman has a history of abusive behaviour, this should obviously be considered in the the same way it should be considered if a cis woman does. I don't personally think trans women are higher risk just because she is trans.
I know theres a constant talk about prison statistics but we are talking about current justice figures of around a hundred people. Which I'm just about to contradict by saying that due to the way the system works it takes over a month to set up and authorise a transfer from one prison to another, and so when we do look at people applying for these type of things it tends to be longer term offenders, and people who are in prison long term do tend to have committed more serious crimes creating a skew.

Further on the issue of prisons, adequate risk assessments need to be carried out on prisoners, and these simply weren't satisfactorily done in previous well known cases and were a horrendous mismanagement. But I do think there does also need to be a considered difference between how people lived before prison, if you transition in prison it should be only natural that a higher level of scrutiny is placed on the person. But if for example you have a clear history of being trans outside and have gone to prison for tv licence evasion that's a very different risk profile.

Often when people talk about excluding people from places we are not discussing implementing systems to exclude offenders, just all trans people no matter their actual risk.
I'm obviously going to say this but trans people aren't by their nature nefarious and if we are creating systems to exclude them based on a risk of people who aren't trans exploiting it, then in my opinion that sets a bad law.

I also constantly see the GRA being talked about as as some Homophobic law that was just in relation to marriage. The GRA has multiple aspects such as Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 protecting the privacy rights of transsexual people under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by criminalising the disclosure of information relating to their gender history by a person who acquired that information in an official capacity.
There were a lot of issues with trans people being fired from or discriminated against jobs and services simply because they were trans, and unable to update documentation to adequately reflect the way their lives are lived.
This aspect hasn't changed with the update to marriage laws.

Also to an extent the marriage laws for someone without a GRC are still different than someone with a GRC as gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are legally different things.
So without a GRC a trans woman and her partner would still legally be husband and wife, or husband and husband at present, another reason the GRA is still needed.

With regards to sports
There are strict criteria on things like testosterone production of trans women before they can compete, and the most successful trans athletes are actually currently trans men who are competing against cis men.
Yes there needs to be an evidential basis for competition level sport, but it needs to be on the objective evidence, which is currently being done and why the current limits are in existence and constantly being studied.

for anyone who keeps saying only a small number of trans people have GRS and and a GRC then maybe if you campaign for both of these to be far easier to get the numbers will go up.

Aimee Challoner, who employed a paedophile as their election agent, is about to marry a paedophile, and whose nappy fetish is plastered across the Internet, has just acquired one. They are boasting about their new birth certificate that says they're born female, on twitter.

With regards to sports
There are strict criteria on things like testosterone production of trans women before they can compete, and the most successful trans athletes are actually currently trans men who are competing against cis men. Yes there needs to be an evidential basis for competition level sport, but it needs to be on the objective evidence, which is currently being done and why the current limits are in existence and constantly being studied.

Can you name one? A trans man beating “cis” men? I can only think of Mack Beggs and that boxer who beat a nobody.

There shouldn’t be testosterone limits. Male puberty, reach, bone mass, myonucleii, VO2max, heart size, lung size. All matter.

Regarding evidence, the onus should be on proving that males don’t have an advantage over females. I think it will be long wait for acceptable evidence in this regard.