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?

Stevie, if you have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, then you are among the small group of people that the GRA 2004 was passed for.

Yes, there is gatekeeping. As there should be for such a massive documentation and identity change. You are essentially giving a person born male, a document that states they were born female. This is a legal fiction, and I'm afraid, IMO, a lie.

I cannot agree with the people pressurising for less gatekeeping to gain a GRC. Somebody born male simply cannot become female, and so should not have a birth certificate that states they were.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever managed to read any post made by "Alislia17"?

Every time I have seen that name the post is always missing; sometimes at the poster's own request!

It was spam

Datun, the Aimee Challenor thread has made me very aware of how even the existing gatekeeping of the GRA 2004 is not fit for purpose.

The last thing we should be doing is making it easier.

The road ahead is being laid down in front of our eyes in Canada at this very moment. J Yaniv thinks they have the right to force women to wax their male genitals - because JY self-IDs as a woman. Yaniv could win this case. In the eyes of the Canadian Human Rights Panel, Yaniv is a woman.

Ok, leaving aside trying to define what men and women are...

On this thread we have people who believe in gender identity and transwomen all saying things that are deemed massively transphobic - not just by a minority of extremists on twitter, but by Stonewall and Pink News, who would consider themselves the authority on these matters.

Acceptance without exception is literally Stonewall's tagline. Which includes people who transition in prison, or who take 16 women to a human rights tribunal for saying no to them (mustn't misgender), or suddenly become world-class at a sport after transitioning, or peadophiles. Their motives? Irrelevant. Acceptance without exception.

These are not our rules - we did not decide who comes under the trans umbrella.

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..

And you think that's the ONLY way to achieve that?

Everything that women, who have been campaigning against self ID, said would happen, is happening.

We have male rapists assaulting and intimidating women in women's prisons.

We have males who identify as women winning medals and prizes in women's sport.

Winning political positions, sports scholarships, business awards that have been set aside for women, to redress the imbalance caused by descrimination against women.

We have women-only spaces designated as "gender neutral" or unisex - and upsurge of voyeurism an assault against women, perpetrated by males.

We have violent males, with a history of assaulting women, in women's shelters.

All this is happening, as women said it would, because organisations, businesses, political parties and the government are allowing males to be treated as women, because they say they feel like women, or identify as women, or are women.

Datun, the Aimee Challenor thread has made me very aware of how even the existing gatekeeping of the GRA 2004 is not fit for purpose.

Quite.

1. A massive issue is that everyone thinks that gender dysphoria needs to be treated by transitioning.

1. Why on earth are women responsible for everyone?

Why aren't men saying, ok look these people who are biologically male but don't feel they fit in, and are also abused by some of us, need us to create all sorts of provision to deal with this?

Women and feminists and law are doing this for the group of biological women who feel male. Transmen don't suddenly loose all the rights they have as natal women because they transition.

Why aren't the men arguing for pages on dadsnet about this?

Why is it that women are always responsible?

A transexual I know has told me the GRA was a total shit show with woolly language. They have had full medical transition and use male facilities.

Neurotrash - the Hansard record would show your transsexual friend is correct.

One of the unintended consequences raised at the time (and subsequently ignored) was the very issue of male transsexuals using women's toilets. And "what happens when a person refuses to call a male transsexual a woman?"

From Hansard in 2004: At the moment there is an example in the news of a BBC programme in which a transsexual man was referred to as a man. Press for Change, the transsexual rights group is campaigning for the BBC always to refer to transsexuals in their chosen gender. That is indicative of the Orwellian nightmare that the Bill encourages. Will people who refuse to call a transsexual man a woman routinely face that kind of hostility?

And look - that's just what has happened. One cannot move on social media for people chanting "TWAW."

Learning about the primogeniture clause in the GRA was one of the things that initially got my eyebrows raising about the act as a whole.

Because obviously, transwomen are women but transmen aren't real men.

When I read it I had all the questions that we've been trying to get answered here - what does it really mean to live as the opposite sex? And, if as stated here, it's so complicated with potentially millions of answers, how is this something stated in law?

Also WRT surgery, Press For Change, who describe themselves as 'The Uk's Leading Experts in Transgender Law' have this to say about surgery and GRCs.

Surgery

There is no requirement that you undergo genital reconstruction surgery, but unless for reasons of health, again it is not a good idea to simply say you do not want it. Better to state that you intend to have it in the future when the surgical waiting list has spaces.

Is that 'legal experts' encouraging people to be untruthful when trying to get a GRC?

There is no requirement that you undergo genital reconstruction surgery, but unless for reasons of health, again it is not a good idea to simply say you do not want it. Better to state that you intend to have it in the future when the surgical waiting list has spaces.

Why is it not a good idea to say you want to keep your penis? Why do you have to lie?

And what surgical waiting list, anywhere, has 'spaces in the future'? A waiting list is linear.

Stevie - re "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."

You are talking about a fantasy where there is 100% transparency about each person's history, no deceit, and infinite resources to make assessments on a personal level across the country. In the real world, female shelters exclude males and that is a generalization that works for everyone except abusive males and the frankly minuscule group of transwomen who wish to impose their desire to feel validated as women on the entire world.

"constant talk about prison statistics but we are talking about current justice figures of around a hundred people."

Just 1 convicted rapist set loose in a women's prison is too much so not sure what your point is there re numbers. In any case, transwomen are getting their own prison ward so this part of the debate seems to be resolved now.

"excluding people from places we are not discussing implementing systems to exclude offenders, just all trans people no matter their actual risk... 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."

Men are not nefarious by nature, either. That is not why all males are excluded from female spaces, prisons, sport, etc.

There are marked physical differences between males and females (as no doubt you are aware) which have led to the society agreeing to females having our own spaces and sport.

Transwomen are male so it's entirely reasonable for them to be excluded from places and activities where society accords females privacy and protection due to our sex-based differences. This has nothing to do with whether you are comfortable in your own body, like wearing dresses or trousers, or whether Joe now wants to be called Jessica.

"With regards to sports There are strict criteria on things like testosterone production of trans women before they can compete"

It's incredible that you are pretending not to know this, but male advantage over females in sports doesn't stop at testosterone. It is also pelvis shape, hand & feet size, muscle development, reaction time, bone density, not to mention a lifetime of training at the men's level.

"and the most successful trans athletes are actually currently trans men who are competing against cis men."

Hilarious. Where are all the female transmen beating the men at running competitions? Where are the transmen with weightlifting medals? Where exactly can we find a transmen who got the gold medal in boxing after beating the former (male) champion into a bloody mess?

I’ve tried to read the whole thread but it is long so sorry if anyone thinks I’m just repeating what’s already been written. I am quite happy to say TWAW in most circumstances, what Kathleen Stock and others have called a legal fiction, although I think it could be better phrased.

I also think that gender identity is influenced by culture - so we don’t know if women who lived as men - like the women pirates of the 17th c - did it because they felt they had ‘inner essence of man’ or because they would have more freedom and fun. There was no incentive for someone born as a man to live as a woman in those times as they would lose so many rights (eg property) so I assume this is why we don’t have any examples (or I think we don’t) of the reverse.

In terms of your question doyoumind, we have to recognise that legal protections are needed to protect disadvantaged groups. However disadvantaged groups are not equally disadvantaged. Rights can also come into conflict - Hampstead Ladies Pond is an example of this where the rights of trans women and Orthodox Jewish women come into conflict. Here, there are other places trans women can go but Orthodox Jewish or Muslim women have more limited choices so their interests should take precedence here.

Prisons or domestic abuse shelters are another example where many women have experienced male violence. That is why the rights of an individual trans woman prisoner to be in a women’s prison need to be balanced against the interests of the majority.

Women are under represented in politics. That was why they brought in all women shortlists. There are plenty of routes to political office but some women who are biologically female are disadvantaged in political parties if they have children or other caring responsibilities (eg going door to door canvassing or attending meetings in the evening) so, in the interests of the majority of women, women’s officer posts should be retained for ‘natal’ women.

There was a great commentary on the JY case from someone who said that having a Brazilian waxing was not a human right. Health care is, so I would expect the NHS to make sure trans patients were not put off going for screening etc but it is ok for beauticians to say they will not provide an intimate service to a transgender person. However, it would be wrong if a salon refused to give him or her a manicure.

No time to add more but we need to recognise the concept of competing rights. I also think that just as we talk about residual advantages of experiencing male puberty for trans athletes, we need to think about whether some transgender women have residual socio economic advantages. A single successful city banker without children who transitions to being a woman aged 55 may experience a certain amount of negativity but that will not constitute the same level of disadvantage as a disabled woman who experienced FGM and who was made to leave school. That is why the ‘most oppressed group ever’ argument is so frustrating in the UK at least.

StevieW I am so sorry for your horrible experience. I appreciated you sharing that and your other experiences.

You did ask doyoumind!! Hope this doesn’t kill the thread.

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.

The Equality Act protects trans people from discrimination, not the GRA. I don't see why people need documentation to 'reflect the way their lives are lived' - what do you mean by this?

And don't use the word 'cis'. It's banned here and you'll find your posts reported and deleted if you keep using it.

nettie I think the majority of people on here would agree with you. The issue at the moment is that between the competing rights, trans rights are taking precedence over women's rights and the push is to drive that even further.

The law requires a definition.

If you're going to change the definition of "woman" in law, you must provide the new definition.

Is the new definition to be: adult human female and males who state they are an adult human female? Or is to be something else?

I'm not the one obfuscating here. I'm also not the one who wants the law changed. You do. So state the new definition.

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by the way Roses, Petrol et al have so articulately and robustly answered this question, which was kind of the point of the whole thread. I was expecting a lot of strawmanning and spluttering without actually giving a full explanation of their POV.

N.B. I sometimes suffer from delusions but it's offensive for anyone to point this out to me.

I'm currently watching an episode of Bagpuss where he wonders if he will think Scottish thoughts if he is wearing a Scottish hat. That's one question too far for me, I'll take it to TRA Twitter.

A more important question is whether some old, saggy cloth can really be called a cat.

Very interesting thread for the lurkers. It's absolutely clear which posters are being so disingenuous, twisting and cherry picking answers, plain as daylight. It's so clear.
StevieSW.
I did read your massive walls of text and on a personal note I'm sorry that you've experienced such pain and I hope that you've reached a better understanding of your situation.
One thing that stood out for me is that you have absolutely NO understanding about the casual sexism that women face every fucking day of their lives.
Men never "get it" they're the ones that display covert and overt sexism to Women. Men will never understand ever. If a man feels like a woman in later life, he's lived with that ingrained sexism all his life. So a late transitioning Male basically doesn't have a fucking clue about living a life as a woman. Whatever that means and it seems to mean some essence of girly womanhood.
Why don't those late transitioning males chose to be age equivalent peri/menopausal women?
Just think about that.

Well quite, Scarlett here is a 60 year old grandfather drooling over hormonally grown breast tissue and comparing it to the growing breasts of a prepubescent girl.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3654679-Telegraph-column-not-even-attempting-to-hide-AGP

Sorry, I meant to say this isn't in Vice, it's in the bloody Daily Telegraph.