Trying to understand logic of so-called allies

[sueanddumplings]

We know for a fact that at least one, and possibly more, of the prominent so-called trans allies don't hold a Gender Recognition Certificate and yet they are campaigning against the system being simplified so others can get one. They're saying that changing the system is going to open the door to lots of dodgy types but aren't they basically just saying "Changing the system is a bad thing as it will let those who want to take advantage get a GRC, but you'll just have to take my word that I'm not one of them as I don't have a certificate myself"?

I am not entirely sure that follows. They might not hold a GRC themselves but they don’t want to make the system meaningless by simply requiring a form to be filled in.

Personally, I think self-ID is the wrong focus. I think that getting a GRC should be relatively easy but I think that getting one should give you the legal status of transgender, not of the opposite sex. That way women’s single sex spaces can be maintained and nobody is standing in the way of a trans person getting a certificate.

I agree with you. Gender is meaningless anyway so make it easy to get a Gender Recognition Certificate. But birth certificates reflect biological reality of sex and should not be changed.

Ramp up sex based protection for female spaces, sports etc

Spartacus it might be necessary for securing rights against discrimination for instance. Maybe separate facilities, sporting categories etc. It obviously means something to trans people and I think that having a third category doesn’t harm women in the way that insisting that someone can self-ID as female does. Basically, I don’t think it’s an issue of life or death but it’s certainly one I could live with and it’s a hell of an improvement on what is being proposed.

They're not allies.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of either, OP. People who don't have one don't have access to the benefits of having one, so I don't see the contradiction.

The GRA should be repealed. Regardless of which individuals want, or do not want, a GRC.

I think people should be able to be legally defined as transgender as soon as someone can state what gender identity is in material reality and explain how its existence can be proved or disproved in a court of law.

Until then, gender expression should be fully protected so that people can wear whatever and style themselves however they please, but gender identity should have the exact same protection that any other identity has, including my own self I.d. that in my mirror behind my face is my 33-year old unbaggy-eyed self, which is to say none.

I think the logic of allies is that they want the status quo to remain because that’s where they’re comfortable. There is no logic beyond that.

They want the centre to hold, but that’s impossible. The ceremony of innocence has been drowned. Things are falling apart.

I think that getting a GRC should be relatively easy but I think that getting one should give you the legal status of transgender, not of the opposite sex.

Problem is, in UK law gender means sex. You'd have to rewrite a lot of law to unpick the problem, then get systems and documents to record sex.

Self ID is the immediate battle. We need to stop it becoming law, then get sex and gender separated in practice before the law will catch up.

They're saying that changing the system is going to open the door to lots of dodgy types

I think they have a strong practical point (if not a logically coherent philosophical one).

If men win the right to be women, in law, without going through the current requirements for a GRC, it will make it very hard for any sex segregation to stand.

At the moment most organisations which work on self ID would baulk at an obvious man. Most women would challenge very obvious men in women's spaces. Once anyone can get that piece of paper the cultural expectation that a woman is female (which still largely holds) will be broken.

I think a third category is necesssary for the few people who do pass anatomically as the opposite sex. For instance, in passports; if someone's passport says they are male but they truly pass (at first glance) physically as female (eg Blar White) they should have a certificate to get them past security at airports etc. And some females do pass well as men; it would be useful for them.

Otherwise they are their birth sex.

Problem is, in UK law gender means sex

This is incorrect. Sex and "gender reassignment" are distinctly separate in the text of UK statutes.

In practice, in society, many people are conflating sex with gender but to do so is to act outside of current UK law.

SheWhoMust the Gender Recognition Act talks about changing sex. The law is inconsistent and incoherent.

If you get hung up on self-ID you are by implication accepting that those who go through the medical process are ‘real women’ and you just come across as wanting to make it difficult for trans people. If you focus on protection for women as a sex class, ie something different to having a GRC, it is a more consistent argument. If the likes of Paris Lees wanted a GRC under the current restrictive rules, they could easily get one. It’s just that most people don’t bother. Aimee Challenor has a GRC under the restrictive rules.

the Gender Recognition Act talks about changing sex.

The GRA 2004 acknowledges that the notion of sex change is a Legal Fiction.

Several sections of the Act explain situations where the acquisition of a GRC is meaningless.

I’m not trying to be goady here but the GRA 2004 is a mess. It uses gender and sex interchangeably and does not use the words legal fiction itself (although it creates a legal fiction). Yes, there are exceptions. There are also exceptions in the Equality Act 2010, but these are vague and leave interpretation up to individual service providers. Totally unsatisfactory. The GRA also permits for new birth certificates, making the EA exceptions very uncertain because someone like Aimee Challenor could prove female sex from birth and there is zero record anywhere of Aimee being born male that any organisation could access.
A third category of transgender avoids these problems. People who wish to can get a certificate stating that they are transgender. They can then access third spaces. Obviously 100% policing is not possible and if someone passes as the opposite sex, there won’t be much to stop them using those services but at the same time, if they pass, their presence there is unlikely to cause distress.

This is incorrect. Sex and "gender reassignment" are distinctly separate in the text of UK statutes.

I understand that. The distinction seems clear to me in the EA but that doesn't stop big organisations getting it wrong.

But in other law sex and gender are conflated.

I think there are two key immediate fronts: oppose self ID in law and pressure organisations to recognise the difference between sex and gender and apply the EA properly.

I don't disagree that the GRA wording doesn't work but I think if it were to be changed now the changes would be for the worse. The Genderist lobby has huge influence in parliament.

I think we need to win back some key areas of public life so that it is clear that the sex/gender distinction should be defined in law. If the NHS, for example, were recording the two properly, it would be hard to conflate them in an amended GRA.

Obviously 100% policing is not possible and if someone passes as the opposite sex, there won’t be much to stop them using those services but at the same time, if they pass, their presence there is unlikely to cause distress.

The problem is that many think they 'pass' when in reality they don't. Blaire White being a classic example. BW is constantly held up as an example of 'passing' and seems to have convinced themselves that they do. And in photo-shopped pictures and carefully lit and edited videos BW can convince others that it is so, but as soon as you see BW out in the real world without those controls it is obvious that BW is an XY human being. That women daren't speak up when a BW is in their spaces merely adds to the belief that a BW 'passes' when they do not.

We need to get back to 'women's spaces are for women, NOT dysphoric men' and give women the right to have XY people, no matter how well those XY people think they 'pass' removed.

The GRA also permits for new birth certificates, making the EA exceptions very uncertain because someone like Aimee Challenor could prove female sex from birth and there is zero record anywhere of Aimee being born male that any organisation could access.

How does the law say exemptions work when they talk about someone with a GRC. How do you determine someone is the opposite sex when the only thing you can go on is what they look like.

You're a man, you're excluded.

No I'm not. Prove it.

Datun well, quite. So the exemptions are there but the fact that the GRA talks about changing sex and allows new birth certificates to be issued means that they are useless in reality. How can you legitimately exclude someone who has ID and even a birth certificate saying they are female and there is no possibility of you finding out whether this is actually the case. You can’t just go on appearance because there are people, especially after surgery, where you can’t 100% tell. It would also be unfair to women who look masculine, are very tall etc.