Self identication

[User7777]

Long time lurker on fwr, I just had a really clear and simple thought re self identification. Basically, it's based on the premise that nobody ever lies. And the consequences of people lying are potentially very harmful to women.

I have Asperger's, and so always assume people are honest. I live in a bubble of honesty and am surprised when I find out people have lied for whatever reason. It just doesn't make sense to me. But (and I know this is obvious to everyone else) not everyone is like that. In fact a lot of people are distinctly dishonest.

So, wouldn't that be the simplest 'non-transphobic' take down of self id?
"I'm against self id because it assumes nobody ever lies. "

Can't be accused of bigotry, transphobia or anything with that statement. And it's true and to the point, and can't really be challenged seriously. (Though I'm sure TRAs would have a go anyway). It's not even challenging the trans ideology, so it's completely non confrontational. So that would be such a simple way to publicly challenge it without putting your head over the parapet.

I dunno, there's no real point to this post, its just a thought I wanted to be able to discuss it with someone.

Not all trans are TRAs

I didn't say they were but you made reference to biology which suggests that you are concerned that there is an attempt (doesn't matter who by) to redefine biology.

It is fine to focus on the argument (I wish more people would) and your argument works for me (as someone who does not believe that TWAW).

But if you argue about people lying about being trans to someone who actually believes that TWAW it will not be received in the way you intend it. And that is because the logic is different. So they will just say it doesn't matter that some people lie because TWAW and TW should not be punished because a few people lie. They will say you can't disenfranchise an oppressed minority of women because a few cis men might lie. If you believed that TWAW you would see your argument as transphobic.

@memento
Wow
I do agree with you, and you explained it very clearly. It is the difference is logic, which is based on belief isn't it.
To me, that's an absurd argument. But I can see a) the oppression Olympics argument (wtaf). And b) that the belief twaw does underpin it all. In a way that is illogical to me but I can see how some could believe it.
So basically, whatever you say that would stop tw accessing women's spaces, because twaw, is offensive. And so transphobic. So, there's nothing we can argue that would make them care.

So, there's nothing we can argue that would make them care. Yes, I think that's exactly right. Caring about cis-women just isn't an activity of interest to a TRA.

My other question for you would be, in what forum do you imagine your discussion taking place? I mean, who is asking for your views on how to 'solve this problem', or who is viewing it as a problem to solve at all?

You can't enter into a negotiation by yourself. You can't meaningfully offer policy suggestions to a government that sees no problem requiring a policy solution.

If you are asked, 'shoud we have self-ID then' (as per consultation), then yes, your input makes sense as a response.

Otherwise though, I think what you identify is that continued struggle for women's rights is its own activity. A fight for trans-rights is another. One is not a sub-set of the other. In many ways they are not that closely related.

I mean that I think the assertion of women's sex-based rights must carry on being just that, and that getting too entangled in speculating about what some other people are thinking or doing is something of a distraction. Easy to say I know.

I'd just add (having a verbose moment, not meaning to take over your thread, sorry!) that I have a certain amount of symapthy for the single-focus campaign position.

IME, if ever you get involved in a campaign about something, or take a personal ethical stance, like vegetariansim, or feminism, or whatever, people will try to undermine you by saying 'well, the fact is that animals, or women, in the UK, are treated far better than their equivalents in country X, so why aren't you campaiging about that?' It's a distraction tactic. A game. Always played by people who do bog all about anything and are either just taking the piss because they enjoy belittling people and winding them up, or distracting you from any criticism or challenge to them and their lifestyle.

So I do understand that 'what about the natal women?' must sound like that to a TRA. Equally 'what about the TW' sounds like that to the person campaiging for sex-based rights and protections.

self identification is nonsense.
and i think someone is lying or not doesn't matter.

example, in miss yaniv case, whether yaniv is real trans or not doesn't matter.
that doesn't change waxer's position.

someone thinks tw is w, but some think not.

Sorry OP but it's a terrible argument.

There are so many instances where society supports people on the assumption they are not lying:

I'm against self id because it assumes nobody ever lies.

If you apply the same logic to other areas of society you could say:

"I'm against the benefits system because it assumes nobody ever lies"

"I'm against free treatment on the NHS because it assumes nobody ever lies"

"I'm against charities that help victims of domestic violence because they assume nobody ever lies"

'Self ID' would still mean signing a legally binding document stating you intend to live as your acquired gender until the day you die. Of course there is a very slim chance someone might 'lie' on the form but there is very little motivation for someone to do so and pay for the privilege.

I don't think those are equivalent at all @Scarlett555 - the benefits system very much does not assume that no one ever lies. You can't walk in to the job centre and declared yourself entitled to whatever benefits you want without going through a rigorous vetting process and probably being rejected on a technicality. Hospitals are required to seek proof that patients are entitled to NHS treatment and will invoice them otherwise. I don't know exactly what vetting a domestic violence shelter does to ensure their very limited spaces go to those most in need but they most certainly don't just hand a room in a shelter to whoever waltzes in off the street.

None of these are remotely similar to Self-ID, which effectively is that the people who can enter a communal (no cubicles) women's changing room at a swimming pool are "anyone who wants to enter, irrespective of any evidence other than their own word of mouth"

'Self ID' would still mean signing a legally binding document stating you intend to live as your acquired gender until the day you die. Of course there is a very slim chance someone might 'lie' on the form but there is very little motivation for someone to do so and pay for the privilege.

I don't imagine an abusive man, whose motivation is to follow his escaping wife and children into a women's shelter and bring them home / kill them, is going to be that fussed about the ethics of having lied on a form.

... The bit about the signed declaration blah blah is totally irrelevant. The Self ID that TRAs are campaigning for would make it a transphobic act to ask an obviously trans person for any proof of their status (as that would be "othering" if most people don't have to bring a birth certificate to the swimming pool), and also such declarations are inapplicable to gender fluid people who have no intention to live in any one gender permanently yet under self ID should always have their word believed.

Self-ID, which effectively is that the people who can enter a communal (no cubicles) women's changing room at a swimming pool are "anyone who wants to enter, irrespective of any evidence other than their own word of mouth"

This isn't what self-ID is at all! Although it seems many people on FWR think it is.

The current law stipulates that in order to obtain a GRC a person has to live in their acquired gender for two years and satisfy a gender recognition panel that they are genuinely transgender. This can and does mean trans woman using female facilities before any legal change of gender. This has been the law since 2004 I believe. 15 years trans women have been legally entering female changing rooms based on their word rather than any legal document. See here:

www.gires.org.uk/the-gender-recognition-act-discussion-july-2019/

those who have transitioned to live as women already have the right to enter women’s toilets, without a GRC and without having undergone surgery. They do, and have done so for years.

'Self ID' is the proposal that trans people can obtain their legal GRC document without the need to satisfy a gender recognition panel. They would be able to fill in a legally binding online declaration to change their gender.

It would be a criminal offence for someone who is not transgender to do this + about £200 which is likely to be a deterrent for anyone planning to change their gender for sinister purposes. Especially since there is no current law stopping trans women using female spaces anyway!

TRAs “being trans is so awful and scary and "most oppressed ever" that no one would lie about it”

Also TRAS “all the detransitioners speaking out are not true trans and were pretending all the time”

the difference is logic, which is based on belief isn't it

Exactly.

Have you been following the The Maya Forstater case? Their approach is really interesting (based around belief and lack of belief). It's worth googling her crowd justice page and reading the case updates. (I don't think I can link as I will get deleted :))

I have Asperger's, and so always assume people are honest. I live in a bubble of honesty and am surprised when I find out people have lied for whatever reason. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Interesting. I'm autistic and struggle to understand lying, believe what I'm told and am always very shocked if I discover contradictions/lies.

Anyway, not strictly on topic, but I was just this moment thinking about all the public women who speak out against TRA ideology. These women tend to know the law well on this area. They know the equality act and they know the stats on things and they can reference it all. And they have to, because if they didn't they would be pounced on for lying/making stuff up/getting it wrong.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, there are TRAs and big well known organisations who make assertions they can't back up, and actually downright lie in some cases.

It's all self ID anyway (GRCs are issued on self id'ing to a GP and self id-ing to the DVLA & the Passport Office). Organisations have also been misled about the Equality Act so we have de facto self id in operation.

Now we are in the experiment phase of Stonewall's push of the past 5 years or so where we discover how much collateral damage is acceptable to trans allies. Except we can't measure anything because of self id.

It's a fucking travesty.

Self-ID is both about being able to get a GRC with no conditions whatsoever and about making it socially unacceptable to ask for a GRC such that the certificates become irrelevant. The latter is actually the main aim but making sure that there is no basis for anyone to be challenged is an intrinsic part of making that happen, and the existing hurdles for a GRC are a barrier to achieving that aim.

The current conditions for a GRC are obviously ridiculous as there is no way to define what it is to live in a gender role without being a massive sexist, but at least they make a tiny space to consider. They need reform but not abolition.

These aims are two sides of the same coin as both rest on the premise that there is no reality or rational basis in the idea of who is a man or a woman, these categories are solely concepts in the heads of each individual and must be considered inerrant and unquestionable.
Human beings can be mistaken, dishonest or basing their views on massive conscious or unconscious bias in any other question except this, where every idea is automatically true and must not be challenged.

'Self ID' is the proposal that trans people can obtain their legal GRC document without the need to satisfy a gender recognition panel. They would be able to fill in a legally binding online declaration to change their gender.

It would be a criminal offence for someone who is not transgender to do this + about £200 which is likely to be a deterrent for anyone planning to change their gender for sinister purposes.

Oh, ha ha ha, very good. Ones sinister purposes would have to be pretty low-grade for a £200 fee to be off-putting.

I can't see that deterring the convicted rapist who'd rather live out their days in the female estate, for example. Nor anyone whose victim feels the need to make use of a women's refuge.

I was having a debate at a birthday party a couple of weeks ago about Karen White. I was using the example to explain the possible problems with self ID but I was shouted down and told I was out of order for referring to her as he rather than she!

I unfortunately had the opposite problem. I was at a birthday party with a group of people who I thought shared most of my views. That turned out to be terrible judgement. I expressed my concerns about self ID and the potential problems for biological women. However I was shot down for expressing basic biological fact about what makes a women and told I had no right to speak on the issue as I’m not trans and that I should go and ask a trans person about their experiences about being born in the wrong body. For the first time in my life I felt ostracised and like an outsider in a left leaning group.

Making something a "criminal offense" is pointless if it's impossible to prosecute anyone for it.

No one is going to make detransitioning a criminal offense - so all any individual caught out in deceit has to do is say they made a mistake and have decided to detransition.

No, well the 'criminal offence' part is just too absurd to entertain as a notion, far less as anything enactable - thus will never become law.

Motivation can form part of how an offence is judged, where that offence is a criminal action. Motivation as an offence, detached from any criminal action, is pure wrong-think and psychotherapy.