What does it mean to live as a woman for a year?

[jewel1968]

If I understand things correctly if an individual wants to undergo gender reassignment now they are expected to live in the preferred gender for a year. So, if someone born male wants to reassign their gender they would be expected to live as a woman for a year. What does that actually mean? What would happen if they dressed in jeans and T-shirt and Doc Martens and sported a short haircut and didn't wear any makeup might they be challenged for not living as a woman? Who decides what it means to live as a woman?

Here is the Scottish Government's definition of a woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland)2018 Act

*The definition of ‘woman’ for the purposes of the Act

2.12 Section 2 of the Act provides that for the purposes of the Act, “woman” includes “a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010[9]) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female”.

2.13 To be included, a trans woman without a UK Gender Recognition Certificate or without gender recognition from another EU Member State[10] must therefore meet the 3 following criteria:
have the characteristic of gender reassignment as defined in the Equality Act 2010.

The definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010 is – “a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”. This definition includes those reassigning their sex from male to female as well as those reassigning their sex from female to male. A person who meets this definition is not covered by the definition of “woman” in the Act unless they also meet the following two criteria. The person does not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery[11

. be proposing to undergo, undergoing or undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female

This element of the definition means that the person has taken a decision to undergo a process for the purpose of becoming female.

1. be living as a woman

This would not require the person to dress, look or behave in any particular way. However, it would be expected that there would be evidence that the person was continuously living as a woman, such as – always using female pronouns; using a female name on official documents such as a driving licence or passport, or on utility bills or bank accounts; describing themselves and being described by others in written or other communication using female language.

2.14 This definition in section 2 provides clarity that, for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Act, “woman” includes a trans woman who meets the definition set out. This provision only relates to the meaning of “woman” in the Act. This does not have the effect of creating a new legal definition of woman in any other context.

2.15 The Act does not require an appointing person to ask a candidate to prove that they meet the definition of woman in the Act.*

There are also some names that are masculine in some cultures and feminine in others. E.g. Dara is a boy's name in Ireland and a girl's name in Indonesia.

So if you're called Dara, are you living as a man if you're from an Irish background, and a woman if you're from an Indonesian family? If you had an Irish Dad and an Indonesian Mum, are you non-binary? Or could you decide to identify as Indonesian, thereby keeping the same name but changing gender?

Getting proof that 'you take a long time figuring out what to wear' would surely convince the panel - this is the hardest part of being a women (according to Jenner).

It's widely assumed that "living as a woman" includes using women's spaces. Does it?

So, to become a member of group holding a protected characteristic under EqA, all you need to do is change the name on your gas bill.

Get a doctor to confirm that you're uncomfortable presenting as a man.

And that's it.

Anyone could do it.

But nooooo. It's demeaning, humiliating, intrusive, too difficult, arduous.

I suspect the main problem is it takes two years.

The delayed gratification is a killer.

being described by others in written or other communication using female language

What if others are only doing this because they’re compelled to. Hmm.

*3. be living as a woman

This would not require the person to dress, look or behave in any particular way. However, it would be expected that there would be evidence that the person was continuously living as a woman, such as – always using female pronouns*

How does that work? You don't use female pronouns about yourself. Unless you speak in the third person, I suppose.

So exactly where in the process is the intrusive and humiliating medical examinations, the highly personal and degrading stuff, of which we are often reminded?

Because I can’t the degradation and humiliation and nobody has ever explained what this bit entails.

*cant see

Isn't the problem that anyone wanting to change gender because they're uncomfortable in their born gender needs to demonstrate that they're serious about it. How can they do that? We need a process that recognises they're dilema and wishes, whilst protecting women. I'm not sure how to do that.

It means that the original GRC law is sexist nonsense to try and legitimise sexist nonsense which changes documentation and replaces sex with gender. It fundamentally undermines women's rights by suggesting that discrimination against women is effectively just all in our heads because we feel like women and make an active choice to 'live as women' rather than are materially merely are women who have no choice in the biological reality of that.

being described by others in written or other communication using female language

The circularity, it hurts

In order to force people to pretend you're biologically female, you must first make people pretend you're biologically female

Or perhaps "female language" means something else?

So exactly where in the process is the intrusive and humiliating medical examinations, the highly personal and degrading stuff, of which we are often reminded?

They don't exist. The NHS is basically operating on affirmation for the diagnosis. And the only intrusive stuff the panel does is write to the lazy arses who have only sent two gas bills or similar when they were asked for four and say "can you send another two, please".

I think if society was more fluid life would be better for all. If we were less hung up on stereotypes and less conscious of how we present to others people would be more relaxed. There are so many issues with requiring people to present in a way that is stereotypical to whichever gender. And as people said so many names that can be used for any gender.

'intrisive' = not affirming at every available opportunity

You have to cut your pay and ask your male colleagues to take your ideas and present them as their own 20 seconds after you voiced them to the same audience

Jewel - there is no such thing as "a gender". There are two sexes and as many personalities as people on the planet. Everything else is meaningless waffle. There is no way to live or present as a woman. You either are one (an adult human female) or you aren't. That simple.

A friend of mine is TS and complained that the Dr doing the assessments was grilling her about not dressing feminine enough - e.g. not wearing dresses or makeup. Friend is a jeans & t-shirts type, and while not overly girly, the t-shirts and hoodies she picks have colours and designs that are clearly not typical 'man' designs iyswim?
Which amused me as I realised around 75% of the time I must not be living as a woman?

I think it means wearing hot pants and glitter eye shadow, I evidently stopped being a woman in the 1980's.

The reason that proof of "living as a woman" is your gas bill is because if it wasn't, the ludicrous sexist house of cards would become immediately obvious. What would they have? Passing panels? 1950s grooming and etiquette tests?

It's just a farce.

So how do I do womaning ...

A typical week:

Get up, shower & teeth, dress in whatever the weather suggests, go to cafes, shopping, make dinner, watch TV, films & plays, clean bathroom and kitchen, hoover occasionally, garden a bit, go to work, do some painting and decorating, laundry, read books on all different subjects, mess about on social media, visit family, socialise, community thing, deal with menopause stuff, bit of exercise, go to appointments, worry, try to deal with money, worry some more.

That's pretty much it. My womaning reality.

There's only one thing in there that I do BECAUSE OF MY SEX.

I think if society was more fluid life would be better for all. If we were less hung up on stereotypes and less conscious of how we present to others people would be more relaxed.

I rather think you're preaching to the choir here - women already are a very varied lot, accepting whether you're in jeans and t-shirt or floor-length laura ashley.

The people with the big problem, who apparently abuse feminine looking men in toilets, and who think that putting on a dress changes a person's sex are mainly males. We all know plenty of women who don't wear makeup, or have short hair, or wear trousers. How many of us know plenty of men who do wear makeup, have long hair and wear skirts? It's men that are repressed and repressing other men here, not women.

The entire framework around the GRA needs to be scrapped or repurposed.

Woman and man are inextricably linked to biological sex. End of. Neither sex can identify into or change into the other category. It's a biological impossibility so any legal framework that purports to do so is effectively a farce.

Two new legally protected categories should be established. There could be better terminology, but for now as an example, call them transwoman and transman.

So

• Man
• Woman
• Transman
• Transwoman

Only a man can have a legal gender reassignment to transwoman. Only a woman can have a legal gender reassignment to transman.

In the Equalities Act, in addition to sex, gender reassignment is already a protected characteristic, so no one should discriminate or harass a person based on their trans status.

The only way men or women can legally move to the recognised trans category is via obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate which we already have.
There should be no medical or surgical or any other criteria required to obtain a GRC. It should be a simple paperwork where a man can apply to be legally recognised as a transwoman or a woman can apply to be legally recognised as a transman. There is no need to change names on bills or whatever. If they want to alter their appearance or name that's their personal choice but it has no bearing on trans status.

A man can only be a transwoman and a woman can only be a transman. This has the advantage that if a person later decides their decision to become trans was a mistake or they are no longer happy being trans, they can submit straightforward paperwork again and the GRC will be cancelled, so the person automatically is legally classified under their biological sex i.e man or woman as appropriate.

A GRC should NOT enable a person to change their sex on their birth certificate, but there can be additional info recorded stating that a GRC is issued so the trans status takes precedence over birth sex in most cases.

The main problem in the West is a separate legal category wasn't created for trans people but instead a farcical and convoluted process to shove them into existing biological categories was quickly drawn up.
Cultures that accept trans people explicitly have separate categories for them because they know it is folly to include them as men or women.

I have a unisex name
I wear jeans 98% of the time
I sometimes watch football
I do the gardening/car maintenance

In a gendered dystopian future will I be declassified? Unwomaned?

The main problem in the West is a separate legal category wasn't created for trans people but instead a farcical and convoluted process to shove them into existing biological categories was quickly drawn up.

In order to avoid bringing in same-sex marriage. The European Court decided that a transwoman was being denied some rights by not being allowed to marry a man. This could have been resolved by passing a law which allowed same-sex marriage, which we now have, making that reason for needing a GRC obsolete.