Doesn't self-ID only benefit non-genuine cases?

[UpfieldHatesWomen]

I'm trying to figure out if there are actually any benefits to self-ID at all for people with gender dysphoria. The arguments for self-ID are that it costs money, and it's 'humiliating' to have to present your case to a panel of experts. First of all, a GRC only costs £140. Doesn't seem like a staggering amount of money, if you follow the narrative that people will kill themselves in their masses without it. Are there other costs that I'm missing here? The NHS covers hormones and medical procedures in the UK. I also fail to see what's humiliating about a psychological/medical assessment, to see if you actually have gender dysphoria or whether you have a sissification/autogynephelia fetish. Unless, of course, you're never going to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, because you don't have it and simply get off on invading women's privacy/have a fetish etc. Self-ID benefits those who want to keep their penis - but if you have gender dysphoria, why would you want to keep your penis? TV propaganda such as the ITV series 'Butterfly' would have us believe that those with gender dysphoria hate their genitals so much they'll try to cut them off with pieces of broken glass. It seems like self-ID only benefits fetishists and misogynists, so why are politicians never challenged on how exactly self-ID is supposed to benefit transgender people, why are they so insistent on self-ID as the only possible route to trans rights? Are they just woefully ignorant about autogynephelia/transvestism/sissification etc? These fetishes are as old as the hills, why is everyone pretending they suddenly don't exist? Or for that matter, pretending that predatory men don't exist? Female politicians are subjected to the very worst kinds of misogyny on social media, so how can they be so incredibly naive about how misogynistic men and opportunists will use self-ID as a vendetta against women? It doesn't seem that self-ID actually help genuine cases, only those who would normally be refused a GRC because they have shown they're insincere/have other mental health problems/trolling etc.

Grasspigeons I'm not in favour of forcing surgery on people either, but it's not necessary to gain a GRC. My point was more about the fact that everything points towards self-ID benefitting predatory men or those with fetishes who want to keep their penis (and possibly not even take hormones) so they can keep their sex drive and get off on invading women's spaces.

While I agree on Self ID, I'm really getting tired of people misrepresenting the science on autogynophelia. You are being as misleading as the trans activists

Blanchard never, ever presented AGP as an alternative to gender dysphoria. He presented it as the main underlying REASON for dysphoria.

Of course having AGP wouldn't stop someone getting a GRC. The majority of MtF trans people have AGP.

Also, transwomen with AGP are often the MOST desperate for surgery. Blanchard said he had some AGP patients who castrated themselves, they hated their male genitals so much.

AnotherLass thanks for the information, I thought they were separate conditions. I also thought that those with gender dysphoria tend to be attracted to men rather than women, do you know if this is this also incorrect? I think the reason women have tolerated and even welcomed trans individuals into women's spaces previously was because there was the image of the old-school transsexual who was seen as no threat because they wanted to be a woman and were attracted to men, rather than being attracted to women so much that they wanted to actually be one and become a 'lesbian'.

So de-medicalising GD as a mental health condition is all part of the push to get self id in then? No need for a diagnosis if there isn't a condition to diagnose.

I hadn't really thought about this being unique in the changing of your legal status just because you say so, but that is a really good point about self id. As is the point about only benefitting those who are not suffering with GD and just want to trample on women's rights.

As I understand it, dysphoria is a symptom, not a cause. There are different causes of dysphoria. HSTS (homosexual transsexuals) and AGP both experience gender dysphoria even though they are usually separate phenomenon.
Trauma and abuse can also cause dysphoria as can be seen in females who are trans.

I can see AGP underlying a lot of male gender Dysphoria. Without the sexual element I can’t explain why there aren’t hoards of middle aged women with gender Dysphoria insisting they are actually men and having their children suddenly start calling them dad.

Once the teenage maelstrom is over, women don’t do this. And among teenagers and very young women it seems to be to do with either being gender nonconforming and potentially lesbian or horror of female puberty both of which can be accommodated perfectly happily in time as older women know. That’s why in my view there really aren’t older women doing this.

Whereas there are enough older men doing this that they are populating pressure groups, changing policy and getting weekly columns in the Telegraph about their new brave and stunning selves.

This article explains the different types of gender dysphoria.

4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/

’Looks like getting a GRC is a long process:’

So is getting a new nationality. Given that awarding someone a new nationality or new sex affects the other people who have that nationality or sex, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that those asking for a significant change in legal status should demonstrate they take it seriously.

I can't recall exactly upfield, it sticks in my head that they were denied but may just be that they were frustrated at delays

Sorry I was kinda stroppy in my tone

I found this passage quite useful to understand it all - Blanchard suggests that dysphoria often starts as AGP and then it gets compounded into a distressed, compulsive, obsessional desire to be a woman:

“Gender dysphoria, in young nonhomosexual males, usually appears along with, or subsequent to, autogynephilia; in later years, however, autogynephilic sexual arousal may diminish or disappear, while the transsexual wish remains or grows even stronger…It is…feasible that the continuing desire to have a female body, after the disappearance of sexual response to that thought, has some analog in the permanent love-bond that may remain between two people after their initial strong sexual attraction has largely disappeared.”

I'm applying for a new nationality. I have to gather paperwork to prove my worthiness and get forms stamped and shit. And there is a process to go through. And money to pay. Because I have to prove that I am genuine in my application. I can't just rock up and say "I feel Eg Norwegian today " and someone will handover a new passport, The aNalogy of people claiming disabled benefits is quite valid. The most vulnerable of society are expected to jump through huge hoops to prove they have a valid claim to anything. If you are genuinely gender dysphoric, I can't see an issue with waiting a bit and demonstrating a need.

It’s a lot cheaper than changing your nationality, which also requires a lot of proof

So de-medicalising GD as a mental health condition is all part of the push to get self id in then? No need for a diagnosis if there isn't a condition to diagnose.

No need for hormonal and surgical interventions paid for by the NHS if there isn't a condition to diagnose. Transactivists should be careful what they wish for. No one else gets to self-identify as needing NHS-funded treatment.

I also fail to see what's humiliating about a psychological/medical assessment

I'll refer back to the open letter that some Irish handmaids sent to WNTT and my response to it:

Irish handmaids: currently in the UK people are forced to go through the indignity of medical diagnosis in order to have their gender recognised (emphasis mine)

Me: Thanks for contributing to the shame and stigma faced by mentally-ill people. Seeing medical practitioners and getting a diagnosis is an essential first step to treatment for many illnesses and should not ever be portrayed as an indignity. For people with disabilities, a diagnosis is critical to getting legal protection as we can't prove "substantial and long-term impairment" without one. Why should trans people get an easier path to legal protection than people who are disabled? For a list of women who are claiming that gender critical people are "bigots", you sure are ablist as all hell.

My daughter who has EDS needs to use a wheelchair and crutches on a regular basis. As she doesn’t need to use these aids every day, she was turned down for a Blue parking badge. Someone who wakes up one morning and decides they are a different sex can instantly self Id. Fucking madness.

I think they refer to 'the indignity of a medical diagnosis' in order to draw a parallel with how homosexuality was treated as a psychiatric disorder in the past, and if that was wrong therefore it must be wrong in the case of trans people too. It's a completely false comparison, however, as being gay doesn't involve medical treatment, identifying into another protected group and gaining access to their safe spaces, rights, and redefining in law what another protected group consists of. The fight for gay rights was about obtaining the same rights as everyone else, to marry a same sex partner and be free from discrimination in the workplace, education etc. So much manipulation of the truth in this movement for nefarious purposes and eejits everywhere nodding their heads along with all the bullshit because they daren't be seen to question the dogma.

... being gay also doesn't compel everyone else to go along with an individual's personal delusion about their sex and be forced to lie.

When you think about it - allowing the legal status of someone biological sex to be changed because - ‘ I think therefore I am’ is very odd.

OP

I don't personally think self identity as in just wander along and state you are x, y or z or wake up in the morning and decide would be beneficial tom many however, I don't really believe that is the governments proposal (if they even have one). That is not to say that I agree with it. (just saying you are x, y, z that is).

As for the current procedure for obtaining a GRC, I don't see too much issue with it as it does allow some form of checks and balances along the way and require some form of commitment and oversight. I can only speak from my own opinion and experience but, there is one aspect that I would like to see changed which would have saved a little bit of money for all parties including the tax payer.

I can't really speak for people who haven't been through surgery or can't go through surgery for medical reasons but, all trans people who have undergone genital reconstruction surgery have at least generally over a period of around 4 to 5 years (probably longer now) regularly seen a GP (perhaps more than one), more than one psychologist/psychiatrist, a medical Dr normally of consultant level, an endocrinologist, received two independent diagnosis of gender dysphoria again from consultant level Drs for surgical referral and ultimately been under the care of a surgical team of specialist nurses and a consultant reconstructive surgeon normally a urology specialist

My issue is, that with the involvement of all those medical professionals in a persons care why is there a need to then collate all that paperwork and send it off to a 'panel' of people which the person has never met?

I think an idea would be at the point where surgery is complete and the person is subsequently discharged from the Gender Service into the care of their GP for what amounts in my personal experience to no more than a semi regular blood test and repeat prescription of one very common medication, the paperwork could be forwarded to the GP surgery who,on the back of that clear evidence of medical treatment can recommend the issue of a GRC by the local register office.

Whether a small cost is involved or not is another debate however, a faceless panel cost the tax payer money and they are very highly paid individuals so, the cost to the tax payer is very likely to be disproportionate to the task they carry out.

This would also simplify the procedure somewhat in that it is based on medical evidence and treatment alone as oppose to having to collate a few bills, a passport and your pay slip to support it. The people then making the recommendations would be doing so based on a living knowledge of the person in concern as oppose to a few bits of paper containing medical notes that half of them probably can't understand.

My issue is, that with the involvement of all those medical professionals in a persons care why is there a need to then collate all that paperwork and send it off to a 'panel' of people which the person has never met?

How else would the government know it had actually happened? It's just like sending off the appropriate documents when you apply for a passport.

the paperwork could be forwarded to the GP surgery who,on the back of that clear evidence of medical treatment can recommend the issue of a GRC by the local register office.

How is this different from sending off the relevant paperwork to the government office dealing with it? And how is this different from the current system where the doctor says that the person has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria?

I don't think it is fair to the GP to hand them the responsibility of recommending the GRC. What if they think the person shouldn't get one? It's opening them up to harassment from someone who they think should not get a GRC.

a faceless panel

You mean civil servants, like the ones who decide whether or not someone should get a British passport or is eligible for benefits?

This would also simplify the procedure somewhat in that it is based on medical evidence and treatment alone

Are you suggesting it should be dependent on the person having certain medical treatments? That's not currently the case, nor has it ever been.

Old crone

I suggest the GP because it would be a far easier and cheaper route for all concerned. As I clearly stated in the text of my reply I can only speak for my own post surgery experience.

Of course the government would know because your GP would by recommending the certificate or not be confirming that the medical paper work is in their possession. The register office would not doubt then produce an official record. This costs no more as it would be sent to them anyway. At this point we are way beyond confirming a diagnosis of GD and if you have been through the surgical procedure without one something has gone awfully wrong. The Gp unless highly GC is unlikely to refuse the certify it but, if they were highly GC i would question whether they would still be the persons GP. Some Gp's do make things difficult and from experience the patient moves on to a GP who is willing to comply with the specialist advice.

The gender recognition panel aren't your standard passport office worker on just over minimum wage but, again, I'm only suggesting a way to save you some money. You are not compelled to like the suggestion, It's just an idea.

Yes, I am suggesting it would be better based on medical evidence as if the whole process is not based on medical evidence then I imagine there are a few people around who would try to ensure the process is no longer in existence.

Of course, If you are happy for the cost of the involvement of civil servants some of which probably comes out of your personal taxes if you pay them then who am I to argue with you?

There is no other change of state that can be done on a self ID basis. Why should this one state be treated differently to mental health, physical disability, nationality and so on? If it is a legal state, it needs to be taken seriously by both the individual and the state, hence self id is really inappropriate.

statsgeek1
What you seem to be suggesting appears very similar to the current process (except no medical treatment is currently required). What exactly do you object to in the current process?

www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

But all “living as the opposite sex” means, is giving proof of using a “female” name. How challenging.
As I know of women called James, Nick, Robin, Rowan etc, even this is ridiculous. Dressing as a woman is ridiculous as many women live in trousers, never wear makeup and have short hair.
The whole thing is shoring up a fiction.

statsgeek1 I don't think cost-cutting by involving fewer experts is at all a persuasive argument (although this is probably THE reason why the Tories were keen to introduce self-ID in the first place, along with the explosion in the numbers of referrals of teenage girls to gender identity clinics). A panel brings in an element of necessary non-bias, in the same way schools have external invigilators for exams, which leads to a standardisation of the process. Without this you have a postcode lottery. Also, the existence of detransitioners such as this man doesn't instill any confidence that doctors are competent enough to diagnose GD in the first place.