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.

Every single person I have spoken to on this issue has believed that trans means surgery to remove male genitals.

I read an article saying that it's wrong to assume all genuine transwomen have experienced gender dysphoria. This confused me. Is this a thing?

www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/expert-q-and-a

“Not all transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria and that distinction is important to keep in mind. Gender dysphoria and/or coming out as transgender can occur at any age.”

Stonewall don't think dysphoria is required to be trans. That's what has landed us in this mess.

Ah, OK, thanks @Doyoumind and @noblegiraffe. That's news to me (and a bit confusing...). So in fact, even if there were continued extensive assessments, under these definitions it may not make much difference. People don't have to have dysphoria anyway to be "legit"...

Do kids need to be dysphoric to be trans?

Pinky Well that fits in with the whole women having beards and penises thing and "suck my lady dick if you don't agree", doesn't it? The circular definition that a transwoman is anyone who says they are. For a GRC surely a GD diagnosis is required though. I've heard Munroe Bergdorf speak of 'Gender Euphoria', which is an Orwellian reframing of having a sexual fetish for being observed as a woman and trying to make that sound like something nice and fluffy, rather than a coercive strategy for getting enshrining in law that women have to play along with a men's porndrunk sexual fantasies.

I recall claims that it was an indignity for asylum seekers who claimed they were children but who had lost all their paperwork to undergo dental X-rays. I think as a consequence we allowed people to simply self-certify as children.

In Sweden, of 8,000 'child migrants' where the authorities had doubts, dental checks concluded that 84% were over 18 and that didn't include those deemed 'possibly over 18'. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42234585

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

Standard route

Apply by the standard route if all the following are true:

you’re 18 or over

you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria (discomfort with your birth gender) - this is also called gender identity disorder, gender incongruence or transsexualism

you’ve lived in your acquired gender for at least 2 years

you intend to live in your acquired gender for the rest of your life

The whole thing is shoring up a fiction
It's all a bit daft, innit? So many have been captured and daren't say anything, even comedians who normally say contentious things for a living. I have to take my hat off to Dave Chappelle for tackling the ridiculousness of it all.
Seriously, how is him screwing up his face to do an exaggerated impression of a Chinese man any different to males talking in fake high pitched voices, sitting with their hands daintily in their laps, renaming themselves after 50s pin-up girls, and flipping their hair every five seconds just so you know they're really laydeez. I mean it would be laughable, if it wasn't such a fucking insult.

you’ve lived in your acquired gender for at least 2 years

you intend to live in your acquired gender for the rest of your life

And since they decided that making people present as stereotypical Barbies or GI Joes was sexist, ''living in your acquired gender" became simply changing your name from Kevin to Susan and having utility bills in your new name for the required length of time.

Having realised that "living in an acquired gender" was full of sexist stereotypes, they should have ditched the GRA there and then. We could then all just live in the way that suits us, but stop pretending that people can change sex.

I've never understood 'living as a woman'. I'm all woman in every sense, but apart from having a feminine name I don't see how I would qualify. Because I sometimes wear makeup and dresses? What a crock of shit. What most clearly defines me as a woman are my debilitating periods, something no transwoman will ever have. Anything other than biology is optional and therefore not a defining factor.

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.

This.

In many ways, proponents of 'Self-ID' have a stronger argument than feminists who advocate for medical or administrative oversight of legal 'sex change'. If you are going to replace sex with 'gender identity' in law, which is the purpose of the GRA, then it's not unreasonable to argue that individuals are the best judges of their 'gender identity', which is a wholly subjective feeling.

It is indeed ridiculous to insist that someone sit in front a panel and 'prove their gender', via demonstrating how well they adhere to superficial sex stereotypes. I have no idea why feminists would advocate for such a system as a good way for determining who is a man or woman in law. Nor does the existing system stop dangerous men from assuming the legal status of 'woman'. Sex offenders have acquired GRCs.

Surely the only logical position for feminists is that 'gender' should have no standing in law at all - the only thing that matters for legal purposes is sex, and that can't be changed, so there should be no GRC panels, no GRCs, and the GRA must be repealed.

Donkey I agree with you. I came to this whole discussion feeling like the possible introduction of self-ID was the problem and we should stick to the status quo of the GRA. The more I have learned, especially the nonsensical provisions of the Equality Act protecting "gender reassignment" even if only proposed, has made me realise that the concept of gender doesn't belong in law anywhere except perhaps as some kind of protection for men and women who don't fit stereotypical gender presentations (I don't want a man to get evicted from his flat if he wants to wear a dress).

Yes gender is just a set of social stereotypes - it has no more relevant to official documentation

Perhaps all documentation should have the normal M/F sex tickbox as usual; then if people decide they have a super special gender feel, that box could be additionally marked by way of an eyeroll emoticon?

Yes, I agree there needs to be a better way to protect the rights of trans people without there having to be a legal fiction in place, which we are now seeing the ramifications of. The GRC was established for transsexuals by providing them with protected characteristic status so that they couldn't be discriminated against and could marry a same sex partner. Whilst there were such a small number of transsexuals it was not any major threat to women's rights, dignity or privacy, so the illogical nature of trying to prove you're a woman by 'living as a woman' and the sexism underlying that notion was ignored out of kindness to those struggling with dysmorphia. What we have today is a completely different ball-game, an estimated 500,000 self-identifying trans people, the majority of whom don't have gender dysphoria but rather don't feel they fit the stereotypes of their sex (who does?!) wishing to gain a 'special' status. Rather than challenge the stereotypes themselves, the faulty administrative process for gaining a GRC is at once attacked as being 'an indignity' whilst at the same time used as a model for gender ideology ie. I call myself Sabrina and like glittery pens, therefore I'm a woman. The GRA is not fit for purpose, but neither is self-ID, because you quite simply can't change sex. Whilst sexist notions of how men or women should behave remain, there should be laws in place to protect gender non-conforming people. Scrap the GRC and establish this instead, it would be a lot fairer as it would protect all gender non-conforming people however they wish to identify, including feminist women! Gawd knows I've been discriminated against for being gender non-conforming, but there were no protections in place for me because I don't have the non-binary haircut and use they pronouns. In fact, I suggest that if self-ID goes ahead, all gender non-conforming females identify as non-binary and get some legal protection for the kind of shit we have to deal with, lord knows we're not going to get it as women.

...in fact, isn't this whole mess the direct result of a fiction being enshrined in law, a law based on feelings rather than fact? Isn't it inevitable that it would come to this eventually, that people would seek to play the system in order to gain a special status?

I have a patient who is a trans man but not particularly... manly. From what he explained to me, panels look for people who meet stereotypes and reject those who do not so to "pass", he would have to be ultra butch and probably play down the fact that he is attracted to men to ensure they validated his trans identity.

Often transwomen will have to present as far more feminine than they ever would normally such as wearing full make up and heels all the time.

Upfield

I understand the points you are trying to make, I don't wish to remove any expertise from the treatment process. In fact I would question the assertion that those involved in the medical treatment of trams people aren't collectively expert enough to give the nod to a local register office issuing a certificate at a point where a person has had surgery or is discharged from the service medically unsuitable for surgery. I can never quite figure out not wanting surgery but that is a personal I must resolve myself. People of this level of qualification make decisions with far greater reaching consequences for human health and sometimes freedom on a daily basis.

My wish would be to add significantly more weight to a medical process by making the decision a solely medical one. Personally, after spending more than 5 years under the care of highly trained medical professionals from GP, to psychiatrists, to medical doctors specialising in gender care, to endocrinologists and eventually a surgeon with all their various support staff along the way I struggle to see where there is drumming down of expertise by taking away the costly need for a panel who had never met me to say 'yes, these people weren't lying on their medical paperwork and by the way the person has provided a could of bits of additional evidence to in support of evidence of their lifestyle'. That last bit is particularly pertinent if we wish to move away from gender stereo typing. We can't have it both ways as the old saying goes.

Old crone - My only difference would be to increase the influence of the medical evidence further so in essence to take it further away from a self I'd model and to take away the middle man/woman who costs the tax payer unnecessary money. As I stated earlier, if you are happy to pay then I'm comfortable with that, but at the moment if you pay tax you probably don't have a choice in that.

If you would on the other hand like to get rid of the system and treatment pathways altogether I think you perhaps need to argue that one a little more robustly with the powers that be.

GEEpEe I can understand for such cases why a trans person undergoing this process might make the argument for self-ID. In fact I'd imagine a transman who doesn't pass would be particularly vulnerable in society. But I don't think obtaining a certificate that says you are the sex you are not, either through self-ID or through performing sexist stereotypes to a panel is any kind of long-term solution to the prejudice gender non-conforming people face in society. If there was a system in place that protected gender non-conformity as a characteristic, there would be no need for a fictional sex change certificate. Third spaces could be established for those who need them. Of course, there would be objections to that because those with dysphoria want the certificate for validation, and perverts and trolls want it so they can exploit the loopholes. Whilst trans individuals should gain support, feelings don't trump facts and the GRC quite simply shouldn't exist.

GEEpEe

People don't present physically to the panel so, with the exception of perhaps a passport photograph/driving licence both of which only show a face I'd be surprised when presented with medical notes from surgeons and medical consultants that they'd disregard their evidence based on a passport photograph.

You are right to say though that some clinicians at GIC's are still placing weight on presented gender stereotypes to help in their determination of a differential diagnosis of GD. As a result some trans women will present at the clinic in what could be thought of as an overly feminine way as far as gender stereotypes go. Desperation to relieve the distress of dysphoria will lead people to do these sort of things if they think it's going to help.

A GRC is all paperwork evidence, so looks don’t come into it.

Clinicians obviously assess appearance (I imagine all mental health professionals do to a certain extent? Ie, Does the person’s appearance match their verbal presentation?) and I have read several accounts re: people getting changed in toilets on the way to appointments, to give a clinician a false impression. Back in the early days, doctors wouldn’t prescribe medical transition for anyone that they didn’t think would be able to comfortably ‘pass’ and assimilate as the opposite sex (ie, no Male transitioners outside of average female height range, no female transitioners outside of average male height range). That doesn’t happen any more.

Now there are guides online as to how to look and what to say and do at appointments, how any professional tasked with caring for trans patients unpicks the truth of the matter is beyond me. They can hardly be blamed for misdiagnosis when patients are coming with answers from a script :/

Here’s a 40 page document advising on how to game the GIC, it’s been floating around the Internet for years (it says the wait for a GIC appointment is 6 months, so it must be written at least 7 years ago)

bytenoise.co.uk/oh-for-fucks-sake/mascara-and-hope.pdf

Well that's it. They use the script because the people assessing them often have their own ideas about gender, sex, and what a "true trans person" should look like and how they should behave.

Being seen as non-compliant to the norms of the sex to which you aim to change could possibly cause them to obstruct the process. It of course means that people who were opportunistic and not "true" can easily conform to stereotypes to get through.

The answer is of course a change in societal attitudes about gender. I personally do not think it would eradicate the need for people to feel as if they need to transition but I do think it would eradicate the need for "true" people to use a script.

www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/18/stop-humouring-the-trans-lobby/

Excellent Jo Bartosch article about the problem of situating gender as internal instead of external on Spiked today.

As a GP, I often advise friends and family to stick to a script when presenting to their own GP about a health problem that requires a specialist referral or further investigation, but doesn't necessarily trigger a referral in their local protocol. So if they are having pain but it doesn't wake them up at night, and I know that for some ridiculous reason, that is often cited as the distinguishing factor between GP care and specialist care, I will tell them to lie and say it does. The problem is the inflexibility in the system and to a degree, how power is removed from clinicians. Protocols are guidelines and should be treated as such. If I followed every protocol about when and when I shouldn't call an ambulance for a patient, many people would be seriously ill or die and many others would waste a day in A+E only to be given the exact same thing I could give in my practice.

You are right about the attitudes of some clinicians with regard to appearance expectations but, I think these are less so than in times gone by. However, like anything else, those in need will do what it takes to overcome that even if it means owning a 'GIC skirt.' I do agree though that relaxing gender norms would be very unlikely to result in a reduction of people who are so repulsed and uncomfortable in their own body that they seek out surgical intervention in the hope of achieving some calm. It may also prevent the unnecessary cost of a 'GIC skirt.'

I wouldn't discount that there are those with suspect intentions who could use the 'script', bad people will go to some surprising lenghths. But, I kind of like to think the vast majority would be weeded somewhere in the process. Maybe that's overconfidence or wishful thinking. That said although I'm sure some would use it for nefarious purposes I'd imagine if you wanted to assault someone in the toilet which is the main place that I think you are likely to encounter transwomen in a traditionally single sex space there are easier ways to do it. Perhaps pretending to be the cleaner and putting the facility closed sign on the door is an easier option? Of course, that's not to say that pretending to be the cleaner or trans offers any defence in law, in fact both are likely to be considered excaserbating factors especially the second with a paper trail showing clear evidence of prior intent.