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.

"people getting changed in toilets on the way to appointments"

This specifically is something my trans patient has done to an extent. He will definitely avoid any clothing that one might associate with a woman or even a homosexual male although that sort of style is what he wears in most social non-professional situations. That's because the people assessing would expect him to conform to typical gender stereotypes and he doesn't want any hiccups.

I can't say I blame him, the service operates at a snails pace even without any hiccups. It's not always a bad thing but, frustrating when you are on the conveyor belt that isn't moving as quick as you'd like.

statsgeek1 predatory men will go to ANY lengths to assault women. One of the oldest tricks in the book for serial killers and rapists is to elicit sympathy from the victim. Ted Bundy would wear a sling a pretend he needed help loading something into his van. Men pursuing women who are not interested in them frequently play the sympathy card with 'is it because I'm ugly' or 'my ex was crazy' etc. Pretending to be a transwoman is just a new way to elicit sympathy for such men ("is it because I'm not a real woman? But I'm a lesbian" etc), with the cry of "transphobia!" to follow if met with any resistance. It's surely the most powerful weapon against women we've ever seen. No need to go to any great lengths to prove they're women, because the culture of fear that has swept in means women are forbidden from questioning what a man says about his gender, no matter how he presents.

I think most places will self select who is welcome in their spaces and who isn't based on their behaviours.

You know, in prisons, it is already established that very dangerous women prisoners can be housed in male prisons. That would be an easy route for dangerous trans prisoners too.

Upfield

I don't doubt what you say and predatory men are a problem which is why I'm not generally supportive of a free for all self I.d. To balance that I am aware that far more sexual assaults take place in the victims home, at work or on the public transport network than single sex spaces and often by an offender who is or was previously known to the victim. That's not to say there aren't trans sex offenders because we know there are.

But, I do agree with regards to the GRA, I see no reason to make it easier in a free for all sense but, I'd be happy for it to be a solely medical affair reducing the panels burden on the tax payer. I'm sure there are many who don't want it to exist but as the law stands it does and I'd be surprised if it was repealed any time soon. That said, Mr Cummings is running the country operating Boris on his hand so I'd never say never.

The trouble I've found with the debate around GRA reform is that any hint at a middle ground where people can envisage some compromise (as the case now really) is shouted down by the loudest voices from either side. I either get, it's open season for sex offenders or ridiculous shouts of transphobia the other way which does take away from the real transphobia we can experience. A shame really but like most things it's the way of the world, those who shout loudest and all that stuff.

statsgeek1 many of us on here have said that the GRA is no longer required because we now have same-sex marriage. In your view, what is the purpose of the GRA in 2020?

I suspect the original purpose has outlived its initial intention and as far as most of the arguments that go back and forth are concerned they are much more close.y connected to the EA 2010. That said, a GRC which is linked to the GRA can be of importance in certain examples. Whether you like it or not they exist as a legal instrument that can, if need be prevent most knowing a persons transsexual history, admittedly in many cases it isn't or can't be hidden. But, if you are lucky enough to go completely unnoticed I see it as no one else's business to have a knowledge of your medical history in this case.

It can also offer the holder a protection against discrimination based on the sex recorded on their certificate as long as the issue can't be shown to be proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.

But, I do agree, same sex marriage was long overdue and the world hasn't collapsed around us despite the usual cries of why cant I now marry my dog and the like from the usual suspects at certain news outlets.

I don't understand why someone would want to be transgender (want to live/be accepted as the opposite gender) without a dissatisfaction with their current sexed body and/or their current gender roles as expected by society?
In other words, if you were happy with your body as it was AND happy to live in the roles that society thought you should live in as a (man/woman), why would you want a GRC?

But, if you are lucky enough to go completely unnoticed I see it as no one else's business to have a knowledge of your medical history in this case.

Do you not think it would be better to work towards a world in which men could be extremely feminine and women extremely masculine, and we were all accepting of this diversity? Abolishing the GRA could be the first step towards this.

It can also offer the holder a protection against discrimination based on the sex recorded on their certificate as long as the issue can't be shown to be proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but if you're talking about transwomen having access to female only spaces, then if the EA exemption can be justified, it is also reasonable to exclude transwomen. If transwomen can be included, then there is no justification for the single sex exemption, and all males can also be included.

I'm not sure what purpose 'gender reassignment' serves as a protected characteristic. It doesn't give TWs free pass to use women's spaces, and since the comparator is other males, surely any discrimination is based on physical appearance, clothing etc.? Why does it need the utterly meaningless 'gender reassignment' label?

Some article I was reading earlier asserted that with a GRC the equality act exemptions don’t apply.

This is something that really needs clarification.

Old Crone -

It would be nice to relax gender norms however, and I can only speak personally that growing my hair and wearing clothing typically associated with being the opposite sex to which I was born was never going to cut it. I must admit though, I really did try to make it go away. It's a nice idea and I think it would help the vast majority, generally those who go on to desist from or before treatment.

You are exactly right but, the big question is always going to be when push comes to shove in a court case could the particular exemption used on a case by case basis be justified at the time. I guess until a DV refuge or similar kicks out or refuses to help a vulnerable trans woman who then has to complain we are unlikely to find out.

With respect to sex it also protects against my employer being able to say 'you can't do that because you're not a real woman/female (as long as there is no case for an exception) because although it isn't biologically so for all intents and purposes it is legally so. A fiction or not it just is.

The purported - you are right too, the pc of GR does not offer unfettered access to spaces that, has been happening for decades without any real legislation and to be fair up until the noise around the GRA reform it passed in the main without incident. What it does do though is stop my boss making me redundant because he doesn't like trans people. so, it's useful protection against the intolerant in society who have a bit more power than just being rude.

Noble giraffe

As far as I am aware they can apply on a case by case basis as long as the need to enforce the exception is proportional to a legitimate aim. I would think an example could be a particular DV shelter could be trans exclusionary as long as there were others in the area that weren't and it therefore didn't impact on vulnerable victims leaving them without support.

I'm trying to think of an instance in which an employer would say 'you can't do that because you're not female' - do you have any examples, statsgeek1? I can only think of things which I would argue a trans woman shouldn't have a right to claiming eg. maternity leave, women only shortlists and female only spaces. I still maintain that the GRC should be scrapped and protections put in place for all gender non-conforming people. I don't say this lightly, I myself have lost at least one job due to being a gender non-conforming woman where I was bullied out by other members of staff. There were no legal protections in place for me, and I resent the idea that I should have to identify into the non-binary box in order to gain some sort of legal protections, because I find the very idea of it sexist and limiting.

I have short hair, very rarely wear makeup and don't own a skirt but am all woman, down to debilitating periods even while going through menopause on HRT.

I'm also disabled and have had to jump through MANY hoops in order to be recognised as. Including having attended several "interviews" and tribunals that are costly both to the taxpayer and me (financially, mentally and physically). My GP has a sign up in the surgery telling people not to ask for letters for the DWP as they don't support them. Yet the DWP still require proof of disabled people's conditions.

As someone who has had the distressing experience (I'm an abuse survivor) of a man dressed as a woman flashing by appearing to be "caught" drying his genitals under a dryer in the Ladies but turning around with dress still up and tittering and apology without lowering dress, I don't think that £140 is unreasonable.

Nor do I think that the checks are out of place - it's nothing I wouldn't expect. I'd like to see more put in place to sort out fakes from genuine.

I'm not the only woman who has been subjected to perverts dressed as women in toilets in our town. My 14 year-old niece has had a similar experience as well as friends of mine. It may be the same man or a few different but despite complaints to the stores and the police he hasn't been caught.

If men, in particular, want to pass as women they should expect these checks. If they're reasonable human beings they will understand that they're safety checks that are in place to protect vulnerable i.e. women from men that want to abuse the system.

How would a trans person feel if someone they love is abused by a man wanting to get his kicks by posing as a woman?

I don't know the ins and outs of the law on this subject. I know only what I've read here. I'm just very, very concerned that this situation is very open to abuse and disgusted that women are being dumped on from a great height. Again.

Upfield

I think you are right and I'm so sad on an individual level that we still live in a society that can or feels it's okay to demonise people on an individual level because of how the look or present. Humans can be cruel although I suspect the world for most animals is worse.

Personally, I can't think of a likely instance other than individual direct intolerance of not being able to do something or maybe in recent times but not so much now the retirement age etc... but, I think like your example it's more likely to occur around being bullied out of your job because your're trans. It's not an unusual tale for trans people in the workplace to feel that their colleagues take quite some time to go from seeing you as a trans person who works here to being just someone who works here who happens to be trans.

But, I'm all for a wider scope of protection to encompass all gender non conformity. The attitudes against that result in awful things like what happened to that young goth couple a few years ago.

As far as I am aware they can apply on a case by case basis as long as the need to enforce the exception is proportional to a legitimate aim.

And as far as the other side is aware, that doesn’t apply if you have a GRC. And it doesn’t appear to have been tested.

Apologies if this has already been posted but this is an old-school transsexual pointing out that self-ID is putting them in danger as well...

twitter.com/claudiamclean22/status/1229551645345898497?s=20

Noble giraffe

Whoever 'the other side are', I think they're mistaken. The exceptions can still apply on a case by case basis as long as it can be shown that it is proportionate to achieve the legitimate aim. I suppose that would need to be tested in court. There are plenty trans people who are uncomfortable with a proposed free for all (if that is the case) and not least by the concern for our own safety too.

The other side of the argument regarding sex exemptions.

If it hasn’t been tested then it’s speculation.

You are quite obviously right, OP, which is why old-fashioned trans-sexuals like Debbie Hayton and Miranda Yardley don't like self-ID. It's as much of a threat to them as it is to us: up till now they've been able to use female spaces without too much problem but once any old bloke who fancies getting into a women's changing room gets a gender recognition certificate, then women will start being suspicious of all transgender people.

So the next question is: who's the driving force behind self-ID? Not gender dysphoric people, that's for sure. To me the pretty obvious answer is that the people behind self-ID are those who want to abuse it: men who want to exploit women's and girls' vulnerabilities. Sexual predators are the only people who really benefit behind self-ID, and so they are the ones trying to push it. The fact that there are supposedly progressive people backing them is absolutely terrifying.

GeePee have you seen this? Authored by clinicians at the Tavistock. I think all HCPs should read it.

It describes my stepdaughter’s experience so well, it feels almost uncanny:

womansplaceuk.org/2020/02/17/the-natal-female-question/

Claudia McLean
@ claudiamclean22
"started out singing in Glasgow, then Europe, coming back to sing in London, even the Palladium. Activisim followed. ‘03~’07 GMC Trial. Disabled but still here."

Claudia's bio mentions the GMC trial (of Dr Russell Reid), so I assume it's ok to post this interview with Julie Bindel, even though Claudia wished to remain anonymous at the time. It's a harrowing story. (The Guardian covered the trial quite extensively, those articles are also worth reading to see how flawed the gender reassignment process was/is)

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/may/23/healthandwellbeing.health

"me the pretty obvious answer is that the people behind self-ID are those who want to abuse it: men who want to exploit women's and girls' vulnerabilities. Sexual predators are the only people who really benefit behind self-ID, and so they are the ones trying to push it. "

My patient wants it so he wouldn't have to put on a mask for assessments.

@DuLANGMondeFOREVER

Are you suggesting I talk my patient out of transitioning?