Hungary votes to end legal recognition of transgender people

[Lamahaha]

nationalfile.com/hungary-votes-134-56-to-end-legal-recognition-of-trans-people/?fbclid=IwAR2XMJp7yzVMt9sh4QDOX69znivEA43eJhcSDVlm-zsMaikbANtXxnhd_uo

The amendment would recognize “sex at birth,” making it impossible to change ones gender throughout the course of their life.

On the proposed draft law, Human Rights Watch wrote:

The proposed amendment to the Registry Act would include a clarification regarding the word “nem,” which in Hungarian can mean both “sex” and “gender,” to specifically refer to the sex at birth (“szuletesi nem”) as “biological sex based on primary sex characteristics and chromosomes.” According to the draft bill, the birth sex, once recorded, cannot be amended.

It's the correct vote, but this government is otherwise authoritarian, neo-fascist, against minorities, pretty awful.

Apparently the TRA's are already planning a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that the new law violates European human rights case law...

I wonder have there already been similar cases? I thought the Irish GRA was introduced due to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, but I might be wrong about that. (As in, I think the ECHR ruled that Ireland must legally recognise trans people. Irish politicians almost unanimously chose to support self ID once it came to be discussed in the Dáil (parliament)).

I'd hope that the legal case would mean that the lack of clear definition for gender, and its misleading and problematic conflation with sex, is clearly recognised. At the same time, I think there does need to be recognition of trans people (as trans, not as the opposite sex). It's such a mess now. There must be thousands of people, a lot of them young and vulnerable, who were told by professionals that it was possible for them to literally change their sex.

I didn't realise until recently that it was possible to have anything on your b irth certificate that wasn't actually true ie not your biological parents or sex. I think the whole system need a rethink.

Here is the question though. Do we want this in the UK?

To remove gender reassignment from the list of protected characteristics and make it legal to discriminate against trans people?

To remove the ability of trans people to change their names on official documents, and to change gender markers? I mean it makes it a lot more difficult for them to 'transition'

Do we want to make it impossible for them to gain access to transition related medical intervention all together?

Do we want to criminalise them just for existing, which is what Hungary is doing. Transgenders in Hungary now have to switch back to using the name they were given and get legal documents rolled back or face fines.

I don't know personally. What do you all think?

I don't see why people can't have a "true" birth certificate I.e. the actual sex they were born and then a gender certificate I.e. one which they self id as.

I have two, one normal and one adopted...sort of the same.

However, thought would need to go into those who just self id (no bodily changes) and those who complete the change.

change their names on official documents, and to change gender markers?

Which official documents record whether someone is feminine or masculine? Or the rest of them:

www.wattpad.com/341462536-complete-list-of-genders-the-complete-list-of-all

Legal documents should not be allowed to be altered.

Gender reassignment should remain a protected characteristic as obviously no one should be able to be discriminated against for their gender presentation.

I think best bet is probably an extra certificate recognising their new name.

But single sex exemptions should stop be applicable

Still be applicable

Stupid phone

I don't see why people can't have a "true" birth certificate I.e. the actual sex they were born and then a gender certificate I.e. one which they self id as.

I suggested something along these lines a few years back in FWR, that for those who want it they can get an optional gender certificate but this would be separate from their birth certificate and have no influence on it, and also have no influence on granting access to single sex spaces for a sex being the opposite of their sex.

I got quite the telling off to suggesting that.

There should be an original document that is given when born.
They then get a reasign document.
So just by one glance it is obvious that the person has had SURGERY to change sex.
Anything else is wrong

@nauticant

Well it sounds like a good idea to me

I think the whole system need a rethink
It does! I think we have to get a really clear idea of why sex and other details are recorded on certain forms. Where the information is necessary, it shouldn't be false. Where the info is unnecessary, it should be left off. Sometimes it'll be complicated - for example, if sex is recorded on passports in order to help identification, it wouldn't help to have someone who is trans and who really does pass recorded simply by biological sex (I think the categories of TW and TM should be included, but not on basis of Self ID/inner feeling, or they again become meaningless). On birth certs it seems to me that children have the right to know the identity of their biological parents, but if, for example, a lesbian couple have a child through sperm donation, the partner who didn't conceive is still obviously a very significant person involved in the child being born. So I think we need to ask 'why is this info here, and who is it here for?' and add extra info where needed, rather than put in info that isn't actually true.

I don't see why people can't have a "true" birth certificate I.e. the actual sex they were born and then a gender certificate I.e. one which they self id as.

This, like changing your name via deed poll.

Changename5000: one argument against was that any official recognition of gender introduces confusion and would inevitably have the effect of undermining sex as a clear characteristic used for all kinds of sensible purposes. I understand this but I think that campaigning to repeal the Gender Recognition Act and not replace it with anything is a battle that I don't think can be won in the current climate.

Doesn't a GRC actually show the new 'gender' or just the name change? I know Jamie Dodger on YT changed the BC before getting the GRC so you can just change your name via deed poll and keep your BC as a true legal document. Another reason to me why the GRA should be repealed. It's ineffective, oppressive to women and was in place of same-sex marriage which we now have.

Completely agree @SarahTancredi

Also I've seen multiple petitions about this change to Hungarian law. It is as we all know the biggest threat to the lives of trans people.

Is the consensus that transgenders must always be identifiable by some sort of marker or document even if they look indestinguishable?

No.

Do we want to stop them changing their name like Hungary?

No.

Also that bathrooms and all other single sex spaces must exclude transgenders. Should they be obliged to use spaces for people of their biological sex I.e women with beards who have taken testosterone should use the ladies and men with breasts, the mens. Should they use the disabled facilities, and what is the Knockon effect on disabled people?

People can use the services of their sex. For any particularly complicated situations, third spaces can be used. As a return question, why always focus on toilets rather than prisons or rape refuges?

How do we enforce this? Ids to use single sex spaces? What if a fully indistinguishable transgender tries to use the womans, or if a trans identifying woman who uses testosteroneand has a beard tries to use the ladies. I know I'd feel unsafe. I know there have been cases of butch lesbians who have been harassed for using women's spaces.

If a transgender person feels they wouldn't be safe, they can use third spaces. And here's a truly revolutionary concept: how about transgender people who feel their presence might frighten people, ie women, take some responsibility to avoid doing this?

Excellent post nauticant.

It's tricky. I don't want to suppress transpeople's rights to live freely but equally, biological reality will sometimes intrude and we need the ability to recognise it where it impacts on their health, safety or the public's. For example, checking for cervical cancer or statistical data such as crime reports. Transpeople do face hate crimes and discrimination, so we need to accurately measure that if we are to tackle it.

I remember reading a sad case in America where a trans person died because they were treated accordingly to their legal gender instead of the correct medicine required by their body. :-(

Either we separate sex and gender where necessary or accept a third "trans" box on forms and third spaces.

I have no problem at all with people deciding to reassign their gender. It’s reassigning their sex that’s just ridiculous to me.

I think transpeople should be protected from discrimination due to their transness.

I also think transpeople need to face up to reality, they are not the opposite sex, therefore they should not be recorded as such, reality cannot be expected to bend around their belief system.

It's been said before on here many times but transgenderism is effectively a religion and should be treated as such in law.

There seems to be something very odd going on in the decision making process for transition. Some transgender people have stated that they transitioned because society wouldn't accept them as the sex they were in the 'gender' role that they wanted live as.

For example, Dr Hayton said on one radio interview something like "As a man, I couldn't live the way I wanted to live". There was no further explanation of what was meant by that statement, but I took it to mean that society would not accept Dr Hayton (male) dressing in 'female' clothing and with an outwardly feminine appearance. Yet after transition, many such people expect society to bend over backwards to accommodate them in their new 'gender' (I'm not referring specifically to Dr Hayton here).

So there seems to be a contradiction here: "Society won't accept me, so I have to transition", followed by "I have changed sex now, so society has to accommodate me in my new role."

A TW must use male rape services. A TM who gets raped must use women's rape services. I know I'd feel unsafe if I was in a refuge and a transgender with a beard and no breasts were to be housed like me.

I mean it's great that you support the third spaces bits but like how does that realise itself? Are they the disabled spaces? They aren't always available, and third spaces aren't always in provision, I.e healthcare or changing rooms, or refuges. So what then? I like the idea of extra investment in vital services, but what are the practical implications?

You didn't address the point of splashback on butch lesbians though. What about adult human females who have a non-normative way of expressing themselves?

People are talking about making it impossible to change sex markers, so by definition it's about making transgender always have something to identify that they are TW or TM? There shouldn't be a way they can ever be unidentifiable.

tired

I think that's where you have to hold people accountable. No one should find this stuff out the hard way. Drs and the like involved in the transitioning patients care should be telling their patients of the limitations.

Instead of relying on everyone else to be part of it.