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...

[Datun]

Is there still GRC gatekeeping, of the variety that keeps out fetishists?

[DidoLamenting]

Can I say that the post Horseradish quite rightly called out is by a poster called ATiredWoman, whose posts on here I also find offensive with their use of "transgenders" /"transgender" as a noun.

Perhaps ATiredWoman is a recent name change but apparently this is the only thread she has posted on and almost every post actually is transphobic.

[TedsFederationRep]

actually is transphobic.

Or a "reverse".

Difficult to tell, isn't it?

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

At the root of all of this is the acceptance that being trans is not an illness, that anybody who feels such huge dissonance about their healthy body needs no help or support to learn to accept that body.

I've always wondered about that. I feel that more should be on offer to help anyone - child or adult - who suffers dysphoria. I think it's this that would be best concentrated on - comorbidities addressed, mental health support should be far more robust.

I find it utterly bizarre that a child who is upset and disturbed about their body, for example, would be encouraged to change that body, instead of being offered support to explore the reasons why they are unhappy.

Rather than adjusting the law to suit what is, as far as I can tell, a mental illness, I think we should be addressing the crises in mental health provision.

Any other person who feels compelled to surgically alter a healthy body should also be offered support. I appreciate this won't suit the industries and markets that make a very nice profit from people's unnecessary misery ...

It's a very hyper-individualist, market-driven, mechanistic philosophy of the body, isn't it? Neoliberal Cartesian split so all 'parts' can become unrelated commodities to be adjusted, 'personalised', modified (at cost, natch).

What are we missing?

[mummmy2017]

I know it goading, but it does make me upset, that 95% do not have a gender reassignment opperation, and could if they wish revert to the sex their DNA actually is if it were too their advantage.
But because they want to be seen as something different they feel their wants trump everything else.
As I said just provide a third space, by law and woman will 100% come out in support of this

[SarahTancredi]

I thought this always was the case.
Hence the demand for self ID to bypass any gatekeeping which kept out the fetishists

It's hard to know. Certainly in the uk there seem to be an awful lot of people who were unaware of the risks of the medications, we Had the whole webberly debacle and medications prescribed very quickly when the clinic wasnt even legal. Affirmation being pushed every where and staff threatened with their jobs if they dont affirm etc

I dont see how any of that leads to patients making fully informed decisions with a knowledge of limitations.

Theres a dr I believe in the US which has multiple law suits pending for failed or failing phalloplastys and complications.

It certainly doesnt look from the outside at least that those wishing to transition and the processes they undertake are aware of just what can happen. Patients should not be left in the situations they are being left in.

[Mucklowe]

"a transgender" sounds awful. So dehumanising.

[Gncq]

Yeah it's a bit like "So you agree all transgender people should be forced to stay in the closet?"

[Gncq]

Actually I got that wrong!
Isn't it
"So you agree we should all deny the existence of transpeople"
Anyway.

Datun as I understand it, gatekeeping is still in place under the GRA2004 but the amendments aim to remove this.

[TreestumpsAndTrampolines]

In Hungary it seems that if you change your name, they actually re-issue your birth certificate!

www.refworld.org/docid/3f7d4da511.html

If an application is accepted, a new birth certificate has to be issued, and based on that certificate, a new identity card would be issued.

It's a much more serious change than a deed poll in the UK. You also have to apply for the change with a good reason - it's not automatic:

All cases where a change of name is requested are evaluated on an individual basis, and requests have to be well-founded.

So I would think that what's happening is they're now suggesting that I want to change my name because I'm transitioning will no longer be considered a well-founded reason.

On the toilet enforcement - how do we currently enforce that men go in the men's and women go in the women's? We really don't - we trust people to go in the right one. The trouble is you're suggesting that we can't trust a group to obey this, so we need to enforce it - not a great place to start a discussion from really is it?

[Datun]

Gncq

Ok thanks. It's just that, for instance, someone like Debbie Hayton, who is a self-confessed autogynephile doesn't have a GRC. I can't remember the reason they have given, but it's not because they wouldn't be allowed one, as far as I'm aware.

But surely, they shouldn't. At the very least, there should not be a public legitimisation of a fetish.

It's tricky, because of course, no one wants to discriminate against people for whatever they wear. (In terms of clothes of the opposite sex). But if you know they are wearing clothes of the opposite sex in order to become aroused, it becomes a different issue.

[Onebigfoot]

Funnily enough about a week ago, we were talking about safe spaces for women at work. I work with an all male team and they were all concerned about the impact of women's spaces becoming unisex rather than appropriate separate gender neutral spaces being provided.

In a oddly prescient way one of them said that he hoped this issue wouldn't be picked up by the far right because it would muddy the waters so much

[totallyyesno]

On the toilet enforcement - how do we currently enforce that men go in the men's and women go in the women's? We really don't - we trust people to go in the right one.

I think this is often used as a gotcha by TRAs arguing that we can't enforce single sex anyway ("nobody inspects your genitals"). The trouble is that this just doesn't take into account how things actually work in practice. If a male is in the female toilets than we need to be able to (and encourage our daughters to be able to) challenge that (with the help of the management if necessary) without the fear of being called a transphobe or even being arrested ourselves. This is essential to keeping women and girls safe. What is happening is that we are being told that we can't question anything, even when all our instincts are screaming. This leads to absurd situations like this one described in the Washington Post:

Last year, after Washington state passed a law opening public bathrooms to transgender people, a man walked into the women’s changing room at a Seattle public pool and began undressing while young girls were changing for swim practice. He wasn’t even dressed like a woman. When staff asked the man to leave, he told them “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.” The flummoxed staff did not even call police.

We need to let women use their instincts to protect themselves and their children!

[Whatsnewpussyhat]

Sex and gender should be distinct.
Sex cannot change ever and needs to be acknowledged.

What is gender and how can it be legally accepted when it's meaning has been stretched to infinite possibilities? It no longer means simply masculine or feminine. Even if it did, why would you need it legally protected to be able to present any way you want. Sex is irrelevant to what clothes you choose to wear etc.

When manly men claim womanhood and young women online posing in skimpy underwear demanding their identity as a sexy boy be validated, it's hard to tell who is trolling who.

[Shedbuilder]

no one wants to discriminate against people for whatever they wear. (In terms of clothes of the opposite sex). But if you know they are wearing clothes of the opposite sex in order to become aroused, it becomes a different issue.

This^

[OhHolyJesus]

Datun from what I remember Hayton has said it was because of the marriage that a GRC was decided against.

I'm sure I heard that in a BBC interview. I assume it's because Hayton's wife doesn't want to be considered a lesbian. Quite right too.

[Datun]

OhHolyJesus

Ok, thanks. So presumably not because Hayton would be refused one on the grounds that their transition is sexually motivated.

I find it one of the most insane aspects. It's not hidden that many men transition for a sexual reason. That wearing women's clothes turns them on.

But boy, is it ignored when it comes to legislation. As though it doesn't exist.

[SarahTancredi]

I thought they didnt need it because a grc was to get around the fact that same sex marriage wasnt legal.

Except now it is so no one really needs it.

[Datun]

I agree no one needs it.

[Antibles]

I guess the Hungarian government doesn't believe that transgender is an actual condition (past a mental health issue or AGP). So it makes no sense to give the concept legal recognition.

Just my interpretation of the Hungarian government's stance, needless to say.

[Mermoose]

We give legal recognition to lots of things - eg., religion, marital status. If someone has gender dysphoria and has medical treatment with the aim of appearing like the opposite sex, then that will affect some situations for them and they will need to access particular rights, eg in prison or refuges, TW should be given separate accommodation to men. Nautical's idea of an additional cert to the birth cert is a good one, I think.

The government doesn't have the power to magically grant someone's wish to be male if they are really female, or vice versa. The fact that governments are trying to pretend they can do this is the problem, it's what's leading to conflicts with sex-based rights and freedom of speech. But the government can recognise that someone has gender dysphoria and has had medical treatment to appear as the opposite sex.

If that's clearly set out, then it's easier to talk about making life easier for trans people, without compromising women's rights.

[Whatsnewpussyhat]

We give legal recognition to lots of things - eg., religion, marital status

True, but we are not forced to go along with other belief systems. Our right NOT to believe is also protected, so why should every policy be changed to put the beliefs of one group above and beyond every other. Not co exist, but made priority on every level.

Adult males do not need to be included in womens rights no matter how they feel about themselves because those rights are for females due to our biology. Trans men will be covered by those rights, again, due to their biology. So if a trans man has a baby they would be entitled to the extra protections due to pregnancy and maternity leave because they are female.

Trans women already have the same rights as every other male in this country. What they are demanding is the removal of legally allowed female only spaces and rights so trans men would also lose those protections too.

Laws should not be made to force anyone to have to provide constant external validation for fragile identities.

[Antibles]

It is the entire concept of a trans person that is the problem here.

Define trans. What is a trans person? What are you actually giving legal recognition to?

If it's a fetish, you are giving legal recognition to a fetish.
If it's a mental disorder, you are giving legal recognition to someone's delusion or disordered thinking.
If you believe it to be an actual State of Being independent of either of those two things, you believe in the gender essence, in gender essence trumping actual biology, being born in the wrong body, lady brains and all the rest of it. Or if none of the above, what do you believe trans to actually be??

Same for third spaces.
If it's a fetish, you are creating third spaces for people with a sexual fetish...and so on.

[OhHolyJesus]

Datun I would hope that the panel who review applications for GRCs would reject an application that was sexually motivated but how would they tell?

It would have to be based on the medical notes provided I suppose. They don't ever meet the person, I suspect this is to protect the panel's anonymity rather than the other way around, and you could probably cover up a sexual fetish in paperwork, no one ever asks any awkward questions in person.

I think James Morton has spoken on Morton's application being rejected or simply delayed, because they asked what toys were played with as a child. (That's Scotland's though obviously so it could be a slightly different process.)

[Gncq]

Define trans. What is a trans person? What are you actually giving legal recognition to?
If it's a fetish, you are giving legal recognition to a fetish.
If it's a mental disorder, you are giving legal recognition to someone's delusion or disordered thinking.
If you believe it to be ...gender essence trumping actual biology

Unfortunately we're dealing with Stonewall who have included all of these people under the trans umbrella.

Every single one of these people according to Stonewall have the right to record themselves as female.