BBC: Afghans can claim asylum for gender identity (not sex)

[mrsborisjohnson]

Just read this on the BBC:
www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53734793

"They must prove they cannot return to their home country because they fear persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, gender identity or sexual orientation."

Is this right? So a man could put on a wig and claim he feels like a woman and gain asylum, but a girl who faces being shot in the head for going to school has no claim? Could a woman claim she feels like a man and be granted aslyum to avoid such a fate? Do they even have a concept of 'gender identity' in Afghanistan? What's with all this imposing Western Queer theory on completely different cultures?

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@TheWeeDonkey
Are you serious with the brides comment? The women end up as slaves as I stated. Slavery isn’t a fate worse than death. It’s not like any nonTaliban men in Afghanistan are any safer than the nonTaliban women.[/quote]
I'm really struggling with your "men get it worse shite" TBH, its an unspeakable place for anyone who isn't Taliban right now. Whether you end up in a shallow grave or chained to a bloody mattress I'm not gonna argue the toss over which is the better fate FFS.

It’s not like any nonTaliban men in Afghanistan are any safer than the nonTaliban women.

This is abject nonsense. Whether a woman is a Talib woman or not, under Taliban rule she can be executed for a large number of reasons that do not apply to men, whether they are themselves Talibs or not.

Yes, anyone who supported Western governments or organisations is currently in danger. Once the Taliban have finished punishing these people, they will return to their Status Quo: women as property. Property has no rights. It can be sold, used, abused and destroyed at the will of its owner: men.

Men are not property. They have rights. Even non-Talib men in the newly conquered areas.

I think some posters on this thread have rose-tinted spectacles about men being 'safe' under taliban rule. They are already rounding up any men who have ever 'collaborated' with foreign forces - who are being told to hand themselves in or face family annihilation.

Mass executions have begun

And penalties for in-Islamic clothes (less restrictive, but just as prescriptive) are similar (often flogging) as are those for all other un-Islamic activities (which can be as little as listening to music or having ground floor windows). Men are stoned for adultery as well as women

Here is an article about third gender people in Afghanistan.

Do they even have a concept of 'gender identity' in Afghanistan?

Do you have any idea how offensive you sound, do you think that everyone there is heterosexual and never questions their gender?

This thread is coming across as hysterical to be honest.

Do you have any idea how offensive you sound, do you think that everyone there is heterosexual and never questions their gender?
What's sexuality got to do with it? I was asking about the wording of the article, which mentions gender identity rather than sex, and wondered why they have chosen to phrase it this way. You are naive in thinking and Afghani conception of 'gender identity' and 'third gender' will be the same as a Western one. That's pretty offensive, actually, to impose Western Queer theory on a non-Western country and erase the cultural reasons behind the existence of 'third gender' people and other identities. Perhaps you're the one who should educate yourself:
www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/article/bacha-posh-gender-afghanistan

TW are women, aren't they? Some posters are implying that things ain't so bad for women in Afghanistan, or at least no worse than non-Talib men. So, if TW are women, then they should just roll with whatever treatment women are at the receiving end of. Because they are women, right? I think it's very bigoted of posters to somehow imply on this thread that TW are, well, not really like other women after all.

I'm sure all those third gender Afghanis have twitter accounts where they post about their fascination with their 'boobies', share photos of themselves aroused in the women's toilets, and complain that other 'lesbians' won't date them.

The trans women are women take is probably irrelevant in this context is it? Regardless of anyone’s opinion surely the risk to people in Afghanistan is based on the taliban’s view on transgender people.

I think they should have included sex, as well… however some have suggested it is badly worded.

Is this right? So a man could put on a wig and claim he feels like a woman and gain asylum

It is this sentence that makes you sound hysterical and hateful.

Thanks for the link to the article about the baba posh girls, it is really interesting.

I never said gender identities are exactly the same in Afghanistan as in Western countries but it is clear that gender-diverse people exist and are at risk of persecution. It's not a case of a man just donning a wig and turning up at the airport and getting evacuated.

Of course trans people - however that may translate in Afghanistan - deserve asylum. My point with posting was I was wondering if the wording of the article was replacing 'sex' with 'gender identity', which is problematic for a whole host of reasons ie. conflating the struggle of women in a country such a Afghanistan with the entirely different issue of trans people and erasing sex (the very marker by which women are being persecuted) in the process.

"Third Gender" is a recent Western translation. The word "Gender" in this context is English and has no translation into any other language. The small number of other Western societies that buy into this crap import the word along with the concept.

The local concept of Hirja has been variously interpreted down the years as denoting eunuch, intersex or third sex, but certainly never 'gender' whatever the arsebisucuits that is.

Is this right? So a man could put on a wig and claim he feels like a woman and gain asylum

It is this sentence that makes you sound hysterical and hateful.

I identity as non-hysterical and hate-neutral, and I demand you respect my identity or else you are hateful and hysterical and denying my existence.

@mrsborisjohnson

Of course trans people - however that may translate in Afghanistan - deserve asylum. My point with posting was I was wondering if the wording of the article was replacing 'sex' with 'gender identity', which is problematic for a whole host of reasons ie. conflating the struggle of women in a country such a Afghanistan with the entirely different issue of trans people and erasing sex (the very marker by which women are being persecuted) in the process.

Ah right. Yes if they haven’t explicitly outlined sex as a factor in risk of persecution that would be awful. Clearly sex and gender identity are very different. It is odd that “sex” isn’t included in that sentence.

Yes, things are terrible for all people there. It's a horrifying situation. And things are terrible in different ways for different people. Forced marriage and rape will be used against women and girls, young girls, as a method of control and punishment. They will also be the ones to bear the resultant children and be expected to take care of them and their abusers. They will also be subject to stricter social codes than males. They will go without education. They will be beholden to a male relative for all their lives.

They do not get to identify out of that. They cannot identify out of their sex. Yet we are constantly being fed the narrative that sex doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is how you identify, that biological sex isn't important.

So, to the OP's original point, conflating sex and gender and erasing the marker of sex is highly problematic and a result of the narrative that is being forced on us gender ideologists. If gender identity is used as a marker, do 'cis gender' women (whose 'sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex') make the cut? I imagine they make up the majority of Afghan women. However, we are told that 'cis gender' women are the terrible oppressors of trans women, so will they actually be at the back of the queue?

I would be telling my son to claim he is transgender to get out of that hell hole

Who really wouldn’t be doing anything they could to escape

How many males do identify as women in a culture where women treated as they are in Afghanistan? Not a rhetorical question. I would genuinely like to know how many men seek to give up their male privilege in a culture with such different life expectations for each sex.

Is this right? So a man could put on a wig and claim he feels like a woman and gain asylum

Highly risky. What if they didn't make it out? Everyone who saw him during the claim process would know (unless you are naive enough to think the taliban are not monitoring what's going on) and that's a horrible death. Possibly for family as well for colluding (even if they didn't)

Bottom line is that taliban will have informers everywhere and anywhere (coerced as well as willing) and no-one knows how long evacuation flights will be able to continue. Bottom line is that the taliban could close the airport at any time they wanted

The trans women are women take is probably irrelevant in this context is it? Regardless of anyone’s opinion surely the risk to people in Afghanistan is based on the taliban’s view on transgender people.

I think the point PP is making is that if TW literally are women in every context (as we are often told) then the Taliban won't treat them any differently than other women. I think we all suspect that the Taliban may be able to tell the difference.

I do think that people in Afghanistan, who are transgender, should be able to claim asylum.

Genuinely: why them before women? How on earth would you tell someone was genuine?

Wouldn’t it be more comfortable to just be ‘misgendered’ and remain male-presenting than to keep a TW identity and run the risk of brutal Taliban punishment? Serious question. In that environment, I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t pass as male if they had the ability to do so. This may well be my own failure of imagination.

Whilst the BBC article is incredibly misleading, I am not sure that this is an appropriate discussion, this is real people whose lives are on the line and I am pretty certain that in that situation we would do whatever we thought we had to to have a chance of getting out.

AfternoonToffee Don't get me wrong, the scenes are heart-breaking. I'm questioning the language the BBC article is using and asking both whether it's accurate and whether it's appropriate.

I'm questioning the language the BBC article is using and asking both whether it's accurate and whether it's appropriate. No, it’s not exactly accurate. It’s a bit misleading actually. As the above posters said, a member of a particular social group does include sexual orientation and gender identity, but it includes loads of other things as well. It’s not just limited to those two things.

So a man could put on a wig and claim he feels like a woman and gain asylum, but a girl who faces being shot in the head for going to school has no claim? No, that’s not right at all. Depending on the country and the circumstances, females can also be members of a particular social group, (in some countries they aren’t, and in other countries they are in some circumstances but not in others), then they could qualify for asylum or Humanitarian Protection.

Could a woman claim she feels like a man and be granted aslyum to avoid such a fate? Well she could claim it, but if she was from a country where she faced being persecuted by the authorities because of her sex, she wouldn’t need to. She’d have a better claim just being honest.

''Working women in Afghanistan must stay at home until proper systems are in place to ensure their safety, a Taliban spokesman has told reporters.''
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58315413

That article is in general I think? Not specifically about Afghanistan?

Yes transgender people should be given asylum same as gay people.. If they are known to be trans/ gay then they will be killed. If they are not then they can hide it hopefully.

OP you do realise that if sex was on the list that means men as well as women?

Both are oppressed brutally under the taleban. At least they were last time.

Yes my feelings are stronger about the women and girls immensely. Yes I would say that the women have it worse.

The men also have strict codes and rules and are at risk of beatings death etc.

So if sex is in there that's... Everyone.

Like I said though that article is general I think. Anyone being sent back is at huge risk in the end.

And people can't get out. The USA have fucked this royally. The 10 day thing. The press secretary earlier being more concerned with framing than the actual situation. Disgusting.

So no. I think this OP is a bit out of line TBH. When people are being killed and will be killed. And if it's like last time. Will be forced to adhere to a way of life that is incredibly prescribed. Where one foot wrong means death.

If the home office decide to send anyone who actually manages to get here. Back.

Not going to happen. It's a death sentence.

And how would they even get them there? It's not as if flights from the UK will be welcome by the taleban.

The people would walk out and tortured/ dead. Very fast.

Being at risk of execution if returning is a reason asylum is granted I believe.

This post is pretty off really.

Put on a wig and come? The taleban control the access to the airport. People have been crushed to death. Women passing babies over razor wire to get them flown out. Not knowing where they will end up. Probably never see them again.

It's catastrophic. For women children and yes men.