Self ID chat, BBC radio 4 at 7.48am

[PigeonLittle]

Just started

Caroline Oakes not getting it

Has Noakes ever heard of Safeguarding?

Arghhhhhh

That was infuriating to listen to. Just swept away any concerns about women or girls safety.

It's Caroline Nokes.

And at least the discussion is being had. She thinks stereotypes of how feminine a person needs to present to be seen as a woman are regressive. Which means a manly man can announce their womanly feelings and that's enough to be considered a woman. Surely the majority of the country can see the problem with that.

@lovelyweathertoday

It's Caroline Nokes.

And at least the discussion is being had. She thinks stereotypes of how feminine a person needs to present to be seen as a woman are regressive. Which means a manly man can announce their womanly feelings and that's enough to be considered a woman. Surely the majority of the country can see the problem with that.

Ahh sorry yes it is.

Well the good news is women and our equality is in safe hands with her as Chair of the select committee

committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/115182/caroline-nokes-elected-as-chair-of-the-women-and-equalities-committee/

Caroline Noakes is pushing for no-questions self-ID. She stressed two things, firstly that gender dysphoria is a mental illness and as such it's not fair to make trans people (I'd be interested to find out who she believes should be classed as such) get a diagnosis of this condition, and secondly that it's unfair to force people "to live as the opposite sex", that is, your bog standard masculine presenting male can be a woman just like anyone else.

Did anyone else spot what was missing? Any suggestion from her that there should be other voices in the debate over what happens. Her view as presented on Radio 4 is that trans people should be given whatever they ask for.

I am so disappointed in the dishonesty (I presume it is that rather than lack of intelligence) of someone who has (presumably) read the evidence submitted about how women are concerned that any man can gain access to single sex spaces by self-ID, and then comes on radio to say 'we must strengthen the guidance around single sex areas so that women are not affected, but anyone who wants one can get a GRC immediately'.

IMO the presenter (Martha C?) was bloody awful when questioning her.

I thought the Beeb had finally “got” this issue and were prepared to probe some of the soundbite nonsense that’s continually parroted about self ID.

Granted it was a short segment, but there were so many salient points that could have been put to Nokes, both about where self ID leads AND her assumptions about what sort of people would be seeking to (ab)use the proposed relaxed provisions.

Caroline Noakes is unpopular in the Tory party and her career is going backwards. She’s out to make life as hard as possible for government ministers in revenge. I don’t think Ministers have to do anything with these reports and I’m sure with her new responsibilities Liz Truss will find herself rather too busy….

IMO the presenter (Martha C?) was bloody awful when questioning her.

I agree. She quoted something Nicola Williams had said along the lines of self ID would mean that any man could self declare himself to be a woman, obtain a new birth certificate, and be (on paper) indistinguishable from someone born female. Nokes waffled on about trans people not making these decisions lightly. When the presenter interrupted I thought she would clarify 'we're not talking about trans people here, we're talking about men', but she just said something about the birth certificates being the same.

If any man can declare himself to be a woman, and be legally recognised as a woman with 'female' on his birth certificate, how do we stop predators from doing this? And how do we protect women's single sex spaces from men if men can self declare that they are women? Why do people like Caroline Nokes find this so difficult to understand?

Nokes waffled on about trans people not making these decisions lightly.
Yet in the same interview says that 2 years' "living as" to gain the GRC is too long. She seemed to be implying that a few clicks on the internet should be enough to gain legal transition.

I also thought it strange that she agrees with the transworld that medical diagnosis of trans is too much but, once they have transitioned, the NHS should wade in and 'support' them.

It all seems a bit "I'll refuse the usual/societal way of doing things when it suits me but demand them at other times when that suits me".

@OldCrone

IMO the presenter (Martha C?) was bloody awful when questioning her.

I agree. She quoted something Nicola Williams had said along the lines of self ID would mean that any man could self declare himself to be a woman, obtain a new birth certificate, and be (on paper) indistinguishable from someone born female. Nokes waffled on about trans people not making these decisions lightly. When the presenter interrupted I thought she would clarify 'we're not talking about trans people here, we're talking about men', but she just said something about the birth certificates being the same.

If any man can declare himself to be a woman, and be legally recognised as a woman with 'female' on his birth certificate, how do we stop predators from doing this? And how do we protect women's single sex spaces from men if men can self declare that they are women? Why do people like Caroline Nokes find this so difficult to understand?

It's ridiculous. It's not about whether or not a man would do it lightly. It's about cementing detrimental gender stereotype types in order to do at all.

She seems to think that access should be granted purely on the basis of how badly a man wants it. Irrespective of any consequences.

Furthermore, yes of course any man can then do it!! And no, of course decent, law-abiding, boundary respecting men won't do it.

So who does that leave???

Every predator in the country.

She's a fucking idiot.

So many potential safeguarding issues around this too.

For instance, will DBS checks be able to link the new name and acquired gender to the person’s previous details and natal sex? If not, it provides a convenient way for predators to self-ID their way back into contact with the vulnerable.

Will Claire’s law still work for women who are concerned about new partners?

Will anything stop those who are so minded from switching back and forth between names and genders, thus muddying the water in tracing them back to previous crimes?

Will the passport office be able to effectively keep tabs on what documents are currently valid for a given individual? At least one Police force has already issued duplicate warrant cards for the same person, to allow them to choose the days they decide to be male or female - will the same become true for passports?

The Independent has left comments open on their reporting of this; seems the readership is inconveniently identifying the sodding obvious problems self ID causes...
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transgender-self-identification-uk-government-b1979687.html#comments-area]

They're not compatible positions ffs.

You cannot protect single sex spaces or meet female needs and inclusion while at the same time permitting males to use female spaces. It's not possible. It's one or the other.

I live for the day that someone at the top has the guts to own this and say: this is a flat out choice between male supremacy or female equality. It's one or the other. If female equality is a thing, then it's third spaces, end of.

@Artichokeleaves

They're not compatible positions ffs.

You cannot protect single sex spaces or meet female needs and inclusion while at the same time permitting males to use female spaces. It's not possible. It's one or the other.

I live for the day that someone at the top has the guts to own this and say: this is a flat out choice between male supremacy or female equality. It's one or the other. If female equality is a thing, then it's third spaces, end of.

Hear,hear.

The white noise around this is infuriating.
It's as simple as Artichoke says - male demands here are incompatible with female sex based rights. It shouldn't even be up for discussion.

If this was really and truly just about documents then there would be a simple solution.

Make it so that anyone can change the sex on their short form birth certificate at a whim, as demanded by TRAs. Let people put whatever gender they want on it. I don't know what the purported reason is that trans people need official government documents that pretend they are the opposite sex, let alone why it's supposed to be a human right. But whatever.

And at the same time make sure no one can change the sex on their long form birth certificate. That way in situations where sex matters (hiring rape crisis workers, doing DBS checks, prison admissions, etc) there's still an official record of what sex someone is.

We all know that this compromise wouldn't be acceptable to TRAs because the actual goal here is to eliminate women-only spaces. But if it was just about documents and certificates this shouldn't be a problem. It's not like there are many occasions in your life when you actually need your long form birth certificate.

Is there any other illness/disease/condition in the world that it's possible to simultaneously say that diagnosis is unnecessary but instant (and extreme) treatment is essential?

When I think of what disabled people have to go through it makes me weep. Having to fill in a form every year to say "no my son hasn't been cured or autism" or "my leg hasn't grown back" is necessary apparently. But someone who is trans can just say so and get whatever they want from the NHS?

@allmywhat

If this was really and truly just about documents then there would be a simple solution.

Make it so that anyone can change the sex on their short form birth certificate at a whim, as demanded by TRAs. Let people put whatever gender they want on it. I don't know what the purported reason is that trans people need official government documents that pretend they are the opposite sex, let alone why it's supposed to be a human right. But whatever.

And at the same time make sure no one can change the sex on their long form birth certificate. That way in situations where sex matters (hiring rape crisis workers, doing DBS checks, prison admissions, etc) there's still an official record of what sex someone is.

We all know that this compromise wouldn't be acceptable to TRAs because the actual goal here is to eliminate women-only spaces. But if it was just about documents and certificates this shouldn't be a problem. It's not like there are many occasions in your life when you actually need your long form birth certificate.

That's a great idea.

My adopted children have a short form birth certificate. But the long form is an adoption certificate; they can't demand their birth certificates to be reissued showing our names as their parents. That would be illegal (as well as being factually correct).

She's a disgrace. She is in equalities for gods sake, her job is to balance rights.

Her lack of insight is alarming.

gah, incorrect

As usual there is the complete contradiction between the idea that trans people don’t have a medical condition and that they must have their medical needs met without delay. ( I think Caroline means surgeries and /or hormone treatment.) but that self ID is something that should happen and goodness knows what the medical profession does with data that says one thing, when confronted with a medical history that says another. Surely she could have learned something from the huge number of responses to the consultation ( even though many ,including mine , were not published) interesting little side discussion about women and equalities ministry. Caroline only mentions the Equalities part, so clearly thinks women are not so important. Depressing.

If trans people don't have a medical condition and it's not about regressive gender stereotypes, isnt it just some bloke who wants to go into the women's changing rooms? It's all a bit.....awkward. I really wish someone could explain it to me.