Self ID chat, BBC radio 4 at 7.48am

[PigeonLittle]

Just started

@TurquoiseBaubles

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?

The lengths people have to go to prove they are disabled in order to receive a miniscule amount of support from the Government is appalling. No trans person under the current rules has to endure a fraction of what disabled people do and yet here we have an MP saying that this special group of people can self diagnose that diagnosis be accepted without any questions and then be given all the medical treatment they require free and timely on the NHS.

Would disabled people were to be treated with a modicum of the consideration that this MP feels should be extended to trans people. Instead disabled people and their carers are portrayed as gaming the system, liars and frauds.

@Franca123

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.

Agree with this entirely.

Indeed. And there's no such thing as being born in the wrong body, the DofE says so.

So what is it?

If souls are being born into the wrong body it isn't a medical issue but a religious one.

I'd like to know who is doing the wrong allocating for a start.

What’s confusing to me is the basic premises underlying trans are being ripped up such that it’s no longer clear what trans even is anymore. On the old understanding , being trans meant a person had a medical condition which could be treated with hormones and surgery. The aim was for them to approximate the other sex as closely as possible and to assimilate living in society as their acquired gender. They got their legal documents changed and tried their best to look like and live like women. Now, we can debate whether this is regressive or sexist but it at least makes a bit of sense. They were trapped in the wrong bodies, they fix this as best they can, and the state facilitates them trying to live as the other sex.

So now being trans has nothing to do with dysphoria. No hormone treatment or surgery is necessary. There is no way to live as a woman , that being stereotypical, and so they don’t have to dress or act in a feminine way. And there is no longer an expectation that trans people have to live in stealth trying to pass as women. We can have bearded trans women now who are fully open about being trans. But now I’m thinking what is the point of a gender recognition certificate after all? And what IS trans? Who is trans? Is it just a feeling ? A feeling of what ? An identity? On the old system it’s easy to tell who is trans. A trans person is someone with diagnosed gender dysphoria. But it’s not even clear on this new conception what trans is. Is it literally just a male deciding he wants to be a woman? But why should that be given any legal validation at all?

Where things stand now, "trans" means someone who identifies as "trans". Where "trans" is undefined. That's about it. In a sane world the response would be "if you say so, but that has no bearing on your sex and where it's relevant your unchanged sex determines where you can go and what you can do".

I read that she voted agaunst gay marriage.

@Mrsorganmorgan

I read that she voted agaunst gay marriage.

Trans Rights Activism doesn’t really have anything to do with gay rights though, does it? In fact, there’s a really eye-opening amount of overt homophobia in the Twitter output of TRAs.

I read that she voted against gay marriage.
Trans Rights Activism doesn’t really have anything to do with gay rights though, does it?

Erm, she's not a TransActivist (I think!) but she is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
TheyWorkForYou

I read that she voted against gay marriage.

Oh Caroline!

It looks like a classic case of getting it wrong on gay/lesbian rights, feeling on the wrong side of history and therefore overcompensating on the trans issue.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Couldn't agree more

@senua

I read that she voted against gay marriage. Trans Rights Activism doesn’t really have anything to do with gay rights though, does it?

Erm, she's not a TransActivist (I think!) but she is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
TheyWorkForYou

Did you listen to the interview this morning? I mean, it is the title of the thread, so I’d assume that 1) we all know who Caroline Nokes is and 2) she demonstrated complete acceptance of TRA arguments (by repeatedly stating them as facts during the interview) and utter disregard for woman’s rights.

Well that was awks.
Same presenters on the Today programme as yesterday: Justin Webb and Martha Kearney. They got to the Review of the Papers which, these days, also includes websites. They take it in turns to read out extracts. JW reads comments from Unherd which talks about MK's interview with Caroline Nokes ... and points out all the safeguarding problems that MK so spectacularly failed to ask. Ooops. They then segued into a piece about cancel culture.
Go Justin!

I'll definitely listen to that! Well done, Justin.

@Mrsorganmorgan

I read that she voted against gay marriage.

I read that she puts bananas on her weetabix with nesquik. But if you want to worry about homophobia I'd suggest reading Stonewall's pov on single sex relationships, who are neck deep in govt policy.

If you follow the They Work For You link above, you'll see her track record on voting.

@WeeBisom

What’s confusing to me is the basic premises underlying trans are being ripped up such that it’s no longer clear what trans even is anymore. On the old understanding , being trans meant a person had a medical condition which could be treated with hormones and surgery. The aim was for them to approximate the other sex as closely as possible and to assimilate living in society as their acquired gender. They got their legal documents changed and tried their best to look like and live like women. Now, we can debate whether this is regressive or sexist but it at least makes a bit of sense. They were trapped in the wrong bodies, they fix this as best they can, and the state facilitates them trying to live as the other sex.

So now being trans has nothing to do with dysphoria. No hormone treatment or surgery is necessary. There is no way to live as a woman , that being stereotypical, and so they don’t have to dress or act in a feminine way. And there is no longer an expectation that trans people have to live in stealth trying to pass as women. We can have bearded trans women now who are fully open about being trans. But now I’m thinking what is the point of a gender recognition certificate after all? And what IS trans? Who is trans? Is it just a feeling ? A feeling of what ? An identity? On the old system it’s easy to tell who is trans. A trans person is someone with diagnosed gender dysphoria. But it’s not even clear on this new conception what trans is. Is it literally just a male deciding he wants to be a woman? But why should that be given any legal validation at all?

Exactly. It has evolved, and at each stage of the evolution, men have instantly taken self serving advantage of it. (Shocked).

The original premise of 'living as a woman' was mired in sexism from the bottom up.

When suddenly self ID was on the table, women everywhere woke up to the ridiculous sexism underpinning not just self ID, but the whole premise of men 'living as a woman'. This was swiftly pointed out, so now proponents couldn't use it. So instead it became an 'inner essence', or being born in the wrong body, but as that has no scientific basis whatsoever and it was upsetting a generation of children, they can't use that either.

Additionally, transvestites, cross dressers and autogynephiles who were historically excluded from the concept, suddenly had no barriers to entry due to Stonewall's endorsement. And could now avail themselves of civil rights not intended to protect a paraphilia.

Furthermore, despite the concept of things like non-binary having absolutely no legal basis whatsoever, men everywhere are deciding that they can attach themselves to the civil rights originally intended to protect men with gender dysphoria, and bully women up the bloody wazoo with it. Like going after a woman for calling a man he, and persecuting her for two years. They are constantly trying to get it added to not just the concept, but the legality of gender identity (gender reassignment).

Even six years ago, when I first looked at this, I read an account from a cross dresser who gained a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, despite not having it. He was offering tips to men on what to say to their doctor.

A GRC is still dependent upon a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (although how robust that process is, God knows). But the climate of fear around the entire concept means that no-one is demanding it.

Obviously, it's my opinion that it should never have been possible to obtain in the first place. It's based on being utterly dependent on sexism. And it's the reason why we are at this ridiculous point in time.

The foundations were a known deception. But shored up with casual sexism and the fear of homophobia. And as each storey has been added, it's been built on further sexism and homophobia.

Little wonder that we have ended up in a situation where convicted rapists are being given access to incarcerated women as part of their sentence.

There will never, ever be a resolution to this, because it involves the wholesale subjugation of women and their rights.

You can't have a single, solitary right for women, if it means any man can avail himself of it.

@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.

nauticant

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.

Caroline has spotted the same logical inconsistency as most regulars on here, but gone the opposite way when concluding what to do about it.

This is the current situation in the UK for people who have not thought about it overly much:

A) Women are women, whatever they wear, and however much or little make-up they wear, because being women is their innate state of being.

B) Transwomen should be treated as women if they have had surgery to simulate a female silhouette and wear exclusively female-coded clothing and maquillage to indicate that they wish to be treated as women.

What this means, as far as the general public is concerned, is that short little me will be seen as my natal sex, female, however gender non-conformingly I dress, but a transwoman won't. Totally different standards of dress apply to the transwoman if the transwoman wishes to be perceived as a woman instead of their natal sex.

Caroline sees that this is incompatible with TWAW. Because if TWAW, then...
transwomen should be able to wear masculine clothes and still be treated as women too. Otherwise there are double standards between women and transwomen, and we have (from Caroline's pov) a class of women who aren't allowed to wear trousers.

She and others realise that a person with a transgender identity is the same person, whatever clothes they are wearing, so she feels that they should have that identity recognised, whatever they are wearing

I go in the opposite direction. Yes, it's ridiculous that we accept identities based on what the person is wearing at that moment. Perhaps the key is to accept that what someone is currently wearing never changes his or her sex.

This neatly eliminates any issue of double standards.

She and others realise that a person with a transgender identity is the same person, whatever clothes they are wearing, so she feels that they should have that identity recognised, whatever they are wearing

Which again, just begs the question what IS the identity?

we've had this on here before. For those proponents of gender ideology who are willing to answer questions, after, quite literally, thousands of posts, they have finally said yes alright, it's just about pronouns and changing your name.

My first comment when I read the BBC article on this was, Caroline is 90 percent of the way to being gender critical. She's just veering off at the end. Give her 18months, she'll be GC.

It's impossible to 'live as' a woman if you aren't one.

@Franca123

My first comment when I read the BBC article on this was, Caroline is 90 percent of the way to being gender critical. She's just veering off at the end. Give her 18months, she'll be GC.

Her interview did not give that impression, at all.