So 20xx: Self ID has passed. What next?

[MiladyBerserko]

What happens after the legal definition of woman has changed so that any male can say they are one?

Will this be the end game and what on earth will Stonewall do then?

Perhaps you can tell who you are claiming are the many retransitioners who were abused by feminists.

your right though

although I'm not entirely sure what that's got to do with under 16s being proscribed puberty blockers

The study I refer to covered a wide age group. Although the age range started at 12. And the mean age for female transitioners at the time was 18, if I remember correctly.

@Helleofabore

Perhaps you can tell who you are claiming are the many retransitioners who were abused by feminists.

Here's one of the more high profile former detrans activists: aninjusticemag.com/detransition-as-conversion-therapy-a-survivor-speaks-out-7abd4a9782fa

There are more details here, understandably some have chosen to remain anonymous: slate.com/human-interest/2021/02/detransition-movement-star-ex-gay-explained.html

@Helleofabore

your right though

although I'm not entirely sure what that's got to do with under 16s being proscribed puberty blockers

The study I refer to covered a wide age group. Although the age range started at 12. And the mean age for female transitioners at the time was 18, if I remember correctly.

Perhaps just link to it then we can know for sure?

The GIC clinic's information pages certainly seem to indicate that hormone recommendations will be made to a patient's GP after their second appointment with the clinic - gic.nhs.uk/appointments/second-appointment/

Here's one of the more high profile former detrans activists: aninjusticemag.com/detransition-as-conversion-therapy-a-survivor-speaks-out-7abd4a9782fa

There are more details here, understandably some have chosen to remain anonymous: slate.com/human-interest/2021/02/detransition-movement-star-ex-gay-explained.html

Two?

Two people.

Yet you have made sweeping statements

the first wave of detransitioners are retransitioning

And

I was talking about the previously high profile detransitioners who have now retransitioned and condemned the GC detransition movement as abusive.

I fully agree that individual detransitioners should never be abused, but you made sweeping statements based on one person’s account in two instances joined with one more.

There are well over 20k Detransitioners now on their own subreddit. The numbers are indeed growing. There will also be detransitioners, of course there will.

I think considering the number of detransitioners videos I have watched that claimed abuse at the hands of the trans community, some still receiving that abuse, I can safely say that the trans community should not be throwing ‘GC feminists abuse’

You have over reached in your statements here yet again. Just like your assertions that kink is normal and your claims about transitioned males in female prisons in the UK.

These young people are able to legally consent, that has been established by the courts

This is so tedious - so much energy being expended on someone with so little knowledge.
That's not how consent works and not what was established by the courts. Whether children are competent / able to consent is dependent on numerous factors. Medics, educators, psychologists, social workers and the police spend many hours in different situations working out what an individual child's levels of understanding are. A child may be Gillick competent for one decision but not for another Some 12 year olds may be able to consent to certain medical treatments and others will not be competent. Capacity to consent can be affected by all sorts of factors including mental health conditions.

Evidencing that a 12 year old is competent to consent to give up their fertility and future sexual function is as challenging an issue as I can imagine. It's nuanced, individualistic and there's no place for adult cheer leaders weaponising children to promote their preferred ideology. Remember, consent is not valid if a young person is being pressured or influenced by someone else.

@barleybadminton

I'm also interested in how you know that detransitioners are retransitioning (and indeed that their numbers are going down) when no research is allowed in the area.

Sorry but that's a ridiculous thing to say. Of course research in this area is permitted, the reason there isn't much is because there are so few detransitioners that no-ones ever been able to get a decent sample size together.

Has James Caspian been allowed to do his research yet? Or is research into trans regret still considered to be transphobic?

@Waitwhat23

And in terms of the Forstater case, there is a full merit hearing in March of this year in which it will be established whether her employer discriminated against her for holding a belief. Given that that belief has now been established as a protected belief, it will be interesting to see how that goes. It seems to have been acknowledged during the case that Maya used preferred pronouns with colleagues and generally was respectful of transpeople. She just didn't hold the views that they could literally change sex. And she's right. They can't.

It's very rare for tribunals to fall at Grainger like Maya's original case did, but that usually means very little to the final outcome, which is difficult to predict as we've yet to hear all the evidence.

One thing I did find interesting is that as I recall her former employers are likely to argue that not employing people with gender critical views is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim under the equality act - the aim presumably to be a trans inclusive organisation. Several religious charities already use such a clause to insist employees must be Christians, although that in itself would be something that would be interesting to test in court.

What this means is that if Maya wins, and the exemption is overridden, then this will provide legal support that these exemptions - on which so called sex based rights are based - should only be used in very limited circumstances. So even if Maya wins she may well find her verdict used in the future to strengthen the legal case for trans inclusion in single sex spaces.

Has James Caspian been allowed to do his research yet? Or is research into trans regret still considered to be transphobic?

Had he redrafted his proposal so it guaranteed the confidentiality and safety of participants he would no doubt be doing that research now. Instead he had a tantrum and wasted lots of people's time and money by dragging it through the courts and losing every single time.

And let’s not forget that several countries are now reporting that teenagers are arriving at clinics determined to receive affirming therapy despite the need for a multi- discipline approach.

So… consent when a patient is clearly influenced by outside sources is also suspect. It confounds the ability to diagnose accurately.

This is a recent Australian study, but the same has been discussed by other clinicians in other countries.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/26344041211010777

One thing I did find interesting is that as I recall her former employers are likely to argue that not employing people with gender critical views is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim under the equality act - the aim presumably to be a trans inclusive organisation. Several religious charities already use such a clause to insist employees must be Christians, although that in itself would be something that would be interesting to test in court.

So you're agreeing that you follow a new 21st century faith and you cannot tolerate the presence of disbelievers.

Do you really believe everything you say on here Barley?

Have you ever asked yourself why transactivists don't want any research? Why they don't want to know about the harm drugs and surgery are doing, why they don't want any research into transwomen in women's prisons, why it's so difficult to get accurate figures about detransitioners, why there is no follow up of those who walk away from the gender clinics, why transpeople are told to lie on the census rather than fill in the sex and gender identity parts accurately?

Has it never once occurred to you that there might be genuine concerns? Or do you think it's absolutely fine for all these changes to be made with no safeguarding, no accurate record keeping, no follow up in case things go wrong?

I'm baffled by anyone who blindly follows an unknown course and just assumes everything is hunky dory

Of course the alternative explanation is that you simply don't care that anything might go wrong or that people, including children, may get hurt.

PurgatoryOfPotholes

Rather Purgatory and still feels they can get away with posting authoritatively stated claims that crumble under inspection.

Like the first wave of detransitioners are ‘retransitioning’ because of abuse from feminists.

And posts the much written about story of Ky. A sad story of a very vulnerable person. But one person and one of their social media followers who watched all their videos.

Twisted into such a statement.

Of course there are retransitioners, they retransition for many reasons including: medical issues that needed detransitioning being resolved so they retransition, loss of support from their trans friends is another big reason, or just maturity and realising they had to choose and choosing what works for them.

Here's one of the more high profile former detrans activists: aninjusticemag.com/detransition-as-conversion-therapy-a-survivor-speaks-out-7abd4a9782fa

There are more details here, understandably some have chosen to remain anonymous: slate.com/human-interest/2021/02/detransition-movement-star-ex-gay-explained.html

You know what? Come back with some actual evidence to support your vastly overegged statements.

There have threads about Ky over the past year. It is ONE well known case.

If you cannot provide statistics from any studies or any better evidence, maybe you should stop making such bold blanket statements across MN threads that you cannot support.

I've had some laughs this month on MN, but I think this claim may beat all. Trying to claim that if a non-profit development organisation wishes to be inclusive of people who follow one particular faith, they are entitled to refuse to employ people from any other faith or none? It's a non-profit in international development, not a mosque, church or other religious temple.

No, Puddin'. You are clearly just parroting "proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim under the equality act" with no understanding of what equality legislation aims to achieve. Clue: it's aim is not to undermine tolerance for other religions. We want a country that accepts plurality of belief.

It’s not going to happen now or ever.

Finally, human beings CAN change sex. Not biologically, no, but legally. That's literally what the GRA does. Unless of course you believe that biology trumps law?

Er, of course biology trumps law. The government could pass a law reversing gravity. It wouldn't change the reality though, would it. Circa 1,000 years ago a king actually set out to demonstrate that as a mere mortal he couldn't stop the tide. Yet here we are in 2022 and some people seem to believe that a piece of paper can make someone "literally" female.

@BlueberryCheezecake

If you want to know what happens under self id, look at the countries which have already introduced it. No dystopia, no apocalypse, women still exist and are fine, the state is not assigning neo genders to children. Sorry to interrupt your sci fi story, but maybe get a grip on reality.

No, you need to read up on the issues that have happened with self ID, and barley you telling yourself all that doesn’t make it true.

Here's one of the more high profile former detrans activists: aninjusticemag.com/detransition-as-conversion-therapy-a-survivor-speaks-out-7abd4a9782fa

After a certain point it was just too much. Why did I have to work so hard to be a woman if that’s what I really was? Why did it even matter so much what gender I felt like? Why expend so much time and energy trying to micromanage my thoughts and feelings, my very sense of self? It wasn’t making me happy, it was making me miserable. I felt like I was brainwashing myself, trying to change what I was to make other people happy.

This person seems to spend far too much time contemplating their 'gender'.

Why would a female person think that they had to 'work hard' to 'be a woman'? If you're female, you're a woman. No work necessary. A woman is a female person with any personality.

Why the need to micromanage thoughts and feelings? Why did they think they needed to change anything to make other people happy?

Later on they say it seemed like they liked me better when I was still in pain, that they cared more about painting medical transition as being harmful and destructive.

So is this navel-gazing about 'gender' really all about medical transition - hormones and cosmetic surgery? So ultimately it's just about appearance? Or perhaps about the way they feel when they take the drugs (hormones)?

The Forstater case focused on the principles of freedom of speech as well as there being no right not to be offended. Given that trans employees will already be protected from harassment under s109(4) of the Equality Act (as are all employees), it is hard to see how Forstater's former employers could further push for an exemption to 'protect' a protected characteristic from another protected characteristic. It's also an interesting point that by trying to enforce an exemption which will allow them to not employ those with gender critical views, it could very well constitute sex discrimination because women are more likely to strongly hold these views.

Employers are expected to make sure that all employees are safe from harassment. In the same way that deliberate, continual misgendering within the workplace could be considered harassment or bullying, so too could continually using the slurs TERF or bigot against those expressing gender critical views be considered harassment or bullying. One legal firm's opinion piece I read made a point about social media in regards to (for example) comments about GRA reform. If gender critical views cannot be expressed upon the subject then neither can TRA views - each group must be treated equally.

It certainly is an interesting point though - religious or belief exemptions seem to generally run along the lines that to hold a certain position, you must follow/be a member of that specific religion (and even then, there's quite strict rules). I haven't seen any mention of exemptions that someone not be of a specifically named religion or belief.

The only example I can think of is the barring of Catholics from succession to the UK throne. A piece of legislation that back in 2000, the Guardian was campaigning againsr, because it is contrary to the human rights of Catholics. www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/dec/06/constitution.catholicism

You may enjoy this article from Keir Starmer, back in 2002. Also in the Guardian.

extract

It is widely assumed that if the Queen were to call it a day after 50 years, Prince Charles would become King, and after him Prince William, or possibly Prince Harry. But that may not necessarily be the case. Any one of them would be instantly disqualified if he married a Roman Catholic.

That is the effect of the Act of Settlement, which is both an obvious fix and the only remaining piece of blatant anti-Catholic legislation left on the statute book. Almost all of Britain's other anti-Catholic laws, which included a ban on Catholics holding public offices such as that of magistrate, were repealed in the 19th century - although it was not until 1974 that the question of whether a Catholic could be Lord Chancellor was finally resolved.

(Continues)

Not only are Catholics banned from succession, but the sovereign must also be in communion with the Church of England, must swear an oath to preserve the church, and to uphold the Protestant line of succession. The present Queen made the necessary declaration and oath on opening the first parliament of her reign in November 1952 and at her coronation in 1953. Those of other faiths, including Jews, Muslims and Hindus, are thus equally unable ever to succeed to the throne. This is deeply offensive not only in a multicultural Britain that includes the many communities that have settled here since the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, but also in the 14 other Commonwealth countries where the sovereign remains head of state and has power to appoint and dismiss the governor-general.

That all of this contravenes every principle of non-discrimination ever drawn up hardly needs emphasis. The Human Rights Act 1998 was described by the government as a key component of its drive to modernise society and refresh our democracy. It expressly prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, race and religion. It gives UK judges power to reinterpret the law to make it compatible "so far as possible" with the European convention on human rights

(Continues)

That may be enough to end the discrimination against women in the rules of succession, but so virulent is the religious discrimination in the Act of Settlement that it is probably not possible to interpret it compatibly with basic human rights. The only real remedy is repeal: a small but important step in the "consolidation of our multicultural and multifaith society" described by the Queen in her jubilee speech in April this year.

So who wants to retain the discriminatory rules of succession in the Act of Settlement? Not the public: a Guardian/ICM poll published on December 6, 2000 revealed that 63% of the public want to end the discrimination. Not the prime minister. In an interview with the Glasgow paper, The Herald, just before the last election, he said that, in principle, "it can't be right that Catholics are unable to succeed". Not the Church of England. Dr David Hope, the Archbishop of York, supports reform. And certainly not the Catholic church. In the view of Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster: "During the jubilee year of Queen Elizabeth II, it would be a welcome symbolic act if the Act of Settlement were to be amended."

Surely, therefore, the time is ripe for reform. For republicans reform offers the opportunity for informed debate about the continued existence and role of the sovereign. For monarchists, there is the happy fact that there is at present an heir apparent with two sons; succession for the foreseeable future is unlikely to be affected by any alteration of the law allowing it to be passed to the eldest child of the sovereign irrespective of religion or sex.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/31/politics.religion1

I've placed some bits in bold for my own entertainment.

Fascinating that a soi-disant progressive like Barley wishes to bar people not of his/her/per faith from employment, and that his/her/per recommendations are so reminiscent of the values of 1701 when Catholics were excluded from public offices.

Personally, I'd be ashamed of having anything in common with such sectarianism.

OldCrone

I have read about five articles about Ky now.

Ky seems to have many underlying mental health issues and I am not sure that they received proper care for any of it. Ky was and still is a particularly vulnerable person.

But yes, they seemed to not really understand that they could still be ‘a woman’ without ever having to try to do anything different except live in the body they have and have a personality.

Still waiting for barley to post more evidence of this wave of early transitioners detransitoning and retransitioning, particularly due to feminist abuse. It would be most concerning to read about a wave of feminist abuse of detransitioners, I think that should be exposed and discussed widely. Feminists should never be abusing people.

Let’s see ‘A wave’ that is blamed on feminists.

One person plus their equally vulnerable social media follower (who watched every video while making up their own mind about their own life) doesn’t make a ‘wave’.

Why do some posters allow their prejudice about MN FWR to make outlandish unsupported statements across multiple threads as if they had authoritative knowledge?

When they get shown that really they pull statements out of the air with no evidence to support those statements? Often the statement have a denigration attached, like ‘abuse from GC feminists’, ‘prudes’, ‘pearl clutchers’.

So. Back up your overegged statements barly.

Please list the other ‘prominent’ detrans-retransitioners at the very least. Some stats would be good too. From original peer reviewed and verified sources.

Because, again YOU and many other activists are wrong.

There ARE some collected statistics from studies. They are hidden in studies that are not measuring detransition specifically. Ie. They are not detransition studies. That is why they were not stopped by lobby groups, but they are out there.

Happy to be shown the ‘wave’ of early detransitioners retransitioning again though.

Let’s get some sunlight on some dodgy feminist behaviour!!

We shall wait…..

So. Back up your overegged statements barly.

Given you feel quite comfortable dissecting the mental health of a stranger online I will not be giving you a list of names but they are not difficult to find if you keep on top of the subject.

And obviously my statement that detransitioners are retransitioning was rhetorical, it was not a serious claimthat everybody has retransitoned by several have, including those who were involved in the GC movement, whilst the Detarnsition Advocacy Network appears t have disappeared completely.

Now how about you address the substansive points I made about the unliklihood of any future court victories featuring a detransitioner. Oh and I'm still waiting for a link to that study you were talking about.