Yogyakarta Principles and Self ID

[RetreatRetreatRetreat]

I have seen people recommending reference to the Yogyakarta Principles in relation to the use of pronouns, however I have just been reading this article: policyexchange.org.uk/publication/transgenderism-and-policy-capture-in-the-criminal-justice-system/

and in it it notes:

In 2017 the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10, a supplemental set of
principles, were published. Principle 31(A) of the 2017 document calls
on states to ‘‘…end the registration of the sex and gender of the person in
identity documents such as birth certificates, identification cards, passports
and driver licences, and as part of their legal personality.”23
In other words, the ultimate aim of the Yogyakarta Principles is the
complete elimination of all sex and gender markers from the law. Self declaration of ‘gender identity’ is seen as a stage on the route to this aim.
The Yogyakarta Principles state that, while sex or gender continue to be
registered, states should ensure that no eligibility criteria are used as a
prerequisite to changing legal sex or gender. They specifically state that
there should be no prerequisites based on age or mental capacity, and that
a person’s criminal record should not be used to prevent a change of legal
sex or gender.

‘Yogyakarta Principles plus 10 Additional
Principles and State Obligations on the Application of International Human Rights Law
in Relation to Sexual Orientation, Gender
Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics to Complement the Yogyakarta
Principles’, 2017 yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles-en/yp10/

Which made me look into the whole Yogyakarta principles a bit more. I've not read the whole Yogyakarta principles (sorry, I've not had time - I've got to number 16) but they seem totally for self identification, and from what I have read seems to be pretty clear that we should just accept peoples gender identity (self proclaimed) and not treat them any differently to someone of that sex. Indeed in Principle 9 they even advocate: "Ensure, to the extent possible, that all prisoners participate in decisions regarding the place of detention appropriate to their sexual orientation and gender identity; Again, this looks to allow self identification into single sex spaces."

Whilst most of the principles are absolutely what we should be doing, for example not discriminating in law due to gender ID or sexual orientation, it seems to me that spouting the Yogyakarta principles re pronouns is opening a much bigger can of worms than it is closing? Or have I got this wrong? Happy to be told that I am misinformed and should have read all 31 before commenting!

I have seen people recommending reference to the Yogyakarta Principles in relation to the use of pronouns

What did people actually say and in what context?

spouting the Yogyakarta principles re pronouns

I don't really understand what you mean by this. Do you mean if you agree that one Principle is acceptable then that means all are acceptable? I don't think many people would have meant to imply that.

I assume you mean the one that recommends people's status as trans should not be outed or made public, therefore requiring the declaration of pronouns might conflict with this.

See 6f as a means for the strategy of declining to state pronouns on demand.

6f states:

Ensure the right of all persons ordinarily to choose when, to whom and how to disclose information pertaining to their sexual orientation or gender identity, and protect all persons from arbitrary or unwanted disclosure, or threat of disclosure of such information by others.

This supports people to say, I don't feel comfortable making these disclosures about myself and you should not be insisting that I do so.

yogyakartaprinciples.org/principle-6/

legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/19/pronouns-compulsion-and-controversy/

I think sometimes people suggest them in a strategic sense, for arguing against mandatory or strongly encouraging use of pronouns on letters etc.

Because the people that care about that stuff might take them seriously.

I tend to think it's not worth the bother as the whole document is really out of date and was never very good, and even right-on people don't seem to care about it much.

The Yogyakarta is a TRA document supposedly drafted by "human rights groups" but was influenced entirely by a bunch of gender zealots, and it shoots itself the foot slightly on the area of pronoun usage.

While the people who wrote it would love to force everyone to put pronouns on their email signatures and wear pronoun badges with little rainbows on them etc, they contradict themselves on that in section 6f as PP has highlighted.

I wouldn't reference it for any other purpose. It's useful for people to go look at the thing because it's "sunlight". As you said most of it is reasonable, eg don't discriminate etc, but much of it is batshit.

The Yogyakarta principles is a TRA document supposedly drafted by "human rights groups" but was influenced entirely by a bunch of gender zealots

Yes. It’s often quoted as if it has recognised international status, eg like a UN or WHO document. But as far as I know, it has no official status.

From Wikipedia:

The Principles have never been accepted by the United Nations and the attempt to make gender identity and sexual orientation new categories of non-discrimination has been repeatedly rejected by the General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies.

Yes, this.

The only people who take them seriously are the very earnestly pro-pronoun - and for those people it may be worth pointing out that the principles themselves don't support ostentatious pronoun displays.

Also worth noting that one of the people who wrote the principles has since backtracked, saying he hadn't anticipated the impact on women's rights. I'm afraid I can't recall his name ...

Also worth noting that one of the people who wrote the principles has since backtracked, saying he hadn't anticipated the impact on women's rights. I'm afraid I can't recall his name ...

It was Robert Wintemute who is now a trustee of LGB Alliance.

lgballiance.org.uk/people/

Robert Wintemute (Trustee)

Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, lawyer and expert in successful LGB court cases in Europe and Latin America, signatory of the 2007 Yogyakarta Principles (now critical of Principles 3 & 31).

As far I'm aware that document has no official standing whatsoever. Just a bunch of people decided to write it.

Having said that, the lack of sanction hasn't been much of a problem in the Wild West of transactivism.

Action For Trans Health, those people who want to release all trans prisoners and be allowed to operate on one another, were consulted by the government over their report for the women and equalities committee.

it's all fantasy land isn't it.

This is my point to be honest. If you are using these principles as an example as why you don't want to disclose pronouns then you are by default giving it a status that is very much against the GC views. So I'd recommend that people stop spouting it as a reason to not give their pronouns. Iyswim

I absolutely agree with you OP and think I have said this before on here when objections to pronouns were being discussed - though I seem to remember quite a lot of people disagreed with me then, but maybe some have reconsidered since!

I disagree with this for exactly the same reasons you and others have given - the YPs as a whole are NOT good for women, the original ones were bad enough and the extra 10 added later were even worse (as confirmed by Robert Wintemute's U-turn on them). They have no legal or official standing, but by quoting them as though they are something organisations should be adhering to - even just in this one specific area - we risk legitimising them, and potentially encouraging those organisations to adopt others of the "principles" that we would be strongly against, such as self ID.

Besides, there are plenty of other (and better) reasons to push back on compelled pronoun statements, and even the right to privacy of people who may not want to "out" themselves can still be quoted as a reason if you want, but without having to invoke the YPs to do so.

Maybe a derail but can I just say how much I detest the word 'spouting'.

Thanks, Nonny.

ArabellaScott I sort of like “spouting”, but very much because I like to imagine people as actually being whales. I like cetaceans…

Me too, particularly when it seems to be used to mean "referencing", which doesn't really work. Or maybe OP means "reeling off".

So what do you suggest people do if their workplace suddenly demands pronouns?

I often suggest quoting Yogyakarta principle 6 as a tactic, not because I think they actually have any veracity. If you don't agree, come up with a better solution that people can use, without outing themselves and being harassed at work.