How would I prove I'm a woman?

[OliverKitten]

Posting in here because I think you lot seem to know quite a bit about the rules around all this stuff, hope that's ok!

Say there was a counselling group near me for natal women only, and they had decided it was proportionate under the EA to exclude men identifying as women because of the content. But say I am a very masculine looking woman (and yes I know it's almost always easy to tell what sex people are, but there are a very very small percentage of people with whom it's trickier) and the organisers challenge me. What document can I easily get to prove my sex? Not passport, driving licence, as they can be changed with a GRC I think? I think also that there is nothing on my birth certificate which distinguishes me from someone who is a man who has had his birth certificate changed to say he is a woman.

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/registration/gender-recognition says that the Scottish gov maintains a confidential record of who had a previous birth cert registered with a different sex, but this is not available to the public so I couldn't use this.

Is it possible for me to prove my sex under the current system in Scotland (short of medical exam)? Or is it completely impossible now?

Apart from the above type of scenario, which is hypothetical, I can't think of why I would ever need to prove my sex in a real life situation, but somehow I feel like I should be able to, if I wanted to!

Never mind, you can still get a hysterectomy to prove you're not a man.

As mentioned earlier, you might be able to change your birth certificate now but a copy of a birth cert issued prior to 2010 won't have been altered. There are lots of other older records including a marriage cert before same sex marriage became legal.

Failing that, there are online published versions of the Birth Registration Index for England and Wales*. I could find the registrations with original names of the two prominent personalities that I checked( one of whom I know claims to have GRC not sure about the other) Sex isn't indicated in most versions of the index but few names were used for both sexes in the past. (Not much help for Hilaries.)
There is also a digitised index on the Government site. This actually requires sex (female or male) to be entered in order to search. I can't tell if it's been 'updated'. I found one of the two individual's original registrations but unfortunately there is still an annoying gap in coverage between 1934 and 1984 so I couldn't check both. (awaiting digitisation)

Haven't checked the equivalent index for Scotland (Scotland's People website)

• England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008," database ( FamilySearch complete with nice easy to c and paste citations) https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/menu.asp FreeBMD database(volunteer transcribed so not full coverage)

You're not serious?

Massive numbers of people, including the NHS, don't know the difference between sex and gender, so there still wouldn't be clarity.

Why would anyone want to invest time and money into such a leaky set-up when there are no situations in which gender matters? No one needs to be able to prove their gender. Gender doesn't matter in loos, changing rooms, single-sex schools, sharing YHA accommodation etc. The only thing that matters is sex and all someone should need to do to prove their sex is provide their birth certificate.

I'd be in favour of sex and gender identity have different names as well, what with them being totally different things!

Smear test result letter if you've had one done?

Wow! Such a lot of helpful responses, thank you! I haven't disappeared, just out and about this morning with one of the children I've birthed (as a pp pointed out when searching my posting history) 😁

I guess the consensus is that it is not possible for everyone to prove sex any more, short of DNA/medical exam. 99.999% of people won't need to because it's obvious. But I think there are a tiny percentage of women who do look as if they could be men, and I'm not certain enough to be sure. Voices probably do give the game away, you're all correct.

I do think it's weird though that your birth certificate must be accurate in terms of date and place, but you're allowed to lie about the genitalia present at the birth! What's the point of putting sex on birth certs at all in that case?

No, I'm not serious.

It was a thought experiment.

I think it is fundamentally a bad idea to allow people to change their sex on their official documents.

The trouble is we are living in an era where, even if our government were minded to repeal the GRA, the international human rights community believes that being able to falsify your documents is a human right.

Giving them the same names is a feature, not a bug.

If they called whatever trans women are identifying with something else, no actual women would identify as that thing.

They have to use the same words for gender as we do for sex because that's the only way to maintain the pretence that trans women and women have something in common.

Well of course gender doesn't really matter - since our Equality Act forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, and the only exemptions are situations where it's sex that matters not gender.

But gender is important to some people. It changes default pronouns and defaults on how others address the person. And for some people it's really important to have gender rather than sex on marriage and death certificates. There's no real reason to have either gender or sex on those, so what does it matter which one we decide as a society to write down? So long as when it really matters (eg autopsy, stats on cause of death) the sex is known as well.

A slightly fuzzy area is when the government said (when blocking the Scottish act) that having a GRC changes the bar when deciding whether exclusion is proportionate. I think that needs further clarification.

But gender is important to some people. It changes default pronouns and defaults on how others address the person.

The English Language bases pronouns on sex. How could it otherwise when no one knows your gender just by looking at you?

And sex is always critical - as pp said, important for equal pay issues, important for other sex discrimination claims, important for healthcare, not only individually, but also population statistics, important in recording violence against women, and recording male/female criminal activity so it can be addressed, male v female academic attainment…. so many areas where we need the REAL data, not some fiction imposed either by GRA or, worse, by self-id

But gender isimportant to some people. It changes default pronouns and defaults on how others address the person. And for some people it's really important to have gender rather than sex on marriage and death certificates. There's no real reason to have either gender or sex on those, so what does it matter which one we decide as a society to write down? So long as when it really matters (eg autopsy, stats on cause of death) the sex is known as well.

It would appear that around 0.1% - 0.2% of the population classified themselves as transgender on the census. I've seen figures of 30-50,000 quoted. Though given the later revelation that people with poor English seem to have declared themselves transgender at five times the rate of native English speakers, it might be fewer.

Just because gender is important to a few people (who make up a vastly varied group including confused autistic adolescents to autogynephiles and rapists who transitioned after they were caught) doesn't mean we need to do anything about it. They share a belief and their belief is covered by the Equality Act. We don't have to undermine scientific fact and reality to accommodate them.

What about the 80+% of the population who are happy for people to dress how they want and present how they want but aren't prepared to accept a legal fiction that humans can change sex?

Transcript:

'‘I've actually been at the gynaecologist without even telling them that I'm trans and they they didn't see any difference. I mean she didn't say anything - I mean she even looks through my journal and it said that I did have you know surgery down there, however she didn't actually understand that it was a gender reassignment surgery, so she just kind of thought that *he was like I don't know like a fixer-upper surgery she didn't say anything and afterwards I was - I, I,
said that it was a gender reassignment surgery and that I was transgender and she was like oh my god I didn't even know.’'

*[this might be from the youtube transcript or might be because English is not this person's first language, I'm just copy and pasting from the youtube transcript. I have corrected a typo that had changed 'gynaecologist' to 'junior colleges']

What kind of sexist bullshit is this? Men are aggressive, while "real women" are demure and quiet and don't draw attention to themselves?

Well sorry but I'm a gobby working class Yorkshire woman (and since peri I'm basically in a rage most of the time), so I obviously don't fit your description of a "real woman."

It changes default pronouns and defaults on how others address the person.

Not really, though. Only when someone specifically makes this instruction/request. Otherwise, people are going to use the evidence of their ears and eyes, just as we have done for centuries, and use the pronoun that accords with observed sex.

Ah, you'll be one of those 'assigned Northern at birth' women.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

From BACP guidelines, written by Meg John Barker:

'"Whether trans or cisgender, intersex or not, many people identify as
women. However, what this means varies a great deal depending on their other intersecting attributes. It is important not to assume, for example, that being a woman necessarily involves being able to bear children, or having XX sex chromosomes, or breasts. Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.
However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums) may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. In some northern working-class contexts femininity is associated with strength and aggression.'

If a gynaecologist can’t identify a woman at first glance as she walks into the room then I wouldn’t want to be their patient. A gynae specialist who doesn’t know the different between a male pelvis and a female one? Who can’t spot surgery scars, distinguish tissue types, spot the absence of a cervix?

Much more likely this was female socialisation/fear of being called a transphobe. I am sure the gynaes first thought was ‘WTF is he doing here?’

But none of these are situations where society distinguishes between men and women at a population level. Wanting to have your gender recorded on your official documents is a bit like wanting to have your religion recorded on them. OK, I mean, not really relevant as far as most people are concerned but if you really want this to be a thing it's not the hill I will choose to die on.

The situations where society actually distinguishes between men and women are single sex spaces (toilets, showers, changing rooms, rape crisis groups, prisons, hospital wards, domestic violence shelters etc.) and sports.

Am I missing anything?

The only other thing I can think of are some religions such as Islam and Orthodox Judaism, where men and women are sometimes segregated, and single sex organisations.

Now when it comes to single sex spaces and sports, I do not see the relevance of gender. We clearly have these thingss due to the physical differences between men and women, largely to preserve the safety, dignity and equal rights of women, all of which are under threat if men are allowed into these spaces. They are also under threat if trans women are allowed into these spaces. Toilets? Katie Dolatowski proves there is a risk. Prisons? Karen White, Isla Bryson, Barbie Kardashian prove there is a risk. Rape Crisis groups? The experiences of Sarah Summers prove that women's needs are not being taken into account. Hospital wards? The patient who was raped on a single sex ward, with the hospital later claiming that this could not have happened because no males were present. Sports? Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas and countless others. For every single one of these situations we can provide specific examples of how allowing trans women in has harmed women, and so why the dividing line should be sex, not gender.

What about single sex groups? Well, that's a little harder to justify. We know the WI is now trans inclusive, as is the Girl Guides. More worryingly, we know that trans women have joined groups for women suffering from female only issues such as pregnancy loss, endometriosis and menopause, and that in some cases women complaining about their presence have been kicked out. Women's groups seem to be the only groups which are the subject of these rows: I am not aware of any bitter disputes about trans men wanting to join the Masons or be ordained as Catholic priests. But either way, this is a weird one. Is there really any reason why someone with a penis can't have an interest in flower arranging, making jam and singing Jerusalem? No, not that I can see. And yet, the presence of a male person in the WI does fundamentally change the group dynamics. As does allowing biological boys to join the Girl Guides, when the Scouts is already mixed sex. Should women and girls be allowed to have their own single sex groups and activities without being forced to include the opposite sex? My own view is that yes, they should. Living in a society designed by and for the benefit of men, where we are constantly belittled and undermined and threatened and objectified by men can be exhausting. Why shouldn't women be allowed to carve out a few small spaces which are just for them, and expect men (however they identify) to respect that?

With that in mind, we're back to documents and pronouns.

Neither of which I really give a crap about, with two caveats:

1. Official documents and statistics should reflect reality. Record gender as an additional field if you wish, but do not obscure or erase sex.

1. I'm OK with pronouns as long as that is all we are doing, and we are in tacit agreement that we are only doing it to be polite. But if you expect me to call a male person "she" and then the next day you tell me that it's fine for "her" to compete as a woman in the Olympics or use women's single sex spaces because "everyone agrees that trans women are women", I am going to stop doing it. I do not want my politeness abused and taken to mean deemed consent or agreement.

But but but we're told all the time that "THAT NEVER HAPPENS" and it's all TRA lies!?

The reality is, natal woman who are butch lesbians, have body types that don't conform to patriarchal standards, or who choose to dress in a way that doesn't conform to patriarchal standards, DO get gender-policed all the bloody time.

Womanhood is hugely policed because of patriarchy. We're operating from a long history of women being told "you're not a real woman because you don't have kids / you're not a real woman because you had a C-section / you're not a real woman because you didn't breastfeed / you're not a real woman because of the way you dress / you're not a real woman because of the way you behave." I could go on and on. And of course lesbians have always been told that we're not real women, that we're freaks, etc.

Women are told they're not sufficiently "woman" all the time, and imo this is a big factor behind the huge rise in teenage girls coming out as trans or non-binary, because societal brainwashing has made them feel that they're not feminine/sexy/heterosexual enough to be allowed to be woman.

Patriarchy is the reason natal men are allowed access to womanhood so easily just by saying the magic open sesame phrase "I identify as a woman", while natal women who want to live as men have to have mastectomies, go on testosterone, adopt stereotypical macho modes of dress, to have any chance of being accepted as a man. Think how many "transwomen" there are who haven't medically/surgically/chemically transitioned in any way and who still present in a stereotypical masculine way yet still expect to be treated and referred to as being a woman. Can you imagine a natal woman, in lipstick and a skirt with long hair and tits in a low cut top, saying "How dare you assume from my appearance that I'm female, I am a transman and I demand you refer to me as he/him or you're a transphobic bigot"? No, of course not. Huge double standard.

The argument "we can always tell" is different. I definitely have met a tiny handful of people where I genuinely couldn't tell. But also, spreading the "THIS NEVER HAPPENS" lie is lesbiphobic, first because it's very obviously a lie (butch lesbians and other women who don't conform to patriarchal standards absolutely do get challenged for trying to enter women's loos, and I'm deeply uncomfortable that a part of MN that's supposed to be about feminism is calling lesbians liars); second, the GC movement has unfortunately been hijacked and used to attack lesbians (by people with their own agenda); and third, homophobia is still VERY prevalent in society.

The statement "women can always tell someone's natal sex" assumes that everyone is operating in good faith. But homophobes do not operate in good faith. I'd bet money that tons of women who have confronted, reported or attacked butch lesbians for using women's loos are perfectly aware that the people they're confronting are natal women, but are just pretending to think they are men, or are faking "having a concern that there's a man in the women's loos" just to be bigots because they think being a lesbian is wrong (or they think woman "dressing like men" is wrong) and they're exploiting all this stuff about gender and toilets because they enjoy having an excuse to harass lesbians and women who don't conform to their version of femininity.

So it doesn't matter if most women can tell from your hands, gait, throat etc that you're a natal woman, if you're a butch lesbian who presents somewhat macho, and someone with a lesbiphobic agenda decides to harass you and accuse you of being a man, there's really nothing you can do short of whipping your fanny out to prove otherwise.

Given there's a current thread on here in which discussion is had whether medics are allowed to ask if a patient is trans (conclusion: they're not) ...

Oh @JustWaking I forgot to respond to your last point regarding the need for clarity over the effect of GRCs.

My problem with this is that I don't think a GRC should change anything at all. I don't think the fact that someone has got a piece of paper saying that they are legally the opposite sex to the one they actually are should deprive the opposite sex of their right to single sex spaces.

My understanding with regard to prisons, for example, is that if a trans woman with a GRC is convicted of a criminal offence and given a custodial sentence, the starting assumption is that they will be housed in a women's prison. Now, the current situation is that there are trans women without GRCs in the women's prison estate, and that in fact none of the trans women known to be in the women's prison estate have a GRC because they are the only ones who show up in the statistics. Any trans women with a GRC in the women's prison estate would be recorded as female and be invisible in the statistics. And then when you consider the proposed Scottish reforms, which would likely happen across the UK if Labour win the next election, any man over the age of 16 will be able to sign a declaration saying he has been living as a woman for at least three months, no diagnosis of gender dysphoria required, and he can get a GRC. That would mean that any man convicted of a criminal offence could do this and the starting point would be that they should go to a women's prison.

My position is that the starting point, and also the end point and every other point in between, is that no male person, regardless of their gender identity or whether they have a GRC, should ever be housed in a women's prison. If you don't think a men's prison is enough of a gender affirming experience for your liking, don't commit crimes.

Ah, you'll be one of those 'assigned Northern at birth' women.

TransPennine?

Non-Burnley people are valid!

I could offer to do some star jumps. After 3 they’d know I’m a natal woman.