The Times: Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

[ResisterRex]

Read it and weep, vipers

"Labour will make it easier to change gender and is considering allowing a single family doctor to sign off on the decision under plans to “simplify” the process.

The party is considering how to make the legally binding certificate easier to obtain while still having guardrails to prevent mirroring controversial ­proposals in Scotland that would have ­removed doctors from the process ­altogether.

The plans include ditching a panel of doctors and lawyers that approve ­gender recognition certificates, the document allowing transgender people to have their affirmed gender legally recognised, and only requiring one doctor to be involved in the process.

The Times understands that one option under consideration is that the doctor could be a GP. Labour would ­also ­remove the ability of a spouse to object to the change. A source said the party wanted to make the process “less medicalised” but added that the plans would retain the involvement of a doctor and would not allow people to self-identify in order to obtain legal changes.

They said it had not yet been decided whether the medical professional would be a GP or a gender specialist, with the issue likely to go to consultation if the party wins the next election.

The discussions centre on concerns that if the single doctor was a specialist, a GP would still need to make the ­referral, therefore retaining the two-step process that Labour wants to drop."

Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/604c739c-70b7-4819-866f-370ae67da6ab?shareToken=2a1dede2a48c5ec7388167f16bdd6cbb

I don’t fall under the mirage that Labour will put women’s rights on same level as the wishes of the the alphabet soup pushers.

Women rights are under threat everywhere, either the super progressive western left demanding surrogacy and prostitution as well as our spaces and language; the right western parties taking away body autonomy and demanding feminine wives and the ultra orthodox religions of the East submitting women to horrendous compliance rules.

it’s a hell of a landscape for younger women. An uprising is due soon. Even if we cannot see how it will happen. Thats my 🤲

When I was a young man applying for jobs, the idea that anyone would have a chance in hell if they rocked up in a dress and wig and called themselves Suzie was absolutely ridiculous. Hell, you'd almost certainly be discounted for having 'long hair' (defined as 'over the collar'). And the thinking there was, you're here to do the job. Not to be disruptive to fellow-workers, or to promote a cause. It seems things have shifted a bit in recent years.

I think that happens a lot. But to me, it means one of two things:

The argument isn't applicable to whatever the other thing is because they are differernt issues. So there is a need to carefully pick apart those differences.

The argument is applicable - in which case, maybe it was never a very good argument and needs to be scrapped. Either you need to find some other better argument against the thing you don't like, or you need to reconsider whether your opinion on it is really as legitimate as you thought.

Both of those ultimately lead to a better understanding of what is true, and stronger and more consistent arguments. So really not a bad thing at all. I am always a little flummoxed that people would prefer to keep bad arguments alive. If they aren't sure that there is a better argument at all, well, what are they doing, really? It's just ideology at that point.

No one wears most uniforms because they express their authentic self, do they? Or dresses up as a construction worker, or lawyer?

It's because it's what the job demands.

The only way the cross sex thing works really is if you want to say, there is no acceptable differentiation between male and female dress (which sounds great theoretically but is in reality quite impracticable.) Or if you can make some kind of disability-accommodation type argument. Which is why there is still pressure to treat it as medical.