It matters a hell of a lot TO ME that every person has the right to identify as man or woman regardless of their biological sex.
That sounds like a ringing declaration of principle.
My concerns with it would be threefold.
One is the issue of choice and reality. You seemed earlier to be backing off from the extreme position that anyone for any reason may choose to be identified as either gender at whim even when such a claim has no objective reality at all.
One is the issue of children and their gradual transition from dependents of their parents to independent adulthood.
One is about respecting the rights of other people to choose whom they associate with in contexts where the sex of the body is relevant. There is no wrong in a bunch of women getting together to form an athletics club for people with female bodies.
If you had said instead something like "it matters to me that every adult with gender dysphoria has the right to be identified as man or women in all social contexts where the sex of their body is irrelevant" then you might find that more people agree with you.
Colin Smith: The general position that people should be free to express whatever gender they identify as, as opposed to being socially obliged to identify only as their biological sex, is not threatened by those rare and unusual situations where there is legitimate concern that an individual might be masquerading as one or other gender for nefarious purposes.
......OK, but how do you determine what constitutes a 'legitimate concern' and whether the individual is misrepresenting himself/herself? What are the criteria? Who makes the adjudication? Your remarks suggest that self-assignment is not to be taken at face value. Remember, Colin, it's not me that raised this issue, but yourself.
That sounds like a ringing declaration of principle.
My concerns with it would be threefold.
One is the issue of choice and reality. You seemed earlier to be backing off from the extreme position that anyone for any reason may choose to be identified as either gender at whim even when such a claim has no objective reality at all.
One is the issue of children and their gradual transition from dependents of their parents to independent adulthood.
One is about respecting the rights of other people to choose whom they associate with in contexts where the sex of the body is relevant. There is no wrong in a bunch of women getting together to form an athletics club for people with female bodies.
If you had said instead something like "it matters to me that every adult with gender dysphoria has the right to be identified as man or women in all social contexts where the sex of their body is irrelevant" then you might find that more people agree with you.
Agreed, but I don't frame my opinions like a lawyer.
My concern is that some contributors seem to be using unlikely and complicated scenarios, such as prison transfers for trans people, where there is a legitimate reason to examine a person's professed gender identity as a reason for questioning the whole idea that people (and I tend to use that word only with regard to adults) should be able to live their lives as the gender they most identify with.
Colin Smith: The general position that people should be free to express whatever gender they identify as, as opposed to being socially obliged to identify only as their biological sex, is not threatened by those rare and unusual situations where there is legitimate concern that an individual might be masquerading as one or other gender for nefarious purposes.
......OK, but how do you determine what constitutes a 'legitimate concern' and whether the individual is misrepresenting himself/herself? What are the criteria? Who makes the adjudication? Your remarks suggest that self-assignment is not to be taken at face value. Remember, Colin, it's not me that raised this issue, but yourself.
My feeling is that you are raising concerns that will only be relevant in a tiny percentage of situations in order to undermine the vast majority of times when a person's professed gender identity is irrelevant to any other person.
But to address the idea of a legitimate concern. A legitimate concern would arise when an individual may be pretending to a professed gender identity for material gain or potentially to cause harm to others. In those circumstances the individual should be subject to some kind of check to ensure that their motives are not malicious. However, there are no circumstances where a legitimate concern regarding certain individuals in certain situations should be used as a reason to ban all trans people from those situations.
From a social viewpoint, if someone says they are 'X' I will accept their word for it until or unless their subsequent behaviour indicates otherwise.[/qb]
Out of interest, which behaviour(s) would convince you that someone who claims to be male or female actually isn't?
If someone is claiming 'X' in order to obtain money or services only available to those who are 'X' then of course I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim.
Against what criteria? How can you make such a judgement if there is no objective way to define 'X'?
And anyway, if I actually do identify as black then shouldn't it be my right as a black person to access those funds or services even though I appear on the surface to be white as snow? You know, just the same as you assert that it's the right of anyone who identifies as female to access female-only funds or services even if they appear on the surface to be male?
Out of interest, which behaviour(s) would convince you that someone who claims to be male or female actually isn't?
I don't know because I have never been in that situation. However, in general we are reasonably good at determining whether what someone says is borne out by how they actually behave.
If someone is claiming 'X' in order to obtain money or services only available to those who are 'X' then of course I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim.
Against what criteria? How can you make such a judgement if there is no objective way to define 'X'?
And anyway, if I actually do identify as black then shouldn't it be my right as a black person to access those funds or services even though I appear on the surface to be white as snow? You know, just the same as you assert that it's the right of anyone who identifies as female to access female-only funds or services even if they appear on the surface to be male?
You do not need to define X in order to ascertain whether someone claiming X is doing so for some personal gain rather than because X actually expresses their personal identity.
I am unaware of any particular funds or services specifically available to black men. I am also unaware of any funds that are purely for females.
Do you adopt a similarly analytical approach to anyone claiming to be Christian?
Colin Smith: You are confusing (deliberately?) sex with gender.
I guess a lot of us are confused.
I agree that sex: male or female is biological, and rooted in the reproductive process that lies at the root of the evolutionary process. Definitionally reproductive roles mark the distinction between males and females.
Gender is a social construct where a distinction is made between masculine and feminine. It should not be confused with the distinction between male and female. What constitutes masculine and feminine behaviour varies over time and space, and is not confined to a particular sex. A male, for example, might be masculine but in touch with his feminine side and may even display predominantly feminine characteristics, but that does not make him less male or approaching female. Feminists have sought to minimise distinctions between masculine and feminine roles which have been the basis of 'patriarchy' and the subordination of females to male interests.
A trans woman is not, IMO, a male with predominantly feminine characteristics. A trans woman is a male who for some reason, probably genetically based, sees himself as female. It is a matter of sex dysphoria not gender. That surely is why sufferers of the terrible condition are prepared to endure serious surgery.
A trans woman is not, IMO, a male with predominantly feminine characteristics. A trans woman is a male who for some reason, probably genetically based, sees himself as female. It is a matter of sex dysphoria not gender. That surely is why sufferers of the terrible condition are prepared to endure serious surgery.
*herself.
People only suffer and it's only a "terrible condition" inasmuch as society makes it so. Let people be and you'd have a lot less suffering and things would be a lot less terrible.
You have your sex and gender the wrong way round here - it's a matter of gender dysphoria, not sex, And it's not always gender dysphoria. Quoting from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/ "This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria."
Note "can lead to".
Not all people who feel their gender does not match the biological sex have GD. Not all transition. These are overlapping but not identical sets.
What I don't know is whether a GD diagnosis is necessary for surgical or medical intervention. I suspect it is.
Out of interest, which behaviour(s) would convince you that someone who claims to be male or female actually isn't?
I don't know because I have never been in that situation. However, in general we are reasonably good at determining whether what someone says is borne out by how they actually behave.
I was hoping for something a bit more concrete and a bit less subjective than "we'll know the wrong 'uns when they turn up", but so be it.
If someone is claiming 'X' in order to obtain money or services only available to those who are 'X' then of course I would expect the person or organisation offering money or services to check that person's claim.
Against what criteria? How can you make such a judgement if there is no objective way to define 'X'?
And anyway, if I actually do identify as black then shouldn't it be my right as a black person to access those funds or services even though I appear on the surface to be white as snow? You know, just the same as you assert that it's the right of anyone who identifies as female to access female-only funds or services even if they appear on the surface to be male?
You do not need to define X in order to ascertain whether someone claiming X is doing so for some personal gain rather than because X actually expresses their personal identity.
Of course you bloody well do. Otherwise what are you going to do if, say, someone claiming to be a trans woman seeks entry onto a female-only shortlist for election to Parliament? How are you going to determine whether she is a real "she" or just a "he" trying it on for personal gain?
I am unaware of any particular funds or services specifically available to black men.
Do you adopt a similarly analytical approach to anyone claiming to be Christian?
Whether someone is a Christian is not defined in any way by anything other than their beliefs. As such, and pending the development of effective mind-reading technology, I have no way of knowing whether someone is lying about that or not.
Colin Smith: You are confusing (deliberately?) sex with gender.
I guess a lot of us are confused.
I agree that sex: male or female is biological, and rooted in the reproductive process that lies at the root of the evolutionary process. Definitionally reproductive roles mark the distinction between males and females.
Gender is a social construct where a distinction is made between masculine and feminine. It should not be confused with the distinction between male and female. What constitutes masculine and feminine behaviour varies over time and space, and is not confined to a particular sex. A male, for example, might be masculine but in touch with his feminine side and may even display predominantly feminine characteristics, but that does not make him less male or approaching female. Feminists have sought to minimise distinctions between masculine and feminine roles which have been the basis of 'patriarchy' and the subordination of females to male interests.
A trans woman is not, IMO, a male with predominantly feminine characteristics. A trans woman is a male who for some reason, probably genetically based, sees himself as female. It is a matter of sex dysphoria not gender. That surely is why sufferers of the terrible condition are prepared to endure serious surgery.
I don't think I'm in the slightest "confused".
I agree with your first two paragraphs. Your third paragraph invites a question that cuts to the heart of the whole issue. How do you believe sex dysphoria should be treated?
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to transition, as near as surgery allows, to their gender identity?
Or
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to be reconciled with their biological sex?
Or
Are both methods actually complimentary and potentially applicable in individual cases?
It might be just me, but the idea of someone waking up one morning and deciding to transition just to get a better chance of becoming an MP seems risible. Yeah, it's possible in theory, but it actually happening? Probably even less likely than the much vaunted perv pretending to be a transwoman to get into the bogs to watch other women pee.
Whether someone is a Christian is not defined in any way by anything other than their beliefs. As such, and pending the development of effective mind-reading technology, I have no way of knowing whether someone is lying about that or not.
I regard "Christian" as defined almost wholly by behaviour.
How do you believe sex dysphoria should be treated?
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to transition, as near as surgery allows, to their gender identity?
Or
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to be reconciled with their biological sex?
Or
Are both methods actually complimentary and potentially applicable in individual cases?
Some people will benefit more from option 1, and others will benefit more from option 2.
As such I suppose I'd support option 3.
I don't know because I have never been in that situation. However, in general we are reasonably good at determining whether what someone says is borne out by how they actually behave.
I was hoping for something a bit more concrete and a bit less subjective than "we'll know the wrong 'uns when they turn up", but so be it.
How do you believe sex dysphoria should be treated?
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to transition, as near as surgery allows, to their gender identity?
Or
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to be reconciled with their biological sex?
Or
Are both methods actually complimentary and potentially applicable in individual cases?
Some people will benefit more from option 1, and others will benefit more from option 2.
As such I suppose I'd support option 3.
It might be just me, but the idea of someone waking up one morning and deciding to transition just to get a better chance of becoming an MP seems risible.
Who said anything about transitioning? I thought being a woman was merely a case of believing yourself to be that gender, and therefore there need be no outward or visible sign thereof?
It might be just me, but the idea of someone waking up one morning and deciding to transition just to get a better chance of becoming an MP seems risible.
Who said anything about transitioning? I thought being a woman was merely a case of believing yourself to be that gender, and therefore there need be no outward or visible sign thereof?
Doesn't mean it's realistically expected to change with the weather. Indeed, your option 2 above is called Conversion Therapy, it's not offered by the NHS because it doesn't work, just as it doesn't for lesbian and gay people. And it doesn't work because gender identity is not infinitely fluid. People do not wake up one day and decide they're transgender. They may announce it one day but it doesn't come out of nowhere. It's been there since at least puberty.
I don't know because I have never been in that situation. However, in general we are reasonably good at determining whether what someone says is borne out by how they actually behave.
I was hoping for something a bit more concrete and a bit less subjective than "we'll know the wrong 'uns when they turn up", but so be it.
It's ALL subjective.
Even if that's so (which I'm not convinced of), it raises the question of whose subjective view is the one that counts in any given situation. If it's ALL subjective then how can you say that one person is right about it and another is wrong?
How do you believe sex dysphoria should be treated?
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to transition, as near as surgery allows, to their gender identity?
Or
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to be reconciled with their biological sex?
Or
Are both methods actually complimentary and potentially applicable in individual cases?
Some people will benefit more from option 1, and others will benefit more from option 2.
As such I suppose I'd support option 3.
It's nice to find something we can agree on.
I've been saying from the start that I understand and support those who wish to surgically transition to their gender identity. It's this crazy (to me) talk of such apparent mutual contradictions as female penises and pregnant men that I don't get.
It might be just me, but the idea of someone waking up one morning and deciding to transition just to get a better chance of becoming an MP seems risible.
Who said anything about transitioning? I thought being a woman was merely a case of believing yourself to be that gender, and therefore there need be no outward or visible sign thereof?
Doesn't mean it's realistically expected to change with the weather. Indeed, your option 2 above is called Conversion Therapy, it's not offered by the NHS because it doesn't work, just as it doesn't for lesbian and gay people. And it doesn't work because gender identity is not infinitely fluid. People do not wake up one day and decide they're transgender. They may announce it one day but it doesn't come out of nowhere. It's been there since at least puberty.
Therapy shouldn't be used to try and persuade someone that they are not transgender. It should be offered to enable the person to see whether they are trans, GNC, gay or if there are other background issues such as abuse that may be a factor in their feelings.
Currently, in the UK, under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be change gender officially, so, e.g. to be able to stand as an MP as their preferred gender, the transperson needs to demonstrate the following:
a diagnosis of gender dysphoria
the agreement of two medical doctors, one a psychologists
evidence of living as your preferred gender for two years
permission from your partner to transition, should you be married
and it costs £140
There is has been a consultation to discuss simplifying this process, and various charities - Mermaids, Stonewall - have been campaigning for self-ID to be the way forward, but that currently is not allowed in the UK, except in certain circumstances, as the GRA 2019 has not gone through Parliament. The Government did also say somewhere in the consultation that they were not necessarily considering self-ID.
It might be just me, but the idea of someone waking up one morning and deciding to transition just to get a better chance of becoming an MP seems risible.
Who said anything about transitioning? I thought being a woman was merely a case of believing yourself to be that gender, and therefore there need be no outward or visible sign thereof?
Doesn't mean it's realistically expected to change with the weather. Indeed, your option 2 above is called Conversion Therapy, it's not offered by the NHS because it doesn't work, just as it doesn't for lesbian and gay people. And it doesn't work because gender identity is not infinitely fluid. People do not wake up one day and decide they're transgender. They may announce it one day but it doesn't come out of nowhere. It's been there since at least puberty.
Therapy shouldn't be used to try and persuade someone that they are not transgender. It should be offered to enable the person to see whether they are trans, GNC, gay or if there are other background issues such as abuse that may be a factor in their feelings.
But the question was about treatment for gender dysphoria - ie after that stage.
I don't know whether someone like Pips Bunce would be eligible for such a shortlist.
And this is part of the difficulty with this discussion. When people say 'trans' are they meaning someone with gender dysphoria, or anyone in the trans umbrella, including non-binary, GNC, cross dressers etc?
There are trans women who say they are men. Do they not "exist" to you?
No. That's a contradiction in terms. A trans woman is by definition a person who was assigned the sex "M" at birth, but identifies as a woman. She says she's a woman. You are saying there are people who say they are women who say they are men. Huh?
Yes. There are trans people who identify as women but don't think they can change sex, only their appearance. Nice to know you are saying they don't "exist", as Quetzacoatl would say.
Wow that's a pretty amazing twist even for this thread. Congratulations. You win the "twisting the writer's words beyond any reasonable attempt to cover what they were actually saying" award. You can pick it up at the desk as you leave.
There are trans women who say they are men. Do they not "exist" to you?
No. That's a contradiction in terms. A trans woman is by definition a person who was assigned the sex "M" at birth, but identifies as a woman. She says she's a woman. You are saying there are people who say they are women who say they are men. Huh?
Yes. There are trans people who identify as women but don't think they can change sex, only their appearance. Nice to know you are saying they don't "exist", as Quetzacoatl would say.
Wow that's a pretty amazing twist even for this thread. Congratulations. You win the "twisting the writer's words beyond any reasonable attempt to cover what they were actually saying" award. You can pick it up at the desk as you leave.
I asked you whether transwomen who say they are men exist. You said no. No twisting involved.
Are you capable of commenting without the dripping condescension?
Colin Smith: I agree with your first two paragraphs. Your third paragraph invites a question that cuts to the heart of the whole issue. How do you believe sex dysphoria should be treated?
Apart from "with sympathy" I'm in no position to express a view, regarding it as a private matter between the individual concerned and any professional advice and assistance he/she might seek.
KarlLB: You have your sex and gender the wrong way round here
Are you sure? I thought I was expressing the well-established distinction between the two. Part of the problem is that the distinction has not been sustained for whatever reason. Official forms have been changed so that the box marked 'gender' offers the choice 'male' 'female', whereas previously the box inviting such responses would previously have been marked 'sex'.
KarlLB: People only suffer and it's only a "terrible condition" inasmuch as society makes it so. Let people be and you'd have a lot less suffering and things would be a lot less terrible.
I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. You may well be right in suggesting that 'society' should take a more accepting approach, but I'm not sure what you mean by "let people be".
The standard definition of transgender is that there is a mismatch between the sex assigned at birth (SAAB) (which mostly refers to anatomical sex, but not always) and gender identity.
What seems to be happening is that there is often a confusion between gender expression and gender identity, which are different things.
The standard definition of transgender is that there is a mismatch between the sex assigned at birth (SAAB) (which mostly refers to anatomical sex, but not always) and gender identity.
What seems to be happening is that there is often a confusion between gender expression and gender identity, which are different things.
I was meaning for things like all-women shortlist, women's awards, and if trans is included does that mean just transgender, or including NB, genderqueer etc etc. (Not a leading question, I don't know.)
Currently in the UK, transgender people cannot change their birth certificate gender without a gender recognition certificate (GRC), which requires the hoops described above. Self-ID is not legally a way to identify as the gender not on your birth certificate.
Most women's only positions will require a birth certificate or GRC to prove they are who they say they are. Most jobs I do require to see my birth certificate and/or passport.
I think you miss my point. To stand for any employment in the UK I have to demonstrate I have the right to remain in the country - which requires my birth certificate or passport. Which says I am female. Which will rather count out any transwoman, because their documents will say they are male without a GRC.
I've just looked and Labour don't require a GRC to stand on an all women shortlist.
They presumably aren't afraid that the Beast of Bolsover is going to suddenly announce he's been a woman all along.
Did I say they would? I was replying to curiosity who seemed to be saying you would need a GRC. It would be nice if you didn't add extra meaning to everything I say.
I think you miss my point. To stand for any employment in the UK I have to demonstrate I have the right to remain in the country - which requires my birth certificate or passport. Which says I am female. Which will rather count out any transwoman, because their documents will say they are male without a GRC.
How is this relevant to all women shortlists or women's awards?
I've just looked and Labour don't require a GRC to stand on an all women shortlist.
They presumably aren't afraid that the Beast of Bolsover is going to suddenly announce he's been a woman all along.
Did I say they would? I was replying to curiosity who seemed to be saying you would need a GRC. It would be nice if you didn't add extra meaning to everything I say.
Thing is, the Labour Party, like any other, are free to set their requirements within reason. They've decided they don't need a GRC. Buggered if I know what that means beyond they've decided they don't need one.
Because a woman standing for an all women shortlist will have to demonstrate they can be employed in the UK, so will have to show their passport or birth certificate. Which will be male if they are a transwoman, unless they also have a GRC.
Because a woman standing for an all women shortlist will have to demonstrate they can be employed in the UK, so will have to show their passport or birth certificate. Which will be male if they are a transwoman, unless they also have a GRC.
Yebbut tbf it's perfectly possible to pass Labour's requirements to be on their shortlist and still be able to be employed on the basis of a BC which shows the birth gender, as the one is an internal party matter and the other a separate legal matter.
Because a woman standing for an all women shortlist will have to demonstrate they can be employed in the UK, so will have to show their passport or birth certificate. Which will be male if they are a transwoman, unless they also have a GRC.
Yebbut tbf it's perfectly possible to pass Labour's requirements to be on their shortlist and still be able to be employed on the basis of a BC which shows the birth gender, as the one is an internal party matter and the other a separate legal matter.
Exactly. That's what I was getting confused at. And yes Karl, i know Labour are free to set their rules, and I don't have an issue with them using self id. I was more interested in whether they also included other gender identities in the women's shortlists.
Because a woman standing for an all women shortlist will have to demonstrate they can be employed in the UK, so will have to show their passport or birth certificate. Which will be male if they are a transwoman, unless they also have a GRC.
Yebbut tbf it's perfectly possible to pass Labour's requirements to be on their shortlist and still be able to be employed on the basis of a BC which shows the birth gender, as the one is an internal party matter and the other a separate legal matter.
Exactly. That's what I was getting confused at. And yes Karl, i know Labour are free to set their rules, and I don't have an issue with them using self id. I was more interested in whether they also included other gender identities in the women's shortlists.
Dunno. Perhaps it's just ticking a box marked "woman" and you decide if the cap fits
Currently, in the UK, under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be change gender officially, so, e.g. to be able to stand as an MP as their preferred gender, the transperson needs to demonstrate the following:
a diagnosis of gender dysphoria
the agreement of two medical doctors, one a psychologists
evidence of living as your preferred gender for two years
permission from your partner to transition, should you be married
and it costs £140
That’s all well and good, but when I’m talking to someone who is advocating self-ID as the first, last and only determinant of a persons gender then it’s perfectly valid to ask how they would approach such things as women-only shortlists.
Or to put it another way, you can’t appeal to the current law to dismiss issues with your position if part of that position is to change what the law says. (I know that’s not what you personally are doing).
Indeed. I find the “transrace” question to be very interesting in the context of people advocating self-ID as the only determinant of a persons status.
But anyway, thanks for illustrating exactly why some people have worries over what some aspects of gender identity ideology may lead to.
Yes. Though, for me, it's less about non-binary gender identity ideology, and more about the potential loss of places where women *and* men can be separate and safe from each other. (I.e. men need to be safe, too.) For me, that's a pre-existing major issue--before any concerns about whether or not non-binary or trans folks may also be there.
I've been through lots of #MeToo experiences. (And not just from the sort of folks you might expect. Some gay men sometimes sexually harass women, and I went through that daily at work for some time.) Plus I know of other women's experiences. Plus women have been unsafe in the world for...forever.
IME and observation of general American culture, girl/women and boys/men are separate for anything that involves bodily waste functions, undressing, nudity, etc. Even all-girl/woman dressing rooms involve running a gauntlet, because there's so much judging of appearances and bodies. Plus showering, and PE/gym teachers periodically insisting that everyone take full, nude showers, rather than the usual partial, semi-dressed ones.
Someone suggested, on this or one of the related threads, that certain problems will be fixed when all dressing rooms are unisex. That terrifies me.
For a long time, I had difficulty being alone in an elevator with a man--worse when there were several men and just me. (Business highrises.) That got easier, gradually. Haven't been in that situation for a long time, but it would probably still be a problem.
I think a lot will be lost if girls/women and boys/men *have* to be together, *all* the time, for *everything*.
And if that's used as a vehicle for making sure trans and non-conforming folks have safety and comfort, they will be wrongly blamed and catch a lot of flack. (Not from me.)
As I said, sometime back, on another thread, I'm fine with trans and non-conforming folks continuing to do whatever they've been doing as far as restrooms and gyms and such. They're absolutely as worthwhile as everybody else.
I've been sitting here for a while, trying to figure out what else to say. Maybe just that there may be some way to arrange for everyone to be safe and (mostly) comfortable; and to have a variety of unisex and non-unisex spaces and facilities and businesses available, and leave everyone to sort themselves out accordingly.
The world is changing, and that ain't easy. Even harder when, as now, there are all sorts of changes going on. Security blankets and stuffed animals are available at the back of the room.
{NOTE: Apologies for any missteps in this post. It could've been much longer. I've tried to hit what I feel are the main points, but may have wandered amongst them.}
If there's a provision of a range of facilities - unisex and single sex, how do you feel about transgender people using the single sex facilities of their gender identity?
I'm not convinced that the body-shaming all female facilities or male locker room behaviours are so wonderful they need conserving.
Comments
That sounds like a ringing declaration of principle.
My concerns with it would be threefold.
One is the issue of choice and reality. You seemed earlier to be backing off from the extreme position that anyone for any reason may choose to be identified as either gender at whim even when such a claim has no objective reality at all.
One is the issue of children and their gradual transition from dependents of their parents to independent adulthood.
One is about respecting the rights of other people to choose whom they associate with in contexts where the sex of the body is relevant. There is no wrong in a bunch of women getting together to form an athletics club for people with female bodies.
If you had said instead something like "it matters to me that every adult with gender dysphoria has the right to be identified as man or women in all social contexts where the sex of their body is irrelevant" then you might find that more people agree with you.
......OK, but how do you determine what constitutes a 'legitimate concern' and whether the individual is misrepresenting himself/herself? What are the criteria? Who makes the adjudication? Your remarks suggest that self-assignment is not to be taken at face value. Remember, Colin, it's not me that raised this issue, but yourself.
Agreed, but I don't frame my opinions like a lawyer.
My concern is that some contributors seem to be using unlikely and complicated scenarios, such as prison transfers for trans people, where there is a legitimate reason to examine a person's professed gender identity as a reason for questioning the whole idea that people (and I tend to use that word only with regard to adults) should be able to live their lives as the gender they most identify with.
My feeling is that you are raising concerns that will only be relevant in a tiny percentage of situations in order to undermine the vast majority of times when a person's professed gender identity is irrelevant to any other person.
But to address the idea of a legitimate concern. A legitimate concern would arise when an individual may be pretending to a professed gender identity for material gain or potentially to cause harm to others. In those circumstances the individual should be subject to some kind of check to ensure that their motives are not malicious. However, there are no circumstances where a legitimate concern regarding certain individuals in certain situations should be used as a reason to ban all trans people from those situations.
Out of interest, which behaviour(s) would convince you that someone who claims to be male or female actually isn't?
Against what criteria? How can you make such a judgement if there is no objective way to define 'X'?
And anyway, if I actually do identify as black then shouldn't it be my right as a black person to access those funds or services even though I appear on the surface to be white as snow? You know, just the same as you assert that it's the right of anyone who identifies as female to access female-only funds or services even if they appear on the surface to be male?
I don't know because I have never been in that situation. However, in general we are reasonably good at determining whether what someone says is borne out by how they actually behave.
You do not need to define X in order to ascertain whether someone claiming X is doing so for some personal gain rather than because X actually expresses their personal identity.
I am unaware of any particular funds or services specifically available to black men. I am also unaware of any funds that are purely for females.
Do you adopt a similarly analytical approach to anyone claiming to be Christian?
I guess a lot of us are confused.
I agree that sex: male or female is biological, and rooted in the reproductive process that lies at the root of the evolutionary process. Definitionally reproductive roles mark the distinction between males and females.
Gender is a social construct where a distinction is made between masculine and feminine. It should not be confused with the distinction between male and female. What constitutes masculine and feminine behaviour varies over time and space, and is not confined to a particular sex. A male, for example, might be masculine but in touch with his feminine side and may even display predominantly feminine characteristics, but that does not make him less male or approaching female. Feminists have sought to minimise distinctions between masculine and feminine roles which have been the basis of 'patriarchy' and the subordination of females to male interests.
A trans woman is not, IMO, a male with predominantly feminine characteristics. A trans woman is a male who for some reason, probably genetically based, sees himself as female. It is a matter of sex dysphoria not gender. That surely is why sufferers of the terrible condition are prepared to endure serious surgery.
*herself.
People only suffer and it's only a "terrible condition" inasmuch as society makes it so. Let people be and you'd have a lot less suffering and things would be a lot less terrible.
You have your sex and gender the wrong way round here - it's a matter of gender dysphoria, not sex, And it's not always gender dysphoria. Quoting from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/ "This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria."
Note "can lead to".
Not all people who feel their gender does not match the biological sex have GD. Not all transition. These are overlapping but not identical sets.
What I don't know is whether a GD diagnosis is necessary for surgical or medical intervention. I suspect it is.
I was hoping for something a bit more concrete and a bit less subjective than "we'll know the wrong 'uns when they turn up", but so be it.
Of course you bloody well do. Otherwise what are you going to do if, say, someone claiming to be a trans woman seeks entry onto a female-only shortlist for election to Parliament? How are you going to determine whether she is a real "she" or just a "he" trying it on for personal gain?
Here's one example.
Here's two.
Whether someone is a Christian is not defined in any way by anything other than their beliefs. As such, and pending the development of effective mind-reading technology, I have no way of knowing whether someone is lying about that or not.
I don't think I'm in the slightest "confused".
I agree with your first two paragraphs. Your third paragraph invites a question that cuts to the heart of the whole issue. How do you believe sex dysphoria should be treated?
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to transition, as near as surgery allows, to their gender identity?
Or
Should individual males or females with sex dysphoria receive treatment that enables them to be reconciled with their biological sex?
Or
Are both methods actually complimentary and potentially applicable in individual cases?
I regard "Christian" as defined almost wholly by behaviour.
Some people will benefit more from option 1, and others will benefit more from option 2.
As such I suppose I'd support option 3.
It's ALL subjective.
It's nice to find something we can agree on.
Who said anything about transitioning? I thought being a woman was merely a case of believing yourself to be that gender, and therefore there need be no outward or visible sign thereof?
Doesn't mean it's realistically expected to change with the weather. Indeed, your option 2 above is called Conversion Therapy, it's not offered by the NHS because it doesn't work, just as it doesn't for lesbian and gay people. And it doesn't work because gender identity is not infinitely fluid. People do not wake up one day and decide they're transgender. They may announce it one day but it doesn't come out of nowhere. It's been there since at least puberty.
Even if that's so (which I'm not convinced of), it raises the question of whose subjective view is the one that counts in any given situation. If it's ALL subjective then how can you say that one person is right about it and another is wrong?
I've been saying from the start that I understand and support those who wish to surgically transition to their gender identity. It's this crazy (to me) talk of such apparent mutual contradictions as female penises and pregnant men that I don't get.
Unless you're genderfluid, of course.
How would you tell the difference?
Therapy shouldn't be used to try and persuade someone that they are not transgender. It should be offered to enable the person to see whether they are trans, GNC, gay or if there are other background issues such as abuse that may be a factor in their feelings.
There is has been a consultation to discuss simplifying this process, and various charities - Mermaids, Stonewall - have been campaigning for self-ID to be the way forward, but that currently is not allowed in the UK, except in certain circumstances, as the GRA 2019 has not gone through Parliament. The Government did also say somewhere in the consultation that they were not necessarily considering self-ID.
But the question was about treatment for gender dysphoria - ie after that stage.
I don't know whether someone like Pips Bunce would be eligible for such a shortlist.
And this is part of the difficulty with this discussion. When people say 'trans' are they meaning someone with gender dysphoria, or anyone in the trans umbrella, including non-binary, GNC, cross dressers etc?
Wow that's a pretty amazing twist even for this thread. Congratulations. You win the "twisting the writer's words beyond any reasonable attempt to cover what they were actually saying" award. You can pick it up at the desk as you leave.
I asked you whether transwomen who say they are men exist. You said no. No twisting involved.
Are you capable of commenting without the dripping condescension?
Apart from "with sympathy" I'm in no position to express a view, regarding it as a private matter between the individual concerned and any professional advice and assistance he/she might seek.
Are you sure? I thought I was expressing the well-established distinction between the two. Part of the problem is that the distinction has not been sustained for whatever reason. Official forms have been changed so that the box marked 'gender' offers the choice 'male' 'female', whereas previously the box inviting such responses would previously have been marked 'sex'.
I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. You may well be right in suggesting that 'society' should take a more accepting approach, but I'm not sure what you mean by "let people be".
What seems to be happening is that there is often a confusion between gender expression and gender identity, which are different things.
I was meaning for things like all-women shortlist, women's awards, and if trans is included does that mean just transgender, or including NB, genderqueer etc etc. (Not a leading question, I don't know.)
Most women's only positions will require a birth certificate or GRC to prove they are who they say they are. Most jobs I do require to see my birth certificate and/or passport.
They presumably aren't afraid that the Beast of Bolsover is going to suddenly announce he's been a woman all along.
Oh please.
Did I say they would? I was replying to curiosity who seemed to be saying you would need a GRC. It would be nice if you didn't add extra meaning to everything I say.
How is this relevant to all women shortlists or women's awards?
Thing is, the Labour Party, like any other, are free to set their requirements within reason. They've decided they don't need a GRC. Buggered if I know what that means beyond they've decided they don't need one.
Yebbut tbf it's perfectly possible to pass Labour's requirements to be on their shortlist and still be able to be employed on the basis of a BC which shows the birth gender, as the one is an internal party matter and the other a separate legal matter.
Exactly. That's what I was getting confused at. And yes Karl, i know Labour are free to set their rules, and I don't have an issue with them using self id. I was more interested in whether they also included other gender identities in the women's shortlists.
Dunno. Perhaps it's just ticking a box marked "woman" and you decide if the cap fits
That’s all well and good, but when I’m talking to someone who is advocating self-ID as the first, last and only determinant of a persons gender then it’s perfectly valid to ask how they would approach such things as women-only shortlists.
Or to put it another way, you can’t appeal to the current law to dismiss issues with your position if part of that position is to change what the law says. (I know that’s not what you personally are doing).
My questions about Rachel Dolezal have not been answered so far...
Yes. Though, for me, it's less about non-binary gender identity ideology, and more about the potential loss of places where women *and* men can be separate and safe from each other. (I.e. men need to be safe, too.) For me, that's a pre-existing major issue--before any concerns about whether or not non-binary or trans folks may also be there.
I've been through lots of #MeToo experiences. (And not just from the sort of folks you might expect. Some gay men sometimes sexually harass women, and I went through that daily at work for some time.) Plus I know of other women's experiences. Plus women have been unsafe in the world for...forever.
IME and observation of general American culture, girl/women and boys/men are separate for anything that involves bodily waste functions, undressing, nudity, etc. Even all-girl/woman dressing rooms involve running a gauntlet, because there's so much judging of appearances and bodies. Plus showering, and PE/gym teachers periodically insisting that everyone take full, nude showers, rather than the usual partial, semi-dressed ones.
Someone suggested, on this or one of the related threads, that certain problems will be fixed when all dressing rooms are unisex. That terrifies me.
For a long time, I had difficulty being alone in an elevator with a man--worse when there were several men and just me. (Business highrises.) That got easier, gradually. Haven't been in that situation for a long time, but it would probably still be a problem.
I think a lot will be lost if girls/women and boys/men *have* to be together, *all* the time, for *everything*.
And if that's used as a vehicle for making sure trans and non-conforming folks have safety and comfort, they will be wrongly blamed and catch a lot of flack. (Not from me.)
As I said, sometime back, on another thread, I'm fine with trans and non-conforming folks continuing to do whatever they've been doing as far as restrooms and gyms and such. They're absolutely as worthwhile as everybody else.
I've been sitting here for a while, trying to figure out what else to say. Maybe just that there may be some way to arrange for everyone to be safe and (mostly) comfortable; and to have a variety of unisex and non-unisex spaces and facilities and businesses available, and leave everyone to sort themselves out accordingly.
The world is changing, and that ain't easy. Even harder when, as now, there are all sorts of changes going on. Security blankets and stuffed animals are available at the back of the room.
{NOTE: Apologies for any missteps in this post. It could've been much longer. I've tried to hit what I feel are the main points, but may have wandered amongst them.}
I'm not convinced that the body-shaming all female facilities or male locker room behaviours are so wonderful they need conserving.
Not wanting to preserve the bad aspects of gym dressing rooms. Just privacy and safety.
Mulling over the rest.