• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well yes and no. Yes, it isn't 100% perfect, but no, most (almost all) people are not going to change their gender just on a whim.

Almost all people aren't predators. But they exist, and they matter disproportionately to their numbers.

What it would certainly stop is this mythical beast who is a woman on a Tuesday at 11am just to get access to the women's locker room and then changes back to a man at 11.15.

Why would it do that? In very few cases is your legal status what people evaluate you by. So you could indeed do exactly that.
 
This seems to be a massive leap, an unjustified one in my opinion.



And you are conflating two or possibly more issues. One being whether transwomen have the right to access women's spaces and the other being what constitutes a transwoman.

And when you drill down actually the think about Self ID seems to be fraught with misunderstanding or misinformation but also doesn't seem to be the real stumbling block because as many (including yourself apparently judging by the 1st quote here) don't want ANYONE they consider male in women's spaces and they consider all transwomen to be male.



The conflation seems to be between 'transwomen' and 'cis-male perverts and rapists' but yes it is a clever rhetorical trick and not entirely honest.



The object to which the term Earth refers is objective. But the meaning of the word can change as we learn new things about the object. That's why argument from definition seems silly to me. Imagine trying to argue that 'The Earth means the thing at the centre of the solar system so if the planet we are on isn't the centre of the solar system it isn't Earth.'

And it gets harder for non Proper nouns. What is a table? What is a door?
. You seem, once again, to be willing to fill in gaps in your comprehension by making up thoughts and inserting them into other people's heads. A more complete response will have to wait until I have a real keyboard to work with.


Other people seem to have worked it out, though. They've already hit the main points about who is conflating what.
 
How does this negate what I said?
You made it seem simple and linear like:

Code:
word → concept → referent

...but in fact it's more like a branching tree.

On what basis should all women be allowed into sdkj-exclusive spaces given that some women are not sdkj?

I suppose that depends on which meaning of women you're invoking here, not to mention sdkj.

If the goal of redefinition of the words "man" and "woman" is to obtain greater exactitude, the effort is failing miserably.

See now this is another fine example of linear thinking. The words aren't being redefined, they are acquiring another entry in the list of commonly used meanings.
 
Last edited:
Almost all people aren't predators. But they exist, and they matter disproportionately to their numbers.

Why would it do that? In very few cases is your legal status what people evaluate you by. So you could indeed do exactly that.

These two statements seem at odds with one another. Either legal status is important and people will pursue it or legal status isn't important in which case people won't bother getting it.

This is why I am saying that we are conflating things. Are you concerned about the legal rights people have or are you concerned about how we prevent people doing things illegally?

if its the former then nothing is proposed that would give cismen greater access to womens spaces legally. If its the latter then that's something else we can look at, but I am not comfortable with limiting the rights of one group in order to prevent bad behaviour by another group.
 
You made it seem simple and linear like:

Code:
word → concept → referent

...but in fact it's more like a branching tree.

Two maps, to be precise, one from the set of words to the set of concepts and one from the set of concepts to the set of referents. Which, interestingly, can be combined into a single map from the set of words to the set of referents. No need for distinguishing between words and concepts when you're already distinguishing between words and referents, at least not in the present case. As your own example shows, you've used the word "woman" with two different referents (adult human female, and feminine dressing style).

Of course, if the same term is being used with different definitions by different people in a discussion, then the proper thing to do is to denote different words to refer to these different definitions, leading us to...

I suppose that depends on which meaning of women you're invoking here, not to mention sdkj.

I referred you to my previous reply to Archie, where you would've found:
Let's say you change the meaning of "woman" from "adult human female" to "anyone who says they are a woman" and let's then use "sdkj" for "adult human female."

Even if we grant this request to redefine the word woman, it hasn't solved any question. On what basis should all women be allowed access to sdkj-only sports, given that some women are not sdkj? And so on and so forth. How exactly is this whole appeal to supposedly alternative definitions of the word woman in any way an argument, given that even if we grant the redefinition it still doesn't answer any question?

And that's, of course, ignoring the circularity of the new definition of woman.
 
I don't understand how changing the definition quality of anything from an external objective quality to a purely internal subjective one is supposed to "clarify" anything.

But more and more and more the fact that criteria don't make sense seems like the point.
 
These two statements seem at odds with one another. Either legal status is important and people will pursue it or legal status isn't important in which case people won't bother getting it.

False dichotomy. Legal status only matters when it's checked. If you present as a man and try to do activities which are typical for men, nobody is going to check. If you present as a man and try to do an activity which is restricted to women, then they may check. So someone who lives as a man but wants to access women's locker rooms can get a legal change, and it won't affect basically any of his life except that he'll be able to legally access women's locker rooms. The switching that you claim would be prevented won't be.

if its the former then nothing is proposed that would give cismen greater access to womens spaces legally.

This is trivially true in the sense that my hypothetical pervert is now technically a transwoman by your definition, even though they do nothing to live as a woman except have some paperwork filed. But that redefinition doesn't help. You keep complaining about others conflating things, but as we see time and time again, you're the one conflating things.
 
. You seem, once again, to be willing to fill in gaps in your comprehension by making up thoughts and inserting them into other people's heads. A more complete response will have to wait until I have a real keyboard to work with.

Other people seem to have worked it out, though. They've already hit the main points about who is conflating what.

I'm looking at the implications of your statements and trying to join the dots.

Yes some other people agree with you, but so what? I've seen some utter nonsense agreed with here by people because it suits their argument.

The conflation is both quite annoying and not leading to useful discussion because it makes it incredibly difficult to pin down the topic.

Some people clearly think that nobody who was identified male at birth should ever be granted access to female spaces and if that's the case then the topic of gender recognition, self-ID etc etc is completely irrelevant. And this very much appears to be your position from some of the statements you have made, though happy to be corrected.

Others seem to believe that 'some' transwomen should be allowed but not others. And then the issue of what constitutes someone 'sufficiently trans' becomes relevant. And the former argument becomes irrelevant.

The third issue of 'cismen accessing female spaces' is only tangentially related to this and again is something separate.

Then there is a 4th issue as to whether transpeople are genuine or all/mostly perverts and fetishists as some people tend to believe.

I think its more helpful to sensible discussion to look at these things separately to a great extent and my suspicion is that people are attempting to conflate these things because they basically believe either the first or fourth of these things (or both) but actually want to pretend its about the third.
 
it hasn't solved any question.

Of course it hasn't. Because arguments by definition are stupid and if you change the definition but then ignore the change as you are proposing then of course nothing will be solved.

Philosophically it can be useful to examine definitions to understand what we actually mean when we use words, or to look at inconsistencies that might get us to change how we look at things, but thinking that reference to definitions can help us solve moral dilemmas or social questions is silly in my opinion.

God we can't even agree if someone people are male or female by the biological definition - Caster Semenya seems to be a woman by the traditional definitons but yet people say she isn't.
 
False dichotomy. Legal status only matters when it's checked. If you present as a man and try to do activities which are typical for men, nobody is going to check. If you present as a man and try to do an activity which is restricted to women, then they may check. So someone who lives as a man but wants to access women's locker rooms can get a legal change, and it won't affect basically any of his life except that he'll be able to legally access women's locker rooms. The switching that you claim would be prevented won't be.

But you would be legally a woman. So you wouldn't for example be allowed to access male locker rooms in your example. If said person is married they may no longer be if the place they reside doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.

I'm not denying that it's a possibility I just can't see it being a real concern especially given that there was a muchh larger incentive in the past - that you would receive retirement benefits 5 years earlier - and nobody bothered to do it. Or as you say that you could get car insurance cheaper.

Honestly, I just can't see it being a thing.

This is trivially true in the sense that my hypothetical pervert is now technically a transwoman by your definition, even though they do nothing to live as a woman except have some paperwork filed. But that redefinition doesn't help. You keep complaining about others conflating things, but as we see time and time again, you're the one conflating things.

No, the person would not be a transwoman because they would have committed an offence by falsely declaring this to be the case and would be liable to go to prison for up to 2 years. Which co-incidentally is also the maximum penalty for repeated offences of indecent exposure.

Nothing is being conflated here, you can't confuse a bad law with people breaking the law.
 
Of course it hasn't. Because arguments by definition are stupid and if you change the definition but then ignore the change as you are proposing then of course nothing will be solved.

I'd rate "Argument by Definition" a mite higher then "Argument by Self Identity" and I rate "Argument by Definition" roughly somewhere below "Stuff pulled out of drain after washing a St. Bernard."
 
But you would be legally a woman. So you wouldn't for example be allowed to access male locker rooms in your example.

Of course you would be allowed to access male lockers. Because, once again, if you look like a man and try to do things that men do, nobody will check what your legal status is. It doesn't matter if something is technically prohibited if there's no enforcement of it. Hell, I don't think anyone would care even if they knew you were legally a woman. Why would they?

If said person is married they may no longer be if the place they reside doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.

I don't think most of the pervs who might engage in this activity are going to be the type to be able to attract a wife. But we're talking specifically about the UK, where gay marriage is legal.

No, the person would not be a transwoman because they would have committed an offence by falsely declaring this to be the case

You don't get it. There is no standard by which YOU can declare that their declaration is false.
 
Even if we grant this request to redefine the word woman, it hasn't solved any question.
I fear you may have missed my point entirely. There is no need to redefine the word, only to recognize that people intend to invoke different meanings with different objective referents while using the same word in different contexts, as in the example I provided above re: women's health vs. women's clothing.

On what basis should all women be allowed access to sdkj-only sports, given that some women are not sdkj?
I'm not the person to ask, since I'm not the person arguing that the everyday social definition of woman should be the same definition we use when we talk about women's sports leagues. (Perhaps AGG might have a go?)

How exactly is this whole appeal to supposedly alternative definitions of the word woman in any way an argument...
It is not an argument, but rather an attempt at clarification. For each attempt to segregate humanity by either sex or gender, whether in theory or practice, we need to be clear about what exactly we are doing and why, instead of simply falling back on common colloquial usage.
 
You don't get it. There is no standard by which YOU can declare that their declaration is false.

No, that's not true.

Again, you have bought into this myth that just uttering the words is magic.

You described a situation where someone lived as a man 100% of the time but filed a false statutory declaration to say they are trans. They aren't trans. So a judge presented with this evidence could very well find they have committed perjury.
 
Again, you have bought into this myth that just uttering the words is magic.

Well we sort of have to when the standard is "self identification."

You say "uttering the words is magic" as if that's some crazy straw man we've made up.

I've had "What a transperson identifies as is the end of the discussion" or some variations screamed at me enough.

You can't introduce "Oohhh... ohhh but obviously not in that scenario" when the only difference is "It makes the group in question look bad."

You can't invoke "No True Scotsman" in any discussion, but in a discussion literally defined by self identification it's new levels of absurd.
 
No, that's not true.

Again, you have bought into this myth that just uttering the words is magic.

It’s not a myth, it’s exactly what’s being pushed for.

You described a situation where someone lived as a man 100% of the time but filed a false statutory declaration to say they are trans. They aren't trans. So a judge presented with this evidence could very well find they have committed perjury.

No, the judge cannot. Again, there is no standard. There is no grounds by which he can say it’s perjury.
 
I started a thread a while ago about Andrea Long Chu's NYT piece, but with Chu's new book is out, I think it fits in humorously well here given the current topic. Chu did in fact have surgery, and is in fact miserable*. A number of media outlets are giving this... "deep thinker" rather glowing praise. I've highlighted the thesis given in the reviews and interviews:

Simone de Beauvoir famously wrote that "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," a claim I could imagine making writer and critic Andrea Long Chu roll her eyes.

At the very least, Chu has an update: "Everyone is female," she writes in the appropriately titled Females, her first book, "and everyone hates it."
Chu has earned a reputation over the past few years as one of the sharpest new thinkers on gender and sexuality with her essays on, among other topics, transgender identity, feminism and television. (She has also picked up a rather loyal following on Twitter, where she treats her mental health, PhD candidature and pop-culture diet all with equal wit and consideration.) In Females — part memoir, part theoretical intervention — Chu explores and defends this claim about universal femaleness, perhaps as much to herself as to anyone else.

Of course, the "female" identity on which the book is based is admittedly less a biological condition than an existential one. Chu describes it as an experience "defined by self-negation" that includes "any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another." In other words, to be female — which, remember, we all are — is to not express your own desires, identity, personality but rather those of others, impressed upon you. And gender, it follows for Chu, is what people do to deal with the terrible fact of being female.

Linky.

But her sadness isn’t just a bit. A little less than a year ago, in a New York Times op-ed about her plans to undergo surgery to “get a vagina,” Chu made a provocative claim that angered some trans advocates: She did not expect the painful, expensive procedure to make her happy. Still, Chu insisted, she had the right to get it whether it cured her dysphoria or not. Nearly a year after the surgery, she says she’s feeling more miserable than she’d expected. “It’s perversely vindicating,” she adds with a wry smile. Dressed in a jumpsuit patterned with blue-and-white flowers, she brushes a curtain of curls away from her face with a flip of her wrist, revealing a tattoo of a geometric vulva on the underside of her forearm. “It’s very dangerous to get what you want.”

This is the sort of statement — darkly funny, intensely personal, daringly poised between profundity and trolling — that has made Chu one of the most exciting critics working today. A 26-year-old Ph.D. student in the comp-lit department at NYU, she entered the mainstream in the fall of 2017 with an essay for n+1, “On Liking Women,” in which she challenged the central tenet of trans discourse on the left. “I am trying to tell you something that few of us dare to talk about, especially in public, especially when we are trying to feel political: not the fact, boringly obvious to those of us living it, that many trans women wish they were cis women, but the darker, more difficult fact that many trans women wish they were women, period.” The piece had its critics, but many hailed it as a revelation. Sandy Stone, the artist and academic credited with establishing the field of trans studies, praised Chu for launching the discipline’s more forthright second wave, a breakthrough she never dreamed she’d live to see. “Maybe I’ve died and gone to trans heaven,” she wrote on Facebook. As Chu sees it, the first wave of trans studies was largely a defense against those who claimed real women are those born with a vagina. “My work begins with a frustration about how that defensiveness has calcified into a trope,” she explains.

In her first book, Females, out later this month, she posits a new theory about gender and sexuality, starting with the contention that “everyone is female.” (“I get criticized for projecting a lot,” she says dryly.) In Chu’s usage, female is a “universal existential condition,” defined by submitting to someone else’s desires. For example, even if you conceive of yourself as an alpha male who likes to top in bed, the desire to dominate is ultimately its own form of submission. “A top,” says Chu, “is just a bottom folded into another shape.” So why does she insist on calling a universal condition “female”? “Because everyone already does,” she writes. Women are the “select delegates” of this state of being.
...

Chu was 23, a couple of years into her Ph.D. studies and in the midst of a breakup with a girlfriend, when she felt compelled to transition. Within a week, she’d bought her first bra. She wasn’t “coming out of the closet” after years of consciously (or unconsciously) hiding; the desire to be a woman descended upon her suddenly, like “a tongue of fire or an infection,” as she writes in Females, and she acted on it with uncharacteristic speed. It was “easily the most impulsive thing I’ve ever done,” she says.

For Chu, the East Village is saturated with warm memories of that time, the kind you get when you fall in love. She takes me by the Buffalo Exchange where she sold off her men’s clothes. We linger in front of her old apartment where she first emerged into the world dressed in women’s clothing. She was headed to dinner with a friend that night, wearing a red mesh skirt and sleeveless cream turtleneck with vertical stripes. A group of people was sitting on the steps, and she braced herself for a reaction, but everyone just shifted slightly to let her pass. “It was the happiest I’ve ever been,” she says of the weeks after she transitioned. “It was like having a crush on myself.”

Linky.

Reading Andrea Long Chu feels a bit like being on the fault line of an earthquake—the ground is undeniably shifting. Her essay “On Liking Women” last year in n+1 kicked off what some have called the second wave of trans studies, challenging the born-this-way ethos of traditional trans identity narratives. Chu offers a daring alternative: What if gender is not a matter of “who one is, but of what one wants?” She suggests that “transition expresses not the truth of an identity but the force of a desire.”

She has since made a name for herself skewering books by Transparent’s Jill Soloway (“self-importance alone could never guarantee writing this atrocious”) and Bret Easton Ellis (a “deeply needless book”), but the mysterious demands of desire remain her most resonant and provocative theme. As she wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times about her desire for a vaginoplasty: “This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.”

I recently met with her in Washington Square Park to chat about her first book Females, which springs from an unsurprisingly audacious conceit: “Femaleness is not an anatomical or genetic characteristic of an organism, but rather a universal existential condition.” For Chu, “femaleness” is the urge to be a vessel for another’s desire. Gender in this conception is defined not only by the self, but also by the other—it is the expression of what someone else wants.

...

The personal essay is itself sort of a problem when it comes to transition narratives. The genre conventions of that form forced you as a trans person to be writing a certain kind of coming-out narrative. But my transition didn’t feel like coming out. It felt like just choosing to do something else. It’s not like coming out of the closet. It was just like walking from one room in your house to a different one, or maybe like moving into a new apartment. I hadn’t seen this narrative and it felt like it was a conversation that needed to be had. Now I get emails from people saying that they transitioned because of the essay.

...

I think that there really is a different model of gender here than the prevailing one in gender theory. For example, the claim in the book that gender is the expression of someone else’s sexuality, is to actually say what gender is, in a substantial way, as opposed to talking about gender variation. You have a whole bunch of scholarship that’s interested in how gender can change and how it is constructed. But those theories do not account for what makes gender gender, as opposed to something else.

I feel like your book is trying to answer the question of why we even have gender at all.

Right, what actually is it? People will tell us that sexuality is socially constructed, race is socially constructed, beauty. Most things are probably socially constructed. Even if that’s true, what is it? It belongs to a category of things called socially constructed things. That means the thing that makes it gender can’t be the fact that it’s socially constructed. There has to be something that differentiates it.

Gender performativity has been mainstreamed and made more or less interchangeable with social construction. It emphasizes gender’s habits and behaviors, so it does shed a little more light. But it still doesn’t really explain why gender is gender as opposed to something else.

I am asking for a different paradigm for gender studies generally and I think this new theory would have downstream benefits if taken as a new paradigm.

So what is gender to you now after all of this?

Gender is the expression of someone else’s sexuality.
Gender is a mechanism for getting the right people to desire you.

Exactly. And without that component, I don’t think you can make it make sense.

Linky.

Well, there you have it. The TRUE definition of female. You're welcome.

Ironically, the only critical review I read was from a trans writer (on Medium), who gives a lot more of Chu's whoppers:

She clarifies this by saying “female” is “any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another.”
This definition should give us pause. On a shallow reading, it stinks of misogyny. Why should that be the definition of a word linked to womanhood? It might be a historically significant descriptive definition but it’s definitely not a normative statement and definitely not one we should be making when doing modern feminist theory. On a deeper reading, it is a psychoanalytic attempt to make heady the idea that everyone is just as miserable existing as she is.

Chu says that when this psychic operation happens the “self is hollowed out, made into an incubator for an alien force.”

Is that it? That “females” are hollowed-out incubators? It doesn’t get her out of the accusation of misogyny to simply say “everyone” is hollowed out because she’s still making the fundamental association between this state-of-being-an-incubator with being female, a condition typically associated with womanhood. Making misogynistic claims about both men and women doesn’t negate their essential misogyny.

Chu says “femaleness…is always bad for you.” I don’t know about that. I would wager many females would disagree with that statement! And while yes, theorists are allowed to stipulate definitions of their terms, redefining them in new ways, it is impossible to take a term as widely known as “female” and simply redefine it according to misogynist stereotypes and apply it to everyone without dragging women into the mud. If we are doing normative theory, not historical analysis, then shouldn’t we be making more positive connotations for the word “female”? Perhaps she thinks that is too pedestrian.

...

“Autogynephilia describes not an obscure paraphilic affliction but rather the basic structure of all human sexuality. This is not just because everyone has an erotic image of themselves as female — they do — but the assimilation of any erotic image is, by nature, female. To be female is, in every case, to become what someone else wants. At bottom, everyone is a sissy.”

It’s almost as if Chu, when writing this book, thought to herself: what is the most absurd thing I could say about gender? And then wrote it down and tried to defend it. Not only is this statement giving credence to the harmful pseudoscience of autogynephilia, it’s wilfully creating an association between trans women and sissies in order to defend an abstract claim in gender theory that “everyone is female.”

Linky.

* You can read more about their surgical experience here:

That night, in bed at my apartment, I wept. I wailed, actually, the way mothers do in ancient manuscripts. My voice, which I have over several years trained myself to lift and smooth, grew raw; at a certain point, it broke, like a woman’s water, and something low and hoarse and full of legs crawled up my throat and out of my mouth. The truth was, I didn’t feel any more like a woman. I felt exactly the same. The pitiless beauty of the operation is that it’s all the same nerve endings, reclaimed like lumber from an old boat. This meant my vulva was alive, full of sensation, but it also meant that these sensations were the very ones I had gone under the knife to escape. The ship would always be Theseus’s, no matter how many parts I replaced. I guess I should have known this beforehand. I did, intellectually.

...

WOMEN EXPLAIN THINGS to me. They tell me that no woman feels good about herself; that no one’s actually good at makeup; that it’s very difficult for all women to find clothes that suit their body types; that everyone’s breasts are hung a little off; that everyone’s hormones are a little out of whack; that all women envy other women. They tell me that sex hurts; that orgasms are nothing special; that everyone was ugly in high school; that teenage girls don’t have the kind of slumber parties they appear to have in films, or when they do, they don’t paint their toenails, and if they did, the polish would stick to the bedsheets. They tell me that there is no universal experience of being a woman, except that no woman actually feels like a woman; they tell me that in fact, being a woman feels like nothing at all.

I think they think they are being kind. They aren’t, but that’s kindness for you. This is the germ of feminist consciousness, of course: women telling women that no one’s normal, no one gets it right. But my friends don’t know the cruelty of their confidence, the bladed irony of the implication that anyone who believes that being a woman is possible couldn’t possibly be a woman. They don’t know how much it hurts to watch the object of your desire broken into pieces just because you wanted it. There’s an old story about two women who come before Solomon the Wise, each claiming to be the mother of the same baby. When the king proposes cutting the baby in half, the first woman agrees, but the second woman, the true mother, pleads with him to give the baby to the first. She would rather lose the thing she loves than see it come to harm. I am the second woman. Maybe I will always be.

Cis women hate when trans women envy them, perhaps because they cannot imagine that they are in possession of anything worth envying. We have this, at least, in common: two kinds of women, with two kinds of self-loathing, locked in adjacent rooms, each pressing her ear up against the wall to listen for the other’s presence, fearing a rival but terrified to be alone. For my part, cousin: I don’t want what you have, I want the way in which you don’t have it. I don’t envy your plenitude; I envy your void. Now I’ve got the hole to prove it. I would give anything to hate myself the way you do, assuming it’s different from the way I hate myself — which, who knows. The thing about vaginas is you can never get a good look at them.

Linky.
 
Last edited:
Drat.

I've taken to not remaining logged in. There's an interesting quirk in the software that causes certain replies to be swallowed if you log in in the "wrong" sequence. As a result, you all have been spared a rather lengthy response that I prepared. I don't have the time or inclination to repeat it.

Let me make it much simpler.

Archie,

You are wrong, and I am tired of being informed that I'm dishonest.

I won't be continuing the conversation.
 
Well yes and no. Yes, it isn't 100% perfect, but no, most (almost all) people are not going to change their gender just on a whim. What it would certainly stop is this mythical beast who is a woman on a Tuesday at 11am just to get access to the women's locker room and then changes back to a man at 11.15.

If a man lives his life as a man, but for access to some rights that are generally only granted to women changes his gender legally to "woman", even though he is actually a cisman, he's not "changing back" to a man. He's legally always a woman, but by the way he lives his life he's a man except for those 15 minutes.

Why would the requirement to make that legal change stop him? The only way I can see if would is if there are some rights that are generally accessible only to men that he would be depriving himself of by making that legal change.
 
But you would be legally a woman. So you wouldn't for example be allowed to access male locker rooms in your example.
Do you think that would actually be a problem? A male entering a male locker room doesn't tend to have any issues of people wanting to check his legally defined gender.

If said person is married they may no longer be if the place they reside doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.
I could see that being an issue, but it won't be a problem where same-sex marriage is recognised. Even where it's not, it's not likely to be a problem for those who are already married.

I'm not denying that it's a possibility I just can't see it being a real concern especially given that there was a muchh larger incentive in the past - that you would receive retirement benefits 5 years earlier - and nobody bothered to do it. Or as you say that you could get car insurance cheaper.
The issue is that you're proposing changing the requirements for making that legal gender change. So you can't point to people not doing it under the old regime as evidence that they won't do it under a different set of rules.


No, the person would not be a transwoman because they would have committed an offence by falsely declaring this to be the case and would be liable to go to prison for up to 2 years. Which co-incidentally is also the maximum penalty for repeated offences of indecent exposure.
What evidence could, in principle, be brought to demonstrate that the declaration was false?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom