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

[Roboramma]

No, the judge cannot. Again, there is no standard. There is no grounds by which he can say it’s perjury.

I can imagine some situations, for instance if he went on Facebook and clicked "male", or wrote a blog that said "I am a man...". If he had separate self-ID as a man, that could be used as evidence that the self-ID as a woman was a lie.

But that's neither generally the case (not everyone makes public declarations of their gender)*, and the other day-to-day activities that he engages in don't implicitly make that declaration either. Even using the male locker room on occasion could be explained as that he's worried about transphobic reactions if he uses the woman's locker room.

So, aside from the above minor caveat, I'm also waiting for Archie's explanation of what evidence could be brought.

*ETA sometimes I jump ahead, I meant to also say that someone who had made that gender change might be motivated to explicitly avoid such public declarations. It wouldn't be that hard.

 

[Puppycow]

What the battle over a 7-year-old trans girl could mean for families nationwide

 

[kellyb]

What the battle over a 7-year-old trans girl could mean for families nationwide

I wish I had ideas on what sort of laws are best in cases like this, but I don't.

This is one of those trans issues where I'm glad I'm not a policy-maker, so I can just deem the whole thing "above my paygrade". I guess if I had to make the laws, I'd defer to the parent following this. This organization seems to be the authority on child psychology in the US:

https://www.aacap.org/aacap/familie...transgender-and-gender-diverse-youth-122.aspx

Research suggests that accepting a child's affirmed gender identity and expression can decrease the risk of future psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. There are many ways a parent can do this:

I'm not happy with the way they describe the meds people are starting to give kids now, though:

Medical transitioning refers to the use of medication to help their body better match their gender identity. Medications can pause some of the physical changes that happen with puberty. Surgical transitioning refers to the use of surgery to match one's body and gender identity. Surgery is not an option until late adolescence and adulthood.

I'm not sure what they should say, though, either.

 

[cullennz]

The kid is ******* 7. Wait a couple of years or 4

 

[Puppycow]

The kid is ******* 7. Wait a couple of years or 4

This isn't about giving the kid any drugs yet. It's about social transition.

I suggest reading the article in question before jumping to any conclusions or making any assumptions.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

You just don't understand what self-ID means then. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

No, the judge cannot. Again, there is no standard. There is no grounds by which he can say it’s perjury.

Again you don't understand what Self-ID means. The information is out there. It's not hard to find.

And yes the judge can. As with any statutory declaration. If the judge finds that you were dishonest it is a criminal offence.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Let's see if we can pull this out a little.

1. If he changes his gender to female just to access women's spaces and isn't really trans then he isn't legally a woman at all. He has perjured himself.
And could be jailed for 2 years for his troubles.

2. Take a practical situation. If he is a member of a gym and uses the female changing rooms he would no longer be able to access the male changing rooms.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

It would be if you are using the female facilities in the same place, or if it became known that you claim to be transgender to access the female facilities in other places. Which if the guy is a genuine perv then I'm pretty sure word would get around

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.

No it specifically is a problem. If you are married in Northern Ireland where same sex marriage hasn't been recognised and change your gender then you are legally no longer married. Equally if you had been in a homosexual civil partnership and changed your gender your civil partnership would have ended because they weren't allowed for heterosexual couples.

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, but equally we can't say they will. All we can do is look at places where Self-ID is already happening and see what has happened.

What evidence could, in principle, be brought to demonstrate that the declaration was false?

If you were caught perving or acting inappropriately in a locker room for example. Or someone pointing out that you use male facilities 99% of the time except for the female locker rooms on a Friday night. Or you might tell someone about it and they could make a statement against you.

If you just go about your business and never bother anyone you probably wouldn't get caught, but if you just go about your business and never bother anyone then what exactly is the problem?

 

[Belz...]

* You can read more about their surgical experience here:

What in the blue hell did that all even mean?

 

[Belz...]

You just don't understand what self-ID means then. That's your problem, not mine.

Again you don't understand what Self-ID means.

Well, you've certainly found a way to resolve the disagreement...

 

[Matthew Best]

I can help here:

Under current legislation, trans people are able to gain a “gender recognition certificate” by applying to a tribunal called the Gender Recognition Panel. This certificate gives legal recognition that a person has transitioned from female to male or male to female.

Someone applying for a certificate must provide two medical reports to the panel confirming their gender dysphoria. This is when a person feels “discomfort or distress because there’s a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity”. They must also provide evidence that they have been living as their gender for at least 2 years.

The new proposed GRA will remove the requirement to provide medical evidence to the panel, and instead people will have to make a declaration that they intend to live permanently as a man or a woman, and that they have already been living as their stated gender for three months. There will be a three-month “reflection period”, after which the certificate will be given.

From here: https://theferret.scot/gender-recognition-act-self-identification-fact-check/

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, you've certainly found a way to resolve the disagreement...

Well I am sorry but when people keep repeating the same things that are not true and make no attempt to educate themselves what else are you supposed to say?

Self-ID does not mean that verbally declaring to any random passerby that you are a woman means you are a woman. It doesn't. It really doesn't.

Self-ID means that the process to legally change your gender requires a legal statutory declaration that you are a transperson and wish to change your gender. I am trying (and failing) to find the specific text of this declaration currently. It would be a criminal offence to lie about it.

As the law currently stands, self-ID doesn't change anything with regards to accessing toilets or locker-rooms. This right already exists for transpeople.

And it doesn't change anything about being able to exclude transpeople from one-sex spaces - this right already exists where there is a legitimate need to do it.

And I am sorry but people saying 'yeah and if self-ID comes in any old perv will be able to say I am a woman and get access to locker-rooms to wank themselves silly into the tampon bins and quiz toddlers on their periods' is just talking out of their backsides. Simple as that.

 

[Belz...]

Well I am sorry but when people keep repeating the same things that are not true and make no attempt to educate themselves what else are you supposed to say?

Well, you could try doing what I do in my conversation with you: explain again.

Self-ID does not mean that verbally declaring to any random passerby that you are a woman means you are a woman. It doesn't. It really doesn't.

No one said it did. What they're saying is that self-identification is the only criterion. A doctor will sign the paper on that alone, and the government will not contest.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So pretty much:

"You can't just say 'I'm a woman' and make it true."
"I didn't say it, I declared it."
"Oh well that's different."

So now we're at a hairsplit between "claiming to be" and "identifying as" as if that makes any sense.

 

[kellyb]

Well I am sorry but when people keep repeating the same things that are not true and make no attempt to educate themselves what else are you supposed to say?

Self-ID does not mean that verbally declaring to any random passerby that you are a woman means you are a woman. It doesn't. It really doesn't.

Self-ID means that the process to legally change your gender requires a legal statutory declaration that you are a transperson and wish to change your gender. I am trying (and failing) to find the specific text of this declaration currently. It would be a criminal offence to lie about it.

As the law currently stands, self-ID doesn't change anything with regards to accessing toilets or locker-rooms. This right already exists for transpeople.

And it doesn't change anything about being able to exclude transpeople from one-sex spaces - this right already exists where there is a legitimate need to do it.
And I am sorry but people saying 'yeah and if self-ID comes in any old perv will be able to say I am a woman and get access to locker-rooms to wank themselves silly into the tampon bins and quiz toddlers on their periods' is just talking out of their backsides. Simple as that.

Can you elaborate on the highlighted part?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No one said it did. What they're saying is that self-identification is the only criterion. A doctor will sign the paper on that alone, and the government will not contest.

Yes, people did say that. Stop denying the obvious.

Let me try again from the basics.

1. Do you object to Self-ID
2. If yes, on what grounds?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Can you elaborate on the highlighted part?

Sure.

The law states that you have to give access to transwomen to all single-sex spaces. But it also allows for exemptions from this if you can provide a sufficient reason to be exempt. It doesn't spell out specifically what will be sufficient to get an exemption but it's things like health and safety or welfare of individuals.

I interpret more or less to mean that you would not be able to deny a transwoman access to a changing room just because people might feel uncomfortable, but you may well be able to say that our rape crisis centre doesn't accept transwomen.

The onus is on the people wanting the exception to show they need it though, and that there aren't better ways of achieving the same goal. And I think quite often there probably will be.

This is a pretty plain-language summary of the UK law.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/c...men-and-women-when-discrimination-is-allowed/

 

[Meadmaker]

Meanwhile, outside the UK...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So pretty much:

"You can't just say 'I'm a woman' and make it true."
"I didn't say it, I declared it."
"Oh well that's different."

So now we're at a hairsplit between "claiming to be" and "identifying as" as if that makes any sense.

No, it's the difference between 'just saying the words' and 'making a legal declaration to the government to a specific set of criteria under pain of jail if you are dishonest about it'

Sorry, if you can't see the difference between those things then I can't help you.

It's the functional equivalent of saying that telling the ticket guy at the cinema you are 18 to see an R-rated movie when you are 15 is no different from applying for a drivers license and claiming to be 18 when you are 15.

In both cases you are pretending to be 18 but the reality of the situations is quite different.