Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

She holds the view (I think) that trans-women who are taking steps - HRT, with a view to having surgery - ought to be permitted to use women's facilities. So, it's back to "not on self-ID alone".

No she doesn't. Or to be more precise. She has expressed views which are not consistent with this being her position. She says people with penises shouldn't be in women's prisons for example.

It is you that has been restricting this to solely the law recently. There have also been had discussions in these four sub-threads about what might happen if the more vigorous trans-activists get their way. (I've spent the last few days reading all of 'em. )

Because the social discussion on this topic is about what the law should be and what if any changes should be allowed/not allowed. If you want to have a discussion about that in any sensible way then you need to understand what the law is and what implications those changes would have and what is currently allowed/not allowed.

Or we can just speculate on lies, misinformation, prejudices and anecdote if you prefer?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah, this is isn’t convincing.

I didn't expect it to be. Nothing will convince people who have already made their minds up and refuse to listen.

This is all so dumb.

That's exactly what I thought when I read your post too.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is she wrong? What are the accepted grounds on which a doctor can refuse such a certification? I have asked that question before, nobody seems to know.

If that's your opinion then it renders Self-ID meaningless anyway. Its incoherent to argue that changes in Self-ID laws must be opposed to protect women and also argue that the protection offered by not having Self-ID is worthless.

Ziggurat didn't express an opinion. Ziggurat asked a question. You didn't answer it.

 

[lionking]

No she doesn't. Or to be more precise. She has expressed views which are not consistent with this being her position. She says people with penises shouldn't be in women's prisons for example.



Because the social discussion on this topic is about what the law should be and what if any changes should be allowed/not allowed. If you want to have a discussion about that in any sensible way then you need to understand what the law is and what implications those changes would have and what is currently allowed/not allowed.

Or we can just speculate on lies, misinformation, prejudices and anecdote if you prefer?

Yup, it has morphed into a discussion of UK law only.

What a joke.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ziggurat didn't express an opinion. Ziggurat asked a question. You didn't answer it.

No, I didn't. I pointed out that it's an irrelevant question instead. I noticed you sidestepped that though.

Since it is by opinion that a medical opinion should not be a requirement for a GRC it is not my burden of proof to demonstrate what value the medical opinion is adding. You shouldask someone who thinks Self-ID is not sufficient such as.... well presumably yourself?

 

[Ziggurat]

If that's your opinion

As Meadmaker already pointed out, that's a question, not an opinion.

then it renders Self-ID meaningless anyway.

You seem to be rendering it meaningless pretty well on your own.

Its incoherent to argue that changes in Self-ID laws must be opposed to protect women and also argue that the protection offered by not having Self-ID is worthless.

I don't understand why you think this is connected in any way to what I posted.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I didn't. I pointed out that it's an irrelevant question instead.

No, you didn't point that out. If that was your intended message, you failed to convey it in a comprehensible manner.

But you're wrong. It's not meaningless. If doctors cannot deny a request for a legal gender change, then the requirement that they sign off on a gender change is meaningless paper pushing. So can they deny such a request? I honestly don't know the answer. But apparently, unlike you, I can at least recognize that the answer is important.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, I didn't. I pointed out that it's an irrelevant question instead. I noticed you sidestepped that though.

Since it is by opinion that a medical opinion should not be a requirement for a GRC it is not my burden of proof to demonstrate what value the medical opinion is adding. You shouldask someone who thinks Self-ID is not sufficient such as.... well presumably yourself?

I will echo Ziggurat's observation. If that was your intent, your words failed to convey that intent.

Now I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole where we dissect a series of posts so we can figure out whether or not someone actually said something. What has happened here is the very common phenomenon where people spend lots of time arguing about what people said or didn't say. Instead, I'll just express my opinion on the topic of self-declaration. (Note: I used that term instead of "self-id" so that there is no confusion about the specifics of the UK law. I am not talking about a UK law. I'm talking about a general concept.)

If a person who is a biological female declares herself to be a man, or a biological male declares himself to be a woman, that self-declaration should be utterly irrelevant for any legal purpose.

Any legal recognition of transgender status that would convey any sort of privilege, right, or treatment associated with the opposite sex has to be part of a process involving medical diagnosis and/or procedures, in which medical professionals exercise their professional judgement. The specifics are too complicated to deal with at this moment, but I'm willing to share my opinions if asked.

 

[abaddon]

Was the bathroom single occupancy?

Nope, two sinks, two urinals, two stalls.


And nobody cared. I and both my kids used it at various times. Nobody cared.

If one happened to meet someone of whatever gender, one politely greets and got on about one's necessary business. And nobody cared.

I stood at a urinal for obvious reasons and a woman emerged from a stall and said Hi. I said Hi back. Nobody cared.

She got on with her business and I got on with mine.

But some people get freaked out by this.

I have no idea why.

 

[Abooga]

If a person who is a biological female declares herself to be a man, or a biological male declares himself to be a woman, that self-declaration should be utterly irrelevant for any legal purpose.
.

I also think that it should be like that, otherwise one opens the way to possible abuses of the system. I just learned that here in Spain in some provinces you need a medical certificate and in some others, such as mine, a simple declaration is enough. Here, gaming the system, finding loopholes and cheating are a national sport, so I guess time will tell, but one would expect many gender changes to occur, specially now that Spanish law is openly sexist (favouring women). The new gender violence laws only apply for violence from men to women (as in gender, not sex), and men have lost the right to the pressumption of inoccence, for example, and a simple declaration of a woman in absence of any other evidence can send a man to prison. In the current situation, there would be nothing to lose for a man by changing his legal gender. You can even do it online, just filling some forms. If I were having marriage problems I´d consider it. (currently it seems to be quite common to accuse the husband of "gender violence" in order to obtain better divorce conditions. Women have nothing to lose by accusing, they obtain money, legal privileges etc. ). So changing one´s gender would be a neat way to game the (IMO in this case unjust) system.

 

[The Common Potato]

Because the social discussion on this topic is about what the law should be

No it isn't.

 

[abaddon]

There are unisex bathrooms everywhere, even in backward Australia. Did you not notice that the main debate when it comes to women's private places has focused on locker rooms, where "women" with penises can strut their stuff?

Well, I obviously had my plod out vigourously relieving myself while exchanging greetings with the woman in the post above going to the sinks right beside me.

Neither of us had a problem. Why do you?

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, I obviously had my plod out vigourously relieving myself while exchanging greetings with the woman in the post above going to the sinks right beside me.

Neither of us had a problem. Why do you?

Well, whatever people want in their local "boutique eatery" is just fine with me.

However, what some people want is a bathroom that is segregated by sex, and that's just fine with me as well. Presumably, those people would choose a different eatery than the one you chose.

 

[abaddon]

Well, whatever people want in their local "boutique eatery" is just fine with me.

However, what some people want is a bathroom that is segregated by sex, and that's just fine with me as well. Presumably, those people would choose a different eatery than the one you chose.

But what is the problem with it. Do you think I would forget to pee and grab the woman? Do you think she would lose her mind and grab my plod? What?

 

[theprestige]

What?

No.

What on earth led you to take that away from anything I'd written?

I like to have a clear boundary on the principle being discussed.

So.

Men in general are not entitled to use the women's restroom whenever they want. Under what circumstances do we make an exception?

- The corresponding men's room is out of order, and no nearby alternative exists?

- The line for the men's room is really long?

- The man says "I'm a woman"?

 

[theprestige]

Reality.

Not only is that not a specific policy, it doesn't even make sense.

 

[theprestige]

No, you didn't point that out. If that was your intended message, you failed to convey it in a comprehensible manner.

But you're wrong. It's not meaningless. If doctors cannot deny a request for a legal gender change, then the requirement that they sign off on a gender change is meaningless paper pushing. So can they deny such a request? I honestly don't know the answer. But apparently, unlike you, I can at least recognize that the answer is important.

I wouldn't say the paper-pushing is entirely meaningless. A state-endorsed document establishing that you have formally requested gender reassignment surgery shows a lot more dedication than an ad hoc assertion of gender identity.

Of course, this creates a "papers please" scenario at the point of access. I don't think this is what anybody really wants.

The paper-pushing also has meaning in a different way. It's regressive. The more bureaucratic effort someone has to put into getting their identity rubber-stamped, the more people are going to be priced out of the entitlement, so to speak. It ends up being like a poll tax.

Society is caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, we don't want transsexuals to have to carry documents and produce them on demand to justify their access to sex-segregated spaces. On the other hand, we don't want cismales to be able to gain access to sex-segregated spaces purely on the basis of ad hoc affirmations of identity.

I don't have any idea how to resolve this dilemma. It seems like most TRAs don't either.

 

[abaddon]

Not only is that not a specific policy, it doesn't even make sense.

Your claim now is that reality does not make sense. Hope that works out well for you.

 

[abaddon]

Was the bathroom single occupancy?

You have been answered. What say you now?

 

[TomB]

I wouldn't say the paper-pushing is entirely meaningless. A state-endorsed document establishing that you have formally requested gender reassignment surgery shows a lot more dedication than an ad hoc assertion of gender identity.

Of course, this creates a "papers please" scenario at the point of access. I don't think this is what anybody really wants.

The paper-pushing also has meaning in a different way. It's regressive. The more bureaucratic effort someone has to put into getting their identity rubber-stamped, the more people are going to be priced out of the entitlement, so to speak. It ends up being like a poll tax.

Society is caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, we don't want transsexuals to have to carry documents and produce them on demand to justify their access to sex-segregated spaces. On the other hand, we don't want cismales to be able to gain access to sex-segregated spaces purely on the basis of ad hoc affirmations of identity.

I don't have any idea how to resolve this dilemma. It seems like most TRAs don't either.

The way I see it, Some sort of official documentation in which gender is listed on an ID/Driver's License gives a trans-gender person a response if someone challenges their access.

If we are to have segregated spaces, there has to be some means of enforcing that segregation or they aren't really segregated. This means that the owners of that space need to be able to say "Hey, I don't think you are in the right space."

If the owner can't do that or if the owner has to accept the word of the person in question in response, then the only force of enforcement is the honor system. Unfortunately, not everyone is honorable. There are those who will break the trust.

Historically, it has been an honor system, but the owner of the space had the ability to eject people believed to be violating the honor system. I think it falls under trespassing rather than any law specifically about segregated spaces.

If access is a right based on self declaration the owner of the space can no longer use their own judgment, as attempting to invoke the trespassing law would be a rights violation. So in order to have a means of enforcement, there would have to be a means of verification. (It occurs to me that this opens the door to a new grifter scam.)

An ID is a way of providing verification. I can't think of another way to allow both the definition of access as a right and allow the removal of those who should not have access.

Another argument is that we don't need to enforce access, but that sounds more like an argument for unisex spaces to me.

I think people have pointed out that there are laws against bad behavior that would apply. But a lot of that comes down to one person's word vs. the other because, short of physical assault, the undesirable behaviors are in private areas with no physical evidence and few witnesses.

"They were peeping at me!"
"No, I wasn't!"
"Yes, you were!"
"Prove it!"

How do you resolve that? The accused could be doing wrong. Or not. The accuser could be a bigot making something up to harass. Or not.