Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TurkeysGhost]

What's a GRC?

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=GRC+UK

 

[Elaedith]

Considering the context of the UK, making getting a GRC not a gauntlet of long wait times and red tape would probably be a good start, as well as getting access to trans affirming medical care through the NHS, both things that TERFs like the LGB alliance stand firmly against.

There's really not much difference between denying rights and delaying meaningful exercise of those rights for years on end, which is routinely how long it takes in the UK.

You are spouting nonsense. To qualify for the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' in the UK, you only need to be 'proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process or part of a process to change physiological or other attributes of sex'. This need not include medical transition. You are then protected against discrimination based on gender reassignment under the Equality Act. You do not need a GRC for this, nor do you need a GRC to change sex on most legal documents.

 

[Ziggurat]

Considering the context of the UK, making getting a GRC not a gauntlet of long wait times and red tape would probably be a good start, as well as getting access to trans affirming medical care through the NHS, both things that TERFs like the LGB alliance stand firmly against.

There's really not much difference between denying rights and delaying meaningful exercise of those rights for years on end, which is routinely how long it takes in the UK.

A GRC is supposedly a means to get access to trans rights. But if there aren't any trans rights you actually need a GRC to access, then why does it matter if you even have a GRC?

So again, what are these rights? The only one you really mention is "trans affirming medical care", and you don't need a GRC for that. But why is it a right to make other people pay for your elective medical procedures? And make no mistake, these are very much elective procedures.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, not like that. Do you deny that rights must never be balanced when in conflict, or that rights never come in conflict, or what?

But those are conflicting rights just like here, so why the flat refusal that they were handled wrongly by giving victory to one side instead of finding a compromise?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know that this thread is about trans rights,

By the title it is about the very existence of trans people and plenty of those here deny their basic existence.

 

[Paul2]

But those are conflicting rights just like here, so why the flat refusal that they were handled wrongly by giving victory to one side instead of finding a compromise?

Because the first step is to articulate the general principle agreed upon that will guide evaluating any particular instance.

 

[Paul2]

By the title it is about the very existence of trans people and plenty of those here deny their basic existence.

Of course, denying someone's existence cannot enter into any proper balance of one group's rights with another's/

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course, denying someone's existence cannot enter into any proper balance of one group's rights with another's/

Yet we have a whole thread going on multiple parts doing exactly that. They are really just like the gays going around demanding special privilege's.

 

[Ziggurat]

By the title it is about the very existence of trans people and plenty of those here deny their basic existence.

Yeah, no. That's about the stupidest interpretation of this thread yet. Nobody is denying anyone's existence. The question is, how should we describe that existence? Transwomen exist, obviously. Are transwomen women? Their existence doesn't dictate the answer to that question. Either answer will still recognize that transwomen are real people.

 

[Olmstead]

...

ETA: It makes tremendous difference how the system treats these people, be it getting access to trans specific medical care, anti-discrimination law, and the like. If it's all just delusion, there's no legal or even much ethical requirement to accommodate them.

That's an excellent argument for why it shouldn't be considered a delusion. It's a bad argument for why it isn't a delusion.

But I disagree with the last part. I don't think delusion is the right word, but if it's low-impact and can only be treated by accommodating it, why wouldn't there be a legal or ethical requirement for it?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's an excellent argument for why it shouldn't be considered treated like a delusion. It's a bad argument for why it isn't a delusion.

FTFY.

But I'd go further. It's not even a bad argument for why it isn't a delusion. ST isn't even trying to make an argument for why it isn't a delusion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"You have to think X=Y because if don't then other people who aren't you are going to treat the the Xs badly" is never a good argument.

 

[Louden Wilde]

By the title it is about the very existence of trans people and plenty of those here deny their basic existence.

False. We just differ on what these folks are. It's obvious they exist. But transwomen are males who identify with female stereotypes/prefer that presentation and/or have gender dysphoria. They are not females and are not oppressed on the basis of their sex (as females are).

 

[Elaedith]

Yeah, no. That's about the stupidest interpretation of this thread yet. Nobody is denying anyone's existence. The question is, how should we describe that existence? Transwomen exist, obviously. Are transwomen women? Their existence doesn't dictate the answer to that question. Either answer will still recognize that transwomen are real people.

No interpretation or understanding is required - it's a standard mantra always used to stifle dissent. You must believe in the tenets of postmodern queer theory, or else you are 'denying the existence of trans people' and probably doing literal violence.

L. Ron Hubbard would be seething with rage that he didn't think up something this good.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Anything to attack the sheilas.

All's fair in love and war, and the extreme pro-trans lobby has declared war on you.

You can look on the bright side; by their actions, that extreme group is winning you more supporters and turning people off trans-positive action.

Solely as a result of this thread I've moved my position from trans supportive to the extent I gave my time to their cause, right along the spectrum to: "They can piss off and I don't care if they're discriminated against."

The messed up thing about this situation is that the extreme activists are doing so much more harm to transgender people than anybody else is. We *do* need to give consideration to how we treat people with gender dysphoria, and we *do* need to try to make sure that psychological and medical services are available to them, and we *do* need to ensure that they aren't discriminated against on the basis of their presentation in employment, housing, and similar services.

But the self-id zealots are burning it all down in their dogmatic insistence on enshrining a fairly obviously flawed approach.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's begging the question that trans rights are in conflict with the rights of cis people (or more specifically cis women)

But if I were accept your more broad question, such conflicts must be settled treating these two groups as equal stakeholders. Clearly this is not the case here, where transphobes are fighting tooth and nail against even basic recognition as trans people as a class characteristic, such as attempting to maintain a status quo (or worsen it) that official state recognition is de-facto out of reach for most trans people in the UK, or that access to trans-affirming care is not available.

Forgive me if I don't take the TERF complaints at face value while they simultaneously deny the rights of trans people to even officially exist. They will not be happy until the law treats them as mentally diseased crossdressers.

This is false, and full of propaganda and lies.

No "TERF" has any desire to deny transgender people the right to exist. No "TERF" even wants to deny them the right to dress and present however they feel most comfortable. No "TERF" has any desire to deny legal recognition of transgender people.

Please stop ******* lying about this.

What reasonable people, including many females, object to is SELF-DECLARATION ALONE granting entitlements and special privileges to males, which simultaneously reduce the rights, safety, and dignity of females.

Of course, to be able to acknowledge this does require one to acknowledge that female humans have value, and merit rights in the first ******* place. Including the right to not be subjected to exhibitionism or voyeurism or rape compliments of the state effectively legalizing it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Considering the context of the UK, making getting a GRC not a gauntlet of long wait times and red tape would probably be a good start, as well as getting access to trans affirming medical care through the NHS, both things that TERFs like the LGB alliance stand firmly against.

No, this is again false. With respect to the GRC, the objection was to completely removing any requirement for a medical diagnosis and making it be on the basis of nothing more than self-declaration.

Shortening wait times for (responsible and appropriate) care, access to necessary medical care, and removing unnecessary barriers are something that LGBA as well as the vast majority of females *do* support.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's a GRC?

Gender Recognition Certificate, the acknowledgement of a change of legal sex. A GRC entitles the holder to be treated as their target sex in the vast majority of circumstances. For example, a GRC holder who ends up in prison will automatically be housed as their legal sex, they are entitled to access sex-segregated public services on the basis of their legal sex, and are granted legal protections against discrimination on the basis of their transgender status.

The GRC has been around for quite some time. It was initially put in place when gay people were still not allowed to marry, and it provided a legal means for two people of the same natal sex to get married. But it was fairly expensive. It also required a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria that couldn't be ameliorated through therapy, and required the person to have lived as their target sex for a minimum of two years.

The argument about the GRC stems from the relatively recent proposal to overhaul the process. The proposal greatly reduced the price of attaining a GRC (which was widely supported), and removed the requirement for any clinical diagnosis or treatment of any sort in favor of self-declaration of gender (which was strongly opposed especially by females), and reduced the wait time from two years to two (?) months (which really didn't make it into discussion in light of the objection to self-id).

 

[Emily's Cat]

No interpretation or understanding is required - it's a standard mantra always used to stifle dissent. You must believe in the tenets of postmodern queer theory, or else you are 'denying the existence of trans people' and probably doing literal violence.

L. Ron Hubbard would be seething with rage that he didn't think up something this good.

And Orwell is rolling in their grave that their cautionary tale has been used as a step-by-step guide.

 

[Elaedith]

Gender Recognition Certificate, the acknowledgement of a change of legal sex. A GRC entitles the holder to be treated as their target sex in the vast majority of circumstances. For example, a GRC holder who ends up in prison will automatically be housed as their legal sex, they are entitled to access sex-segregated public services on the basis of their legal sex, and are granted legal protections against discrimination on the basis of their transgender status.

The GRC has been around for quite some time. It was initially put in place when gay people were still not allowed to marry, and it provided a legal means for two people of the same natal sex to get married. But it was fairly expensive. It also required a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria that couldn't be ameliorated through therapy, and required the person to have lived as their target sex for a minimum of two years.

The argument about the GRC stems from the relatively recent proposal to overhaul the process. The proposal greatly reduced the price of attaining a GRC (which was widely supported), and removed the requirement for any clinical diagnosis or treatment of any sort in favor of self-declaration of gender (which was strongly opposed especially by females), and reduced the wait time from two years to two (?) months (which really didn't make it into discussion in light of the objection to self-id).

GRA and GRC are in a sense redundant since the reason they were introduced in 2004, as you say, was to allow couples where one had transitioned, but both had the same sex on their birth certificates, to marry when same-sex marriage was not legal. The same could have been achieved by making same-sex marriage legal which would have protected rights of gay people as well as transsexuals. Since then the Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, where this does not require medical transition (e.g. changing pronouns would qualify) and is based on self-declaration.

The only official purpose of a GRC as far as I'm aware is to create a legal fiction that somebody has actually changed sex by changing the sex marker on a birth certificate. It was assumed that this was acceptable because very few people would ever want to do this, and most of them would medically transition.

Some institutions such as prisons do distinguish between those with and those without a GRC, where those without can be refused access to a women's prison if they are evaluated as too high risk. It isn't clear that they are legally required to treat transwoman with a GRC as indistinct from those born female, but the problem is created since the birth certificate is the only official way to establish sex.