Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Darat]

I know you said that, but I don't understand how you come to that conclusion based on what you posted. What am I missing?

It's me that made a mistake about the second route. In the document there is this:

No requirement for gender reassignment surgery

It is not a requirement for an applicant to have undergone gender reassignment surgery or hormone treatment, although many applicants do so. Legal recognition has no bearing on access to medical treatment.27

I thought that applied to both routes, i.e the one with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the one without - it appears immediately after the second route, but does only apply to the first route.

So I'd say that needs to be reformed.

It's bad faith to condition a civil right on a process that everyone knows is not meaningfully available. If the NHS isn't funded enough to provide this care, then it should not be made a necessary precondition to receiving recognition until such time that problem is resolved.

The guidelines were put in place by the last non-Tory government at a time when the NHS was being funded adequately to provide treatments people required in a reasonable time period. There was no bad faith when this legislation was being proposed and passed.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's me that made a mistake about the second route. In the document there is this:



I thought that applied to both routes, i.e the one with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the one without - it appears immediately after the second route, but does only apply to the first route.

So I'd say that needs to be reformed.


The guidelines were put in place by the last non-Tory government at a time when the NHS was being funded adequately to provide treatments people required in a reasonable time period. There was no bad faith when this legislation was being proposed and passed.

Sure, so it's bad faith by the Tories, who at least have to be aware that gutting NHS funding would have this effect. Even if it's more of an unintended consequence, they surely must be aware of it and not making other changes to the law is a sign of implicit agreement with that consequence.

Cutting the legs out of gender recognition indirectly is probably a bit easier PR than directly repealing the law (at least for the time being, who knows what the future might hold for TERF island), but it has very similar effects.

 

[Ziggurat]

Cite an example of an individual in the class mammalia that in the natural course of events, cannot be classed as either being of male sex or female sex, according to the accepted scientific/biological definition of the sexes

1. The female sex, capable of producing large gametes (ovules)

2. The male sex, capable of producing small gametes (spermatozoa)

In other words, an example of a mammal that is a third biological sex.

Mixed sex chimeras are possible in mammals, and could be described as both male and female, but not a third sex. But that's very much an edge case, and really not part of the transgender debate.

 

[Darat]

Sure, so it's bad faith by the Tories, who at least have to be aware that gutting NHS funding would have this effect. Even if it's more of an unintended consequence, they surely must be aware of it and not making other changes to the law is a sign of implicit agreement with that consequence.

Cutting the legs out of gender recognition indirectly is probably a bit easier PR than directly repealing the law (at least for the time being, who knows what the future might hold for TERF island), but it has very similar effects.

If you think the Tories cut NHS funding to cut the legs out from trans folk receiving adequate healthcare, then you are very much ignorant about UK politics.

In the UK the Tories are ideologically opposed to the NHSs, there were even before they were set up! They are trying to damage the NHSs so they can be completely disbanded. It has nothing to do with wanting to reduce treatments for trans folk.

 

[Elaedith]

Was thinking about the bigger picture in the UK and certainly with our current government the protest against "self-id" has been successful. I'd have said a few years ago that we were on a path that was leading to self-id, I can't see that now happening.

Do people have the same objections to (for example) toilet usage by someone who has got a valid GRC in the UK?

How could anyone tell whether a person who appears male and wants to enter a female space has a GRC? They aren't going to wear it around their neck. As long as some males have the right to access female spaces, and there is no way to know who they are, women lose the right to challenge any male in a female space.

In addition, if sex in the Equality Act means biological sex (as debated on Monday), then having a GRC would not automatically entitled anyone to access spaces according to legal sex.

The whole GRA is a mess and needs to be re-thought from scratch with a clear understanding of what it's supposed to do. It was originally brought in to allow transsexuals to marry somebody of the same biological sex when same-sex marriage was illegal. That no longer applies.

The other reason often given is to allow the sex marker on documents to be changed to align with identified gender ,and to avoid people who have transitioned having to 'out' themselves when showing ID. However, most documents can now be changed without a GRC. An exception is a birth certificate, but this is rarely used for ID and there is an argument that it should not normally be possible to change this when there is nothing objectively incorrect in the original information. If a birth certificate is needed for ID, it should be possible to get around this by having some type of two-part certificate, one with a sex marker that can only be used for very limited purposes where knowledge of biological sex is needed (such as medical procedures or by the police when somebody is convicted of an offence), and another with no sex marker that can be used for other ID purposes.

A GRC is not needed for somebody to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and be protected from discrimination in employment, housing etc.

The reason activists pushed so hard for self-ID IMO (apart from needing something to do to justify their status and funding) were largely ideological (sex should be based on feeling rather than objective criteria) and to create uncertainty (as described, where people no longer feel secure segregating anything by sex or objecting to males in female spaces). In addition, changing the birth certificate means that even if the law technically allows segregation based on sex, authorities are faced with a situation where somebody can produce a birth certificate with a sex marker that apparently shows biological sex and they would be then required to prove it isn't. Prisons are an example, where a GRC seems to determine whether or not somebody gets transferred or assessed on a case-by-case basis even though it is not clear that this is legally required.

In my view they need to go back to the start and ask what purposes the GRC is supposed to serve now, then see if there is a way to provide these functions without causing problems for others.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How could anyone tell whether a person who appears male and wants to enter a female space has a GRC? They aren't going to wear it around their neck. As long as some males have the right to access female spaces, and there is no way to know who they are, women lose the right to challenge any male in a female space.

I imagine a lack of GRC would become known in any criminal investigation should any predatory acts occurred, like voyeurism or assault. Of course, that would largely be a secondary issue compared to the more serious crime that might have occurred.

But yeah, you won't be able to know if the person has a GRC or not if they are just using the restroom as a restroom. I fail to see the problem here.

People really should not be so confident in their ability to accurately detect gender and definitely should not be challenging strangers in public about it.

 

[Aber]

Do people have the same objections to (for example) toilet usage by someone who has got a valid GRC in the UK?

Huge difference in numbers between selfID and GRC.

Annual number of GRCs issued is below 500; cumulative total c 7k.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-applications-and-outcomes/gender-recognition-certificate-applications-and-outcomes

 

[Hercules56]

Thousands of years from now, aliens unearth a coffin of a transgender woman.

They look at the skeleton, and determine the skeleton was that of a human male.

 

[mumblethrax]

Cite an example of an individual in the class mammalia that in the natural course of events, cannot be classed as either being of male sex or female sex, according to the accepted scientific/biological definition of the sexes

1. The female sex, capable of producing large gametes (ovules)

2. The male sex, capable of producing small gametes (spermatozoa)

In other words, an example of a mammal that is a third biological sex.

An individual with XX/XY chimerism, two ovotestes, and ambiguous external genitalia.

I don't think this establishes the existence of a "third biological sex" in mammals. That doesn't follow from the idea that there are genuinely ambiguous cases.

This will be ignored.

Will it, now.

I’m simply staggered that some people in this thread deny this fundamental biological reality.

You are denying biological reality. People in this thread are acting like economists, rather than biologists--preferring the model to the empiricals.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wonder how you imagine you can classify individuals as male or female without relying on something that is "not sex".

Crazy idea... how about you classify people by by relying on SEX?

Seriously, this is like saying you can't imagine how somebody classifies individuals as dogs or cats without relying on something that is "not species". We don't. We rely on species, not something else.

It turns out that in 99.999999999999% of cases, species is pretty easy to determine from visual cues, so it's not difficult. And in the exceedingly rare cases that it is difficult for some reason, we don't rely solely on visual cues.

 

[mumblethrax]

Crazy idea... how about you classify people by by relying on SEX?

How do you intend to do that without relying on inferences made from the results or drivers of sexual determination, which, as you have defined things, are "not sex"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why would that be better? You may feel it to be more accurate, but it's not more persuasive. How is the distinction you're drawing anything more than pedantry?

It's also not more accurate at all. Sex IS binary. There is no in-between sex. There are in-between sexual characteristics in some few cases, but sex itself is has no in-between.

There may be a handful of people who are genuinely androgynous looking (as opposed to putting a lot of effort into developing the facsimile of androgyny)... but that's only how they look, not how they are. The absolute most androgynous looking person you can imagine is still going to be either male or female. They're not going to actually for realsies be something in between.

 

[Trausti]

Crazy idea... how about you classify people by by relying on SEX?

It's a miracle how our species didn't go extinct long ago given the difficulty in determing sex by visual cues.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Most obviously it's better by virtue of being true rather than false.

Except that it is NOT true.

 

[d4m10n]

Where should a trans man (who, for the sake of argument, has had affirming surgical and medical treatment) change to use the public swimming pool - if the only options are "men's" "women's" and "disabled"?

I don't think very many cisgender men are going to object to someone passable like Buck Angel or even Eliot Page changing in the men's locker room. We tend to make a point of not "cockgazing" in such spaces, as a matter of propriety, and usually wouldn't even notice the difference.

That said, newer spaces really should have standalone units for people who are worried they will be clocked as transsexual once the towels come off.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That said, newer spaces really should have standalone units for people who are worried they will be clocked as transsexual once the towels come off.

Seems likely to me that any standalone units would be popular with plenty of cis people who have interest in personal privacy or modesty unrelated to the existence of trans people.

US bathroom design is a real mess and I don't really understand why people accept it other than it's just the way it's always been. It's common for bathroom stalls to be made with large gaps at the edges where people can see into the stall. Truly terrible.

 

[mumblethrax]

Except that it is NOT true.

It is.

 

[d4m10n]

Being allowed to pick which sports categories you get to play in isn't a right its a privalge

It isn't even afforded to competitors as a privilege most of the time. Heavyweights cannot just decide to fight bantamweights, division "D" bodybuilders don't get to flex on division "C" competitors, athletes 21 & over don't get to play in U-20 leagues, etc.

 

[d4m10n]

Seems likely to me that any standalone units would be popular with plenty of cis people who have interest in personal privacy or modesty unrelated to the existence of trans people.

Yes, I linked to my own personal favorite changing room above. If new builds in the Bible Belt can do this, every place should be able to follow along despite whatever culture war brouhaha is raging around the multiuser spaces.

 

[Myriad]

Where I predict the changing-room controversy will end up, years from now, in progressive states, is that anyone who self-identifies as a woman will be permitted to use the woman's changing room, but that most venues will have policies against any display of visible penises or representations thereof (prosthetics, strap-on toys, tattoos, inflatable novelties, etc.) in that room. That rule will apply to everyone using that room.

"But that's illegal gender-identity discrimination!"

"How? Having a penis has nothing to do with gender identity, unless you want to call into question the whole basis of gender self-identification."

"Well, then, it's sex discrimination."

"Yes it is, but that's explicitly permitted by law in this case which is why there are sex-specific changing rooms in the first place."

"Well, um, maybe we can sue to require having a penis being considered a disability?"

This doesn't give relief to those objecting to their own biologically female bits being seen by biological males. A combination of changing attitudes and increased privacy measures (which don't necessarily have to go all the way to completely enclosed private booths to be at least partially effective) might suffice there.