Hadley Freeman on Self ID of gender in The Guardian

Just catching up a bit, So we accept people physically /medically changing sex because a person feels they were born into the wrong gender body, but we are a bit bothered if people of either sex, decide to identify/ live as the opposite sex to which they are born? If so this says to me that there is an eliment of fear in some of us that somehow a gender change person may be of some threat to us, which obviously they are not. I think like anything else we as a collective always need a bit of time to readjust to each new norm.

Maizie, as our understanding of biology increases, so does our understanding of what constitutes male and female. Here's an article for you. But we're not all geneticists and making the debate overly scientific can make it intimidating.

www.scientificamerican.com/article/q-a-mixed-sex-biology

My understanding of this debate is that it's about people who were born male, they accept that they have male biology, have not transitioned in any way but wish to be legally recognised as women.

Actually Primrose65 it isn't just about that. At present trans-gender women have to endure physical examination in order to become legally a woman. Now of course many of them have had a lot of medical examinations whilst they were transitioning but some feel another examination is an unnecessary and intrusive procedure. They are therefore asking to be able to self identify. The other debate that some men will ask to be women without transitioning has now been brought up.How many men would actually do this is debatable.

Actually, Primrose, my question was very specifically about chromosomes as you seemed to be presenting chromosome evidence as an open and shut case.

Can people born with indeterminate genitalia have their gender identified by their chromosomes?

How many men would actually do this is debatable.

Thanks to squirrel I trawled through quite a long mumsnet thread yesterday about a man who seems to be doing just that. And being extremely vocal about it on twitter.

It's almost as if being 'trans' is some sort of fashion statement...

At present trans-gender women have to endure physical examination in order to become legally a woman.

So, to clarify, trisher. Am I right in interpreting this as trans people who want to self ID have actually gone through the 'change' process and just don't want another medical examination? Because that's what your post seems to imply.

I can’t help noticing the irony of physical/medical examinations being required if transgendering . Ugh I can only say Welcome literally to a woman’s world?

An article from a trans woman who doesn't think SI is the right way to go. She raises similar concerns to those voiced on this thread.

quillette.com/2018/03/30/plea-trans-activists-can-protect-trans-rights-without-denying-biology/

@SueDonim I’m so glad you said it first, as reading the thread after a day’s absence I’ve been c+p furiously and this:

I do think people who publish articles such as Hadley Freemen would be better off campaigning for proper representation in Parliament for women, or for better childcare, or for better pay and protection for women on zero hours contracts. The argument over what is a woman is something that really won't impact on most of our lives

made me a bit

If you can no longer define “woman” as “person with female reproductive biology” then no need for any of those pesky markers like the “gender pay gap” or “representation in Parliament for women” - in fact, Labour elect MtF trans women into all-women positions already!

what is a woman is something that really won't impact on most of our lives

Read that back again.

Then have a look again at the petition:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

Oh goodness - sorry GN! There are pages of debate I’ve missed

Catching up.

@trisher
At present trans-gender women have to endure physical examination in order to become legally a woman. Now of course many of them have had a lot of medical examinations whilst they were transitioning but some feel another examination is an unnecessary and intrusive procedure

I’m not sure you’ve understood correctly. Can you link your evidence for this “physical examination in order to become legally a woman”.

In order to obtain a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) a person must prove:

1) they have been living as their acquired gender for 2+ years and 2) have two medical opinions to support their transition.

If they’ve gone via a GP and a gender transition clinic, or had any form of medical intervention (hormones, surgery), then they will have access to these medical proofs.

This is the same for both men and women wishing to transition.

(Quick detour to remind you that any biological woman wanting an abortion must get 2 doctors to agree it is in her best interests...)

Once that’s in place and a GRC agreed, anyone can alter their birth certificate to be recognised as the “opposite” gender legally.

Self ID says do away with ANY medical opinion.

Which will redefine both ‘male’ and ‘female’ to self-identified feelings NOT measurable facts.

Men have privilege already - there’s a good reason the debate centres on the definition of ‘woman’ not ‘man’ and that’s because ‘women’ are a class protected under law in the Equalities Act because we are discriminated against stemming from biology.

Change the definition and the protection in law is meaningless.

trisher you really don’t seem to understand that the vast majority of men wanting to SI are completely intact males who fully intend to stay that way because you know, hey, being female is just a ‘feeling’

In the past such men( biological men with no chromosomal abnormalities) were called "cross dressers" or "trannies", now thats not acceptable , they have to be seen as "women", because they say so. No, being a woman is not about frilly clothes or make up, sorry, there is biology involved.

I don't mind being quoted but the satement was the argument over what is a woman is something which won't really impact on most of our lives
I think that this is a debate that isn't going to help any women live better lives. I know that there are arguments about men saying they are women and accessing women's services. But how many men are we talking about? They will be a rarity just as women who are violent towards other women are a rarity (but do exist). Both need to be dealt with and the petition is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Better by far to demand better funding for the services and better support for women who need it,
Gerrispringer sorry you are wrong. A man who chooses to 'cross-dress' does not necessarily identify as a woman. He just likes to wear what are considered women's clothes, sometimes regularly, sometimes occasionally. It is as far as I can see something that is a restriction placed on men and is historically an area where women have done better than men. My mother for example used to consider that trousers with a fly front were men's trousers and women shouldn't wear them, but now we all do. Cross dressers are usually happy to be men- Eddie Izzard for example.

Eddie Izzard isn't a cross-dresser. He claims to be transgender, with both girl and boy mode.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/bookmark/eddie-izzard-reflects-coming-as-transgender-why-caitlyn-jenner-is-a-role-model-1012926

Sorry I apologise to Eddie. I know he once described himself as transvestite but I suppose times and language have moved on. What I suppose I was trying to say was that actually it is OK sometimes to behave in ways that are not designated as acceptable for the gender you are usually defined as and that women have sometimes gained from this. They will for example wear appropriate clothing for riding a horse, which would once have been considered masculine, but we seem unable to allow men dresses and make up if they want. I think things will continue to change and in the future this whole argument about gender will seem so insignificant.

I think many people nowadays are happy to accept men wearing 'women's' clothing, a la Grayson Perry, or even just men wearing pink, men wearing jewellery etc.

What many people here on GN are saying is that men wearing pink or women's clothing does not make that man a woman.

What I suppose I was trying to say was that actually it is OK sometimes to behave in ways that are not designated as acceptable for the gender you are usually defined

I think you're failing to see a difference between people breaking cultural 'norms' and people asserting that they are not of the gender allocated to them at birth but who are not sufficiently convinced of it themselves to want to physically change.

They can wear whatever they flipping well choose but I wouldn't want Eddie Izzard or Grayson Perry in my communal changing room.

I'm not wrong sorry trisher some of the kind of men (NOT ALL) who would be happy dressing up in women clothes in the past and called cross-dressers, may feel they can now dress up and identify as women and use women spaces, participate in women sports and be spokespeople for women in general. Biological women are seen as transphobic if they criticise this trend. I don't care who wears what clothes but I do care if biological men feel they can call themselves women and speak for all women.

You see that's the difference Gerispringer there are men I share views and opinions with and women I have absolutely nothing in common with apart from my physical attributes (and even there there is considerable variation.) So I don't see how anyone can speak for all women whatever gender they are at birth.
And all this hot air about loos and changing rooms. I have used men's loos and I have been in the male changing rooms at the swimming pool (searching for a pair of lost underpants). I don't like communal changing rooms anyway. As Eddie Izzard says, just take out the urinals and there's no difference!

Changing room, loos etc in local swimming pool cafes etc seem ok to share with mixed /transgender sexes, where there are lots of people around but I think motorway loos , railway stations public city loos etc are a bit scary at the best of times.This could add another dimension for woman to be wary /scared about, Apologies if I haven’t worded this very well.

I am not worried about the loos and changing rooms - in theory (which is all we can say about it) men self-identifying as women and assaulting/spying on the occupants will probably be no more numerous than lesbian women doing the same, or than cheeky adolescent lads up for a dare and putting on makeup and wigs to infiltrate female domains.

But I would like to ask these blokes who self-identify as women (but who have retained their functioning male equipment) whether they are also taking any other steps to join their chosen gender? Taking female hormones, perhaps, and suppressing their production of testosterone?

Yes, I know that everyone has some hormones of each kind, but the first move for anyone wishing to move completely to the opposite gender is surely to change their hormone balance? That would involve medical assistance, and the most effective way of doing it would be to surgically prevent their body being supplied with testosterone - ie. by removing testes. Whether they did it via medication or by surgery, they would interface with a GP or consultant, and would have the necessary medical backing so not need to self-identify.

If they are not taking active steps to bring about a physical change, then how serious are they? Being a woman is not just in the mind, it is a physical reality with various manifestations, most of them driven by hormones (or for the pre-pubescent the expectation of those hormones, and for the post-menopausal, their cumulative effect.) Otherwise, they are just play-acting, pretending.

Perhaps those self-identifying are trying out the role before embarking on the reality? Maybe they will take it further, or maybe they will revert back? According to a consultation survey on a Review of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 by the Scottish Government, there would be a cooling-off period during which the applicant could cancel the application, and there would also be the opportunity to reverse the decision ONCE and once only after that cooling-off period was over. No chopping and changing!

This is a link to that consultation. consult.gov.scot/family-law/review-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004/ It has a lot of detail about the proposals, and about the different ways other countries have handled the issue. Worth reading (but too late to respond!)

After saying that I would not be worried about loos and changing rooms, I came across this YouTube video by Dr Nicola Williams on the consultation.

She makes some good points. One is that there is a possibility that children as young as 12 could be able to change their gender without consulting their parents.
Another is that a man going to prison, perhaps for sexual and/or violent offences could change his gender to female and serve his sentence in a women's prison among a captive audience (harem?) of vulnerable and man-less women (murderer Ian Huntley wanted to do this, and elsewhere a transgender prisoner, who still had a penis, in a women's prison had to be moved)

Transexuals deserve the right to live their livers in the gender they believe is theirs, but if self-identification legislation goes ahead, there should be safeguards and exceptions added so that everyone's rights and safety are protected - not just those of the self-idenifying transexuals.

Posted too soon - two corrections - The link for that YouTube video is www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2IUmC61nR0&feature=youtu.be and the right to live their livers should have been the right to live their lives

Agreed the rights and desires of transgender people should not trump the rights and desires of the majority who are happy with their biological gender.

@trisher
the petition is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut

I’m interested in this. How can a petition that just asks for women to be consulted on changes to the laws that affect them (by redefining the notion of ‘woman’) ever be ‘a sledgehammer to crack a nut’?

Asking/petitioning fur a consultation.

That’s all.

If, after all views heard in public and by elected officials and lawmakers, the powers that Be say it’s fine, we’ve considered all the ramifications and believe self ID is still warranted, then OK.

But not to sign a petition that just asks for a seat at the table seems odd to me.

Debate is good. That’s all the petition asks of a signatory.