A Woman's Place is Speaking Up in Wales

[ManchesterBeth]

so it can be assumed
it's not public
it's not a debate
does that mean it's just preaching to the converted? and self validation of certain held views?

yeh this is what this subset of conspiracy theory is about.

Really low standards on here. let me know if anything interesting crops up. I'm off.

 

[MochaSoul]

no - it stifles abuse and encourages productive and respectful debate.

And don't thank me - it was nothing to do with me or as far as i know, any woman who is transgender.

Given that using the "wrong" pronouns towards you is now cited as "abuse" I am skeptical of what may have gone on. Oh and my "thank you" was rhetorical.

 

[Sea Star]

Given that using the "wrong" pronouns towards you is now cited as "abuse" I am skeptical of what may have gone on. Oh and my "thank you" was rhetorical.

oh, i thought your thankyou was ironic. OK. A rhetorical thankyou. First time for everything!

Um, why don;t you think deliberately misgendering a trans woman who suffers from gender dysphoria and is possibly suffering severe depression, or is suicidal, isn't abuse? Asking for a friend.

Why - if you genuinely want a debate can't you just be polite and respectful? Would you misgender me?

 

[MochaSoul]

oh, i thought your thankyou was ironic. OK. A rhetorical thankyou. First time for everything!

Um, why don;t you think deliberately misgendering a trans woman who suffers from gender dysphoria and is possibly suffering severe depression, or is suicidal, isn't abuse? Asking for a friend.

Why - if you genuinely want a debate can't you just be polite and respectful? Would you misgender me?

Guess!

 

[Sea Star]

Guess!

consider that question rhetorical. I just hope i never meet you in real life.

 

[MochaSoul]

consider that question rhetorical. I just hope i never meet you in real life.

 

[spanglechick]

Whatevs

It strikes me that you aren't a very good advert for the non-inclusionary side. As soon as anyone attempts to engage you in intelligent or substantive debate, you demur. Meanwhile you have plenty of time and energy to argue the toss over tabloid-style hyperbole.

So, either you know you are out of your depth... or you know your argument is flawed.

 

[MochaSoul]

It strikes me that you aren't a very good advert for the non-inclusionary side. As soon as anyone attempts to engage you in intelligent or substantive debate, you demur. Meanwhile you have plenty of time and energy to argue the toss over tabloid-style hyperbole.

So, either you know you are out of your depth... or you know your argument is flawed.

This

I know your tactics now. Guess what. The thread about the woman who was attacked in Speaker's Corner was the thread that got me thinking hard. I quite like a good natter but you're among those who have taught me to choose well where to hold certain conversations. This thread ain't one of those places. It's much too important for that. On this side of the debate there are people like this and this whose fears include the erasure of their lived experience as well as their abhorrence for the misogyny rampant in the proposals, the way they are being implemented as well as the homophobia, especially the lesbophobia, inherent in the blurring of the sex and gender (twitter thread). I'm talking to them as well as women who are worried about the proposals for too many reasons to get to here.It's only now that some of these people are being heard and that is in large part due to the work of Woman's Place has been doing. Suffice to say that the persecution of transwomen like Miranda Yardley and the gift that keeps on giving that is Lily Madigan are doing an awful lot to peak trans the nation.

You can think whatever you want about me, accuse me of whatever, imply some more. I've been called a TERF in person and told to suck too many "lady dicks" online to care.

and whatevs

 

[kabbes]

This is a very interesting thread on the issue of self-id (self-id being the policy currently used as a tool to drum up hatred against trans people, specifically trans women, more widely):



I'll include it all below for those who don't want to scroll through on twitter:

--

The proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (2004) in order to allow trans people to self-identify, without the necessity for a medical diagnosis and two-years of treatment, has unsurprisingly been fodder for TERF trolls

But it also seems to have provoked a lot of anxiety among v. reasonable women who consider themselves allies to trans people, why?

Because, these people are worried that the proposed changes will mean that *anyone* could self-identify as “trans” and wander into women’s only spaces

So, here are some secrets (they’re not secret, this information is widely available, trans people are not hiding it from you) about being trans for cis people feeling concerned about the implications of this bill

1.We’re already allowed to use the spaces that align with our gender identity

The GRA is not the piece of law that protects a trans persons right to use spaces which align with their gender identity. That’s the Equality Act (2010). We've been here the whole time.

2. You do not need a Gender Recognition Certificate to be Trans*

In fact, a GRC is about the last thing any trans person will get as part of their transition. To get a GRC you have to have been “living in role” for 2 years, and be able to demonstrate this with official documentation, most commonly a name change.

What is “living in role”? Well, it’s bureaucracy speak for presenting in your preferred gender *to everyone*. That means not just coming out to a few friends, but changing your name by deed poll or statutory declaration, presenting full time in your preferred gender, etc.

So, that means, anyone obtaining a GRC will already have been known by their preferred name and pronouns for at least 2 years, they may also have been receiving medical treatment for that amount of time – sometimes longer

That’s right, you don’t necessarily need an official name change to begin medical intervention

So really, *and here’s the kicker*, to be a trans person in the UK, all you really have to do is *self-identify as trans*

Mostly, it goes a little bit like this: Me: I’m trans, I’ve been feeling this for a while and I’m finally ready to do something about it. Please refer me to a specialist. My GP: Okay.

*waits* *waits some more* GIC: So, you’re Trans* – tell me about your experience. Let’s check in in 6 months. *six months later* GIC: Still trans? Okay, if you want we’ll prescribe some hormones. Me: *starts hormones*

BUT, some trans people can’t or don’t want to take hormones, or receive medical interventions, that doesn’t make them any less trans, or make their gender identity any less valid.

Quick aside: I do wonder how cis people think trans people *become* trans if not by self-identifying. This isn’t Hogwarts, we don’t get picked out of a hat, or have a letter fall from the sky. My GRC didn’t just arrive in the post one day and then I sprouted a beard and was trans

For some people, myself included, it isn’t easy to get those official bits of paper the GRC needs you to have had for 2 years. Changing your name officially is very easy to do, but if you’re financially dependent on others, or have other things going on it can take a while

So many will have actually been “living in role” for a while before any of that official paperwork comes in, and may have started on treatment etc. too

Someone may have been taking hormones for several years before they get a GRC, where then do you draw the line and so, well you’re a *genuine* trans person?

3. The GRC doesn’t actually *do* very much.

It may have become apparent that I do not have a GRC, and I actually don’t need one to get by in my day-to-day life. I have a passport and driving licence both of which are in my preferred name and gender

You can apply for these as soon as your name change is official. To change the gender on your passport you also need a letter from your GP to confirm the change is likely to be permanent. Again, these are official documents you self-identify in order to get

The GRC itself really gets you very little. With a GRC you can apply to have your birth certificate changed. You also need it to change your gender with HMRC. Those are the only things I have not been able to change without a GRC

When was the last time anyone asked to see your birth certificate in daily life, let alone when you were trying to access a changing room or swim class? It doesn’t happen

It baffles me what people think they are asking for when they say trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s spaces. What is the test here? Are we going to have passport checks on the door?

Oh wait, I don’t need a GRC to get a passport.

The material difference this change will make to even trans peoples day-to-day existence is practically zero.

What it does make a difference to is the levels of bureaucracy, psychological stress, medicalization etc. we have to wade through, and time we have to wait, to bring all our paperwork into line and justify our existence.

4. Trans men exist.

I know its hard to believe that anyone would opt to be a man, I feel that way myself regularly, but it does happen

When cis women say they don’t want trans women in women's spaces – because the system might be abused, because they weren’t socialised along the same lines, etc. – I always wonder: does that mean they want me in there?

Or my bigger, hairier, more masculine trans brothers?

If the genitals maketh the gender then you are not just asking for trans women out, you are asking for trans men in, and in reality I don’t think that is what you want…

5. It’s much more dangerous for us than it is for you.

The first time I used the men’s room I was terrified: what if I was spotted? What if someone says something? What if I get hurt? The same fears exist for trans women.

According to Stonewall, over a third of trans people in the UK (41%) have been the victim of a hate crime in the last 12 months; more than a quarter have been the victim of domestic abuse; 1:4 have experienced homelessness.

Nearly half of all trans people (48%) avoid using public bathrooms for fear of harassment and discrimination. All these figures can be found in Stonewall’s comprehensive Trans Report

Entering a gendered space can be terrifying for a trans person, especially someone early in their transition. What they are doing is honest, and brave, and ultimately should not be a big deal. We all just want somewhere to pee.

6. Sexual harassment is illegal

That’s it really, this doesn’t need more explanation, changing the GRA will not change the fact that harassment is illegal.

--

The thing you have quoted is interesting and does it good job of explaining why self-identity is a reasonable basis for obtaining a GRC as things currently stand.

It’s not particularly relevant to the topic being raised in the OP’s event, though, unless it is a GRC that grants access to women-only spaces. They’re talking about individuals turning up to such spaces and requesting access based on self-indentifcation at the point of entry, which is nothing to do with name changes or a two-year history of living as a woman. (Unless your proposal is indeed that a GRC be shown in order to grant access to the space for those with male bodies?)

I don’t have an opinion, particularly, on the answer to that issue. I can understand why it is an issue that those most affected by it needs proper discussion, though.

 

[spanglechick]

The thing you have quoted is interesting and does it good job of explaining why self-identity is a reasonable basis for obtaining a GRC as things currently stand.

It’s not particularly relevant to the topic being raised in the OP’s event, though, unless it is a GRC that grants access to women-only spaces. They’re talking about individuals turning up to such spaces and requesting access based on self-indentifcation at the point of entry, which is nothing to do with name changes or a two-year history of living as a woman. (Unless your proposal is indeed that a GRC be shown in order to grant access to the space for those with male bodies?)

I don’t have an opinion, particularly, on the answer to that issue. I can understand why it is an issue that those most affected by it needs proper discussion, though.

Isn't the point that trans people have been accessing spaces based on nothing more than their own say so for generations? And that the current fears (triggered by the law change) that this is going to begin to be a problem are therefore unfounded.

 

[Sea Star]

The thing you have quoted is interesting and does it good job of explaining why self-identity is a reasonable basis for obtaining a GRC as things currently stand.

It’s not particularly relevant to the topic being raised in the OP’s event, though, unless it is a GRC that grants access to women-only spaces. They’re talking about individuals turning up to such spaces and requesting access based on self-indentifcation at the point of entry, which is nothing to do with name changes or a two-year history of living as a woman. (Unless your proposal is indeed that a GRC be shown in order to grant access to the space for those with male bodies?)

I don’t have an opinion, particularly, on the answer to that issue. I can understand why it is an issue that those most affected by it needs proper discussion, though.

None of this is part of the proposed changes though. What you are describing here is never going to happen. It would be happening now if that was the case because the only change that self id is going to bring is demedicalisation of the GRC process. It will still be a legal process. Therefore quite a commitment for anyone, with legal consequences for anyone who misuses the process. And to be clear, trans women with GRC's can still be excluded from certain women only spaces, and are, because these things are often judged on a case by case basis. There is no over arching right for trans women to access things like shelters and refuges. And right now, there are no laws that govern use of spaces such as toilets and changing rooms except in the workplace where trans people do have the right to access gender appropriate changing rooms and toilets, etc. But if this was ever abused the person could be prosecuted and sacked, or just have their access privileges withdrawn.

Trans people themselves tend to be extremely cautious when it comes to using such facilities. I stick to the disabled toilets as much as possible and after 6 months I'm still too scared to use the locker/ changing rooms to have a shower.

And that's because I know that if one woman raises a concern about my presence there I could be at risk of losing my job.

The proposed changes to the GRA will not affect this in the least.

 

[Red Cat]

Really? You think paraphrasing your talks to schoolchildren as 'suck dick, get tits early' is irreverent and funny? Ok. Regarding the study, I will read it.

This is the evidence base page on the Tavistock GIDS website. I don't think it mentions this study, although I haven't checked, but I don't think that study on its own makes much difference to anything really, as would be the case in any other area of mental health care, it's a small study in a highly complex and contested field.

Evidence base | GIDS

It's clear about the limits of our knowledge and the complexity involved and I don't see any unequivocal statements about a particular course of action being the right one.

 

[Athos]

And to be clear, trans women with GRC's can still be excluded from certain women only spaces, and are, because these things are often judged on a case by case basis. There is no over arching right for trans women to access things like shelters and refuges.

And is that something you support?

Because it seems that some of women's unease about the proposed change comes not from its immediate consequences but the fact that it's another step along the road to removing those sex-based exemptions (which is what the select committee proposed, having chosen not to hear live evidence from those women who raised concerns).

 

[Sea Star]

This is the evidence base page on the Tavistock GIDS website. I don't think it mentions this study, although I haven't checked, but I don't think that study on its own makes much difference to anything really, as would be the case in any other area of mental health care, it's a small study in a highly complex and contested field.

Evidence base | GIDS

It's clear about the limits of our knowledge and the complexity involved and I don't see any unequivocal statements about a particular course of action being the right one.

I don't know why you're holding that website up as the font of all knowledge about trans. Actually, there is clear best practice and good science to beck it up.

And this isn't primarily a mental health issue.

This is a much better site for up to date scientific information about trans

Gender Analysis

 

[Sea Star]

And is that something you support?

Because it seems that some of women's unease about the proposed change comes not from its immediate consequences but the fact that it's another step along the road to removing those sex-based exemptions (which is what the select committee proposed, having chosen not to hear live evidence from those women who raised concerns).

Have you not read posts by all the women who are very much at ease with the proposed changes?

Try actually listening to all women and not the just the ones who agree with you.

 

[Athos]

Have you not read posts by all the women who are very much at ease with the proposed changes?

Try actually listening to all women and not the just the ones who agree with you.

I know many are happy with it (which is why I referred to "some women's unease"). Good for them: as it happens, I think it would better more were. But we can't wish away the fact that quite a few aren't. In part, for the reason I suggested i.e. that this seems like a move towards the end of the sex-based exemptions. Can you give an honest answer about where you stand on that, please? Should they be preserved, or abolished?

 

[Red Cat]

I don't know why you're holding that website up as the font of all knowledge about trans. Actually, there is clear best practice and good science to beck it up.

And this isn't primarily a mental health issue.

This is a much better site for up to date scientific information about trans

Gender Analysis

I didn't say that it was the font of all knowledge. But it is the most specialist service for trans young people in the UK.

It is often a mental health issue in that many trans children and young people are in mental distress. The Tavistock recognises that trans young people are not always in distress and also that distress can be caused by bullying and other forms of abuse rather than the experience of being trans itself. However, suicidality is a mental health issue. whether it has an internal or external cause. And while young people are accessing help via mental health services, then it is an issue for those services.

There isn't clear best practice for young people.

 

[Sea Star]

I know many are happy with it (which is why I referred to "some women's unease"). Good for them: as it happens, I think it would better more were. But we can't wish away the fact that quite a few aren't. In part, for the reason I suggested i.e. that this seems like a move towards the end of the sex-based exemptions. Can you give an honest answer about where you stand on that, please? Should they be preserved, or abolished?

This is outside the scope of this thread. This thread is about the proposed changes, and I'm going to stick to that, not, yet again, some hypothetical end point that will never happen. Sex based exemptions are never going to end, but why do you think they should apply to trans people? Do you think we're a threat to cis women?

 

[Sea Star]

I didn't say that it was the font of all knowledge. But it is the most specialist service for trans young people in the UK.

It is often a mental health issue in that many trans children and young people are in mental distress. The Tavistock recognises that trans young people are not always in distress and also that distress can be caused by bullying and other forms of abuse rather than the experience of being trans itself. However, suicidality is a mental health issue. whether it has an internal or external cause. And while young people are accessing help via mental health services, then it is an issue for those services.

There isn't clear best practice for young people.

Why do you think there isn't clear best practice for children?

 

[Athos]

This is outside the scope of this thread. This thread is about the proposed changes, and I'm going to stick to that, not, yet again, some hypothetical end point that will never happen. Sex based exemptions are never going to end, but why do you think they should apply to trans people? Do you think we're a threat to cis women?

Come on, that's a cop out. The issue of the potential real-world knock-on effect of the proposed changes to the GRA to the sex-based exceptions of the Equality Act is very much the subject of this thread. In fact, it's explicitly addressed in one of the organisers' numbered points. It's not some fantastical hypothetical point - it's what the select committee proposed. I think you're being a bit disingenuous to duck it.

No, I don't thinks the evidence supports the assertion that trans women in shelters etc. are a threat to the other women there. Which is why I'm broadly pro-inclusion (though I don't think it's really a decision for me as a man). But I do think there's a risk that some men would exploit the abolition of the sex-based exemptions, and so I would favour them continuing for use in exceptional circumstances.

Why can't you be honest and say that you'd like to see those protections removed? That's a perfectly legitimate position, if you feel the harm to trans women of them remaining outweighs the harm to cis women of them being abolished. But unless and until there's an honest and frank discussion about it, it's just more of the same.

 

[Red Cat]

Why do you think there isn't clear best practice for children?

I don't think there is clear best practice because of the psychological complexity, distress, co-morbidity, whatever you want to call it that is commonly felt by trans young people, which makes it an issue for mental health services, in which there is debate, as with anything else in that field. And as described on the Tavi website. I understand you think this service medicalises something that isn't a medical issue, but I think the Tavi describe well the issues. AFAIK each young person will be worked with as an individual, practice guided by the needs of the young person.

If you say its not a mental health issue in itself but also that all psychological distress is caused by others attitudes then I'm guessing best practice may appear to be clearer. My experience working with young people in distress is that it is never clear, in that cause is always complex.

 

[Sea Star]

Come on, that's a cop out. The issue of the potential real-world knock-on effect of the proposed changes to the GRA to the sex-based exceptions of the Equality Act is very much the subject of this thread. In fact, it's explicitly addressed in one of the organisers' numbered points. It's not some fantastical hypothetical point - it's what the select committee proposed. I think you're being a bit disingenuous to duck it.

No, I don't thinks the evidence supports the assertion that trans women in shelters etc. are a threat to the other women there. Which is why I'm broadly pro-inclusion (though I don't think it's really a decision for me as a man). But I do think there's a risk that some men would exploit the abolition of the sex-based exemptions, and so I would favour them continuing for use in exceptional circumstances.

Why can't you be honest and say that you'd like to see those protections removed? That's a perfectly legitimate position, if you feel the harm to trans women of them remaining outweighs the harm to cis women of them being abolished. But unless and until there's an honest and frank discussion about it, it's just more of the same.

let's not put words in each other's mouths, eh?

 

[kabbes]

Isn't the point that trans people have been accessing spaces based on nothing more than their own say so for generations? And that the current fears (triggered by the law change) that this is going to begin to be a problem are therefore unfounded.

That’s definitely a point worth making, but it’s also true that once public attention focuses on something, the potential for people identifying that thing as a target for misuse increases exponentially. The exposure shift makes historic data analysis less credible as a guide to future experience.

 

[Sea Star]

I don't think there is clear best practice because of the psychological complexity, distress, co-morbidity, whatever you want to call it that is commonly felt by trans young people, which makes it an issue for mental health services, in which there is debate, as with anything else in that field. And as described on the Tavi website. I understand you think this service medicalises something that isn't a medical issue, but I think the Tavi describe well the issues. AFAIK each young person will be worked with as an individual, practice guided by the needs of the young person.

If you say its not a mental health issue in itself but also that all psychological distress is caused by others attitudes then I'm guessing best practice may appear to be clearer. My experience working with young people in distress is that it is never clear, in that cause is always complex.

it's probably easy to reject best practice if you keep disregarding the latest research, as you seem to be doing.

 

[Athos]

let's not put words in each other's mouths, eh?

Ok. In your own words, then, do you favour the retention or abolition of the sex-based exceptions?

Because it's a bit disingenous for the people who are telling women not to worry about the proposed changes to the GRA because they'll still have the protection of the sex-based exemptions to the Equality Act, to be the same people who are trying to see those exemptions abolished!

 

[Red Cat]

it's probably easy to reject best practice if you keep disregarding the latest research, as you seem to be doing.

You seem determined to make every communication with me adversarial. I am not interested in talking to you any further.

 

[shygirl]

Come on, that's a cop out. The issue of the potential real-world knock-on effect of the proposed changes to the GRA to the sex-based exceptions of the Equality Act is very much the subject of this thread. In fact, it's explicitly addressed in one of the organisers' numbered points. It's not some hypothetical point. I think you're being a bit disingenuous to duck it.

No, I don't thinks the evidence supports the assertion that trans women in shelters etc. are a threat to the other women there. Which is why I'm broadly pro-inclusion (though I don't think it's really a decision for me as a man). But I do think there's a risk that some men would exploit the abolition of the sex-based exemptions, and so I would favour them continuing for use in exceptional circumstances.

Why can't you be honest and say that you'd like to see those protections removed? That's a perfectly legitimate position, if you feel the harm to trans women of them remaining outweighs the harm to cis women of them being abolished. But unless and until there's an honest and frank discussion about it, it's just more of the same.

I really appreciate the points you make. I'm aware that you won't necessarily share my views, but it surprises me that you use the term 'cis'. We don't have a choice about the sex we're born into. Neither, at the moment, do we have a choice about the 'gender' and all the stereo-types that go along with it imposed upon us by dint of our sex at birth. We are socialised, even brain-washed into the social construct that is gender which we were assigned at birth due to our sex. There's no choice involved, so why assume that women on the whole are comfortable with it? I'm really pissed off at the impact that having gender imposed on me as a baby has had on my life. Really pissed off, and not in the least bit comfortable with it. I hate too that the use of 'cis' implies that we are a subset of woman. It's a term that I totally reject.

 

[Athos]

I really appreciate the points you make. I'm aware that you won't necessarily share my views, but it surprises me that you use the term 'cis'. We don't have a choice about the sex we're born into. Neither, at the moment, do we have a choice about the 'gender' and all the stereo-types that go along with it imposed upon us by dint of our sex at birth. We are socialised, even brain-washed into the social construct that is gender which we were assigned at birth due to our sex. There's no choice involved, so why assume that women on the whole are comfortable with it? I'm really pissed off at the impact that having gender imposed on me as a baby has had on my life. Really pissed off, and not in the least bit comfortable with it. I hate too that the use of 'cis' implies that we are a subset of woman. It's a term that I totally reject.

I understand that some people (of which you're one) don't like, and I would not use it towards them. But, in more general discussion, it's a convenient way to make the distinction (though I accept that it's imperfect, even for that purpose, since there are people who are neither cis nor trans).

 

[spanglechick]

And is that something you support?

Because it seems that some of women's unease about the proposed change comes not from its immediate consequences but the fact that it's another step along the road to removing those sex-based exemptions (which is what the select committee proposed, having chosen not to hear live evidence from those women who raised concerns).

I know many are happy with it (which is why I referred to "some women's unease"). Good for them: as it happens, I think it would better more were. But we can't wish away the fact that quite a few aren't. In part, for the reason I suggested i.e. that this seems like a move towards the end of the sex-based exemptions. Can you give an honest answer about where you stand on that, please? Should they be preserved, or abolished?

No. you wrote "some of women's unease" i.e.: some of the unease felt by women. Not the unease felt by some women.

People would respect you more if you acknowledge that you have an agenda which (as it does with everyone) occasionally clouds your accuracy and objectivity.

Instead of barefaced lying about what you wrote.

 

[spanglechick]

I really appreciate the points you make. I'm aware that you won't necessarily share my views, but it surprises me that you use the term 'cis'. We don't have a choice about the sex we're born into. Neither, at the moment, do we have a choice about the 'gender' and all the stereo-types that go along with it imposed upon us by dint of our sex at birth. We are socialised, even brain-washed into the social construct that is gender which we were assigned at birth due to our sex. There's no choice involved, so why assume that women on the whole are comfortable with it? I'm really pissed off at the impact that having gender imposed on me as a baby has had on my life. Really pissed off, and not in the least bit comfortable with it. I hate too that the use of 'cis' implies that we are a subset of woman. It's a term that I totally reject.

What term do you tolerate, when needing to clearly specify that you are only talking about people who were assigned female at birth and who are also not now trans men.

Because names are necessary. I sometimes have to refer to myself in broader terms than just "human" or "woman"... and some of those are not entirely accurate ("white" being one example). However it's the best fit because (a) I'm not black or brown, and (b) to label every person to the precise shade of their skin combined with the nuances of their heritage is a level of specificity that is - in almost every context - going to be actively unhelpful.