Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[littlebabyjesus]

No one is proposing that though.

That is the current position. It's what Tara in this case faces, and others have faced.

The Home Office issued a statement saying exactly that. So I would say that anyone objecting to the idea of introducing flexibility into the system that acknowledges that legal status is an incomplete thing *is* proposing that.

 

[umop apisdn]

it does help if you quote the right person.

Where did I quote the wrong person?

 

[Pickman's model]

Where did I quote the wrong person?

you say you were replying to someone else but you quoted me

 

[Thora]

I'd say that, in the case of people who have not yet, or who have chosen not to surgically transition, evidence of the person's history of gendered identity, plus psychological evaluation on a case by case basis would weed out any 'chancers'.

What does history of gendered identity mean?

 

[killer b]

That is the current position. It's what Tara in this case faces, and others have faced.

The Home Office issued a statement saying exactly that. So I would say that anyone objecting to the idea of introducing flexibility into the system that acknowledges that legal status is an incomplete thing *is* proposing that.

Yeah, and it's inadequate - but the other methods of assessment proposed on the thread would also result in similar (if not so visibly acute) miscarriages. It's not as if people's lives (especially those ending up in the justice system) aren't messy and poorly documented.

Nobody is objecting to introducing flexibility into the system.

 

[spanglechick]

What does history of gendered identity mean?

That through conversations the person may have had with family/friends/employers/colleagues/partners/doctors/whoever, there may be evidence that the person has not felt cisgendered prior to the current situation. A history of choosing a non-cisgendered name, clothing choices and so on would lend weight to the case, though should not be the be all and end all.

 

[stethoscope]

What does history of gendered identity mean?

In a practical sense and as it stands, this is often the route trans people have to take:

It means many hours of someone going through their entire life history and specifically their personal issues where that persons relationship to their birth assigned gender/body has massively conflicted, to multiple doctors and psychiatrists. Then if someone passes the initial psych stuff, they get accepted on a care pathway where hormones are provided officially around 6-12 months into transition, but many have already self-medicated before that.

Either having entered a GIC (Gender Identity Clinic), or before they do so, a person renounces their previous name and identity and changes this through stat dec/deed poll, and then lives as their chosen/self-identified gender for at least 2 years (usually with work, etc. also providing supporting evidence of this being the case). After that, if that persons wants sex surgery, they then go through the entire life history stuff with another psychiatrist to get onward referrals.

Often trans people will have already transitioned socially before they enter a GIC - because if going through the NHS, the waiting lists can be around a further 2-3 years.

To get a birth certificate amended, as mentioned above, also requires all of this to be applied for through a process with the GRP (Gender Recognition Panel) where they review all of the history and whether to grant a GRC (which allows the new birth certificate to be made). This does not have requirements for someone to have had surgery but needs further documented evidence of all the above.

All in all, it's a pretty long set of hoops to jump through and which weeds out 'chancers', even if not failsafe.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Where did I quote the wrong person?

Not only did you quote the wrong person, you also cannot spell your own name properly. It should be
"umop episdn"

 

[Thora]

In a practical sense and as it stands, this is often the route trans people have to take:

It means many hours of someone going through their entire life history and specifically their personal issues where that persons relationship to their birth assigned gender/body has massively conflicted, to multiple doctors and psychiatrists. Then if someone passes the initial psych stuff, they get accepted on a care pathway where hormones are provided officially around 6-12 months into transition, but many have already self-medicated before that.

Either having entered a GIC (Gender Identity Clinic), or before they do so, a person renounces their previous name and identity and changes this through stat dec/deed poll, and then lives as their chosen/self-identified gender for at least 2 years (usually with work, etc. also providing supporting evidence of this being the case). After that, if that persons wants sex surgery, they then go through the entire life history stuff with another psychiatrist to get onward referrals.

To get a birth certificate amended, as mentioned above, also requires all of this to be applied for through a process with the GRP (Gender Recognition Panel) where they review all of the history and whether to grant a GRC (which allows the new birth certificate to be made). This does not have requirements for someone to have had surgery but needs further documented evidence of all the above.

All in all, it's a pretty long set of hoops to jump through and which weeds out 'chancers', even if not failsafe.

So is this the same as the current legal process?

 

[umop apisdn]

you say you were replying to someone else but you quoted me

So what?

 

[laptop]

Not only did you quote the wrong person, you also cannot spell your own name properly. It should be
"umop episdn"

* Hits AltGr - DownArrow *

No it shouldn't.

* Rapidly hits AltGr - UpArrow *

 

[stethoscope]

So is this the same as the current legal process?

Sorry, not sure what you're asking here tbh?

 

[Pickman's model]

So what?

it is easier and avoids confusion if your reply is aimed at the person you quote

 

[umop apisdn]

Not only did you quote the wrong person, you also cannot spell your own name properly. It should be
"umop episdn"

The 'a' in my name loosely resolves to an 'e' when turned upside down. In your version, my name would be 'upsida down', which is not what I'm intending.

 

[umop apisdn]

it is easier and avoids confusion if your reply is aimed at the person you quote

Which is why I attempted to clear up your confusion by multi-quoting in a previous reply.

 

[Thora]

Sorry, not sure what you're asking here tbh?

I thought the suggestion was that there should be new criteria different to the current legal criteria?

 

[Pickman's model]

Which is why I attempted to clear up your confusion by multi-quoting in a previous reply.

yeh. a quick apology instead of trying to worm your way out of it would have been better.

anyway back to those feminists who allegedly hate transgender people...

 

[Sirena]

it is easier and avoids confusion if your reply is aimed at the person you quote

I quoted Stethoscope and got someone saying 'Meh!' as the quote, when I wasn't answering to that word at all (nor can I find anywhere where Stetoscope said 'Meh!'), so I think there was a little hiccup on the boards.....

 

[stethoscope]

I thought the suggestion was that there should be new criteria different to the current legal criteria?

Sorry, not been following the thread particularly closely, I was just stating how it stands at the moment (the current practical and legal criteria) mainly in response to some of the stuff earlier about weeding out 'chancers'.

 

[Pickman's model]

I quoted Stethoscope and got someone saying 'Meh!' as the quote, when I wasn't answering to that word at all (nor can I find anywhere where Stetoscope said 'Meh!'), so I think there was a little hiccup on the boards.....

a little hiccup?

 

[stethoscope]

I quoted Stethoscope and got someone saying 'Meh!' as the quote, when I wasn't answering to that word at all (nor can I find anywhere where Stetoscope said 'Meh!'), so I think there was a little hiccup on the boards.....

Sorry, I edited my original post you quoted to 'Meh' (but reverted it back having seen you had done so) because I was losing the fucking will at one point on this thread

 

[hiccup]

a little hiccup?

I'm 5' 9", which I think you'll find makes me of average height in the UK.




OK, 5' 8.5"

 

[Thora]

I don't think it is as simple as saying genitals are irrelevant on this subject either, as clearly many women are wary of being in a vulnerable position with male bodied people - especially if that person had been convicted of violent crimes - and that's not penis bigotry but the result of life experience. Female bodied people are at risk of violence from male bodied people (and yes before anybody says it, I know not all men etc). So basically I do agree with those posters who have mentioned criteria for being accepted to a particular prison, but also see the point that other posters have made about people with penises not being housed in women's prisons. I wonder if both those positions could be considered exclusionary though?

 

[stethoscope]

.

 

[umop apisdn]

yeh. a quick apology instead of trying to worm your way out of it would have been better.

You're right. Really sorry.

 

[umop apisdn]

I don't think it is as simple as saying genitals are irrelevant on this subject either, as clearly many women are wary of being in a vulnerable position with male bodied people - especially if that person had been convicted of violent crimes - and that's not penis bigotry but the result of life experience. Female bodied people are at risk of violence from male bodied people (and yes before anybody says it, I know not all men etc). So basically I do agree with those posters who have mentioned criteria for being accepted to a particular prison, but also see the point that other posters have made about people with penises not being housed in women's prisons. I wonder if both those positions could be considered exclusionary though?

If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.

 

[Thora]

If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.

What ever her convictions she should still be kept safe too.

 

[umop apisdn]

What ever her convictions she should still be kept safe too.

Oh, I don't dispute that, but as I said up-thread somewhere I have more sympathy with her victims than with her -- rightly or wrongly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.

Yeah, totally. She'll be the hardest fuck there whatever prison she's sent to, what with her conviction for common assault.

 

[Pickman's model]

If her previous convictions are anything to go by, anyone is at risk from Tara Hudson.

you've not seen prisoner cell block h, have you.