The Gender Recognition Act

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
comrade_emma's picture
comrade_emma
Offline
Joined: 16-09-17
Dec 8 2017 17:40

But what is the argument that says that a man would have it easier to commit violence against women? Men assault women without a problem, even with their "M", because we are living under patriarchy. Men can do all sorts of shit against women without facing consequences or facing barely any consequences at all. Attacking rape culture is not done by attacking trans people who don't want to be forced to prove their "transness" to a panel.

It's pretty much just the "a man in a dress"-trope.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 8 2017 22:27
Common Sense wrote:
The arguments regarding the GRA have often been described as cis against trans. Whilst I accept that a very small minority may hold those extreme views, my understanding is that the main concern is that the GRA in its present proposed form would simply mean that violent men would have much easier access to commit violence.

How will the GRA give violent men easier access to commit violence against women?

Quote:
In the UK only, two women are killed each week by violent men, so this is not an argument to dismiss.

if in the UK zero women were killed each week by violent men, but then the UK introduced the GRA, then two women a week started being killed, then potentially there would be an argument that could be made. But I have absolutely no idea on what basis you are arguing there is any relation between letting trans people self-identify, and men murdering their partners, so if you could explain that would be great.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Dec 8 2017 23:08

It’s quite clearly paranoid nonsense. Violent men with intentions to harm or kill women already have plenty of opportunity to do so, without the hassle of pretending to be trans in order to access the opportunity to attack women in changing rooms. It’s completely ridiculous to deny people the dignity to be able to self identify or use a public toilet on these spurious grounds.

Given that these small concessions to trans people are already standard in many places outside the uk, without any such nonsense spouted by opponents to the GRA happening, I imagine there actually has to be another agenda there, unless they are living in a total fantasy land.

Common Sense
Offline
Joined: 8-12-17
Dec 9 2017 17:53

wow you are a vicious bunch! thank you for all your kind words...
i only registered here because of the above quotes by Pyrrha and Steven: firstly as i explained in my previous post i think that Pyrhha's explanation above is very one-sided and i wanted to put forward another explanation which is what you asked for and which no one has offered here so far (could be because you clearly excluded everyone else with a different opinion from this thread).

Secondly, I am really alarmed that Steven says that:

Quote:
any opposition to this has to be based pretty much entirely on bigotry and prejudice

So, I'd like to leave the GRA aside for a second, and talk about violence against women. I'm very careful to not see this as a cis vs trans argument, especially given that trans people alongside women are the main targets of violent men.

Women, and feminists in particular, have fought for over 40 years to create a system of protection against violence, which has resulted in various bits of legislation (that someone had quoted previously on this thread), a network of refuges and the system of self help networks. Feminist theory of violence against women is based on gendered nature of violence as a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women.

Historically all this was based around the categories of Male and Female. Yes, patriarchy is still rampant, but the system of protection that exists has achieved some reduction in the number of murders and abuse. Additionally, the system of self help means that women can get safe support from women in similar situations that enables them to escape the violence and build and live lives free of violence.

Now, no doubt that the GRA would mean great things for trans people, but the side effect of it is that it might also allow violent men another avenue into women's safe spaces. Feminists, women working, fighting and suffering violence are concerned about possible effects of GRA - again, not because trans people are seen as potential abusers but because the existing system of protection might become meaningless - and there is nothing to replace it. This simply may be the biggest blow to everything that feminists have achieved and painfully built over the last 40 years.

I think that it is possible to build a third position in this argument which doesn't throw neither the trans rights nor the women's rights under the bus. But for that to happen, we need to be able to have an open and respectful discussion on the issues, however difficult and painful they may be.

In reply to your points:

comrade_emma:

Quote:
But what is the argument that says that a man would have it easier to commit violence against women? ... Attacking rape culture is not done by attacking trans people who don't want to be forced to prove their "transness" to a panel. It's pretty much just the "a man in a dress"-trope.

The thing with self identification is that violent men won't even need to wear a dress to get to safe spaces - they would simply need to identify themselves as a woman to legally gain access to those spaces. (If anything, having to wear a dress probably puts patriarchal men off going down this avenue). And as I said before - i'm very careful to not attack trans people, nor have i said anything about a man in a dress - so don't put words in my mouth.

Steven. asks:

Quote:
How will the GRA give violent men easier access to commit violence against women?

My answer is that i don't know but i would like to be able to discuss this without being called a bigot. If GRA won't give violent men additional ability to access to commit violence, surely that would be easy to prove. Why shout then and call people names?

Steven. again:

Quote:
if in the UK zero women were killed each week by violent men, but then the UK introduced the GRA, then two women a week started being killed, then potentially there would be an argument that could be made. But I have absolutely no idea on what basis you are arguing there is any relation between letting trans people self-identify, and men murdering their partners, so if you could explain that would be great.

GRA will allow anyone to self identify, not just trans people. If two women are killed every week at the moment, given how rampant the violence is, it is not unreasonable to assume that violence will increase if there is a tiniest possibility that violent men might abuse the system of self identification granted by the GRA. Surely we should all do everything in our power to prevent any more deaths now, not wait to see if more bodies pile up and then start discussions . The minimum we can do now is keep existing protection intact, and that involves taking into account the voices of those who express concern.

Fleur:

Quote:
It’s quite clearly paranoid nonsense.

As a survivor of sexual violence and from experience of being an activist and working against violence against women for a long time, yes, I am scared at the thought of possible implications of the abuse of the system of self identification by violent men (not trans folk). I have been told many times in my life that I was paranoid, this is a very common misogynist label used to discredit women's experiences.

Anyway - apologies for the long post...

comrade_emma's picture
comrade_emma
Offline
Joined: 16-09-17
Dec 9 2017 18:47
Quote:
And as I said before - i'm very careful to not attack trans people, nor have i said anything about a man in a dress - so don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth, or at least didn't mean to, I just felt that the type of argument falls under that trope.

Is there any evidence that any other country with self-identification has had these issues? No doubt that men will continue to commit violence against women and non-men but I don't think that men will go to those lengths to commit violence when they are already pretty much exempt from actually facing punishment anyway.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Dec 9 2017 19:21

Common Sense:

Vicious? I prefer vehemence, in response to reactionary and prejudiced ideas.
Kind words? Nobody here has said anything unkind against you, just disagreed with your position.

As you have said, you don't know in what way the GRA act will give violent men access to women, then your argument against it for this reason are on somewhat shaky ground.

As a feminist of 50 years old, I am well aware of the history of and the current situation of violence against women. I do not need a lesson, most people who identify as feminists are not only aware of the theory but they have lived the reality too. I am also away of the spectre of violence against women being employed as a tool in misogynistic and reactionary ways by non feminists. So many things have been used or advocated on the grounds that it "protects women." Women have been excluded from spaces and situations so often "for their own protection" so when people seek to exclude a particular sub-set of women, in this case trans women, I want to examine this further.

Where trans people are allowed to self-identify as trans, like where I live, violent cis men have not been using this as a loophole to attack women. Show me the evidence where this has happened. The UK has hardly been a trail-blazer in trans rights, so point me in the direction of places where this is a problem? This is not particularly a hypothetical, there are real life places where the provisions of the GRA are law. If you don't know what the consequences of the GRA will be, as you admit, why don't you research what they are elsewhere?

As a survivor of sexual and physical violence from men, I am also a little wary at times of cis men. I am also utterly fucking furious about people using the trauma and psychological damaged experienced by survivors as a means of legitimizing abusive and prejudiced behaviour against marginalized people. In exactly the same way I felt outraged as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, during the bathroom panic which was a major issue surrounding homophobia during the Clause 28 period, the arguments that allowing gay men into spaces where children might be found, put the kids at risk of sexual assault, I am outraged at the argument that allowing trans women into women's spaces endangers us. It's just a bullshit argument and I'm too fucking old to be bothered with bullshit these days. My bullshit meter broke from over use a couple of years back and I can't be dealing with it any more.

Also, as I am embracing my grumpy middle ages, I have less and less sympathy for people who are stuck in moribund theory from the past, such as the sort of radical feminism which excludes trans women. You learn from the past, you don't stay there. It's the form of feminism which formed the basis of my feminism in my youth but like everything else, you take what is good from something and leave the bad things behind and there's a lot of trash in radfem theory. Also in my dotage, I've known enough trans people, across the spectrum, to know at least a little bit about how much of a struggle being trans in this society. I'm sure as damn not wanting to contribute to that in the name of feminism.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 9 2017 19:45

Just a warning that this is a long post, as it is responding to a long post from "common sense"

Common Sense wrote:
(could be because you clearly excluded everyone else with a different opinion from this thread).

We actually haven't excluded anyone. Anyone is free to register on this site. I started this thread specifically because a transphobe who was commenting elsewhere falsely claimed that libcom forbids all discussion of the GRA, so I specifically started this thread to give its critics a platform. However no one apart from you has bothered to contribute.

Now going to your post, you make some comments about violence against women, which of course is deplorable, but then in order to try to relate this in some way to the GRA what you say is this:

Quote:

Now, no doubt that the GRA would mean great things for trans people, but the side effect of it is that it might also allow violent men another avenue into women's safe spaces.

Now this is perhaps one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Is this really the only basis people have for apparently genuinely opposing people being able to declare their own gender without state inspections of an individual's genitalia and mental health?

Are you really trying to argue that if people are able to self identify as women, violent wife beaters are going to register themselves as women, then go to a women's refuge, where of course presenting their new driving licence with the gender "female" the refuge workers will have to let them in (because apparently in your view women's refuges have to permit all women to enter at all times), then they will have to be allowed to access individual women's rooms to then start attacking people?

Seriously you not realise how completely preposterous that is?

Apart from the fact that the idea of it is clearly nonsense, but countries like Denmark and India already allow people to self identify their own gender, and this just does not happen. So if you are trying to argue this is a legitimate reason to force trans people through demeaning and oppressive approval regimes, then you are just wrong.

If you do think there is some legitimacy to your argument then please do provide us with some links to studies which demonstrate all these instances of violence against women by trans women in countries which allow self identification.

Quote:
Feminists, women working, fighting and suffering violence are concerned about possible effects of GRA - again, not because trans people are seen as potential abusers but because the existing system of protection might become meaningless - and there is nothing to replace it.

Again what on earth are you talking about? Are you still talking about women's shelters?

As I kind of went over in my comment above, women's shelters approve individual's rights to reside in them. They do not grant free access to all women to access at any time. So why would this need to be replaced?

I would bet you money that in the countries which allow people to self-identify genders, not one single abusive man has declared himself female and then been given the right to stay in a women's shelter where he has then attacked anyone. Although from what you are saying:

Quote:
This simply may be the biggest blow to everything that feminists have achieved and painfully built over the last 40 years.

it seems like you are implying that this must be happening in Denmark every day of the week now they allow trans people to transition freely.

Quote:
I think that it is possible to build a third position in this argument which doesn't throw neither the trans rights nor the women's rights under the bus. But for that to happen, we need to be able to have an open and respectful discussion on the issues, however difficult and painful they may be.

We are having an open discussion. So please do let us know what your "third position" is?

Quote:
comrade_emma:
Quote:
But what is the argument that says that a man would have it easier to commit violence against women? ... Attacking rape culture is not done by attacking trans people who don't want to be forced to prove their "transness" to a panel. It's pretty much just the "a man in a dress"-trope.

The thing with self identification is that violent men won't even need to wear a dress to get to safe spaces - they would simply need to identify themselves as a woman to legally gain access to those spaces.

This is complete nonsense. Firstly it's not like they would just have to get to the door and say "I'm a woman", they would legally have to register to change their gender, get new passports, driving licences etc.

Secondly it's rubbish because all women do not have legal rights to enter women's refuges: which are private property. Owners of private property have the right to admit entry to whomever they please on whatever basis they please.

Quote:
Steven. asks:
Quote:
How will the GRA give violent men easier access to commit violence against women?

My answer is that i don't know but i would like to be able to discuss this without being called a bigot.

Some people would like to be able to discuss if we are letting too many immigrants in without being called bigots. What's your point?

You seem to be avoiding giving your actual opinion. So can I ask, do you think trans people should be forced to undergo state sanctioned inspections and psychiatric assessments in order to live in the gender they identify as?

Quote:
If GRA won't give violent men additional ability to access to commit violence, surely that would be easy to prove.

And it is, by the fact that some countries already let people self identify, and this doesn't happen. However you seem to be completely ignoring this fact. Conversely, if self-identification did allow violent men access to women to attack, then this would easily be provable with statistical data from countries with self identification. So talk of self identification in enabling violent men free access to women is clearly bogus.

Quote:
Why shout then and call people names?

who's shouting? We are talking on internet discussion board. In terms of calling people names, are you really asking that question? Do you not ever use words like "bigot" to describe people who are racist or fascist or homophobic or anything? If so then I guess bully for you but I do sometimes, and there is nothing wrong with that. And transphobes are no different from any other type of bigot, although I guess the difference is that many transphobes see themselves as otherwise "progressive" (like sexist socialists used to do, or racist union activists for example), and so get all upset about it. But I'm not really bothered about upsetting bigots.

Quote:

GRA will allow anyone to self identify, not just trans people. If two women are killed every week at the moment, given how rampant the violence is, it is not unreasonable to assume that violence will increase if there is a tiniest possibility that violent men might abuse the system of self identification granted by the GRA.

And there we have it, the rump of your argument. Sorry but that's amazing. You have absolutely no evidence for something. And yet you say that on the basis of a fear of something completely hypothetical, which there is absolutely no evidence to support (and which there is plenty of evidence to contradict), you should have a state sanctioned regime of discrimination against trans people, which contributes to a situation where over 40% of trans people attempt suicide.

That argument is actually even worse than those racists who say that we shouldn't let in refugees or Muslims because they rape and assault women. At least there are plenty of documented cases of rape and assault of women by refugees and Muslims, whereas there are zero cases of violent men identifying themselves as women, entering women's shelters and attacking people.

Do you see any logical difference between those two arguments?

Quote:
Surely we should all do everything in our power to prevent any more deaths now, not wait to see if more bodies pile up and then start discussions .

Before I answer that, can you tell me how many deaths have resulted from men accessing women's "safe spaces" in Denmark after declaring themselves women?

Now how about we compare that number (spoiler alert, it is zero) with the number of trans people who have died over the same period, either from the violence of bigots, or from suicide caused largely by internalising the bigotry of society? (Around 100 trans people are murdered every year, I can't find stats on suicides offhand but it's a lot)

Why is it you think the lives of hypothetical people (who won't die) are worth more than those of real trans people who are dying?

Quote:
The minimum we can do now is keep existing protection intact, and that involves taking into account the voices of those who express concern.

Do you think that the voices of racists who think we should keep out immigrants as they are a threat to women should be taken into account?

If not, then what's the difference?

And again what you mean by "keep existing protection intact"? If you mean that we should keep women's shelters, then you are completely right. However that means you need to oppose the government slashing their funding and closing them down. It doesn't mean you should oppose the government forcibly inspecting people's genitalia.

I think is quite telling that above you say that the GRA is the "biggest blow" in the last 40 years to feminists. Whereas the government cutting a quarter of women's shelters funding, and welfare cuts leaving two thirds of women's shelters at risk of closure, with thousands of women and children needing support being turned away is just fine I guess. The danger of a hypothetical violent man declaring themselves a woman to get into a shelter is so much worse than them being closed down and starved of funding…

Quote:
Fleur:
Quote:
It’s quite clearly paranoid nonsense.

I have been told many times in my life that I was paranoid, this is a very common misogynist label used to discredit women's experiences.

Sorry this is bullshit. Paranoia is an unjustified, irrational fear of others. So that is a completely accurate description of someone who supports state discrimination against a marginalised group on the basis of a fear of something completely preposterous with no basis in evidence or fact.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 9 2017 21:04
Common Sense wrote:
]Now, no doubt that the GRA would mean great things for trans people, but the side effect of it is that it might also allow violent men another avenue into women's safe spaces. Feminists, women working, fighting and suffering violence are concerned about possible effects of GRA - again, not because trans people are seen as potential abusers but because the existing system of protection might become meaningless - and there is nothing to replace it. This simply may be the biggest blow to everything that feminists have achieved and painfully built over the last 40 years.

So something that would definitely help trans people is bad because it might endanger women (a formulation that excludes transwomen from being women) even though this is far from likely and probably not credible?
It doesn't mean that a violent man can walk up to a women's shelter say "I'm a chick let me in so I can hurt people, it's the law" and everyone inside would have to open the doors and sit there and watch it happen.
I am not too knowledgeable so if this is incorrect then feel free to correct me.
Women's shelters don't often publish their addresses so abusers can't find them.
Women going into these shelters don't usually know exactly where they are going beforehand because they get evaluated by the service and then taken to the shelter, you can't call up and say you'd like to go to the same shelter as a specific person. So in theory an abuser could declare themselves to be a woman, then claim to have been abused and contact services in the hope of being sent to the same shelter as the person they were abusing. Now obviously an abuser can and will lie, but it would be extremely difficult.
When women go into shelters now, I think abusers simply use pressure on family/friends, if there are children going to the school or just abusing visitation rights to find women and abuse them in most cases, and those avenues would still be wide open and a lot easier to walk down than declaring as a woman and then pretending to have been abused in the hope of being sent to the same shelter.
But not allowing trans women into shelters until the government has deemed them sufficiently female will mean there is literally nowhere for them to go and they will be at the mercy of abusers.

Again, it's posisble that an abuser of women facing a jail sentence might declare himself a woman to avoid the dangers of male prison and to be able to attack women in prison. I don't have too much faith in the prison service, but I do think that they would probably spot this one a mile off. And women can also organise to defend themselves, abusers don't face groups and self-identify, they isolate and control. So while we shouldn't let men into women-only spaces that doesn't mean that if one gets in with intent to abuse that he will be allowed to do so. So while I wouldn't put it past some reactionary scumbag to allow an abuser to declare as a woman to enter a women's prison I also like to think that when the guards found what was left of him so-one would have seen anything.
I'm going to stop because I feel like I'm rambling a little. Obviously noone here wants to allow patriarchal violence to continue and we should be able to discuss it, but there are limits to what we can consider.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 9 2017 22:42

Jef, already if cis women are considered a risk to other women they can be put in men's prisons to protect women inmates. So that whole argument is completely bogus.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 10 2017 10:58

There are plenty of sexual violence services in the UK that are already trans inclusive - see for example Rape Crisis Scotland's guidance here: https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/publications/single-sex-service-trans-guidance.pdf

So not only are people framing this as an attack on women's services ignoring funding withdrawals and closures, but they're also ignoring that those services are already voluntarily doing the thing that is apparently so dangerous. Because the actual services in question recognise the high rates of sexual violence against trans women and are trying to deal with that, instead of hypotheticals invented to incite a moral panic.

Pyrrha
Offline
Joined: 20-03-16
Dec 10 2017 11:39
Common Sense wrote:
wow you are a vicious bunch! thank you for all your kind words...
i only registered here because of the above quotes by Pyrrha and Steven: firstly as i explained in my previous post i think that Pyrhha's explanation above is very one-sided and i wanted to put forward another explanation

Lol, but your argument is the 3rd rationale i mentioned in my post: changes to the GRA will be abused by cis men. The only difference is i dont believe it and you made it obvious you lack an evidence base to reach the conclusion.

Quote:
Women, and feminists in particular, have fought for over 40 years to create a system of protection against violence, which has resulted in various bits of legislation (that someone had quoted previously on this thread), a network of refuges and the system of self help networks. Feminist theory of violence against women is based on gendered nature of violence as a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women.

Historically all this was based around the categories of Male and Female. Yes, patriarchy is still rampant, but the system of protection that exists has achieved some reduction in the number of murders and abuse. Additionally, the system of self help means that women can get safe support from women in similar situations that enables them to escape the violence and build and live lives free of violence.

Now, no doubt that the GRA would mean great things for trans people, but the side effect of it is that it might also allow violent men another avenue into women's safe spaces. Feminists, women working, fighting and suffering violence are concerned about possible effects of GRA - again, not because trans people are seen as potential abusers but because the existing system of protection might become meaningless - and there is nothing to replace it. This simply may be the biggest blow to everything that feminists have achieved and painfully built over the last 40 years.

Some guy isn't going to go through the hassle of changing legal documents in order to infiltrate a refuge his abuse victim has fled to. I can imagine it now, an abuser filling out a form, sending it off to the passport office, the DVLA, HMRC, etc and waiting weeks for a reply and then more weeks for them to actually have gotten round to changing the data.

Why would he do that? It makes no sense when he can just follow her family members or go onto facebook and try to manipulation her or someone else in order to reveal where she is

More than that, though, why isn't it already happening? You can already change your gender marker on your ID without having a Gender Recognition Certificate. It's actually pretty easy. How come men aren't already taking advantage of this?

How come you don't see a ton of men pulling out their passports with Female written on it, in order to gain access to places like refuges?

Quote:
(If anything, having to wear a dress probably puts patriarchal men off going down this avenue).

This is an odd thing to claim. So wearing a dress would put off a patriarchal man from doing it but all his ID, his wage slip, his medical records, the electoral register, his bills, all saying "female" wouldn't have the same effect? lol, The dress is easier and cheaper to fucking change!

Quote:
I think that it is possible to build a third position in this argument which doesn't throw neither the trans rights nor the women's rights under the bus. But for that to happen, we need to be able to have an open and respectful discussion on the issues, however difficult and painful they may be.

and that is?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 10 2017 11:43

That's an excellent point, Mike, and considering the law already based on the equality act, service cannot be denied to trans women who have not transitioned yet, and organisations have no right to request a Gender Recognition Certificate in any case, so if this was going to be a genuine problem it would be already.

From that guidance:

Quote:
Any woman who ‘intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment’ is entitled to service provision.
Common Sense
Offline
Joined: 8-12-17
Dec 10 2017 19:36

My next post won't be very long.

Steven.

Quote:
So can I ask, do you think trans people should be forced to undergo state sanctioned inspections and psychiatric assessments in order to live in the gender they identify as?

No, i don't.

Steven.

Quote:
We actually haven't excluded anyone. Anyone is free to register on this site. I started this thread specifically because a transphobe who was commenting elsewhere falsely claimed that libcom forbids all discussion of the GRA, so I specifically started this thread to give its critics a platform. However no one apart from you has bothered to contribute.

I'm not surprised that no one else has bothered to contribute. I couldn't stomach going through the whole thing so this is just some only some of the things you called me:

reactionary and prejudiced
paranoid
the most ridiculous things I have ever read
deplorable
preposterous
nonsense
you are just wrong
Again what on earth are you talking about? Are you still talking about women's shelters?
rubbish
We are talking on internet discussion board. In terms of calling people names, are you really asking that question?

So i do feel excluded. And really foolish to have said anything on libcom.

Quote:
Quote:
I think that it is possible to build a third position in this argument which doesn't throw neither the trans rights nor the women's rights under the bus. But for that to happen, we need to be able to have an open and respectful discussion on the issues, however difficult and painful they may be.
We are having an open discussion. So please do let us know what your "third position" is?

Did you hear the bit that said OPEN AND RESPECTFUL discussion?

So i won't be contributing here again. Please delete my account.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 10 2017 21:09
Common Sense wrote:
So i won't be contributing here again. Please delete my account.

lol that's a pretty funny way of admitting you don't have an argument.

I also note you still haven't provided any evidence of all those fictional attacks in women's shelters in Denmark (or in the UK considering that trans women can already enter them without a gender recognition certificate).

Common Sense
Offline
Joined: 8-12-17
Dec 10 2017 22:04

Steven, it was you who made a claim that there are no attacks in women’s shelters in Denmark, not me. So you should be providing that evidence and not me.

Common Sense
Offline
Joined: 8-12-17
Dec 10 2017 22:06

And delete my account now.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Dec 10 2017 22:16

its pretty common for people who dont have an argument, or have an argument they know is unacceptable to complain about how they "aren't allowed to talk about X" the right wing press have been doing this for years for example

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Dec 10 2017 22:24

Why am I not surprised that someone opposing the GRA has no actually useful suggestions what a “third way” should be, are unable to produce any concrete evidence what danger to women allowing trans people to self-identify - the world doesn’t begin or end at the UK, ample evidence should be available from other parts of the world- and when they come against disagreement they behave like a victim. Bloody tedious, not to mention TERF tactics on a loop.

You have so far suggested absolutely nothing as an alternative discussion point. If you come to a discussion to argue against the posts already here, the onus is on you to make a point. You’ve been asked what your other way would be but all you’ve come up with is nothing and throwing a tantrum.

You got nothing have you?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 10 2017 22:42
Common Sense wrote:
Steven, it was you who made a claim that there are no attacks in women’s shelters in Denmark, not me. So you should be providing that evidence and not me.

It was you who claimed that there are no ghosts in the roof, so you should be providing that evidence and not me.

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Dec 11 2017 01:41

I've been reluctant to participate in this debate simply because i don't understand the concerns.

Quote:
are unable to produce any concrete evidence what danger to women allowing trans people to self-identify - the world doesn’t begin or end at the UK, ample evidence should be available from other parts of the world

I live in a country where transgender is very much evident in everyday life.

I'm not sure even when self-identifying as women if women actually acknowledge transgendered as exactly the same identical gender, ie real women because they are still are given ladyboy or katoy labels but from my direct observations they are treated very much as full women and sisters yet viewed more of a third sex.

Any violence from transgender i am aware of has never been against women, although just as women fight eachother, it most likely exists, but not in a predatory way as being described on this thread, just the usual fall-outs.

Most commonly, the violence is aimed against men because of the sex trade problem, the defensive and aggressive responses by men to chicks with dicks to put it crudely and the need for cash for full transition. So violent trangendered and predatory individuals do exist, just not targetting other females.

I live in a rural provincial market-town now, and trangendered persons are everywhere from restaurants to supermarkets and because of the process of becoming feminine, many work in beauty and fashion.

I think there is a greater acceptance of trangendered, certainly by kids and even the older generation. Every little hamlet has their trangendered.

Establishment discrimination does still exist because in all my encounters with public bodies - from government to utilities i still to meet a transgender in uniform, and they all have some sort of job uniform they wear

These are personal observations - anecdotal evidence - from afar.

I could contrast the situation with the transgendered i encountered in Mumbai - a very different experience but i think it strays from this thread.

Common Sense
Offline
Joined: 8-12-17
Dec 11 2017 09:44

Ajjohnstone, that sounds great and I would like to think that the UK will be the same very soon. And I absolutely think that the UK panel should go.

My issue is that the voices of women and their concern about the consequences of this proposed legislation are being completely dismissed and women are being silenced. Surely if there is nothing to be concerned about, that would be dead easy to prove. Instead, all I got was abuse.

I made a mistake in joining this forum and thinking that I wouldl be able to discuss some of those issues. But the level of aggression I received is too much for my fragile self so I can’t continue.

Two administrators have made posts since I asked for my profile to be deleted but so far they have ignored my request.

So I’ll ask for the third time. I am not able to delete my account myself, and I no longer give consent to libcom to hold my details. Please delete my account ASAP.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Dec 11 2017 12:37

Firstly, you don’t speak for women, just a vocal minority. Secondly, you’re not being silenced, you are controlling the narrative. If my allies on a position included the evangelicals and the right wing press I would have some very serious concerns about that position. The vicious bullying of trans people and their continued vilification is not a sign of you being silenced. Julia Long bragging about seeking out a teenage trans woman to physically confront is not open and respectful dialogue.

The concerns you feel you are being silenced over are and have been easily addressed and you haven’t proposed a single thing to be discussed. You’re not being silenced, you’re just having a strop because you’re come to a radical site and you’re not finding any sympathy for your views or your inability or unwillingness to contribute anything concrete.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 11 2017 18:54
Mike Harman wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
Steven, it was you who made a claim that there are no attacks in women’s shelters in Denmark, not me. So you should be providing that evidence and not me.

It was you who claimed that there are no ghosts in the roof, so you should be providing that evidence and not me.

"Common Sense" (the irony of your nickname is not lost on us, BTW), Mike is completely about how utterly ridiculous your comment is.

If you are arguing that a marginalised group needs to be discriminated against then you need to evidence why. You can't demand people provide evidence for something which doesn't exist. So as Mike says, you could not prove there are not ghosts on your roof, however if I'm saying there are ghosts on your roof, then I would need to provide evidence that was the case.

The only sort of evidence we could provide for something which doesn't exist is this:

You claiming you are being "silenced" is completely laughable, because you are free to say whatever you want, however because we are challenging your arguments (which are based on fear mongering with no basis in fact), you are not happy with this and throwing a strop.

We do not delete accounts, however you are of course free to stop using yours.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Dec 12 2017 02:25
ajjohnstone wrote:
... I'm not sure even when self-identifying as women if women actually acknowledge transgendered as exactly the same identical gender, ie real women because they are still are given ladyboy or katoy labels but from my direct observations they are treated very much as full women and sisters yet viewed more of a third sex. ...

Just to point out, being trans includes more than just trans women, and terms like "ladyboy" are not really appropriate terminology when referring to trans people, at least for most westerners I believe.

comrade_emma's picture
comrade_emma
Offline
Joined: 16-09-17
Dec 11 2017 19:41
Quote:
Quote:
... I'm not sure even when self-identifying as women if women actually acknowledge transgendered as exactly the same identical gender, ie real women because they are still are given ladyboy or katoy labels but from my direct observations they are treated very much as full women and sisters yet viewed more of a third sex. ...

Just to point out, being trans includes more than just trans women, and terms like "ladyboy" are not really approriate terminology when referring to trans people, at least for most westerners I believe.

I can only speak for the west but it should really be avoided(unless someone wants to use that label) since it implies that a trans woman is not really a woman. I'd also like to add that the term "transgenderd" is offensive in the west, no other identity is written in this form anymore. It implies that being trans is something you do, it should be written as an adjective, "trans person" or "transgender person".

But I would also like to add that I of course appreciate non-eurocentric perspectives on trans issues.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 11 2017 21:32

Not to speak for him but for reference AJ lives in Southeast Asia

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Dec 12 2017 02:59

I understand your point, Zugs, but i was trying to stick to the context of this debate.

We all know the complications of terminology in LGBT issues and apologies if my perhaps inappropriate use of it offends.

I think it can be understood from my very first post on the other related thread on the Bookfar that this issue has passed me by and i had no idea what terf or cis meant.

I entered this debate because of the UK-centric focus of it and that around the world there are different attitudes and different approaches, many better and many worse, some to be applauded, others to be condemned, some progressive, some reactionary

It is the libertarian in me that says different strokes, for different folks

Quote:
trans includes more than just trans women

Once again, daily life brings me in contact with what now perhaps we can count as the "4th sex". There seems to be little problem in identification or self-identification. People simply accept what is.

This article describes it

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/tomboys-of-thailand-29497

Common Sense
Offline
Joined: 8-12-17
Dec 12 2017 15:35
Quote:
We do not delete accounts, however you are of course free to stop using yours.

But you have no right to keep people's personal information against their will. I've seen other people ask for their accounts to be deleted and you refuse.

I can't see anywhere on your site what you do with users' email addresses. How do you keep them safe? Who has access to them? Do you pass them on? To whom? Do you sell them?

I said this before, I made a mistake of registering on your site and I request that you delete my email address from your list of users.

Email address is personal information and as such is subject to data protection act. Under the Act, individuals have a legal right 'to require you to stop processing their personal data'.

So i'm asking you for the 4th time to delete my account. I don't trust you and you have no right to keep my personal data.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 12 2017 17:15
Common Sense wrote:
Quote:
We do not delete accounts, however you are of course free to stop using yours.

But you have no right to keep people's personal information against their will. I've seen other people ask for their accounts to be deleted and you refuse.

I can't see anywhere on your site what you do with users' email addresses. How do you keep them safe? Who has access to them? Do you pass them on? To whom? Do you sell them?

I said this before, I made a mistake of registering on your site and I request that you delete my email address from your list of users.

Email address is personal information and as such is subject to data protection act. Under the Act, individuals have a legal right 'to require you to stop processing their personal data'.

So i'm asking you for the 4th time to delete my account. I don't trust you and you have no right to keep my personal data.

You can very easily change the email address associated with your account under account settings.
Are you seriously citing the Data Protection Act on an anarchist website smile You're also wrong about how it works, but that's another story.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Dec 12 2017 17:27

Go to your account, hit edit & change your email address to something bogus. Ta dah.