The Gender Recognition Act

deleted

http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-germanys-decision-on-the-third-gender-is-long-overdue/a-41305803

There's some more background here: https://humanrights.brightblue.org.uk/blog-1/2016/4/15/the-gender-recognition-act-recognising-transgender-people

We got accused on the bookfair thread of 'uncritical support' and neoliberalism. People should actually approach this critically but not for the reasons that terfs are.

Rather than opposing a reform that's going to remove a two year, highly distressing, and pathologised process it'd be more useful to look at what will be left unchanged.

It's likely this is not going to affect the treatment that LGBT asylum seekers get from the home office at all:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/25/prime-minister-theresa-may-challenged-over-deportation-of-lgbt-asylum-seekers/

Similar issues in Germany:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/08/07/germany-is-rejecting-lgbt-asylum-seekers-who-face-severe-violence-if-deported/

People are having to prove their sexuality to panels (to the point of being asked to provide film of themselves having sex) and told they'll probably won't be attacked if they're not out in the countries they're being deported to.

We covered one case here: https://libcom.org/news/lgbt-refugee-wins-legal-battle-stay-uk-11082017 but Patricia Simeon has just been detained in Sheffield https://www.change.org/p/amber-rudd-mp-urgent-end-the-detention-of-patricia-simeon

Pink News, which ran those articles in October about deportations also invited Theresa May to their awards ceremony in the same month: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/18/prime-minister-theresa-may-addresses-pinknews-awards/

Also not sure what the implications for hormone therapy are, found a reddit discussion from 2015 saying waiting times for a GIC referral are 18 months. Did see something saying it could make access to puberty blockers a bit more open, there's been a lot of media scaremongering about this usually not even referring to the drugs as puberty blockers but as 'sex changes'. Not clear on what the status with that is though.

There's a risk that more mainstream LGBT publications like pink news take reforms like this to mean May is LGBT-friendly and ignore all the other attacks going on (as some did with gay marriage), but this is not what people opposing the bill like David Davies are worried about.

Maybe someone who is opposed to the GRA could explain what they find problematic about it?

Rights can be granted and rights can be taken away again.

What's the exchange?

I guess there are different factions and tendencies operating within any state but how will the current modern democratic state gain from these modifications to gender recognition?
What's in it for the capitalists?

I dunno, rat. The 1967 Sexual Offences Act, the 1975 Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, the 1976 Race Relations Act: all would have benefited the capitalists in some way or other (probably summat to do with the eventual smoother running of this exploitative system) but it would still have benefited women, BAME people and gay and bisexual men far more in the day-to-day. There's not always a straightforward quid pro quo, y'know.

Likewise with the Gender Recognition Act... yes, the capitalists will certainly find some way to benefit from this but the main beneficiaries for now are undoubtedly trans people.

Comments about the government just giving in to pressure... I'm not so sure about that as no one was threatening to bring aspects of the system crashing down. The most you can say is probably it's a 'no skin off the government's nose' type of response to such pressure.

There were a few making the point around the time of Cameron's election that gay marriage ws just a smokescreen for all the other vicious things that they were doing.

GRA probably won't have huge practical effects in terms of costs but will chew up huge amounts of time in the news cycle. News organisations will love it, imagine the clicks. "Sex offender ticks a box to get transferred to women's prison" They can have a big bout of hand-wringing about these poor women in danger. One of the deliberately offensive opinion piece writers will throw out a "That's equality for you, maybe women won't find prison so easy now they can be raped in the showers too". And the Guardian can point out the hypocrisy on the gleeful jokes about men being raped in prison and the phoney concern for otherwise demonised female prisoners.

We can have race as well. Weirdly enough the second one is underplayed and verges on being a sensible reaction.
Delaware considers allowing students to self-identify race and gender confidentially
White man identifies as Phillipino

There was a similar debate in the London IWW. Basically, it was alleged that the notion that you can change any aspect of yourself was 1. individualistic and 2. neoliberal, making trans issues a ruling class concern.

Anyway, that doesn't track for a few reasons. One obvious one is that there are trans workers, one of whom underwent this high profile campaign. So, what's our response to these workers? I think the only reasonable one is support. Another interesting thing to note is that homosexuality was viewed as "bourgeois", decadent, individualistic and at times even a fascist threat, being made illegal in the Soviet Union - so a materialistic analysis of interpersonal issues can sometimes lead to quite perverse outcomes.

I've been scooped by Serge, but basically capital benefits in two ways. The first is dissension. If workers remain divided by things incidental to their productive power, they're less likely to recognise they share material interests. So things like race, sex, religion, gender, citizenship, sexuality and so forth can all be instrumentalised against workers (I think the Split Labour Market theory of the 70s makes sense, though I have been told it's a little flawed). The second is that if you're harassed and bullied by colleagues, you take time off work due to sick leave, you're less efficient and capital accumulation is impeded. Having a uniform response reduces that kind of variability. Especially if those subject to oppression self-organise outside of the state and threaten ruptures which could challenge its existence.

Edit: Also, just saw the post about Rachel Dolezal, really not sure of what to say there.

gamerunknown

There was a similar debate in the London IWW. Basically, it was alleged that the notion that you can change any aspect of yourself was 1. individualistic and 2. neoliberal, making trans issues a ruling class concern.

Damn that sounds almost exactly like Lenin as recorded by Clara Zetkin:

Lenin

It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories, which for the most part are mere hypotheses, and often quite arbitrary ones, stems from a personal need. It springs from the desire to justify one’s own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. Intellectuals and others like them are particularly keen on this. There is no room for it in the Party, among the class-conscious, fighting proletariat.

https://libcom.org/library/clara-zetkin-interviews-lenin-womens-question

Zetkin's response:

Zetkin

I interposed that where private property and the bourgeois social order prevail, questions of sex and marriage gave rise to manifold problems, conflicts and suffering for women of all social classes and strata. As far as women are concerned, the war and its consequences exacerbated the existing conflicts and suffering to the utmost precisely in the sphere of sexual relations. Problems formerly concealed from women were now laid bare. To this was added the atmosphere of incipient revolution. The world of old emotions and thoughts was cracking up. Former social connections were loosening and breaking. The makings of new relations between people were appearing. Interest in the relevant problems was an expression of the need for enlightenment and a new orientation. It was also a reaction against the distortions and hypocrisy of bourgeois society. Knowledge of the modifications of the forms of marriage and family that took place in the course of history, and of their dependence on economics, would serve to rid the minds of working women of their preconceived idea of the eternity of bourgeois society. The critically historical attitude to this had to lead to an unrelenting analysis of bourgeois society, an exposure of its essence and its consequences, including the branding of false sex morality. All roads led to Rome. Every truly Marxist analysis of an important part of the ideological superstructure of society, of an outstanding social phenomenon, had to lead to an analysis of bourgeois society and its foundation, private property. It should lead to the conclusion that “Carthage must be destroyed”.

If people want to talk about Dolezal, I think that should be a separate thread.

It is a kinda laissez-faire approach to the matter, so capital might give into pressure if it isn't clearly relevant. It can seem see similar to their their stance on governmental things!

jef costello

We can have race as well. Weirdly enough the second one is underplayed and verges on being a sensible reaction.
Delaware considers allowing students to self-identify race and gender confidentially
White man identifies as Phillipino

The second one is a bit more complicated. Turns out many of these articles and the commentary failed to mention Ja Du is a trans woman (seemingly not strict about gender pronouns, but considering transition), and they've just been reporting a 'white man' with no qualification or acknowledgement of this at all. So they're taking the 'trans racialism' more seriously than them being transgender. This article isn't great, but it explains a bit what's going on https://www.dailydot.com/irl/ja-du-transgender-transracial/

http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-0a02-Entire-CLP-leadership-quits-amid-claims-of-transphobia#.Wg12mEycZo7

THE entire leadership of a constituency Labour Party (CLP) in Sussex has resigned in a bitter row over allegations of transphobia.
...

"We are living with the constant threat of accusations of transphobia."

Accusations of transphobia are definitely the worst thing that can happen to anyone, much worse than, I dunno, experiencing transphobia.

Also:

They said the regional office’s failure to deal with the allegations has damaged the party’s ability to function effectively with officers’ time being tied up with internal disciplinary matters “instead of fighting the Tories.”

As far as I can tell reading between the lines, people kept on proposing anti-GRA motions for discussion, while others criticised this as transphobic. So surely the people tying up the time are those proposing the motions on the GRA - if they didn't propose the motions, that time could be spent actually 'fight[ing] the tories' (whatever that's supposed to mean for a CLP).

Mike Harman

The second one is a bit more complicated. Turns out many of these articles and the commentary failed to mention Ja Du is a trans woman (seemingly not strict about gender pronouns, but considering transition), and they've just been reporting a 'white man' with no qualification or acknowledgement of this at all. So they're taking the 'trans racialism' more seriously than them being transgender. This article isn't great, but it explains a bit what's going on https://www.dailydot.com/irl/ja-du-transgender-transracial/

I did wonder about that, I wasn't sure if the subtext was that Ja Du was gay or trans. I think the transracialism is much more likely to earn a click than transgender, so that might explain the focus, don't really know.

Mike Harman

http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-0a02-Entire-CLP-leadership-quits-amid-claims-of-transphobia#.Wg12mEycZo7

edit - see comment below this one, this is two different CLPs not the same one

The CLP women's officer election was won by a trans woman a few days ago, reported by the Times today: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-teenager-lily-madigan-voted-in-as-a-labour-women-s-officer-mwchkhzq8

This came into my feed because Guardian journo Hadley Freeman decided to promote the Times article on Trans Day of Remembrance (framing someone resigning from a one-year-term elected position then not winning an election as being 'sacked' and 'losing their job') and a few people pointed out the coincidence.

The women's officer who resigned has just been added to this Cambridge event with Helen Steel:

https://twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/status/931961221028417536

Ok, hoping this is the only time in my life I clarify something on Libcom re internal local labour party politics following posts of links to a tory newspaper and a stalinist newspaper, but anyway…

There seems to be some on-line confusion in discussion of these events re the places and people involved, not helped by article in The Times being behind a paywall. I’m localish to one of the areas so…

The Constituency Labour Party (CLP) officers who resigned on-mass (mentioned in The Morning Star) are in the in Bexhill CLP in Sussex. The CLP where Lily Madigan has just become the women’s officer is Rochester in Kent. These are in no-way the same CLP’s. Bexhill is on the South Coast in Sussex, Rochester is about 1 and half hours drive away in Kent, north of the Thames.

@satawal thanks, I got confused by twitter discussion then reproduced the mistakes here...

The Womans Place Cambridge meeting happened last night.

Lots of people on the bookfair thread were very concerned about equivalences being drawn between TERFs and fascists, here's a live tweet from their event:

https://twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/status/933792697780985856
Womens Place UK

Audience: Trans advocacy movement is part of Alt-right; it is deeply reactionary and dangerous. It has cloaked itself in LGBT+ movement - don’t be bigoted - be nice - uses familiar language #WPUK

Also unannounced speaker appeared, talking about the 'transgendering' of children, which is full moral panic / Section 28 shit:

https://twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/status/933790958168236032
Womans Place UK

Surprise speaker Heather Brunskell-Evans of on her concerns around transgendering of children and treatment of her by @WEP_UK #WPUK

This is while actual links between fundamentalist conservatives in the US and the right wing of the Tories in the UK are being made. Links via this thread on twitter: https://twitter.com/ell3ctric/status/933856481933512704

Family Policy Alliance (pro-life etc.) working with WOLF in the US:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/08/radical-feminists-team-up-with-right-wing-evangelicals-to-oppose-trans-rights-protections/

https://youtu.be/84zEJS_8KD4

Sheila Jeffrey with high praise for Norman Tebbitt:
http://feminist-reprise.org/library/appearance-and-beauty-practices/sheila-jeffreys-speaks-on-beauty-practices-and-misogyny/

Now one of the things I find puzzling about it is that, when I look at the House of Lords debate on this legislation, those I agree with most are the radical right. Particularly the person I find that I agree with most, in here, and I’m not sure he will be pleased to find this, is Norman Tebbitt. Now, Norman Tebbitt is not having any of it, right, so in response to the Gender Recognition Act, he says, he gives a very good definition of gender as socially constructed and says, in your act you’ve got it confused, right, it should say sex and you’ve got gender. And Lord Filkin, for the government, who is putting this legislation through, says that sex and gender are the same thing and anyway, what does it matter? Right, isn’t that extraordinary? Tebbitt then accuses him of linguistic relativism. Which I love. [laughter] Couldn’t have put it better myself. Tebbitt also says that the savage mutilation of transgenderism, we would say if it was taking place in other cultures apart from the culture of Britain, was a harmful cultural practice, and how come we’re not recognising that in the British Isles. So he makes all of these arguments from the radical right, which is quite embarrassing to me, but I have to say, so called progressive and left people are not recognising the human rights violations of transgenderism or how crazy the legislation is. The legislation makes us engage in a folie à everybody, right? Everybody now has to go mad in order to understand or respond to this legislation.

Mike Harman

Lots of people on the bookfair thread were very concerned about equivalences being drawn between TERFs and fascists, here's a live tweet from their event:

I don't see how the first bit of this sentence connects with all the stuff underneath? Unless you're using "fascist" in some kind of super loose, and pretty meaningless, way?

I don't really care for radical feminism, but "fascism" is something pretty specific - rad fem is not that...

Trans advocacy movement is part of Alt-right

Have they gone completely mad?

Steven.

yes and as Mike points out in his post, TERFs are now calling trans activists fascists (albeit by another name, "alt right")

Ah, OK. Obviously they're not that either, as you know..

darren p

I don't see how the first bit of this sentence connects with all the stuff underneath? Unless you're using "fascist" in some kind of super loose, and pretty meaningless, way?

.."fascism" is something pretty specific...

It was right under my first sentence, but here it is again:

Womens Place UK

Audience: Trans advocacy movement is part of Alt-right;

Steven.

I think that is worth pointing out, because for some people who were defending Helen or the Bookfair collective, they basically justified this by saying that some anti-transphobic people said the transphobes were "fascists", and somehow this discredited everyone who opposed transphobia. Now this is the completely opposite situation, so I wonder if those same people now think that transphobes are similarly discredited…

A bad argument whatever way round you put it...

Plenty of people use the word "fascist" or "liberal" in an inaccurate or sloppy way, that doesn't mean they are wrong about everything or anything else...

Steven.

I'm not even stirring, I would genuinely like to know what the "anarchists"/"feminists" or whoever are opposed to this Act's problems with it are.

If you're genuinely unsure what the arguments are i think i could help with that. It seems to basically boil down to 4 rationales:1) cis women are uncomfortable being around trans women especially when in a vulnerable situation, 2) trans women are a danger to cis women especially in prisons, refuges etc. 3) cis men will pretend to be trans in order to get access to vulnerable women to abuse 4) it would destroy the accuracy of sex-based statistics.

Being able to self-declare exacerbates these 4 points. For clarity's sake that's not what i believe.

Personally changes to the GRA would immediately benefit me as im in an awkward position of being unemployed with only my original birth certificate to prove my right to work so i have to out myself at every single job interview.

edit: also lol @ being called alt-right. The alt-right fucking hate us!

There's a good summary of what's been happening here: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/transphobia-is-the-latest-weapon-in-the-culture-war/

On the bill itself it says this:

Roz Kaveney

The pretext for this wave of hate is, ironically, a suggested piece of legislation, unlikely to be passed any time soon, which we welcome but which was not high on our shopping list. The Conservative government is discussing an updating of the process of formal ‘Gender Recognition’ – established in the 2004 act as a intrusive. cumbersome and expensive procedure – in line with the best practice of other countries like Eire where making it a simple civil declaration has, contrary to all the scare stories and hypothetical scenarios, had no serious negative consequences whatever. It’s a vaguely liberal gesture which the May government favours partly because it doesn’t cost anything.

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

This is in no way the reason to keep the demeaning panel and the process that trans people need to go through, but the discussion HAS to be had about protection from violent men which would benefit all of those suffering violence, trans and cis.

So completely shutting down this discussion, calling anyone who expresses even a shred of doubt at practicality of the GRA a terf, a bigot and the far right serves a purpose - whatever that may be.

deleted

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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...

deleted

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.

Common Sense

]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.

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.

Common Sense

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.

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?

(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!

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?

My next post won't be very long.

Steven.

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.

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:
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, 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.

And delete my account now.

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

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?

Common Sense

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

ajjohnstone

... 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.

deleted

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

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

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.

Common Sense

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 :) You're also wrong about how it works, but that's another story.

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

Steven.

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.

Have you got a link for details on this please?

Couldn't find an example of that in the UK from googling so hopefully Steven. can come back, however two examples of women being put in men's prisons for very different reasons:

Canada has put a completely non-violent (cis) women prisoner in a mens prisons for 'space reasons': http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/beatrice-hunter-now-in-hmp-1.4143025

In this US case a (cis) woman was put in a men's prison due to severity of the conviction: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/female-ice-cream-killer-moved-all-male-prison-article-1.2948632

Thanks Mike.

My request was primarily driven from an interest in UK prison policy, but interesting links nonetheless.

Hopefully Steven will come back with something if he has a chance.