Gender again. Sorry!

[bobzmyunkle]

Nope. Male and female relate to sex, rather than gender.

Yet this is what I can change on a 'Gender Recognition' certificate? Which then allows me to change the sex recorded on my birth certificate? Have I got that wrong?

 

[monkers]

Yet this is what I can change on a 'Gender Recognition' certificate? Which then allows me to change the sex recorded on my birth certificate? Have I got that wrong?

Only slightly.

The GRC recognises your gender identity, the 2004 Act confirms the right to change the record of your birth to make recognised gender identity and the record of birth sex congruent.

You see the the law does not recognise special rights for men and for women, it considers the rights to be equal. There are no special women's rights as claimed. Later the 2010 Act did make some exemptions, but these are restricted rather than general exceptions.

The mistake is to think that parliament were so stupid so as to think that changing the paperwork actually changes a person's biological sex even without the need for surgical intervention. This was not the intention. People need to be treated fairly regardless of biological sex or their declared gender identity without exception. There are exceptions where a trans person has to accept that they may need to declare their biological sex, such as to a doctor for healthcare reasons, but in the ordinary day-to-day aspects of their lives they are not only not required to do so by law, but protected from people who try to draw attention to it. There are exemptions which can be called upon for reasons of safety, but the exemptions should not be called upon unless the circumstances are extraordinary rather than ordinary.

 

[theclaud]

Yet this is what I can change on a 'Gender Recognition' certificate? Which then allows me to change the sex recorded on my birth certificate? Have I got that wrong?

The GRC recognises your gender identity, the 2004 Act confirms the right to change the record of your birth to make recognised gender identity and the record of birth sex congruent

Whilst agreeing with much of the rest of Monkers' post, I think bobz' point matters - people are generally taken aback that the process of gender recognition involves altering sex on a birth certificate, because they see it as falsification of a historical document, and creating a loophole to be exploited by extreme cases like Isla Bryson. It's unsatisfactory as a solution, because the certificate has contradictory functions. That's more or less why I started this thread, which was once about decertification.

Don't forget that Aurora's rhetorical method is to try and 'peak trans' the gallery by showcasing absurdities and outrages like some kind of demented Barnum - which is why she so often ignores the arguments or questions of her interlocutors. Once you stop regarding the whole thing as a contest about some kind of fundamental truth, you become resistant to this. Do we need sex on birth certificates (or birth certificates at all) is a less emotionally charged question, and one that can be discussed by people with different understandings of the issues involved.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

which was once about decertification

My memory's not what it was.

 

[monkers]

Whilst agreeing with much of the rest of Monkers' post, I think bobz' point matters - people are generally taken aback that the process of gender recognition involves altering sex on a birth certificate, because they see it as falsification of a historical document, and creating a loophole to be exploited by extreme cases like Isla Bryson. It's unsatisfactory as a solution, because the certificate has contradictory functions. That's more or less why I started this thread, which was once about decertification.

Don't forget that Aurora's rhetorical method is to try and 'peak trans' the gallery by showcasing absurdities and outrages like some kind of demented Barnum - which is why she so often ignores the arguments or questions of her interlocutors. Once you stop regarding the whole thing as a contest about some kind of fundamental truth, you become resistant to this. Do we need sex on birth certificates (or birth certificates at all) is a less emotionally charged question, and one that can be discussed by people with different understandings of the issues involved.

I agree but I'd go further, it isn't necessary to have sex on driving licences or passports either. My personal choice would be to remove titles too. We are equals before the law. Why have titles on identifying documents - surely they are superfluous?

I had a rather ugly row with a trans activist about this once on social media.

 

[matticus]

I read this today, and found it extremely interesting. <snip ...>

I would implore anyone already invested in the subject to read the full report with an open mind. If time is tight there is a summary of key findings from the end of last year...

OK, so I dipped in. Read the summary, then went looking for the comments on sport*.
As I see it, they shy away from how removing gender/sex from your birth cert affects sports classifications. The most concrete suggestion is to follow the Paralympic model (which is something I once floated back-in-the-day when we pretended to discuss these things without ripping throats out); but the detail of this seems to also depend on the contents of your birth cert:

Sports, such as boxing, wrestling, and Paralympic sports, use sex/ gender as a sorting device; but they also use other criteria to determine ‘fair’ or ‘meaningful’
competition. See Kerr, R. and Obel, C. (2018) ‘Reassembling sex: Reconsidering sex segregation policies in sport’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 10(2):
305-320.

My bold.

Am I correct in my skim-reading?

(*Because I'm a bloke, so I'm not interested in rape and other nasty topics.)

 

[Ian H]

OK, so I dipped in. Read the summary, then went looking for the comments on sport*.
As I see it, they shy away from how removing gender/sex from your birth cert affects sports classifications. The most concrete suggestion is to follow the Paralympic model (which is something I once floated back-in-the-day when we pretended to discuss these things without ripping throats out); but the detail of this seems to also depend on the contents of your birth cert:


My bold.

Am I correct in my skim-reading?

(*Because I'm a bloke, so I'm not interested in rape and other nasty topics.)

How far should competitive sport define society in general?

 

[monkers]

I recused myself from the discussion on sport. I know very little about sport in itself, but a little more about the effects of sex hormones on bodies. Note no claim to expertise on either. Having seen the arguments put forward on both sides being 'discussed', I have my own thoughts about how the rules could potentially be applied more fairly.

Certain sports already have sorting mechanisms for making sport fairer, there are categories according to weight, handicaps according to previous form, the standardised times for veteran time trialists etc.

Then there are the doping regulations with the requirement for frequent testing.

I do see that elite level sport does need protection, but when I see my local cycling club required testosterone monitoring for trans women for club level racing, I just think this is all going too far. If I ride at club level and someone beats me, do I actually care? For myself, the answer is certainly not, I'll not worry.

So here's the suggestion, and I'm not claiming originality of thought, it might have been said by some person before. Here it is - introduce the testosterone monitoring at the same point in sport as the requirement for anti-doping testing, and just make testosterone measurement sit alongside the standard battery of anti-doping tests for all competitors.

 

[matticus]

How far should competitive sport define society in general?

Shall I put you down as: c) Don't know ?

 

[matticus]

I do see that elite level sport does need protection, but when I see my local cycling club required testosterone monitoring for trans women for club level racing, I just think this is all going too far. If I ride at club level and someone beats me, do I actually care? For myself, the answer is certainly not, I'll not worry.

Yes, I think that seems reasonable; my concern is that not everyone* in amateur sports is reasonable! Where the does the line between "club level" and "elite" get drawn?

*To give a personal anecdote: a local rider chooses to race in a neighbouring region so that he can finish most races on the (Vets) podium, instead of midfield somewhere. That's at an extra 20 mile drive every Sunday!

 

[monkers]

Yes, I think that seems reasonable; my concern is that not everyone* in amateur sports is reasonable! Where the does the line between "club level" and "elite" get drawn?

*To give a personal anecdote: a local rider chooses to race in a neighbouring region so that he can finish most races on the (Vets) podium, instead of midfield somewhere. That's at an extra 20 mile drive every Sunday!

Cycling is the only sport where I can claim a little knowledge. The VTT records a competitors result time and compares that against 'standard' meaning averaged times based on the sex and age of all qualifying competitors. They don't standardise for courses or prevailing conditions There are riders who will only compete on the faster courses, or when prevailing conditions are most favourable. They do this whether they be VTT riders or younger riders who just aim to keep their averages up. It's within the rules, so maybe considered 'optimising' rather than cheating.

In the UK though, even for these amateur club level trials for older folk like myself, trans people are still required to declare biological sex and agree to monitoring.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Do we need sex on birth certificates (or birth certificates at all) is a less emotionally charged question, and one that can be discussed by people with different understandings of the issues involved.

I've said previously that there's no need to record a person's sex except in the few times where it's really relevant. The report you started the thread about goes way beyond this. It actually says to get rid of sex as a protected characteristic in law, and replace it with gender as a protected characteristic. It then says you can self-ID into gender groups. Page 37:

"The current grounds of ‘sex’ and ‘gender
reassignment’ in the Equality Act 2010 would
be merged to form the ground of ‘gender’ as
a ‘protected characteristic’ for discrimination, harassment etc. ...."

"Gender-specific provision, activities, and membership criteria would remain
legally valid where this is done to address
social subordination, unfairness, violence,
or harassment (for instance, women’s domestic violence shelters, women’s sports, community provision for nonbinary and agender young
people etc).....

That sounds OK, but then they say:

"Decertification introduces a presumption of self-identification in determining ‘gender’ category membership.."

So you can't retain what are currently called single sex services because they become single gender services - and we can all opt into the gender category we want to be a member of.

The implications of this for women are obvious and go far beyond not having your sex or title on your driving license.

 

[monkers]

So you can't retain what are currently called single sex services because they become single gender services - and we can all opt into the gender category we want to be a member of.

The implications of this for women are obvious and go far beyond not having your sex or title on your driving license.

The law currently protects only two genders as a protected characteristic in legislation, but anyway that doesn't stop you identifying as any gender you like. Likewise the law protects two sexes a protected characteristic. So no matter what you decide to call yourself, the protections are binary.

Decertification of declared sex and/or gender identity on a driving licence or passport won't make a jot of difference to provision in a women's refuge for example. As it stands most are welcoming to trans women anyway even though they could look to exercise their rights under permissible exemptions. Do refuges require proof of biological sex? I don't think they do.

There is one place needs to be recorded, that is on medical records.

I actually like your last sentence, a big improvement if I might say. You took the Carol Vorderman approach by talking about 'the implications for women' instead of claiming imaginary special women's rights.

 

[classic33]

I've said previously that there's no need to record a person's sex except in the few times where it's really relevant. The report you started the thread about goes way beyond this. It actually says to get rid of sex as a protected characteristic in law, and replace it with gender as a protected characteristic. It then says you can self-ID into gender groups. Page 37:

"The current grounds of ‘sex’ and ‘gender
reassignment’ in the Equality Act 2010 would
be merged to form the ground of ‘gender’ as
a ‘protected characteristic’ for discrimination, harassment etc. ...."

"Gender-specific provision, activities, and membership criteria would remain
legally valid where this is done to address
social subordination, unfairness, violence,
or harassment (for instance, women’s domestic violence shelters, women’s sports, community provision for nonbinary and agender young
people etc).....

That sounds OK, but then they say:

"Decertification introduces a presumption of self-identification in determining ‘gender’ category membership.."

So you can't retain what are currently called single sex services because they become single gender services - and we can all opt into the gender category we want to be a member of.

The implications of this for women are obvious and go far beyond not having your sex or title on your driving license.

Throughout the threads on this, here and elsewhere, you make it sound as though those that do get/want to get a gender recognition certificate, are doing it for one reason only. To gain access to women only spaces. You make it sound as though they'll be getting another gender recognition certificate as and when they feel like. And always it's only one way that you're "bothered" about. You have said that trans men should be using the men's facilities, and men should just have to accept it. Trans men "knew what they were applying for, and the possible consequences, so any problem later on is their own fault". Why the difference?
Check your own posts.

We can do the Gaols Act, which you managed to get wrong, insisting that the change was instant the minute the act was passed. It wasn't.
We could go back down the trans prisoners held in Irish prisons. Where you incorrectly stated the wrong numbers, conditions they were held in, the prisons they were held in and why one prisoner had two prison officers escorting them*.

You go down all these routes/roads trying to prove a point, but when they resurface and are questioned on the points you introduced you ignore them. Is this because you know they were wrong/incorrect before you posted them?

Check Coovagh House, Limerick out. Its where Barbie Kardashian was held before the recent court case. Then check your previous answers on this point.



*You were wrong on that one as well.

 

[winjim]

Unless it's encoded in the driver number my driving licence doesn't have sex or gender on it. It can be inferred from my title but that's it. Maybe it's on the DVLA database but it's not on the card itself.