Gender again. Sorry!

[Mr Celine]

Not according to the news article. At the time of the crime he was Amy George and it was confirmed that he is transitioning. He agreed that the police could use hum/he pronouns and his "deadname" in order to avoid confusion.

If he was identifying as a transwoman called Amy George and was transitioning, that makes him a woman, no?

If they didn't have a GRC they would have been named in court following normal Scottish practice, ie orignal name followed by any aliases, so Andrew Miller or Amy George.

If she is transitioning she is certainly taking her time about it. The butcher's shop was a one man operation which closed five or six years ago for a few months due to 'family reasons'. After it reopened I thought the woman serving looked vaguely familiar, it took a while to work out why. She was always dressed as a woman whenever I was in the shop after that. It closed again last year, long before the abduction, with the same notice on the window.

 

[multitool]

I'm looking forward to you providing the quote where I said this, because I definitely didn't.

As if I'm going to trawl back through your posts

I remember you talking about it, but it might be you were mentioning it as a concern that other people hold. Glad to see you confirm that you don't hold this view.

 

[monkers]

If they didn't have a GRC they would have been named in court following normal Scottish practice, ie orignal name followed by any aliases, so Andrew Miller or Amy George.

If she is transitioning she is certainly taking her time about it. The butcher's shop was a one man operation which closed five or six years ago for a few months due to 'family reasons'. After it reopened I thought the woman serving looked vaguely familiar, it took a while to work out why. She was always dressed as a woman whenever I was in the shop after that. It closed again last year, long before the abduction, with the same notice on the window.

Is this the same Andrew Miller? I don't think it can be because of the location, but it is an uncanny coincidence of name and offences otherwise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-31438318

 

[monkers]

You don't need a GRC to be a woman. Andrew has every right to be treated as a woman without the need for a GRC, and the vast majority of transwomen and transmen do not have one and are not applying for one. I can't believe you are discriminating against her!

I don't know why you can't understand. It has been stated clearly enough. You can't just say 'I'm in transition' and be legally become of the opposite sex.

A GRC is needed to legally become of the opposite sex. Andrew Miller is legally a man unless and until he has a GRC. He is apparently well-known in the area as a long time crossdresser. Whether Miller was in transition or not is not known. The fact that Miller was using false breasts may indicate that they were using hormone replacement therapy, but that is not known to us.

You mentioned that I had said about the atrophy process associated with cross sex hormone usage. Just to point out to you that Miller was not charged with rape. The girl did say that she had been touched inappropriately.

 

[Mr Celine]

Is this the same Andrew Miller? I don't think it can be because of the location, but it is an uncanny coincidence of name and offences otherwise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-31438318

Perhaps he's now self-identifying as older...

Not the same person.

 

[newfhouse]

Most other outlets have reported that the perp was transgender whilst the BBC have deliberately tried to not portray Andrew/Amy as such, presumably for fear of offending the transgender community.

Maybe the BBC have decided that it’s no more relevant to the story than describing them as a butcher. Or Scottish.

 

[icowden]

I don't know why you can't understand. It has been stated clearly enough. You can't just say 'I'm in transition' and be legally become of the opposite sex.

I didn't say that you could. You can say "I'm in transition" though and be treated as a woman. It is illegal to discriminate against someone just because they don't have a GRC.

A GRC is needed to legally become of the opposite sex. Andrew Miller is legally a man unless and until he has a GRC.

But as you have pointed out on many occasions, legal status doesn't matter.

He is apparently well-known in the area as a long time crossdresser. Whether Miller was in transition or not is not known.

The BBC stated that he was. Are you suggesting their journalism is shoddy?

The fact that Miller was using false breasts may indicate that they were using hormone replacement therapy, but that is not known to us.

That isn't mentioned in the BBC report, only that he was presenting as Amy and was transitioning.

You mentioned that I had said about the atrophy process associated with cross sex hormone usage. Just to point out to you that Miller was not charged with rape. The girl did say that she had been touched inappropriately.

Fair point. So that rather undermines the discourse about transwomen not being able to attack women due to hormone treatment. Turns out that that was a red herring.

 

[monkers]

Perhaps he's now self-identifying as older...

Not the same person.

Maybe I should check out all the Andrew Millers that live in may area and avoid them now.

 

[monkers]

I didn't say that you could. You can say "I'm in transition" though and be treated as a woman. It is illegal to discriminate against someone just because they don't have a GRC.

No it isn't. You're channeling AS again.

 

[monkers]

But as you have pointed out on many occasions, legal status doesn't matter.

I think you must have me confused with somebody else.

 

[monkers]

The BBC stated that he was. Are you suggesting their journalism is shoddy?

Not at all. The BBC reported that he told police that he is in transition. That's a distinction with a difference.

 

[icowden]

Not at all. The BBC reported that he told police that he is in transition. That's a distinction with a difference.

Yes. He clearly stated he is in transition. That means that he is a woman and entitled not to be discriminated against, according to previous statements in this discussion.

 

[monkers]

Fair point. So that rather undermines the discourse about transwomen not being able to attack women due to hormone treatment. Turns out that that was a red herring.

Well it's obvious, pretty much anybody can attack anybody else, save for those with the very worst kinds of disabilities.

However to characterise trans women who have been undergoing hormone therapy (other than the first few weeks of therapy) as 'rapists' is clearly nonsense.

 

[icowden]

I think you must have me confused with somebody else.

I'm pretty sure that you went through this;-

How does the Gender Recognition Act relate to the Equality Act (2010)?​

In relation to discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex, the EHRC state that

“Individuals are treated under the sex discrimination provisions of the EA 2010 in line with their legal sex. Thus, a trans person with a GRC is treated as having the sex recorded on their GRC (and new birth certificate), while a trans person without a GRC is treated as having the sex recorded on their birth certificate. In both cases, they are protected from discrimination because of gender reassignment.

However, EHRC guidance on the Equality Act clearly states that “If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

“The exceptions permitting different treatment on the basis of gender reassignment in the EA 2010 (for example the exceptions related to single-sex services and associations) do not hinge on whether or not an individual has a GRC.”

This suggests that as Amy is a transwoman, a GRC is not relevant to her arrest and detention, and that to call her a "man in a dress" is bigoted and wrong. As a transwoman she is entitled to agree to whatever pronouns she wishes and whatever name she wishes.

That's the nonsense underlining this. The notion that transwomen should be treated in a certain way has to be consistent, not just used when it is convenient.

 

[icowden]

However to characterise trans women who have been undergoing hormone therapy (other than the first few weeks of therapy) as 'rapists' is clearly nonsense.

Ah, ok but they could be sexual assaultists, which is somehow better?