Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

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.

The first stage of transition, is for the person to inform their GP that they intend to undergo transition. It's usual to obtain a letter from the GP to confirm this is the case.

We've both read the same report, so we face the same limitations of what we can understand. The fact that Miller asked police to use male pronouns should tell us that despite the claim, Miller wished to be treated as male. This is confirmed by the court who also used male pronouns, whereas the guidebook states that female pronouns would ordinarily be used for someone in transition.

I said before, that Miller was using breast forms so I think it less likely that he was using hormone replacement therapy, but please don't take that as a given.

 

[monkers]

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


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.

Oh dear.

You used the word 'illegal'. It is not a criminal offence to discriminate against another person. For example, you can not call the police if you are dismissed from your employment unfairly because for your employer to do so is not 'illegal' but unlawful.

Read the words in that text, it uses the word 'should', rather than 'must'. Check out the Highway Code if you don't believe there is a difference.

Police would quickly tell a complainant that they have no legal competence to intervene in a civil matter. It is not 'illegal' to discriminate - it is 'unlawful'.

Andrew Miller has asked to be treated as male. It is not bigoted to respect that wish.

 

[monkers]

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

Well of course, any able-bodied person has the capability to sexually assault another. Try being a woman on the tube during rush hour.

Men assault women. Women assault men. Men assault men. Women assault women. Cis or trans make no difference to that ability.

But rape, that's another matter. That said any person can be convicted of rape as an accomplice to a rape in UK law, though in practice the numbers of women convicted for rape in the way are very small.

 

[monkers]

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.

It becomes a nonsense if you choose to believe the nonsense told by AS. We can not negotiate a compromise here, because the law tends not to, that is not to say that the legislature or judiciary are not infallible.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I agree entirely. My point was not about the offence, nor the perpetrator. It was about the false reporting of this crime as being by a woman in a dress, when the article clearly states that Amy is a transwoman.

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.

To be honest I was more engaged with the assertion in #4058 that this case "bolsters the idea that transwomen are sexual predators". This is in the same vein as previous posts from you using phraseology like 'hanging on the coat tails of'. I'd not given much thought to how the BBC had covered it, even less compared it with other reports.

Woman in a dress seems consistent with the facts. Miller states he is trans but seemed content to be interviewed and charged as Andrew rather than Amy. Unusually for this sort of discussion we have a forum Member in the Melrose area. As he points out, if Miller was in transition then they were taking their time. A man who dresses in women's clothes and has an alter ego as a woman only sometimes isn't ticking the boxes for trans.

I agree you don't need a GRC to be trans or to be recognised by your peers in your adopted gender. That was the case long before the 2004 GRA. One reason they're not adopted is the lengthy, intrusive and massively over medicalised process required to obtain one under the 2004 act. AIUI Gender Dysphoria is no longer widely recognised as a mental health condition. The professional term is gender incongruent.

Back when the Tories looked more like proper rational and humane people they recognised that GRA reform was needed. It's only since people like Braverman and Badenoch got their hands on the levers of power that they've decided to make it part of their Culture Wars dead cat strategy.

 

[AuroraSaab]

A man who dresses in women's clothes and has an alter ego as a woman only sometimes isn't ticking the boxes for trans.

What are the 'boxes for trans'?

We're told 'you are who you say you are' .... in which case if Andrew Miller says he was a woman when he offered an 11 year old girl a lift home, he was a woman, surely? It doesn't matter how long they were taking to fully transition (whatever that even means).

Stonewall say cross-dressers come under the trans umbrella. Monkers tells us there's no diagnosis for being trans. The Equality Act protects you from discrimination regardless of which stage of transition you are at. We can see from Eddie/Suzy Izzard and former Stonewall lesbian officer Alex Drummond that you don't need to be on hormones or have had surgery to be a transwoman. You need a GRC to change documents but not to be transgender as such.

We are told the only box you need to check to be a woman or a man is to say you are. This is what self-ID is.

You can't have it both ways. Either every man who says he is a woman is a woman, at whatever point or time he says it. Or none of them are.

It's only since people like Braverman and Badenoch got their hands on the levers of power that they've decided to make it part of their Culture Wars dead cat strategy.

I disagree. It became an issue when transactivists starting pushing for men to be in women's spaces and services, changing language, and when people became aware of stuff like the Tavistock. All aided and abetted by Stonewall who needed a new cause and source of income after gay marriage was legalised. Added to this was the insistence that the transgender umbrella be extended to cover those who did not have dysphoria but enjoyed dressing as a stereotypical woman.

The left abandoning women on this issue is what has given the Tories an open goal. Laurel Hubbard stoked your 'culture war' a hundred times more than any Tory.

 

[fozy tornip]

Jesus Aurora, if you just move to Beverley you can unplug, forget the whole nightmare and take up crochet.

 

[fozy tornip]

And relax..

 

[fozy tornip]

There they think eddieizzard is part of the giblets of a goose.

 

[monkers]

Stonewall say cross-dressers come under the trans umbrella.

Cross-dressers / transvestites docome under the 'transgender umbrella'. I said this word was problematic in my first post in the thread. To quote myself ...

A problem word is 'transgender'. It's problematic for a number of reasons.
1 It's spelt with the 'trans' part as a prefix rather than an adjective like other trans terms.
2 If a person undergoes transition, their gender is confirmed not changed as the term implies.
3 It's an umbrella term that includes not just trans people, but transvestites, crossdressers, etc.
4 It's used in different ways in different parts of the world.
5 It lends itself to the form 'transgendered' which is in turn problematic for a number of reasons, but essentially it suggest that to be trans is to experience an enforced change by something external to the person.

 

[monkers]

Monkers tells us there's no diagnosis for being trans.

Not quite, I said that the WHO have declassified it as a mental illness, therefore there is no available diagnosis of it as a mental illness.

All aspects of our identity is self-ID in as much as we ourselves identify which groups we belong to. We are also allowed to use the words 'fortunately' or 'unfortunately' in connection with that if we choose.

Gender incongruence is self-identified. That is not to say that on occasions people can be questioning themselves about their identity, therefore some counselling can be useful in some cases.

Under the medicalised approach of self-ID, the 'patient' is asked questions. The 'diagnosis' only comes from repeating the same answers to those questions over a period of two years. You might say it is more about monitoring than diagnosis.

 

[monkers]

The Equality Act protects you from discrimination regardless of which stage of transition you are at.

Correct. However transition does not and can not start at the point of being apprehended for a crime. The person needs to have an appointment with their GP to discuss it. The next stage is for the GP to arrange an appointment with an appropriate psychologist, and start the application process for funding for a visit to a GIC - this can take years! At this point the GP will ordinarily provide a letter so that the person is able to show that they intend to transition.

 

[monkers]

... you don't need to be on hormones or have had surgery to be a transwoman.

Correct again. The term 'trans woman' does mean different things to different people. It has become more usual to use the term 'trans woman' for those who have completed their transition, ie. have a GRC. Other people use it to mean all transgender women.

For those who wish to say that the vocabulary around this adds confusion, then I agree.

It is not an absolute requirement to use hormone therapy or undergo surgery to obtain a GRC, but it is the most usual way to satisfy the decision panel. They are looking to be persuaded by the application that the person is genuine. If the person has not undergone hormone therapy or surgery, then it will ordinarily require a medical explanation of why this has not been possible. For example, high dosage of female hormones may not be prescribed for someone who is hypertensive and using some kinds of blood pressure reducing medication. In the case of surgery, there are trans women who have been using hormone therapy, but left so long on waiting lists for surgery, that by the time they get to the front of the queue they are told that the atrophy is too great - there not being enough donor material.

The whole process is highly individualised as it should be, the queues are so very long. The system is so short of resources.

 

[monkers]

You need a GRC to change documents but not to be transgender as such.

This is incorrect. Anybody can change their name by Deed Poll and specify their title. Mr Fred Bloggs can change his name to Miss Freda Bloggs by Deed Poll whether he intends to transition or not. This is all that is required to change identity documents such as passport, driving licence etc. A GRC is required for an amended birth certificate, and subsequently the death certificate.

Jeremy Clarkson famously lost a bet and changed his name to Jennifer by deed poll for a year - or at least that is the way it was reported.

 

[monkers]

We are told the only box you need to check to be a woman or a man is to say you are. This is what self-ID is.

This is also incorrect. It's a trope, a deliberate attempt to undermine the principle of self-ID.

As I've said anyone can self-ID using a Deed Poll, and change their identity. We are all at liberty to take present as we wish. Cross-dressing is not a crime - never has been in the UK.

Self-ID means that a person changes their legal sex, which as I have said means that the person will have an amended birth certificate. You might like to note, that a birth certificate is not formal ID in the UK as they are not photo ID. For example, you were unable to present your birth certificate to vote earlier this month, no more valid than a death certificate in fact for that purpose!

The law that passed in Scotland was not for instant self-ID. It was a process that reduced the present system from two years to six months.
The system required that the applicant was not on the sex offenders register. All applicants are required to sign an Affitdavit to promise to be acting in good faith. Those acting in bad faith would be subject to the law.