Non-binary: What do you understand it to mean?

[AuroraSaab]

No I wouldn't. The Equality Act is a symbolically important but flawed piece of legislation - the exemptions are crucial. The Gender Recognition Act means that there are two ways to be a woman (or a man) for legal purposes - being born female (allowing for the variation @swansonj recognises in how that is defined) and achieving recognition through the Act. The second is what you might call a legal fiction. It matters that there are criteria for this, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious that medical gatekeeping is the appropriate one. This, if I'm not mistaken, is how the latest explosion of this row began.

If there is no gate-keeping at all though, then 'Woman' is redefined as a feeling in your head, which doesn't reflect the material reality of a world in which women are oppressed because of their biological sex, not because of their gender identity. It would be unacceptable for someone to define themselves as black if they weren't, surely.

None of this would matter of course if we lived in a world where there was no oppression on the basis of sex or race. You could self id as whatever you liked. But we don't, so until that time it's necessary to have meaningful definitions so that people in those oppressed groups can organise and campaign for their unique and specific interests. That necessitates an element of gatekeeping, and for things like race and sex, I would say biological traits are a reasonable criteria to use.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's quite easy , stop making things up to suit your position.

If you don't know about something ask questions instead of picking a place to stand and making shoot up

What things in this thread are 'made up'?

 

[Unkraut]

What things in this thread are 'made up'?

The criticism is aimed at me, and I'd like to know what I have made up as well.

 

[Bromptonaut]

No I wouldn't. The Equality Act is a symbolically important but flawed piece of legislation - the exemptions are crucial. The Gender Recognition Act means that there are two ways to be a woman (or a man) for legal purposes - being born female (allowing for the variation @swansonj recognises in how that is defined) and achieving recognition through the Act. The second is what you might call a legal fiction. It matters that there are criteria for this, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious that medical gatekeeping is the appropriate one. This, if I'm not mistaken, is how the latest explosion of this row began.

That is my understanding too. The GRA was one of the first pieces of legislation in the world to formalise a process to change gender.

Seventeen years the paperwork and hoop jumping looks over prescriptive and too reliant on diagnoses of gender dysphoria; one reason why so few GRCs have been issued. The UK government and the devolved administrations, at least in Scotland, have considered how the process might be simplified. That has included the proposition that one might be allowed to 'self identify'.

I can see why that raises anxiety of the type voiced by @AuroraSaab. On the other hand, before getting a GRC on has to have lived in the acquired gender already; presumably self identifying by mode of dress etc. Is there any record of people in that phase, or purporting to be in it, causing problems in toilets, changing rooms etc?

If there is any record has it been a significant issue?

 

[Bromptonaut]

The criticism is aimed at me, and I'd like to know what I have made up as well.

Could @FishFright provide quotes to substantiate what is said about @Unkraut?

 

[AuroraSaab]

That is my understanding too. The GRA was one of the first pieces of legislation in the world to formalise a process to change gender.

Seventeen years the paperwork and hoop jumping looks over prescriptive and too reliant on diagnoses of gender dysphoria; one reason why so few GRCs have been issued. The UK government and the devolved administrations, at least in Scotland, have considered how the process might be simplified. That has included the proposition that one might be allowed to 'self identify'.

I can see why that raises anxiety of the type voiced by @AuroraSaab. On the other hand, before getting a GRC on has to have lived in the acquired gender already; presumably self identifying by mode of dress etc. Is there any record of people in that phase, or purporting to be in it, causing problems in toilets, changing rooms etc?

If there is any record has it been a significant issue?

I agree that the demands of getting a GRC were problematic, including the psychological stress of having to provide evidence. Self id is hugely problematic though. The implications are massive. If self id became law, on what grounds would you exclude a transwoman from any space or occupation etc that current legislation permits? Whether it's changing rooms, or being able to insist that the medic who examines you after a rape is female, there would be no legal recourse to exclude male bodied people from these spaces or jobs.

It's not just about toilets. It's about being able to choose a same sex carer, it's about recording crime statistics accurately, it's about women in vulnerable situations having privacy and protection.

There are people who have genuinely suffered from crushing body dysphoria for years and for whom living as the opposite sex (whatever that means) is the only thing that relieves their mental distress. But the trans umbrella has been extended to include everybody from these people to anyone chooses to id as male or female. Anyone can hide under the trans heading, genuine or not.

Is there any record of people in that phase, or purporting to be in it, causing problems in toilets, changing rooms etc?

Are there records of men causing problems in toilets, changing rooms etc? Yes, lots. So we exclude all men regardless of how they are dressed or how they self identify. There's no evidence that transwomen don't have the same patterns of offending as other men.

How do we tell the people with genuine body dysphoria from the ones who simply get off on being in women's spaces? We can't so we exclude them all. And even if you are genuinely body dysphoric, does than in itself entitle you to be in spaces and situations where girls and women feel vulnerable when a male bodied person is there?

The solution is third spaces, whether it's a third unisex toilet or a separate prison wing, and for the exemptions of the Equality Act to remain at those times where sex matters.

You would need to ask transwomen why third spaces are unacceptable to them.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I agree that the demands of getting a GRC were problematic, including the psychological stress of having to provide evidence. Self id is hugely problematic though. The implications are massive. If self id became law, on what grounds would you exclude a transwoman from any space or occupation etc that current legislation permits? Whether it's changing rooms, or being able to insist that the medic who examines you after a rape is female, there would be no legal recourse to exclude male bodied people from these spaces or jobs.

It's not just about toilets. It's about being able to choose a same sex carer, it's about recording crime statistics accurately, it's about women in vulnerable situations having privacy and protection.

There are people who have genuinely suffered from crushing body dysphoria for years and for whom living as the opposite sex (whatever that means) is the only thing that relieves their mental distress. But the trans umbrella has been extended to include everybody from these people to anyone chooses to id as male or female. Anyone can hide under the trans heading, genuine or not.

Is there any record of people in that phase, or purporting to be in it, causing problems in toilets, changing rooms etc?

Are there records of men causing problems in toilets, changing rooms etc? Yes, lots. So we exclude all men regardless of how they are dressed or how they self identify. There's no evidence that transwomen don't have the same patterns of offending as other men.

How do we tell the people with genuine body dysphoria from the ones who simply get off on being in women's spaces? We can't so we exclude them all. And even if you are genuinely body dysphoric, does than in itself entitle you to be in spaces and situations where girls and women feel vulnerable when a male bodied person is there?

The solution is third spaces, whether it's a third unisex toilet or a separate prison wing, and for the exemptions of the Equality Act to remain at those times where sex matters.

You would need to ask transwomen why third spaces are unacceptable to them.

Where to even start?

As yet, at least in England where the government have resiled from GRA reform, we've not got any sort of draft legislation or White Paper to go on.

As a male but with a female partner, a daughter and of course a late Mother I think you're starting from completely the wrong perspective.

IMHO it's offensive to describe all transwomen as somehow male bodied, even apparently those who are post operative. Is it even an accurate description for those who have done the hormones and everything but cannot afford surgery 'downstairs'?

If there's a problem with occupational exceptions to Equality Law then legislation can address those; no doubt using the same proportionate means to legitimate end tools as at present. That could capture any necessary exemptions for those providing intimate care to the infirm and elderly as well as the professionals in rape crime suites.

The patronising use of 'whatever that means' when describing people with body dysphoria speaks volumes.

It's quite obvious that there are men who might like to try and get off by invading women only spaces. The law already has tools to deal with them. Is there any evidence from those jurisdictions that have adopted a more straightforward self ID route that men with evil intent have used it to access shared spaces?

The 'post implementation review' of Ireland's legislation only gives a couple of paragraphs to the subject setting it in the context of wider 'shared spaces' issues in the LGBT etc spectrum. It doesn't suggest they've had aproblem

Of course some things might be embarrassing. If my daughter were in a changing room with my young grandchild and there was a transwoman there isn't the 3 year olds stage whisper of 'Mummy, why has that lady got a willy' just another of those body/bodily functions questions parents have to handle?

As to third spaces the phrase 'separate but equal' springs to mind.

 

[PK99]

Once again, I want to ask a genuine question. Presumably what you correctly outline as the current understanding of "sex" is, in terms of the history of humanity, quite a recent change? Presumably, for most of human history, sex was defined not by chromosomes but by body appearance and function? When did that switch take place? (Obviously not till after the discovery of genes but how much after?)

(This reply was started minutes after your post, I've then been out all day, sorry if it now seems out of sequence)

It it not just in human sex definition that genetics have changed our understanding.

Any keen gardener will be continuously frustrated that plants frequently change name and classification.

The original scientific classification defined by Lineus:
The Linnaean system is based on similarities in obvious physical traits. It consists of a hierarchy of taxa, from the kingdom to the species. Each species is given a unique two-word Latin name. The recently added domain is a larger and more inclusive taxon than the kingdom.

Come modern genetics Hardy and tender geraniums, despite physical similarities, were identified as biologically different, hence Geraniums and Pelargoniums.

The intersex problem in humans arose because sex was understood ( Note, not defined) by physical morphology. Just as, at one time, heat flow was understood in terms of phlogiston.

Genes were not invented, they were seen and recognised. The only thing this changed was our understanding.

@swansonj Am I making sense?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Where to even start?

As yet, at least in England where the government have resiled from GRA reform, we've not got any sort of draft legislation or White Paper to go on.

As a male but with a female partner, a daughter and of course a late Mother I think you're starting from completely the wrong perspective.

IMHO it's offensive to describe all transwomen as somehow male bodied, even apparently those who are post operative. Is it even an accurate description for those who have done the hormones and everything but cannot afford surgery 'downstairs'?

If there's a problem with occupational exceptions to Equality Law then legislation can address those; no doubt using the same proportionate means to legitimate end tools as at present. That could capture any necessary exemptions for those providing intimate care to the infirm and elderly as well as the professionals in rape crime suites.

The patronising use of 'whatever that means' when describing people with body dysphoria speaks volumes.

It's estimated that only 20% of those who describe themselves as transgender have undergone surgical procedures, so the vast majority of transwomen will remain male bodied. If the UK adopts self-id as law, on what grounds would transwomen be excluded from the jobs I mentioned? On what grounds would they be excluded from a female hospital ward? It would be illegal to do so. And surely if they were it wouldn't make them as 'equal' as you seem to wish.

I genuinely don't understand what 'living like a woman' means. How do women live? I'm a woman, I'm alive.... am I living like a woman? How does how I live differ from how a man lives? I'd be grateful if you could explain what 'living like a woman' means.

It's quite obvious that there are men who might like to try and get off by invading women only spaces. The law already has tools to deal with them. Is there any evidence from those jurisdictions that have adopted a more straightforward self ID route that men with evil intent have used it to access shared spaces?

The difference with self id is that no-one could challenge a male in a female space. Any male could be in a female space, whether genuinely trans or not. Why make it easier for predators?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ry-of-indecent-exposure-and-masturbation/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/4w.pub/disturbing-footage-brazil/amp/

https://apnews.com/article/us-news-...re-lifestyle-14cd954b06360d21349b77233318369e

The 'post implementation review' of Ireland's legislation only gives a couple of paragraphs to the subject setting it in the context of wider 'shared spaces' issues in the LGBT etc spectrum. It doesn't suggest they've had aproblem

Transwomen have the same pattern of offending as other males. If you are going to argue that they should have access to single sex spaces, then you have made these spaces unisex spaces and you might as well open them to all males.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...omens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

In Ireland all you need to self id as a woman is to complete a form and wait 2 weeks. There's no other gatekeeping in terms of surgery, hormones or anything else. There are currently two (possibly 3) transwomen held in Limerick's women's jail. As I understand it both are there for sexual or violent offences.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news...with-threats-to-kill-two-people-39563823.html

And of course, both in Ireland and some parts of England, crimes committed by men are recorded as being committed by females:

https://www.thejournal.ie/woman-jailed-criminal-court-5392090-Mar2021/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-53410019.amp

If my daughter were in a changing room with my young grandchild and there was a transwoman there isn't the 3 year olds stage whisper of 'Mummy, why has that lady got a willy' just another of those body/bodily functions questions parents have to handle?

I think that is a surprisingly relaxed attitude to seeing male genitalia in a female space, especially seen by children, and not one that most women share. I think you are naive if you imagine there are not men who will use self id and the cover of claiming to be transgender to access these spaces. Men do this already, why make it easier?

In summary:

• Self id will mean an end to all single sex spaces and exemptions.
• What does 'living as a woman' mean? I'd love to know.
• It is because of male criminality that we exclude all men from spaces where women are vulnerable.
• You might have no objection to your granddaughters changing in proximity to males, or sharing hospital wards etc. Research suggests many others do.

As to 'separate but not equal', I would suggest that what this actually means is that you consider that transwomen are entitled to the validation of being in women's single sex spaces. I do not think it is the job of women to validate other people's identities and give up their spaces to avoid hurting people's feelings.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As an aside, it's good to see posters discussing this issue without it descending into the state of other threads on similar topics. I have read and given consideration to all contributions, even if I end up disagreeing with them, because I know that they are sincerely made. This is a difficult and often emotive topic and all points of view deserve recognition.

(Edited for clarity)

 

[Julia9054]

I think that is a surprisingly relaxed attitude to seeing male genitalia in a female space

From the point of view of the 3 year old, no real difference to a man taking his daughter into the men’s changing rooms when going swimming

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well for one thing in that situation it's the father who has chosen to take his daughter into a place where she might see male genitalia, so he has consented to her seeing it in a sense. (The child might feel differently but he has made the active decision to expose her to the possibility).

By using a women's single sex space, women and girls have deliberately chosen to be in a space where they will not see males. Thus any appearance of male bodies and/or genitalia in that space is without their consent.

 

[Julia9054]

Is there any evidence that, in communal female changing rooms, trans women who haven’t had surgery stroll about naked showing their penises to all and sundry?
Are they not more likely to go in a cubicle or keep a towel around them in order not to draw attention to their differences?

 

[icowden]

Is there any evidence that, in communal female changing rooms, trans women who haven’t had surgery stroll about naked showing their penises to all and sundry?
Are they not more likely to go in a cubicle or keep a towel around them in order not to draw attention to their differences?

Yes. They probably are. However, just for the sake of argument, there is the possibility that there might be some men who get off on doing that, and if they have said they are a woman, they have the same right to be there as the trans woman quaking in the cubicle.

As @AuroraSaab has pointed out very eloquently, the issue is that *any* man can declare that they are a woman, and it is so. That is what self-ID is. We would rightly have concerns if a white man blacked up and said that they identified as a black Nigerian. How would we feel if they underwent skin darkening and cosmetic surgery to look more "black" - would that be universally accepted?

Of course if you have darker skin and undergo skin lightening and surgery to look more western, there is much less concern. This is presumably because if you want to look or identify as belonging to a group perceived to be stronger, larger, etc there is less of an issue than someone from that group wanting to look or identify as belong to a group perceived to be a minority group.

We know that men are stronger, and bigger (generally speaking) by their biological nature. We can look after their mental health and still ensure that women feel safe and protected where they need to be.

 

[Fab Foodie]

….people see what they want to see and…

….disregard the rest, na na nana na na naaa….