Okay, this is from the Daily Mail, with a typically Daily Mail headline, but they sometimes do okay news reporting. 

This will make a huge difference for those in the U.K. and those with U.K. birth certificates.  Removing the two-year RLE requirement won't do me much good, since it will probably take two years to bring in the reforms, if they pass, but it will make life easier for those in the future.

----------

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4722056/Government-plans-allow-transgender-pick-gender.html

Choose your own gender WITHOUT seeing as doctor: Government to rip up rules on switching sex
By Thomas Burrows for MailOnline. Updated: 13:54 BST, 23 July 2017

Adults will be able to choose their sex legally without the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria under government plans.

At present they have to provide evidence that they have been in transition for at least two years before they can apply to legally change their gender.

There's also a government LGBT survey just posted on the Gov.UK website which will be open until October. Some of the questions could have been worded better or have given you a choice to explain your answer at the bottom; but all in all a very positive and promising sign things may change.

Restrooms access is one thing (because of individual stalls there), but giving access to other places (such as gyms, spas, or jails god forbid) without any requirements to be under some HRT for at least some time... I don't think that would fly with cis-women, or conservative politicians. And personally, I think it would be ok to allow such access only after some reasonably long period of time on HRT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure it's just me overthinking it, but surely there has to be some sort of "control" in place for not everyone and their dog to change their gender so quickly?

Yes it would be a good thing for people who legitimately want/need to, but how far do we take that? I was under the impression that RLE was there to make certain that someone could and/or would live in their new gender permanently. Maybe being on a course of HRT would make that vary, but still...

I'm not trying to say it's a bad thing, but then I'm not sure.

This whole gender thing is getting to be a mess.
Worst thing is it's just causing people to laugh at us.
Aw yea we just flip between genders as we please, what a joke.

I say, there are 3 different things - initial criteria (such as who is to be qualified to changing sex) - I'm totally comfortable with self-declaration here.

Another thing is gender-confirming behavior. As much as I am fine with non-confirming behavior per se (and it's even difficult to define gender conforming behavior in a law - we won't require women to wear 3 items of female-only and guys to wear 3 items of male-only clothing as they used to require in USA in 50s), but ... I think facilities access should be granted on a stricter standard than self-declared change in DL, and even wearing a dress for the opportunity to shower with ladies isn't necessarily sufficient. I believe it could be defined on e-or-t levels in masculine or feminine zone over a certain period of time as is currently defined in athletics. At least, that way no jock would want to do it for laughs (and we will have a good argument against conservative lobbyist trying to sell that argument to the public).

Self-declaration, while appealing from a libertarian viewpoint, provides ammunition and rationalization to the proponents of bathroom bills and the like.  There are benefits to a little bit of gatekeeping for that reason.  All you'd need is to convince a professional of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.  Dealing with the waiting lists so that folks could get in to see the professional in a reasonable time in the first place would make a bigger difference.

The proposed change that will make the biggest difference in people's lives, IMO, is the removal of the arbitrary 2 years RLE.

I also think that access to different facilities should be defined in terms of expected privacy in those facilities -
a) Restrooms with individual stalls - access defined depending on gender presentation.
b) Store fitting rooms, changing rooms, showers with individual curtains and some communal areas where people are semi-undressed - I would say HRT regiment
c) Communal showers, spas, etc where people are _expected_ to be nude in front of others (such as Korean sauna visited by me recently) - I think the only historically acceptable solution would be bottom surgery or at least an orchie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that, in my view, this is one of the most ill-advised proposals the UK government has come up with in recent times.  Gender transition is a serious business but to reduce it to a box ticking exercise just seems to demean the trans community.

The thing is that gender has two facets - one's inner feeling and one's interaction with the wider community.  We have all, to a greater or lesser degree struggled with our inner feelings; some go down the transition path, some live with the struggle but that is very much a personal decision.  However, we also interact with the wider community which, for reasons of decency and security, still largely segregates individuals between male and female.  Agreed, the vast majority would respect this legislation for what it is and use it only as an enabler in their journey across the genders. 

However, think about this scenario - a male with no history of dysphoria commits murder and then before being arrested & tried self elects to become female.  Found guilty and given a prison sentence then states that it is 'her' human right to be sent to a women's prison.  Do the judges turn the request down (which effectively goes against the legislation) or comply and send someone who is, to all intents and purposes still male, to a women's prison?  Obviously the latter as that's what British judges do.  So we've now got a load of cis-female inmates at risk; easily solved - place our newly transitioned prisoner into isolation but, of course, this goes against their human rights!  'Would never happen' I hear you say but this is the country that can't deport convicted criminals because it would violate their human rights and, guess what, they carry on offending.

The struggle that genuine transgender individuals have to endure is heartbreaking and anything that reduces the distress has to be a step forward but, equally, there has to be a limit.

Quote from: aaajjj55 on July 27, 2017, 10:32:49 AM
I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that, in my view, this is one of the most ill-advised proposals the UK government has come up with in recent times.  Gender transition is a serious business but to reduce it to a box ticking exercise just seems to demean the trans community.

The thing is that gender has two facets - one's inner feeling and one's interaction with the wider community.  We have all, to a greater or lesser degree struggled with our inner feelings; some go down the transition path, some live with the struggle but that is very much a personal decision.  However, we also interact with the wider community which, for reasons of decency and security, still largely segregates individuals between male and female.  Agreed, the vast majority would respect this legislation for what it is and use it only as an enabler in their journey across the genders. 

However, think about this scenario - a male with no history of dysphoria commits murder and then before being arrested & tried self elects to become female.  Found guilty and given a prison sentence then states that it is 'her' human right to be sent to a women's prison.  Do the judges turn the request down (which effectively goes against the legislation) or comply and send someone who is, to all intents and purposes still male, to a women's prison?  Obviously the latter as that's what British judges do.  So we've now got a load of cis-female inmates at risk; easily solved - place our newly transitioned prisoner into isolation but, of course, this goes against their human rights!  'Would never happen' I hear you say but this is the country that can't deport convicted criminals because it would violate their human rights and, guess what, they carry on offending.

The struggle that genuine transgender individuals have to endure is heartbreaking and anything that reduces the distress has to be a step forward but, equally, there has to be a limit.

We can't prohibit trans people from having the correct birth certificate in order for them to feel validated; based on a 'what if' scenario that is very unlikely to happen. It's similar to the ridiculous 'what if' argument made by republicans in regards to having trans people use the bathroom of their choice. That it'll cause cis men to go into women's bathrooms so they can rape women. No case of this has happened in the UK or elsewhere yet they still fear it 'might' happen. Ireland has had the option for trans people to fill in a simple form to legally change their gender for a year or so now; with no issues whatsoever. It's time the UK did so too.

Another interesting case, that does happen in Australia, is if an apparently cis-male is in prison and decides to transition with HRT. They do stay in the male prison. I don't know how that's ok, not one's dying here.

Quote from: Elis on July 28, 2017, 08:43:01 AM
We can't prohibit trans people from having the correct birth certificate in order for them to feel validated; based on a 'what if' scenario that is very unlikely to happen. It's similar to the ridiculous 'what if' argument made by republicans in regards to having trans people use the bathroom of their choice. That it'll cause cis men to go into women's bathrooms so they can rape women. No case of this has happened in the UK or elsewhere yet they still fear it 'might' happen. Ireland has had the option for trans people to fill in a simple form to legally change their gender for a year or so now; with no issues whatsoever. It's time the UK did so too.

I gave an extreme example but there are many other less fanciful issues here which could come into play and also, just because something hasn't yet happened doesn't mean it won't.  Having the correct birth certificate is not contingent on whether the UK follows the Irish model as we already have legislation to permit this. 

All I am saying is that there should be some form of validation which works on the premise that the legal gender change should be permitted unless there is good reason not to.  I think we all agree that a two year RLE is not the right answer but there are other ways that one can be validated in a dignified and respectful manner which enables the genuine and committed cases to be 'waved through' whilst preventing abuse of the system.  Gender transition is a serious business and, as such, must be seen to be so.  It's not, as the more cynical in society think, a lifestyle choice.

Quote from: AnonyMs on July 28, 2017, 09:26:45 AM
Another interesting case, that does happen in Australia, is if an apparently cis-male is in prison and decides to transition with HRT. They do stay in the male prison. I don't know how that's ok, not one's dying here.

Interesting as you say but I would imagine that some form of special arrangements for them would need to be made to avoid them being at risk particularly as the HRT took hold?

Quote from: aaajjj55 on July 28, 2017, 09:42:56 AM
I gave an extreme example but there are many other less fanciful issues here which could come into play and also, just because something hasn't yet happened doesn't mean it won't.  Having the correct birth certificate is not contingent on whether the UK follows the Irish model as we already have legislation to permit this. 

All I am saying is that there should be some form of validation which works on the premise that the legal gender change should be permitted unless there is good reason not to.  I think we all agree that a two year RLE is not the right answer but there are other ways that one can be validated in a dignified and respectful manner which enables the genuine and committed cases to be 'waved through' whilst preventing abuse of the system.  Gender transition is a serious business and, as such, must be seen to be so.  It's not, as the more cynical in society think, a lifestyle choice.

But what you're imposing is for somehow trans people having to prove they're 'really' trans. How on earth would that possibly be done. Especially for trans people who don't medically transition. Plus it's a waste of resources for the people who work for the government to sift through every application to see who should be granted a new birth certificate.

Similarly to change ones name in the US requires you to go to court and be seen in front of a judge and I'm guessing; a lot more bureaucracy involving multitudes of paperwork. The pro argument being it'll prevent people changing ones name due to fraud or some other nefarious reason. Whereas here in the UK it simply requires you to print out a deed poll template which must be signed by yourself and two people who know you. No issues have cropped up using this system and there are a multitude of benefits.

I hate to point out the fragility of all these straw-man arguments, but anyone who believes that they are safe from a rapist or molester in a restroom because that person won't enter because they have the wrong gender coded on their paperwork is just kidding themselves.

Even in jurisdictions that legislate the gender coded on a document must match the restroom, it is generally already illegal to harass, molest, assault, or rape another person, and the potential offender has already decided to take actions that violate these laws.  Having incorrect paperwork will not deter the offender.  Really.

These straw-man arguments are lethally misleading.

On the other hand, in my country we have police officials who are happy to arrest trans people on traffic violations, particularly if they live outside the local jurisdiction (They call it a "flight risk".  Seriously.)  They will put that person in Holding with others having the same gender marker, and then check the holding cell for the safety and well-being of the incarcerated every two (2) hours as required by regulations.  Anything that happens between checks... happens.  Sexual assaults are routine events.

Transwomen living in my particular county are at serious risk if we are ever arrested, and there are still locales here where simply walking on certain streets while presenting female WILL get one arrested and sent to the county holding facility.

Not having correct ID is worth your life with our current sheriff and his jail staff.

Getting correct ID is expensive, requiring the preparation and filing of court petitions ($435 filing fee), and the production of Certified Copies of a court order if granted ($25 each).  If one is not adept at preparing legal pleadings and comfortable preparing cleanly typed sets of Court forms (5 different one involved), add in legal costs of roughly $1,000.  Then one has to have an afternoon free to spend queuing at the Social Security Administration to get the hidden gender marker there corrected, so that after another afternoon queueing at the Department of Motor Vehicles they will accept and approve your request to alter the gender marker on your ID.

Two-thirds of transwomen here have not changed their gender markers.  All are at risk of assault and rape under the gentle ministrations of our jail system.

Quote from: aaajjj55 on July 28, 2017, 09:42:56 AMAll I am saying is that there should be some form of validation which works on the premise that the legal gender change should be permitted unless there is good reason not to.

Hm—interesting.

While I may be wrong, I believe the original guidelines established in the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards of Care were meant to screen out the people who might regret transitioning in order to protect them from harm.

Since the purpose of the proposed validation process would be to protect the society at large rather than the individual who wishes to make the change, the government would need to start by deciding what constitutes good reason not to grant it.

I guess that to assuage fears of what may happen, the proposed screening would also have to be strict enough to prevent the people who it would be meant to protect will be satisfied. Would suspicion of frivolity suffice? Sexual aberrations? A criminal record? Underaged children? Incongruent appearance or mannerisms? Psychological instability? Age?

One difference between the Standards of Care (now WPATH) and the proposed government screening would be that laws are more binding and difficult to amend than non-binding guidelines of a society. Thus, the law establishing the screening would have to be clear and thoroughly thought out from the very start.

Maybe I was wrong as well, maybe sex designation should be as easy as signing a template in front of 2 witnesses?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a bad idea. Even as a trans woman i will be opposing this one. And, as far as im aware, you dont need to be on hrt for two years? to go to toilet. But you do need a diagnosis and be on "the medical pathway" doint think you have to be on hrt for two years

Quote from: ButterflyVickster on July 28, 2017, 04:06:28 PM
This is a bad idea. Even as a trans woman i will be opposing this one. And, as far as im aware, you dont need to be on hrt for two years? to go to toilet. But you do need a diagnosis and be on "the medical pathway" doint think you have to be on hrt for two years

To get a gender recognition certificate in the UK you need to have live 'in role' for two years and prove you have done so. Even if you have the required paperwork proving this sometimes the panel can still refuse your case for whatever reason. And you have to pay £140 for the privilegeof obtaining a GRC. There's no prove two years is the optimal time in which a person won't change their mind about changing their assigned gender. Or any reasoning behind why you have to prove yourself to a body of strangers who have never met you. Plus why should trans people have to wait 2 years in order to feel validated. It's unethical.

I don't believe in an arbitrary 2y wait, but I do believe you should have a medical diagnosis and sign-off by a certified psychiatrist.  If it was made so easy, you can guarantee some drunk frat boy is going to have fun with it and make the whole thing a big joke.  My opinion is that many rights activists are doing more harm than good in most cases.  Loosening the rules too much will weaken the validity of the change  and force conservative groups to tighten the noose on any related legislation.

Quote from: staciM on July 28, 2017, 07:33:46 PM
I don't believe in an arbitrary 2y wait, but I do believe you should have a medical diagnosis and sign-off by a certified psychiatrist.  If it was made so easy, you can guarantee some drunk frat boy is going to have fun with it and make the whole thing a big joke.  My opinion is that many rights activists are doing more harm than good in most cases.  Loosening the rules too much will weaken the validity of the change  and force conservative groups to tighten the noose on any related legislation.

Hasn't happened in Ireland and it's been a year or so since they made obtaining a GRC a case of filling in a simple form.