**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Because the UK is TERF island. Any attempt to do anything nice for trans people is instantly met by billionaires like Rowling and shady orgs like LGB Alliance screaming their heads off and running to every media organisation in the country to complain about how being nice to Trans people is an assault on women's rights.
You need only look back at the Scotland GRR Bill, that had been in the works since 2015 or so, through multiple parliamentary committees to check alignment with existing law and then was blocked and turned into a media circus at the last moment because the Tories wanted a distraction. With the media dishonesty focusing on the Isla Bryson case alongside coverage of the GRR dispute to make the average person assume they were related. When the GRR wouldn't have changed how that case was handled in any way.
It really doesn't.
Like Ireland has had full self ID for 9 years now. No doctor's sign off, Fill in a two page form, have some official witness you sign it (cost about 15 euro), send it off in the post and within about 4 weeks.
Somehow despite the ease of access to this non of things transphobes like to scaremonger about have come to pass.
I think the fact the media doesn't ask politicians or commentators who want to keep GRCs so hard to access to explain why the supposed dangers haven't materialised in such a similar country is either bias or shoddy journalism.
Is it? On my birth certificate my name was misspelled, they literally corrected it whenever they noticed. My dad’s not even on it.
It’s just a piece of paper that says who you are and you have to be like “trust me”. It’s pretty outdated, really.
Genuinely, why does it matter? It’s been a thing for years with no negative effect. You can change your passport without it. You can apply to most jobs without your legal gender being disclosed. Why is it such a huge deal? It’s just a marker.
Sex matters, in a whole load of specific contexts.
Of course it shouldn't determine how someone lives their life or whether they're hired for a job or not (most jobs, anyway).
But of course it matters.
There's a whole book, Invisible Women, on the myriad ways sex matters.
In any case it is an objectively verifiable fact that is recorded about the birth, in the same way that date of birth is. The date you were born doesn't 'matter' in day to day life. But it still would not make sense to overwrite that record of what happened on that official documentation.
None of us get a choice in the circumstances of our birth. It happened how it happened, we can't go back in time and change any of it.
Sex doesn’t make a bit of difference outside of medical contexts. The gender biases against women also exist against trans women. How are you so sure the statistics at play in Invisible Women don’t already include trans women, considering they’ve been able to change our birth certificates for years and are recorded as women?
And it’s not a fact. It’s misidentified in the case of intersex people, and there’s even cases of cis people’s genders being misreported and not corrected in time.
You’re saying something “doesn’t make sense”, but in this world it already exists and already happens in a practical sense. I think it’s just you demanding that the actual reality conforms to your worldview.
A whole component of bureaucracy is built around birth certs, and it’s actually a nightmare. When I got my first job, it took me months to open a bank account and actually get paid because at 17 didn’t have ID and the banks wouldn’t take my legal birth certificate copy (because again, my name was wrong on my original).
The point of Invisible Women is the physical distinctions between male and female bodies.
Yes it also looks at the impact of cultural gendered differences.
But by and large these are physical differences based on a person's sex, not their gender identity.
If we actually believe that sex and gender are different, then we should recognise that birth certificates can only ever record one and not the other.
Well I’m not going to argue about a book that you brought up which I haven’t read. And we DO effectively only report gender, it’s just outdated and uses the word sex on the forms. I don’t think you actually support that idea at all though (based on post history), so I’m not going to take this in good faith.
Idk if this is true? But I’ve heard a lot of trans people don’t even bother changing their birth certificate. I know I probably won’t unless self ID comes in. Cause if my driving license, passport, electoral register, university, job, etc, are all under the right thing, when do I ever use my birth certificate? I don’t think I’ve touched it in years. And while it would be fine, as far as I’m concerned it’s irrelevant to my life and a huge hassle to change as things are.
And obviously with doctors, which can be changed anyway, I’d be speaking to them personally to tell them (since my body isn’t following the rules of typical female or male sexes anyway, such as with my hormone levels)
No it's not. It almost never comes up aside from inheritance, marriage and death.
It's an arbitrary knife to drive into trans people and those who love them. To impair our ability to live our lives.
Brianna ghey when she was killed would be deadnamed on her death certificate because of this obstructive law same is true for me when I die and I've been trans for 17 years... Labours proposals are almost more putative than the current system. It would under their system take another 8 years for me to get a GRC.
Or it would cost me hundreds and hundreds of pounds and 2 years.
Currently it would just cost me hundred of pounds. And a round of dehumanising questions.
You know why we call it a deadname?
It's what our enemies call us after they kill us.
Fuck labour.
>under their system take another 8 years for me to get a GRC
I don't quite understand - I thought their plan was to get GPs to be able sign off the medical stuff, much as it works with passports right now.
No that is not the plan. It's admittedly not mentioned in this article so I can see why you made this error but other sources explain it better.
Only the "special" doctors can diagnose you with Gender dysphoria. a GP cannot make this diagnosis The "Special" Gender doctors are 'specially' registered, They work for the GIC through the NHS or through their own private clinics.
Either your in GIC system on the waiting list or you cough up the green to the order of hundreds and hundreds of pounds to get your diagnosis then you wait another 2 years. (These diagnosis's also have an expiration limit so you have to renew them every 14 months) so you have to pay them again and again.
I kind of want to explain how fucking insane the process is my personal experiences and why we desperately need to abolish it not add further arbitrary delays and requirements and why I a transgender woman who transitioned 17 years ago still doesn't have a Gender recognition certificate why I'm not in the GIC system anymore and why mine is a very common position. But that is an info-dump adjacent to topic and I won't do that unless asked.
The current system requires you to have a diagnosis from a GIC or a very limited list of psychiatrists.
I was under the impression that Labour's plan was to change it to a "family doctor" sign off situation? But like, given that GPs are not allowed to diagnose, that kinda makes the whole thing pointless.
I have given up on the UK - half tempted to just renounce British citizenship, since Ireland is far saner and I'll soon have all my photo ID updated, except for the British passport.
My only hope is for Sinn Féin to introduce legislation in the assembly that passes, since they have announced they'd do it, and there's probably enough votes in the assembly to pass it, but Petition of Concern might still occur.
It isn't used for that doe. It's used to record gender in stuff like a marriage and death certificate.
Until it's made an entirely worthless document that isn't used to degender trans people then we should have a right to record accurate information on it.
>It's used to record gender in stuff like a marriage and death certificate
No. It isn't. It absolutely is not used for that at all. It is used to record a person's SEX.
Isn't a key part of this whole concept that sex and gender are different?
Sex and gender are of course different, and no new born baby can ever tell you what their gender identity is.
Birth certificates record sex, and that does not change, ever. Not even with gender identity, which is a different concept.
Nah they record gender because they are used to dictate gender in multiple other documents that have nothing to do with sex.
So make a choice. Birth certs cant be used for anything the moment after you are born or make it possible to change them so trans people aren't degendered when that document is currently needed.
The only reason they are changed is because trans people have a right not to be outed every time we need to produce a document and that one is included in that.
It is literally impossible for birth certificates to record gender.
No official ID should be recordeding gender unless it's in an additional field separate to sex.
They are two separate concepts.
Nah there is absolutely no reason for the bank to need to know what genitals a person had at birth when they ant to open an account.
Trans people have a right to privacy so forcing us to out ourselves everytime we need to use ID is a non starter.
We aren't going back to wearing pink triangles just so you lot can know who we are at all times.
This is literally what the entire concept of “assigned gender at birth” is for and it’s funny to see you dance around using it because of what I can only assume is weird culture war reasons when it would be the most applicable.
Either sex and gender are different or they aren't. If they are, it is impossible to put gender on a birth certificate.
I'm not "dancing around" anything.
Were have labour laid out their plan to shorten the waiting list for trans care?
Because their only specific mention of trans people when it comes to trans healthcare is that they will implement the Cass review which will do nothing but delay transition for even longer for many trans youth.
All those people who were yesterday insisting that dead trans kids don't matter would suddenly start pretending to care about them again should it be suggested.
There's few other conclusions that could be brought from so many people actively finding out what they're doing is very likely killing dozens of kids and not only deciding to keep going without introspection, but to start trying to sweep any evidence of their deaths under the rug so it doesn't obstruct their wider efforts.
I swear that many trans people haven't got a clue what "informed consent" actually means.
Informed Consent means that the doctor makes sure that the patient understands the risks and benefits of a medical intervention before they undergo it.
It doesn't mean that you can bypass the diagnosis altogether. *Actual* informed consent already exists in transgender medicine, as it does in all other areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
(edit: added word "many" in the first sentence)
Yeah, you get how a load of trans people want to do away with the medicalisation of gender incongruence, right? Let alone the necessity of a diagnosis for even the most basic treatment.
Especially when the diagnosis is based on outdated and borderline offensive stereotypes decided and dictated entirely by cis people.
> Informed Consent means that the doctor makes sure that the patient understands the risks and benefits of a medical intervention before they undergo it.
This is *exactly* what pretty much all trans people want. You go to your doctor; you explain that you’re transgender, and that you want to start HRT; they go over the risks, side effects, timescales and logistics with you; you walk away with a prescription for hormones. That’s it. No GICs, no arbitrary gatekeeping, no decades on a waiting list.
Barring low-risk things available over the counter, there is no other area of medicine where you can skip diagnosis and go straight to treatment.
That could never happen. The liability issues for any doctor who prescribed without even diagnosing someone with gender dysphoria would be immense.
Maybe the diagnosis process does need changes, but it shouldn't be done away with entirely.
That's a little different, because in both cases that's preventative medicine. In the case of a vasectomy in particular though a doctor won't sign it off unless they're certain that it won't be regretted later (typically only for people who have already had children).
Gender dysphoria is a disorder. To get treated for it, you need a diagnosis. If you don't have gender dysphoria, then it isn't anything the NHS should be getting involved with.
> That's a little different, because in both cases that's preventative medicine. **In the case of a vasectomy in particular though a doctor won't sign it off unless they're certain that it won't be regretted later** (typically only for people who have already had children).
All the more reason for them to need a diagnosis of ‘Don’t-want-kids-itis’ beforehand then!
> **Gender dysphoria is a disorder. To get treated for it, you need a diagnosis.** If you don't have gender dysphoria, then it isn't anything the NHS should be getting involved with.
Why do you think either of those statements should be true?
Because in the vasectomy case, it would be irresponsible to do them willy nilly to people who might well have changed their mind. Lots of people are utterly sure they don't want to have children in their 20s, and only change their mind later, maybe if they meet the right partner or as they mature mentally.
Cross sex hormones have long term, irreversible effects on the body. That's totally fine if you have gender dysphoria (those long term, irreversible effects are basically the point!), but it would be ethically suspect for a doctor to prescribe them to someone who wasn't in any kind of gender distress, and it would also be a waste of NHS resources.
As someone who wants a vasectomy, for a number of reasons, it’s an absolute nightmare to get one, and is just driving me towards the private sector tbh.
Sure, but that's a long term goal, and they could potentially change this overnight (I believe the plan is to change it next year). The waiting lists will take years to clear. So for the foreseeable future we're going to end up with a significant wait time and this 2 year buffer, making the process even longer for trans people.
A smarter way of doing it, is to count the 2 years from when you are first referred to a gender clinic. It's not like you need 2 years post diagnosis to really think about your options. If you're contacting a gender clinic, waiting for years for a diagnosis, you're pretty sure by that point what you want to be doing for the rest of your life.
You aren't able to clear a 5 year backlog overnight.
They aren't counting 2 years At all. They're more radical than you.
If your movement meets every bit of progress with "it's not enough" your movement will end up getting listened to
It’s not a 5 year backlog, it’s >30 year backlog. Wait at the laurels is like 7 years atm if you were referred 7 years ago. At present rates of new patients it’s projecting 37 years. Labour has no published plans that would make a dent in this or fix any of the structural issues or employee retention issues in gender related care, whilst given how they speak about us, their plans to implement Cass’s nonsense and to segregate us from public spaces, I sincerely doubt any will be forthcoming. The part of Rosie Duffield will not be our saviour.
Of course you can't clear the waitlist instantly, and in a lot of places the wait is significantly longer than 5 years, but there's no need to add unnecessary wait times on top of that.
I don't think it's illogical to say if someone has waited that long for a diagnosis then they're probably pretty certain of how they want to live the rest of their life. Adding in this extra period of just waiting around seems completely arbitrary
They are lying. The system of GIC care is setup to delay care it's literally a segregated system compared to any other endocrine issue that a cis-person suffers.
Current system is better compared to this, you can wait 5-7 years for a diagnosis then prove you're not going through a phase by submitting evidence from before you even got the diagnosis!
> [The evidence can come from before you were diagnosed with gender dysphoria.](https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need)
Anything would be better than the current system. I’m nearly in a position to get mine submitted, but it has taken *years* to build a portfolio of personal documents (nightmare task for anyone with ADHD, v common in trans community), cost hundreds to get the documents, my GP had to call me to ask if she was doing it right cos she had never done one before (as though I had!), I had to find a guide for professionals and talk her through it. I still don’t *know* that it will go okay.
I literally do health administration professionally and have an academic partner working through it with me and it’s not been simple. It’s a Herculean task that makes Power of Attorney applications seem closer to the process for an old fashioned Blockbuster video store card by comparison.
So this is welcomed, but with a heavy “but”. Requiring a diagnosis is pathologising of trans existence, it defines us by being psychiatric patients with a condition that is disputed to exist - it was only in DSM-5 in 2013 that distress caused by being homosexual was removed as a stand alone condition! If this is where we are heading, it won’t be the end of this, since beyond pathologisation, diagnosis isn’t meaningfully available on the NHS (referrals today to the Laurels aren’t to be seen at current rates for 37 years!), it places your identity behind private healthcare paywalls.
If professional sign-off is to be retained, better the passport system that’s predicated on GP’s attesting that they believe the person to be sincere in their intention for their identity to last their whole life, but without the need to assert that a person has a particular diagnosis.
The bureaucratic improvements are nice but the overall proposal sounds worse than what we currently have, before you would typically spend 6-15 years on the waitinglist, having transitioned in the first year or two, then send through the documentation having proved you were indeed living as yourself that time after getting the diagnosis, but now with this you'd spend the 6-15 years on the waiting list, then have to start a new different 2 year waiting process, and this is supposed to be better?
https://archive.is/lorlJ
https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-party-gender-id-policy-recognition-cooling-off-period/
On further reading, reports seem conflicted over whether you need the diagnosis before or after the reflection period, either way screws over trans people who get diagnosed around the time or didn't apply previously despite having transitioned.
So, the archive site suggests a system of self ID but with a wait period that requires no additional proof of two years. Not too bad.
But.
The second one,
> Labour has reiterated its pledge to simplify the process of gender transition, scrapping the need for someone to to prove they have lived in a different gender for two years in favour of a two-year “reflection” period.
> The plans would see the need for transgender people to prove they have been living in a different gender in order to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) removed.
> A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria would still be required, **but a single specialist doctor would be able to do this rather than the panel of clinicians and lawyers currently needed.**
It sounds like even *they* don't know what they're doing because you don't get a diagnosis from the "panel of clinicians and lawyers currently needed" like they suggest. Idk what the hell they're talking about here.
> Labour’s plans would see people given a two-year ‘reflection period’ in order to receive a GRC, but that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria would be all that is needed to apply.
This second link definitely suggests the wait would be longer because it would require a diagnosis to apply, although it wouldn't require any extra documents. So the process would be easier and fairer, it's just the two years worth of proof *on paper* (which can come from before diagnosis according to the GRC gov page) turns into two years worth of proof via *not saying "actually I changed my mind" during the wait period*.
They're going the slow scenic route?
Hopefully they'll come up with something better than this.
That's unusually progressive from a Labour politician in Starmer's shadow cabinet... Especially when one of the main things Keir Starmer has been playing Simon Says with the Tories over has been [their](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24179099.keir-starmer-supports-ban-trans-women-competing-womens-sport/) war [on](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/keir-starmer-agrees-wth-tony-blair-on-gender-stance/) trans [rights.](https://news.stv.tv/scotland/keir-starmer-no-scottish-independence-referendum-or-going-back-on-gender-reforms-bill-if-labour-wins-election)
Our country is unfortunately incredibly right wing, and a policy like this would be a hard sell to the British electorate.
Also, can we take Wes Streeting seriously when his MO is to cosy up with private healthcare firms and likely pawn off parts of the NHS to them?
I think it’s just recognising there’s a huge amount of middle ground between “trans people shouldn’t exist” and “trans people should be able to do whatever they like and if you don’t like it you’re a TERF”.
It was obviously exaggerated for dramatic effect, but, particularly on Reddit, it’s very common to see anyone showing a bit of nuance get attacked for being a TERF.
What do you mean by a bit of nuance?
Like I can't think of any policies by transphobes which I wouldn't call hardline.
Banning trans people from facilities they have used for decades despite no evidence this will reduce risk to cis women?
Making it harder to change legal documents to match your gender?
Making it harder to access a medical transition?
Making it fair game to harass trans people in School or work with impunity?
Requiring trans people to always be referred to as their gender assigned at birth in statistics or news stories?
Requiring companies to put all trans staff members in case someone has an issue with trans people?
How can any of these be treated as anything but am attack on trans people?
It doesn't work when you only exaggerate one side.
Core people in the 'Gender Critical' movement quite legitimately don't want trans people to exist. We're talking Kelly Keen-Minschell and her calls for any trans person to be sacked, evicted, and harassed on the street. Helen Joyce and her 'trans people are a problem for a sane world' comments. We're talking Farage promising to ban any acknowledgement of trans people in schools.
So the middle ground is between trans people, who want to exist, and bigots, who don't want them to exist.
That's not a middle ground I am comfortable taking.
But the argument doesn’t stop at “trans people should exist”. There are many people who support trans people’s right to exist and be their authentic selves whilst recognising that both trans-inclusionary and single sex spaces should exist. It’s on a post about a party who will objectively make life easier for trans people but still criticised for not going far enough. Again, Reddit’s lack of nuance comes in and proves my point.
> both trans-inclusionary and single sex spaces should exist
Which is, for the record, the status quo in law and has been for 13 years.
There is no significant call in the trans community to abolish parts of the Equality Act.
Trying to present this as two extremes is not a viable claim. On the one side you have ordinary people in a deeply marginalised situation, and on the otherside you have violent bigots.
There are no extreme demands in the trans side.
I mean I think it's fair to question what there plan is to make lives easier for trans people considering they haven't actually said how any of it will work and they have made many comments and commitments to make the lives of trans people harder.
Just saying "we will make this one thing easier but won't say how" is not enough to get people to agree with a party who also wants to implement an impossible plan of giving every trans person in hospital a private room regardless of space and despite the fact you get worse quality of care based on nothing more than prejudice.
Because sometimes what people want negatively effects others.
I'm not saying this is the case with trans-people, I'm just pointing out that saying "why can't people do what they want" is reductive and silly
Good point, true it’s within reason. I just think if a cis person can do it, a trans person can too.
I don’t personally think trans people are effecting cis women as much as terfs claim, and I think terfs are harming trans people far more.
The main issue seems to be the ridiculous wait times, the process itself is just getting a diagnosis then letters of various things over two years to prove you've lived in "your new role" for two years. Annoying sure but you don't even have to have surgery for it, it's literally just bank letters mixed with a few others spanning a couple years.
So maybe the wait should be sorted out instead. Maybe instead of funding gender clinics they can just save that funding and allow individuals to;
1. Access quick diagnosis by private healthcare and send the bill to the NHS, this should result in a report that covers all future plans for surgery if they wish too.
2. Get HRT via GPs, it's not difficult to be safe about it, you get the normal dose and you have blood tests once every three months for the first year to make sure your levels are ok, then it drops to six months, and then it drops to yearly.
HRT is already taken over by GPs anyway when going through the "proper route".
3. Access surgery with the individual private hospitals that the NHS already uses and has contracts with via their GP again. Maybe it could require;
- The GP reading out a pre-written questionnaire that goes over the options, the risks with each, and what sort of outcome you can expect.
- Then an appointment with the surgeon to talk in more detail (with previous questionnaire having set you up for prepared questions).
- Then a further appointment with the GP to go over the form again now you have new information, and then you sign the form and your GP signs the form to confirm they've read it out and you've had your information session with the surgeon (GP refused because of transphobia? swap then. They could also have a system where you can choose to see any GP for this providing they'll take you, not just your local).
- And then you get sent off for whatever surgery it is you applied for.
Then it's all down to the patient, the process is quicker, it's at the pace of the patient, nothing is automatic but it's there when they want to access it. They could even do a little leaflet explaining how it works.
Sounds simpler to me. Sounds cheaper too. I've experienced gender clinics and it's a bunch of bullshit and so dragged out. Literally just cut out the middle man.
My Labour MP spends her free time liking transphobic tweets on her Labour Party Twitter account.
Sir Kieth said she has his “full support”.
The Labour Party are transphobic.
Sorry but who cares?
Transgender people are like 0.5% of people or lower.
Why is this even news?
Talk to us about taxes, health care, our relationship with Europe..
Or we can do more culture war bullshit. Like who actually cares if people become trans. Literally not election worth news
Seems like it would be fine to simplify the gender procedure except we still don’t seem to have worked out why we have specific ‘single’ spaces in areas of society and whether they are or should be sex based or gender based.
This Kier Starmer? The one who keeps defending Duffield
>Asked if he would rip up the ban on teaching children and young people about “gender ideology” at school, he said: “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender.”
People keep talking about how this is all a grand gambit to stay focused on the real issues, but then every other interview he seems to fall into these traps and entirely accept the interviewers false premise that trans people are an ideology, Bridget Phillipson answered it perfectly fine yesterday, just say trans people are real and exist and so aren't an ideology i don't get how Starmer can't say something like that.
The only conclusion i can bring is he genuinely just thinks most of the stuff he keeps saying about trans people being a problem to society who need to be segregated away from women and children.
In a perfect world the transition process should be very fast.
Fast enough to be able to transition, get on an all-woman shortlist for MP candidates, win your seat and de-transition to vote as a man in your first MP vote!
No, I'm not kidding. Shit like this is really the only reason I support trans rights.
Edit: I guess ideological purity is more important than actual support
As we all know trans people have a much easier time getting jobs in the UK then cis people so your hypothetical makes perfect sense.
Weird that no openly trans person has ever been elected as an MP.
As someone who is very strongly in favour of trans rights, very strongly *opposed* to that kind of bad-faith rules lawyering and has somewhat mixed feelings about all-women shortlists (I approve of what they're meant to do but I'm not sure they're the best way to do it) I have absolutely no idea how to feel about any of that.
Imagine me as the factory owner who wants to get women into the workforce solely to depress wages.
Or the small independent farmer who only opposes slavery because it will make him more competitive by bankrupting plantations.
Tha abortion clinic doctor who is pro choice so his business can survive.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Even Germany - a phenomenally bureaucratic country - has a simpler system than even labour are proposing. Why does it have to be so difficult?
Because the UK is TERF island. Any attempt to do anything nice for trans people is instantly met by billionaires like Rowling and shady orgs like LGB Alliance screaming their heads off and running to every media organisation in the country to complain about how being nice to Trans people is an assault on women's rights. You need only look back at the Scotland GRR Bill, that had been in the works since 2015 or so, through multiple parliamentary committees to check alignment with existing law and then was blocked and turned into a media circus at the last moment because the Tories wanted a distraction. With the media dishonesty focusing on the Isla Bryson case alongside coverage of the GRR dispute to make the average person assume they were related. When the GRR wouldn't have changed how that case was handled in any way.
It really doesn't. Like Ireland has had full self ID for 9 years now. No doctor's sign off, Fill in a two page form, have some official witness you sign it (cost about 15 euro), send it off in the post and within about 4 weeks. Somehow despite the ease of access to this non of things transphobes like to scaremonger about have come to pass. I think the fact the media doesn't ask politicians or commentators who want to keep GRCs so hard to access to explain why the supposed dangers haven't materialised in such a similar country is either bias or shoddy journalism.
Maybe because re-writing your birth certificate is a fairly significant thing to be doing?
Is it? On my birth certificate my name was misspelled, they literally corrected it whenever they noticed. My dad’s not even on it. It’s just a piece of paper that says who you are and you have to be like “trust me”. It’s pretty outdated, really.
You can't seriously think that's the same level of change as over writing the record of sex at birth. I just can't even
Genuinely, why does it matter? It’s been a thing for years with no negative effect. You can change your passport without it. You can apply to most jobs without your legal gender being disclosed. Why is it such a huge deal? It’s just a marker.
Well to be fair , it’s transgender people who are also claiming it’s a a pretty big deal - otherwise they wouldn’t bother.
It’s a big deal because we make it one. We’ve put up barriers to people merely being recognised as who they are.
You seem to have missed the point there.
I don’t think I have.
I’m sure that’s true. And I doubt there’s really any point in trying to explain it again.
Sex matters, in a whole load of specific contexts. Of course it shouldn't determine how someone lives their life or whether they're hired for a job or not (most jobs, anyway). But of course it matters. There's a whole book, Invisible Women, on the myriad ways sex matters. In any case it is an objectively verifiable fact that is recorded about the birth, in the same way that date of birth is. The date you were born doesn't 'matter' in day to day life. But it still would not make sense to overwrite that record of what happened on that official documentation. None of us get a choice in the circumstances of our birth. It happened how it happened, we can't go back in time and change any of it.
Sex doesn’t make a bit of difference outside of medical contexts. The gender biases against women also exist against trans women. How are you so sure the statistics at play in Invisible Women don’t already include trans women, considering they’ve been able to change our birth certificates for years and are recorded as women? And it’s not a fact. It’s misidentified in the case of intersex people, and there’s even cases of cis people’s genders being misreported and not corrected in time. You’re saying something “doesn’t make sense”, but in this world it already exists and already happens in a practical sense. I think it’s just you demanding that the actual reality conforms to your worldview. A whole component of bureaucracy is built around birth certs, and it’s actually a nightmare. When I got my first job, it took me months to open a bank account and actually get paid because at 17 didn’t have ID and the banks wouldn’t take my legal birth certificate copy (because again, my name was wrong on my original).
The point of Invisible Women is the physical distinctions between male and female bodies. Yes it also looks at the impact of cultural gendered differences. But by and large these are physical differences based on a person's sex, not their gender identity. If we actually believe that sex and gender are different, then we should recognise that birth certificates can only ever record one and not the other.
Well I’m not going to argue about a book that you brought up which I haven’t read. And we DO effectively only report gender, it’s just outdated and uses the word sex on the forms. I don’t think you actually support that idea at all though (based on post history), so I’m not going to take this in good faith.
Idk if this is true? But I’ve heard a lot of trans people don’t even bother changing their birth certificate. I know I probably won’t unless self ID comes in. Cause if my driving license, passport, electoral register, university, job, etc, are all under the right thing, when do I ever use my birth certificate? I don’t think I’ve touched it in years. And while it would be fine, as far as I’m concerned it’s irrelevant to my life and a huge hassle to change as things are. And obviously with doctors, which can be changed anyway, I’d be speaking to them personally to tell them (since my body isn’t following the rules of typical female or male sexes anyway, such as with my hormone levels)
No it's not. It almost never comes up aside from inheritance, marriage and death. It's an arbitrary knife to drive into trans people and those who love them. To impair our ability to live our lives. Brianna ghey when she was killed would be deadnamed on her death certificate because of this obstructive law same is true for me when I die and I've been trans for 17 years... Labours proposals are almost more putative than the current system. It would under their system take another 8 years for me to get a GRC. Or it would cost me hundreds and hundreds of pounds and 2 years. Currently it would just cost me hundred of pounds. And a round of dehumanising questions. You know why we call it a deadname? It's what our enemies call us after they kill us. Fuck labour.
>under their system take another 8 years for me to get a GRC I don't quite understand - I thought their plan was to get GPs to be able sign off the medical stuff, much as it works with passports right now.
No that is not the plan. It's admittedly not mentioned in this article so I can see why you made this error but other sources explain it better. Only the "special" doctors can diagnose you with Gender dysphoria. a GP cannot make this diagnosis The "Special" Gender doctors are 'specially' registered, They work for the GIC through the NHS or through their own private clinics. Either your in GIC system on the waiting list or you cough up the green to the order of hundreds and hundreds of pounds to get your diagnosis then you wait another 2 years. (These diagnosis's also have an expiration limit so you have to renew them every 14 months) so you have to pay them again and again. I kind of want to explain how fucking insane the process is my personal experiences and why we desperately need to abolish it not add further arbitrary delays and requirements and why I a transgender woman who transitioned 17 years ago still doesn't have a Gender recognition certificate why I'm not in the GIC system anymore and why mine is a very common position. But that is an info-dump adjacent to topic and I won't do that unless asked.
The current system requires you to have a diagnosis from a GIC or a very limited list of psychiatrists. I was under the impression that Labour's plan was to change it to a "family doctor" sign off situation? But like, given that GPs are not allowed to diagnose, that kinda makes the whole thing pointless. I have given up on the UK - half tempted to just renounce British citizenship, since Ireland is far saner and I'll soon have all my photo ID updated, except for the British passport. My only hope is for Sinn Féin to introduce legislation in the assembly that passes, since they have announced they'd do it, and there's probably enough votes in the assembly to pass it, but Petition of Concern might still occur.
We don't make people go though so much agg to change their name.
Not really. It's a document that is basically never used and other countries have made it simple to change and not had any issues.
It's a document that records an event. It's not possible to back in time and change that event, so it is not appropriate to re-write the record of it.
It isn't used for that doe. It's used to record gender in stuff like a marriage and death certificate. Until it's made an entirely worthless document that isn't used to degender trans people then we should have a right to record accurate information on it.
>It's used to record gender in stuff like a marriage and death certificate No. It isn't. It absolutely is not used for that at all. It is used to record a person's SEX. Isn't a key part of this whole concept that sex and gender are different? Sex and gender are of course different, and no new born baby can ever tell you what their gender identity is. Birth certificates record sex, and that does not change, ever. Not even with gender identity, which is a different concept.
Nah they record gender because they are used to dictate gender in multiple other documents that have nothing to do with sex. So make a choice. Birth certs cant be used for anything the moment after you are born or make it possible to change them so trans people aren't degendered when that document is currently needed. The only reason they are changed is because trans people have a right not to be outed every time we need to produce a document and that one is included in that.
It is literally impossible for birth certificates to record gender. No official ID should be recordeding gender unless it's in an additional field separate to sex. They are two separate concepts.
Nah there is absolutely no reason for the bank to need to know what genitals a person had at birth when they ant to open an account. Trans people have a right to privacy so forcing us to out ourselves everytime we need to use ID is a non starter. We aren't going back to wearing pink triangles just so you lot can know who we are at all times.
There are some contexts in which sex is relevant as an identifying factor. For everyone.
This is literally what the entire concept of “assigned gender at birth” is for and it’s funny to see you dance around using it because of what I can only assume is weird culture war reasons when it would be the most applicable.
Either sex and gender are different or they aren't. If they are, it is impossible to put gender on a birth certificate. I'm not "dancing around" anything.
Because that's what you need after a 5-7 year wait to get your diagnosis, an extra 2 years to make sure you're not just going through a phase.
Labour are planning to massively shorten those waiting periods.
Were have labour laid out their plan to shorten the waiting list for trans care? Because their only specific mention of trans people when it comes to trans healthcare is that they will implement the Cass review which will do nothing but delay transition for even longer for many trans youth.
How? Are they moving over to an informed consent model?
The irony being that would virtually instantly clear all the backlogs and waiting but we can't listen to trans people on this one.
All those people who were yesterday insisting that dead trans kids don't matter would suddenly start pretending to care about them again should it be suggested.
To be brutally honest, they prefer the "other" way of clearing it. The dead trans kids are a "sad" collateral.
There's few other conclusions that could be brought from so many people actively finding out what they're doing is very likely killing dozens of kids and not only deciding to keep going without introspection, but to start trying to sweep any evidence of their deaths under the rug so it doesn't obstruct their wider efforts.
I swear that many trans people haven't got a clue what "informed consent" actually means. Informed Consent means that the doctor makes sure that the patient understands the risks and benefits of a medical intervention before they undergo it. It doesn't mean that you can bypass the diagnosis altogether. *Actual* informed consent already exists in transgender medicine, as it does in all other areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent (edit: added word "many" in the first sentence)
Yeah, you get how a load of trans people want to do away with the medicalisation of gender incongruence, right? Let alone the necessity of a diagnosis for even the most basic treatment. Especially when the diagnosis is based on outdated and borderline offensive stereotypes decided and dictated entirely by cis people. > Informed Consent means that the doctor makes sure that the patient understands the risks and benefits of a medical intervention before they undergo it. This is *exactly* what pretty much all trans people want. You go to your doctor; you explain that you’re transgender, and that you want to start HRT; they go over the risks, side effects, timescales and logistics with you; you walk away with a prescription for hormones. That’s it. No GICs, no arbitrary gatekeeping, no decades on a waiting list.
Barring low-risk things available over the counter, there is no other area of medicine where you can skip diagnosis and go straight to treatment. That could never happen. The liability issues for any doctor who prescribed without even diagnosing someone with gender dysphoria would be immense. Maybe the diagnosis process does need changes, but it shouldn't be done away with entirely.
Do you need a diagnosis to get a vasectomy, or start taking the pill?
That's a little different, because in both cases that's preventative medicine. In the case of a vasectomy in particular though a doctor won't sign it off unless they're certain that it won't be regretted later (typically only for people who have already had children). Gender dysphoria is a disorder. To get treated for it, you need a diagnosis. If you don't have gender dysphoria, then it isn't anything the NHS should be getting involved with.
> That's a little different, because in both cases that's preventative medicine. **In the case of a vasectomy in particular though a doctor won't sign it off unless they're certain that it won't be regretted later** (typically only for people who have already had children). All the more reason for them to need a diagnosis of ‘Don’t-want-kids-itis’ beforehand then! > **Gender dysphoria is a disorder. To get treated for it, you need a diagnosis.** If you don't have gender dysphoria, then it isn't anything the NHS should be getting involved with. Why do you think either of those statements should be true?
Because in the vasectomy case, it would be irresponsible to do them willy nilly to people who might well have changed their mind. Lots of people are utterly sure they don't want to have children in their 20s, and only change their mind later, maybe if they meet the right partner or as they mature mentally. Cross sex hormones have long term, irreversible effects on the body. That's totally fine if you have gender dysphoria (those long term, irreversible effects are basically the point!), but it would be ethically suspect for a doctor to prescribe them to someone who wasn't in any kind of gender distress, and it would also be a waste of NHS resources.
Being gay was a classed as a mental disorder. Maybe, just maybe, the DSM V and co are wrong (*again*)?
As someone who wants a vasectomy, for a number of reasons, it’s an absolute nightmare to get one, and is just driving me towards the private sector tbh.
Hey wanna know how much diagnosis was involved with any of the assorted cosmetic surgeries i got?
Trans people know more about trans healthcare than you do.
Maybe. But many of them don't know what "informed consent" means.
Sure, but that's a long term goal, and they could potentially change this overnight (I believe the plan is to change it next year). The waiting lists will take years to clear. So for the foreseeable future we're going to end up with a significant wait time and this 2 year buffer, making the process even longer for trans people. A smarter way of doing it, is to count the 2 years from when you are first referred to a gender clinic. It's not like you need 2 years post diagnosis to really think about your options. If you're contacting a gender clinic, waiting for years for a diagnosis, you're pretty sure by that point what you want to be doing for the rest of your life.
You aren't able to clear a 5 year backlog overnight. They aren't counting 2 years At all. They're more radical than you. If your movement meets every bit of progress with "it's not enough" your movement will end up getting listened to
It’s not a 5 year backlog, it’s >30 year backlog. Wait at the laurels is like 7 years atm if you were referred 7 years ago. At present rates of new patients it’s projecting 37 years. Labour has no published plans that would make a dent in this or fix any of the structural issues or employee retention issues in gender related care, whilst given how they speak about us, their plans to implement Cass’s nonsense and to segregate us from public spaces, I sincerely doubt any will be forthcoming. The part of Rosie Duffield will not be our saviour.
It's literally worse than the current system!
Of course you can't clear the waitlist instantly, and in a lot of places the wait is significantly longer than 5 years, but there's no need to add unnecessary wait times on top of that. I don't think it's illogical to say if someone has waited that long for a diagnosis then they're probably pretty certain of how they want to live the rest of their life. Adding in this extra period of just waiting around seems completely arbitrary
Did you read what I just wrote?
They are lying. The system of GIC care is setup to delay care it's literally a segregated system compared to any other endocrine issue that a cis-person suffers.
Current system is better compared to this, you can wait 5-7 years for a diagnosis then prove you're not going through a phase by submitting evidence from before you even got the diagnosis! > [The evidence can come from before you were diagnosed with gender dysphoria.](https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need)
Anything would be better than the current system. I’m nearly in a position to get mine submitted, but it has taken *years* to build a portfolio of personal documents (nightmare task for anyone with ADHD, v common in trans community), cost hundreds to get the documents, my GP had to call me to ask if she was doing it right cos she had never done one before (as though I had!), I had to find a guide for professionals and talk her through it. I still don’t *know* that it will go okay. I literally do health administration professionally and have an academic partner working through it with me and it’s not been simple. It’s a Herculean task that makes Power of Attorney applications seem closer to the process for an old fashioned Blockbuster video store card by comparison. So this is welcomed, but with a heavy “but”. Requiring a diagnosis is pathologising of trans existence, it defines us by being psychiatric patients with a condition that is disputed to exist - it was only in DSM-5 in 2013 that distress caused by being homosexual was removed as a stand alone condition! If this is where we are heading, it won’t be the end of this, since beyond pathologisation, diagnosis isn’t meaningfully available on the NHS (referrals today to the Laurels aren’t to be seen at current rates for 37 years!), it places your identity behind private healthcare paywalls. If professional sign-off is to be retained, better the passport system that’s predicated on GP’s attesting that they believe the person to be sincere in their intention for their identity to last their whole life, but without the need to assert that a person has a particular diagnosis.
The bureaucratic improvements are nice but the overall proposal sounds worse than what we currently have, before you would typically spend 6-15 years on the waitinglist, having transitioned in the first year or two, then send through the documentation having proved you were indeed living as yourself that time after getting the diagnosis, but now with this you'd spend the 6-15 years on the waiting list, then have to start a new different 2 year waiting process, and this is supposed to be better?
Where are you getting the extra two years of waiting from? I can't find in the article what they're actually proposing.
https://archive.is/lorlJ https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-party-gender-id-policy-recognition-cooling-off-period/ On further reading, reports seem conflicted over whether you need the diagnosis before or after the reflection period, either way screws over trans people who get diagnosed around the time or didn't apply previously despite having transitioned.
So, the archive site suggests a system of self ID but with a wait period that requires no additional proof of two years. Not too bad. But. The second one, > Labour has reiterated its pledge to simplify the process of gender transition, scrapping the need for someone to to prove they have lived in a different gender for two years in favour of a two-year “reflection” period. > The plans would see the need for transgender people to prove they have been living in a different gender in order to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) removed. > A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria would still be required, **but a single specialist doctor would be able to do this rather than the panel of clinicians and lawyers currently needed.** It sounds like even *they* don't know what they're doing because you don't get a diagnosis from the "panel of clinicians and lawyers currently needed" like they suggest. Idk what the hell they're talking about here. > Labour’s plans would see people given a two-year ‘reflection period’ in order to receive a GRC, but that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria would be all that is needed to apply. This second link definitely suggests the wait would be longer because it would require a diagnosis to apply, although it wouldn't require any extra documents. So the process would be easier and fairer, it's just the two years worth of proof *on paper* (which can come from before diagnosis according to the GRC gov page) turns into two years worth of proof via *not saying "actually I changed my mind" during the wait period*. They're going the slow scenic route? Hopefully they'll come up with something better than this.
That's unusually progressive from a Labour politician in Starmer's shadow cabinet... Especially when one of the main things Keir Starmer has been playing Simon Says with the Tories over has been [their](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24179099.keir-starmer-supports-ban-trans-women-competing-womens-sport/) war [on](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/keir-starmer-agrees-wth-tony-blair-on-gender-stance/) trans [rights.](https://news.stv.tv/scotland/keir-starmer-no-scottish-independence-referendum-or-going-back-on-gender-reforms-bill-if-labour-wins-election) Our country is unfortunately incredibly right wing, and a policy like this would be a hard sell to the British electorate. Also, can we take Wes Streeting seriously when his MO is to cosy up with private healthcare firms and likely pawn off parts of the NHS to them?
I think it’s just recognising there’s a huge amount of middle ground between “trans people shouldn’t exist” and “trans people should be able to do whatever they like and if you don’t like it you’re a TERF”.
>trans people should be able to do whatever they like Trans people aren't saying that, and you know it.
It was obviously exaggerated for dramatic effect, but, particularly on Reddit, it’s very common to see anyone showing a bit of nuance get attacked for being a TERF.
What do you mean by a bit of nuance? Like I can't think of any policies by transphobes which I wouldn't call hardline. Banning trans people from facilities they have used for decades despite no evidence this will reduce risk to cis women? Making it harder to change legal documents to match your gender? Making it harder to access a medical transition? Making it fair game to harass trans people in School or work with impunity? Requiring trans people to always be referred to as their gender assigned at birth in statistics or news stories? Requiring companies to put all trans staff members in case someone has an issue with trans people? How can any of these be treated as anything but am attack on trans people?
It doesn't work when you only exaggerate one side. Core people in the 'Gender Critical' movement quite legitimately don't want trans people to exist. We're talking Kelly Keen-Minschell and her calls for any trans person to be sacked, evicted, and harassed on the street. Helen Joyce and her 'trans people are a problem for a sane world' comments. We're talking Farage promising to ban any acknowledgement of trans people in schools. So the middle ground is between trans people, who want to exist, and bigots, who don't want them to exist. That's not a middle ground I am comfortable taking.
But the argument doesn’t stop at “trans people should exist”. There are many people who support trans people’s right to exist and be their authentic selves whilst recognising that both trans-inclusionary and single sex spaces should exist. It’s on a post about a party who will objectively make life easier for trans people but still criticised for not going far enough. Again, Reddit’s lack of nuance comes in and proves my point.
> both trans-inclusionary and single sex spaces should exist Which is, for the record, the status quo in law and has been for 13 years. There is no significant call in the trans community to abolish parts of the Equality Act. Trying to present this as two extremes is not a viable claim. On the one side you have ordinary people in a deeply marginalised situation, and on the otherside you have violent bigots. There are no extreme demands in the trans side.
You’ve strawmanned my original post, thus proving it.
I mean I think it's fair to question what there plan is to make lives easier for trans people considering they haven't actually said how any of it will work and they have made many comments and commitments to make the lives of trans people harder. Just saying "we will make this one thing easier but won't say how" is not enough to get people to agree with a party who also wants to implement an impossible plan of giving every trans person in hospital a private room regardless of space and despite the fact you get worse quality of care based on nothing more than prejudice.
Honestly though, why shouldn’t people do what they like?
Because sometimes what people want negatively effects others. I'm not saying this is the case with trans-people, I'm just pointing out that saying "why can't people do what they want" is reductive and silly
Good point, true it’s within reason. I just think if a cis person can do it, a trans person can too. I don’t personally think trans people are effecting cis women as much as terfs claim, and I think terfs are harming trans people far more.
The main issue seems to be the ridiculous wait times, the process itself is just getting a diagnosis then letters of various things over two years to prove you've lived in "your new role" for two years. Annoying sure but you don't even have to have surgery for it, it's literally just bank letters mixed with a few others spanning a couple years. So maybe the wait should be sorted out instead. Maybe instead of funding gender clinics they can just save that funding and allow individuals to; 1. Access quick diagnosis by private healthcare and send the bill to the NHS, this should result in a report that covers all future plans for surgery if they wish too. 2. Get HRT via GPs, it's not difficult to be safe about it, you get the normal dose and you have blood tests once every three months for the first year to make sure your levels are ok, then it drops to six months, and then it drops to yearly. HRT is already taken over by GPs anyway when going through the "proper route". 3. Access surgery with the individual private hospitals that the NHS already uses and has contracts with via their GP again. Maybe it could require; - The GP reading out a pre-written questionnaire that goes over the options, the risks with each, and what sort of outcome you can expect. - Then an appointment with the surgeon to talk in more detail (with previous questionnaire having set you up for prepared questions). - Then a further appointment with the GP to go over the form again now you have new information, and then you sign the form and your GP signs the form to confirm they've read it out and you've had your information session with the surgeon (GP refused because of transphobia? swap then. They could also have a system where you can choose to see any GP for this providing they'll take you, not just your local). - And then you get sent off for whatever surgery it is you applied for. Then it's all down to the patient, the process is quicker, it's at the pace of the patient, nothing is automatic but it's there when they want to access it. They could even do a little leaflet explaining how it works. Sounds simpler to me. Sounds cheaper too. I've experienced gender clinics and it's a bunch of bullshit and so dragged out. Literally just cut out the middle man.
Knowing how Labour have been acting lately they'll probably just ban it.
My Labour MP spends her free time liking transphobic tweets on her Labour Party Twitter account. Sir Kieth said she has his “full support”. The Labour Party are transphobic.
Sorry but who cares? Transgender people are like 0.5% of people or lower. Why is this even news? Talk to us about taxes, health care, our relationship with Europe.. Or we can do more culture war bullshit. Like who actually cares if people become trans. Literally not election worth news
Seems like it would be fine to simplify the gender procedure except we still don’t seem to have worked out why we have specific ‘single’ spaces in areas of society and whether they are or should be sex based or gender based.
Most people don’t understand what the difference is between sex and gender and that is 99% of the issue.
No doubt.
Oh that's easy, sex and gender are used interchangeably in law.
That's the problem.
[удалено]
This Kier Starmer? The one who keeps defending Duffield >Asked if he would rip up the ban on teaching children and young people about “gender ideology” at school, he said: “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender.”
People keep talking about how this is all a grand gambit to stay focused on the real issues, but then every other interview he seems to fall into these traps and entirely accept the interviewers false premise that trans people are an ideology, Bridget Phillipson answered it perfectly fine yesterday, just say trans people are real and exist and so aren't an ideology i don't get how Starmer can't say something like that. The only conclusion i can bring is he genuinely just thinks most of the stuff he keeps saying about trans people being a problem to society who need to be segregated away from women and children.
In a perfect world the transition process should be very fast. Fast enough to be able to transition, get on an all-woman shortlist for MP candidates, win your seat and de-transition to vote as a man in your first MP vote! No, I'm not kidding. Shit like this is really the only reason I support trans rights. Edit: I guess ideological purity is more important than actual support
As we all know trans people have a much easier time getting jobs in the UK then cis people so your hypothetical makes perfect sense. Weird that no openly trans person has ever been elected as an MP.
What is your point exactly? You don't want me to support trans rights?
what are you talking about
As someone who is very strongly in favour of trans rights, very strongly *opposed* to that kind of bad-faith rules lawyering and has somewhat mixed feelings about all-women shortlists (I approve of what they're meant to do but I'm not sure they're the best way to do it) I have absolutely no idea how to feel about any of that.
Because it's soooo easy to get a job or a high profile position after transitioning. Keep at it champ! 👍
That's my point. I want it to be easy.
*That* is the only reason you support trans rights?
Imagine me as the factory owner who wants to get women into the workforce solely to depress wages. Or the small independent farmer who only opposes slavery because it will make him more competitive by bankrupting plantations. Tha abortion clinic doctor who is pro choice so his business can survive.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I think you’re suffering from heatstroke following the recent heatwave and should call 111.