mapping out discussion with Wendy

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision as of 18 June 2020 at 23:52.
The highlighted comment was edited in this revision. [diff]

mapping out discussion with Wendy

Edited by author.
Last edit: 13:21, 19 June 2020

I think we're agreed on the following points:

  • Trans women are women, trans men are men.
  • Trans people of all types are (as much as anyone else) entitled to NHS medical treatment, under their direction, to assist with transition and maintenance.
  • Actual trans women are not an enemy of cis women.
  • The trans legal situation the UK is generally much better than in the US.
    • Unlike the US, trans people already have full rights to be recognized as their gender identity. (This includes restrooms and so forth.)
    • ...and this may be a cause of some misunderstanding when UK people talk about trans issues on social media.
  • "Cis" is not a slur.

Points to be verified/discussed:

  1. from Wendy (paraphrased):
    1. There are people posing as trans women for malicious reasons.
      1. One example is UK/Karen White.
    2. The current furor is around the question of whether to expand existing laws, to give more protections.
    3. Those laws are fine as they are.
    4. ...despite leaving loopholes for exploitation by fake trans people.
  2. from Woozle:
    1. The Trans Crime UK web site itself is a form of anti-trans agitation.
    Woozle (talk)13:43, 18 June 2020

    Woozle says: The Trans Crime UK web site itself is a form of anti-trans agitation. It may be valuable to have a list of examples of any given point, such as "trans people commit violent crimes", but setting aside an entire web site to draw attention to this fact distorts readers' perceptions of the problem and, even if it was created with the best of intentions, serves as a way of driving anti-trans sentiment and at least feels like a hostile move.

      Woozle (talk)14:26, 18 June 2020

      Wendy said: Existing laws are fine as they are.

      My UK trans friends inform me that the laws are not fine as they are.

      Currently, you have to prove to a panel of judges that you have been living "womanly enough" in order to get things like passport markers or birth certificates altered; this is a ridiculous and outdated requirement which even the US has been doing away with. It reinforces narrow and misogynistic ideas about what is "feminine", and makes their performance a requirement for trans women. (If nothing else, feminists should be upset about that and want to eliminate this rule.)

      This requirement alone would have prevented me (had I been living in the UK) from transitioning, as I did not feel comfortable changing my clothing style due partly to the likelihood of being perceived as a "man in a dress", which has been a flashpoint of anti-trans hostility and violence in many places, and partly because it did not at that time feel authentic.

      One qualification: if this is only a condition for changing legal documents, then there might be room for discussion -- but in that case, such legal documents must not themselves be a requirement for receiving any other accommodations (such as bathroom usage or NHS transition care).

      We do agree that what must not change is that trans women are currently given the right to use women's bathrooms; there has apparently been considerable push to remove this protection.

        Woozle (talk)23:49, 18 June 2020