Difference between revisions of "Thread:Talk:Main Page/mapping out discussion with Wendy/reply (2)"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
{{hilite|'''Point''': Existing laws are fine as they are.}}
+
{{hilite|'''Wendy said''': Existing laws are fine as they are.}}
  
 
My UK trans friends inform me that the laws are ''not'' fine as they are.
 
My UK trans friends inform me that the laws are ''not'' fine as they are.

Revision as of 23:52, 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"womanly enough" in order to get things like passport markers or birth certificates altered; this is a ridiculous and outdated requirement which even the US has been doing away with.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.