Read on Twitter
The big problem of the GRA "debate" has been a failure to stick to the issue.
What started as "I'm concerned about how effectively safeguards can be maintained after reform" has gone to "trans women are predators, transition is abuse, you're trying to erase all women."
What started as "I'm concerned about how effectively safeguards can be maintained after reform" has gone to "trans women are predators, transition is abuse, you're trying to erase all women."
The salient issues are whether certain medical requirements should be mandated and whether timescales for obtaining a gender recognition certificate could be shortened. Many services/facilities already operate on self-ID with risk assessments and safeguards.
The quality and effectiveness of said safeguards is in many ways a different debate, one that should rely on proper quantitative and qualitative data and not spurious accusactions and anecdotes. Self-ID becoming the legal position may lead to attitude shifts in some sectors.
This could lead to an increased weariness to exclude people (trans or otherwise but we'll stick to the topic) if they are felt to pose an increased risk to others. However, this is hypothetical and any effect could be mitigated with the right approach.
Indeed, I'm rather weary of the lack of faith that some supposed feminists have in the ability of those working with vulnerable women to implement safeguarding procedures. Substantially though, this is a conflation of two different issues.
There are numerous countries which have already switched to self-ID as the basis for gender recognition. Direct comparison is complex due to different legislative background, e.g. in relation to equalities, but to my knowledge they haven't melted and forgot women exist.
I'm not saying that there aren't some concerns that may be legitimate, albeit some are arguably tangential to the matter in hand, but this has become a wedge issue of reactionary propaganda harming one of the most marginalised groups in society.
That latter point stands even without consideration of the lack of cultUral sensitivity and the presence of indirect ablism at play. Not every culture has a dichotomous western view of gender, many trans people are autistic, many struggle with mental illness.
Trans people suffer disproportionately from mental illnesses like depression and anxiety, and disproportionately from abuse and bullying. Using these people as a wedge issue in a debate that's wildly off topic and toxic is reprehensible. We just kinda wanna live.
Further, this is a slippery slope. The lines thrown out have parallels with homophobic campaigns of the past, particularly around section 28. Bad actors directing this sort of vitriol at one group will find another. The religious right are all to happy to move onto abortion.
Dehumanising and harassing any group, whether that be the intention or not, makes us all vulnerable to reactionaries and fascists. Being an anti-trans hobbyist makes you complicit whether that be the intention or not.
Much of this is wildly distortive as well. The bogey man trans woman bears no resemblance to the trans women I've known - my foster carer's partner who's a slightly madcap punk, the youth worker a bit too into star wars, my mate who can't compete in parlour because she's trans.
My other mate who got an earful from an old guy in McDonalds for swearing about Amazon, my non-binary friend who does great wound make-up. These are the people you are stirring up hatred towards. You'll never meet them but you will harm them. Think about it.
Then there's the trans masc and afab non-binary people left out of the spat (mercifully to some extent), but whowe quality of life is under threat. The community worker so excited to marry is husband at his mum's church, the drag king rewriting gender in at least 3 ways.
My mate who left his packet on the window sill and made us all laugh talking about the time he melted his dick (sorry for sharing that, pal), my friend with scars and multiple homes a year because he isn't accepted for who he is.
Are some trans people unpleasant or abusive? Yes. As with any group. But weaponising the existence of those people and that behaviour to tar all of us with the same brush and curtail or reverse legal progress is textbook prejudice. It's transphobic.
I'm not expecting confluence on all of the positions I take here, the shape and contents of law and policy can be debated if that is done with respect and maturity. But I'm not accepting abuse. I'm not accepting throwing vulnerable people under the bus for partisanship.
I'll leave this here but before that I just want to tell you that my mate's drag name is J.K. Trowling. Join the resistance or something.
*meant parkour, not parlour. *meant packer, not packet. *meant whose, not whowe. *meant to proofread, not happening.
