If one why not all?
Trevor Phillips warned of the problem back in 2018.
The disaster of the public consultation process on gender recognition has revealed a government so terrified of being labelled transphobic that it is ready to destroy half a century of painstakingly assembled anti-discrimination legislation to the detriment of every woman, person of colour and disabled individual in Britain. Under the current law, a change of gender requires a two-year period of reflection, medical checks and possible physical alterations. It is a gruelling process and proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act rightly aim to make the process less bureaucratic.
However, agitation by a guilt-tripping band of “trans” activists has corralled MPs into contemplating a wholly unnecessary and dangerous further step. It is seriously being suggested that we should do away with any objective test of gender, and leave the decision as to whether an individual should be treated as male or female entirely in the hands of the person themselves. In short, a man would be able to declare himself a woman, and immediately have every right to enter spaces reserved for women — changing rooms, lavatories, prisons.
And lo it came to pass!
The problem is this: if self-declaration becomes established as a principle for one protected characteristic — gender — why should it not apply to all of the other eight, including disability or race?
How indeed? Nobody has actually said, other than shouting louder.
I can already hear outrage at the comparison. The activists will complain that equating gender with disability is yet another example of galloping transphobia. But why shouldn’t a society ask individuals to pass objective tests to acquire identity status? Without criteria other than personal preference, it would be impossible to decide whether some groups truly suffer disadvantage — a big issue for women and people of colour.
Can confirm.
Has anyone ever put forth a reasonable argument why the Rachel Dolezal case is any different than men claiming to be women? From https://medium.com/verve-up/transracial-is-not-the-new-transgender-why-race-and-gender-are-not-synonymous-b2c688ef0fae:
There is no explanation of exactly what that difference might be. Assertion is not argument.
I had to go through a ‘gruelling process’ which was very ‘bureaucratic’ (lots of objective tests*) in order for the authorities to accept that yes, I am indeed disabled, and am therefore entitled to the assistance necessary for my ‘identity’. I’ve been told that getting married these days can be pretty gruelling; certainly, I am assured that getting divorced is.
People are free to wear what they like, within public decency laws. The only reason the government would get involved would be if they want to pass themselves off as the opposite sex. Easy answer – don’t do that.
*Another reason to disbelieve. or at least not immediately believe, people who declare themselves to be the opposite sex – without their having gone through some kind of reassignment surgery, there can be no objective measurement.
I have been involved in that process, on both sides. First I was one of the people making those decisions. Then I was one of the people needing the assistance. I understand the need for the gruelling process, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Too many people seem to believe that any hoops the government makes you jump through are bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary. Some of them are, yes, but a lot of things they ask are crucial to promoting the general welfare. Of course, narcissists don’t give a damn about the general welfare.
Another thing to consider: race is a perceived phenotype and in a sense a lot less real then sex, so in that sense claiming a “trans-racial” identity is a bit more valid. Pretending to be something that isn’t real seems like less of a crime than pretending to be something that is
I’ve been saying this for years.
My favourite response to this sort of argument consists of two words: Pippa Bunce. The gift that keeps on giving!
As noted by la scapigliata, in the context of transgender clinicians :
Source:
https://filia.org.uk/latest-news/2021/3/24/a-feminist-doctor-on-gender-identity-policies-institutional-capture-and-medicine
@6 this is a really clear and useful way to draw the line. I’ll also mention (not a medical practitioner–others have told me this) that if an individual patient expresses any hostility to or discomfort with a carer, for any reason, the institution will do their best to replace her/him with someone the patient prefers, as the patient’s comfort is more important than the carer’s feelings. There’s certainly been a push for institutional carers to be of the same race/ethnicity as the patient where possible, to make the patient more comfortable–the institution’s goal is to help the patient, and if accommodating their feelings (whatever opinion the carers may have about those feelings, and whether these feelings are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’) will help they’ll do that. (This is, of course, different to any kind of discrimination within the institution itself, which is and should not be permitted.)