In fact, let's not mince words. You, CheekyCat, are cissexist. You insist that the only valid gender identity presentations are those which are fixed forever on one side of the binary, and that those who do not wish to permanently confirm to this have forfeited their rights.

Whilst I disagree with subversism as a concept, such bias against alternative presentations only hurts more people.

If you were to read the government's response to the correspondence, you will see exactly some of the issues the wording causes. For instance, protection is only offered if you are known to be trans - if someone suspect you are, they can actually discriminate all they like as long as they don't find out. It is quite explicit that to be entitled to the provisions, you must make your place of employment aware that you are trans. The government simply cannot imagine a trans person not being out to their place of employment.

The very wording of the requirements for coverage are frankly derogatory. As has already been stated, they are pathologising, and place an arbitary gatekeeper in the way of gaining access to the provisions. Despite the assurances that medical procedures or surgery would be required, one needs only look at how the GRA is being applied to see how false such claims are.

Lucky, this country is proud to protect its minorities and its visiting minorities. We are lucky enough that the law that governs us recognises our individual human rights.

However, the law is designed to be flexible and to react to its citizens needs as our society grows and develops. The rights and liberties of the so-called hobbyists are protected under UK law, they are free to walk the streets in the knowledge that the law is no their side to do so. The discrimination they face, more often than not, is a combination of miss information, personal prejudices and, arguably, a fear of something that they have not encounter before or fully understand.

A transitioning transsexual is also protected under the same UK laws; however, their requirements are drastically different from that of the hobbyist. As Cheeky Cat rightly points out the hobbyist is unlikely, when compared to the medically diagnosed transitioning transsexual, to face discrimination with regards to access to vital medical treatment, mortgages applications, credit checks, employment opportunities etc. All of are services that are an integral part of this society and, if requested, an individual has every right to an objective assessment regardless of a medical condition. The state recognises that these individuals face, or that there is a potential for, discrimination within their daily lives by no fault of their own. They also recognise the commitment(s) these individuals have made and, due to the legal obligations of the state that come with being diagnosed with a recognised medical condition, they, the policy makers, understand that it is their duty to assistance these citizens where possible; by insuring that there are laws in place to prevent them being denied access to treatment and an invasion of privacy etc.

I therefore think that this act is a huge step forward and should be actively supported and recognised as such. To state that this would either promote, or legitimise, harmful acts towards a hobbyist is to, I believe, miss the point of the legislation. The fact that they have recognised that not all gender dysphoric individuals feel that they require major surgery, or have yet to gain access to it, should be something to celebrate. The state has shown its ability to react to our evolving society by changing its criteria to recognise an individuals personal commitment to their ‘new’ gender, while also insuring that it is not legitimising discrimination based upon access to, or the need for, a surgical procedure.

I mean, come on, do you really believe that this is a bad thing? Nobody here is supporting any form of discrimination, what is shocking is that there appears to a sentiment of ‘well if it is not all inclusive, then we do not want it!’.

As someone with gender dysphoria I find it personally insulting that there are those who would deny me my rights because they wish to equate me with a social practise that I have no relationship with. As a liberal person I will support an individuals right to practice whatever they wish to indulge in, its all cool. But it just annoys me when something that I perceive to have no connection has a direct affect my access to the above-mentioned services.

_________________
The Daily Turnout - First for profulgent flatulence

SF - an excellant summary of the issues involved and it's difficult to argue against the impeccable logic of the points that you make.

However, many of the points raised in contention lack this clarity of thought and are way off the mark. I'm not gonna get dragged into a pointless debate here........but I will clarify and debunk a few of the more sensationalist comments before signing off!

Quote:

Quote: It's not about reigning in the actions of the bigots and transphobes at all.......there will always be bigots and transphobes doing what they do....regardless of the punitive consequences! It's about giving access to redress with-in the law to a group of people when they are being systematically discriminated against and this is what is faced by transitioning trans people. There is simply no such systematic discrimination against trans hobbyist is relation to medical, housing and employment provision because they don't systematically present as trans in relation to these issues. Who says they don't? Again, you are making sweeping generalisations here that entirely ignore many examples and evidence (that I will admit I do not have to hand, and frankly I should have no reason to go looking for, this point is so damn clear) to the contrary.

The statistics (or lack there of!) say they don't! On several previous occassions I've challenged you and the chief paranoid politico to produce any evidence that there is a significant level of gender dysphoria present in the TV population that makes up the vast majority of your "Transgender Community". And you have produced not a shred of evidence! And remember, this is a very large population comprising hundreds of thousands of people! And like wise there is no evidence of systematic discrimination in effect to medical, housing and employment in regard to the hundreds of thousand of people who make up your TV/Hobbyist/Transgender community as they simply do not seek such services as they have no intention of making a serious long term committment to transition. Come on, its a huge population we are talking about here.....surely you must have tons of evidence relating to gender dysphoria and systematic discrimination relating to the hobbyist population who make up your "Transgender Community"?

Your whole argument is actually a complete fallacy! You want to provide protection against discrimination on the grounds of gender identity to several hundred thousand people who do not actually suffer from Gender Dysphoria! And you want to provide protection on the grounds of gender identity in relation to medical services, housing and employment to several hundred thousand people who will never actually access these services in relation to their gender identity!

To highlight this fallacy I used the Klingon Analogy and you still miss the point completely when you say:-

Quote:

First of all, you made a false assumption with the Klingon example, that it would be perceived as acceptable to discriminate against them. I don't believe any form of discrimination against things that do not harm others should be accepted.

No....I make no such assumption! I'll spell it out for you........nobody is saying it acceptable to discriminate against them. But no local or central government is going to legislate on the basis of discrimination against these people based upon their "Klingon" identity as they have in fact sufficient access to medical, housing and employment services in their everyday lives in the exact same way as every other person. And that is not discriminatory at all. And the exact same principle applies for the Hobbyists that makes up the vast majority of your "Transgender Community"

Quote:

You're right, sensationalist statements are bad, but you have repeatedly cried "but they're nothing like meee! I'm different! I'm not a freak! Accept me, not them!", and again you insist that they cannot possibly be trans at-all-ever-no-way. You fail to comprehend that others can have different experiences than yourself, and in fear of being seen as "one of them", deny others the rights they deserve.

There you go again.......sensationalism piled upon sensationalism! I've repeatedly cried? Point out to me any statement where I say "I'm different/special/not a freak/accept me etc"? You really need to get those memory problems seen to......get yourself into some Brain Training!

Edit:
Oh and I forgot to say.....yes of course they can be trans - transvestites. They just aren't transgender in lieu of the fact that that they do not suffer from Gender Dysphoria. And this is precisely the opinion adopted by the government in their definition stated in the oririginal article and I agree 100% with that definition.

Quote:

The very wording of the requirements for coverage are frankly derogatory. As has already been stated, they are pathologising, and place an arbitary gatekeeper in the way of gaining access to the provisions. Despite the assurances that medical procedures or surgery would be required, one needs only look at how the GRA is being applied to see how false such claims are.

This is completely inaccurate and scaremongering! These provisions are specifically not linked to medical treatment or surgical intervention as has been quite categorically stated. Nor is the Equality Legislation dependant upon the GRA or holding a GRC.

Therefore there is no "arbitrary gatekeeper" in the way of gaining access to these provisions as you have stated and at best this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the legislation or at it's worst is is just scaremongering and political whingeing as is the wont with many people who regularly post such comments on this site.

Finally:-

Quote:

I was going to type up a big post and then decieded, why bother when all the work's been done for me wrong by Cheekycat already? Cheekycat's wrong. That's all there is to it.

Wow.......thanks for that incisive critique!



Adios!

_________________
Cheeky Cat!

*Tannoy announces: "Cheeky Cat has left the building"*

Right. Back on yer heads...

_________________
The Daily Turnout - First for profulgent flatulence

_________________
Cheeky Cat!

I'm not going to bother attempting to counter CheekyCat's points.

Why?

Quite simply, because evidence is being demanded for the safer, more supportive and protective approach, and no evidence is being raised in return.

That's the wrong way around.

The difficulties in acquiring the demanded evidence is being completely ignored, as is simple logic regarding the actions of those who would discriminate.

To CheekyCat, the medical profession can do no wrong, and laws can only be used sensibly. The need to be defined by someone else is apparently seen as perfectly acceptable.

Even if we accept your ludicrous suggestion that only people with gender dysphoria deserve protection, the bill, remember, is not about those with gender dysphoria. It is about those with this who are 100% transitioned. By supporting this bill's definition of coverage without question (as you are doing), you would have been denying people close to me with gender dysphoria protection. Yes, this is hence personal to a degree.

Transgenderzone exists to support the entirety of the spectrum. By posting as you have, you are demeaning other members and denying them their own experiences and most importantly, their own voices.

You are not the only type of person who experiences hardship.

I really wish you would just stop making these spurious, unfounded comments in the way that you do!

Quote:

Quite simply, because evidence is being demanded for the safer, more supportive and protective approach, and no evidence is being raised in return. That's the wrong way around.

No it's not the wrong way round! It's impossible to provide information to support a null hypothesis as by definition there is no evidence! It is yourself and the paranoid politicos who contend that there is a significant level of gender dysphoria and discrimination in against TV/Hobbyists. Yet provide no evidence to support this.

Quote:

To CheekyCat, the medical profession can do no wrong, and laws can only be used sensibly. The need to be defined by someone else is apparently seen as perfectly acceptable.

Another spurious inaccurate comment. As a psychologist I'm a member of the medical professions and I'm well aware of the problems of working with-in a medical model. And indeed my research and clinical interests are informed by both neuro-cognitive and humanistic theories that are designed to promote metacognitive thinking in clients to allow them to take control of their own recovery.

And although admittedly, as a stealth women, I am never directly discriminated against, I still do more than my fair share to fight discrimination were I encounter it. Again your comments re: how Ibelieve laws can only be used sensibly is way off the mark. I have just spent the last 2 1/2 years arguing with the GRP and spending several thousand pounds of my own money financing a case against them in the High Court / Court of Session. And having lost that case, I'm now about to challenge them again and go through the whole damn process again. And thats more direct action and personal sacrifice than you or the majority of people on this site have done to fight discrimination.

So please, none of the spurious, unfounded comments about matters that you know nothing about.

Adios

_________________
Cheeky Cat!

I wouldn't waste any more breath, CheekyCat. You've made sense, Squigglefish hasn't.

_________________
The Daily Turnout - First for profulgent flatulence

it's pretty simple, no?. to the average dunce, transvestites are equated to transsexuals are equated to anybody who blurs gender boundaries openly. most people don't know there is a difference. If transsexuals are discriminated against, by logic, so are transvestites. So they need the same protection. Naturally, there are some areas in which transvestites can go un-noticed (you don't have spies sent after you when you apply for a mortgage, or you at least don't have any problems with paperwork), however, there is still many possibilities for open discrimination. ("so, some of my colleagues seen you in drag last night, we don't feel this is a suitable image for us, ta-ta") so it still enforces their need to be closeted in order to be sure of avoiding any gender discrimination. This isn't right, so the law needs to go further.

I find it hard to stomach anybody representing me finding any people not worthy of protection. Can't we just write a REALLY REALLY SIMPLE anti-discrimination law? "if it doesn't hurt anybody, you can't discriminate on that basis, kthxbi."

your right about it Sohpie, pretty much we all had crossed dressed at some point at the begining of transition and I find cheeky cats opinions to be very hypocritital towards the trasgender community in the world.

The law should be placed for everybodies protection not just the true- transexsuals who selfishly think of their own needs and right.

I'm very disgusted with the ones who backstabb their own just to be feeling they are more important than others who have finacial difficulties and have families and marriage being put to risk which is why some only crossdress because of other issues on their shoulders.

And cheeky cat has just proven to be self-ego satistical of her own needs and views and not do the right thing!

_________________
Misery is my company, why do I stand out from the rest of the people around me.

_________________
The Daily Turnout - First for profulgent flatulence

However the application of such things as unfair dismissal, unfair not-hiring, and unfair pay are not simple things, and they ultimately fail to help the person to whom this happens. Are you really going to accept a job that you had to fight for through a tribunal? Of course not. In fact, in many industries the culture is such that you would leave without complaining, so as to prevent your name being seen as unemployable (and yes, this is a real problem).

Whilst of course no one would hence voluntarily choose to work for a company with colleges that discriminate against you, employment law simply says that it is 'unfair', not 'wrong'. It is applied in different ways, and can even be wheedled around in many cases. Taking to tribunal is also a very public event by definition, which raises more issues with this being your only safety net.

Furthermore, employment law does not cover all the other areas that the equality bill sets out to cover. The same example line could be used as the basis for not serving someone in a shop, or being more difficult to a benefit claimant (and thanks to it only being 'unfair' to discriminate on CD grounds, they could even demand that said claimant stops dressing in order to get a job).The same goes for access to police services and medical care (as much as you would hope they would be more professional than that).