The problems for women with sex self-ID in law and society

• weka
• 3 years ago
• Categories: feminism
• Tags: BDMRR, self-ID, trans rights, women's sex based rights

For a range of reasons I’ve not been able to write the range of considered, nuanced posts that this topic deserves i.e. about the problems with the proposed BDMRR Bill changes to sex on birth certificates and how it impacts on women* and trans women. Part of that is the hostile environment that self-ID debate is taking place within (content warning for misogyny and violence in that link).

Ahead of the BDMRR Bill submissions closing tomorrow (Tuesday), I had a quick read through of some of the relevant documentation this morning, and now I’m really fucked off. The Department of Internal Affairs FAQ page attached to the Bill  barely even mentions women, and there appears to be zero attempt by the government to explain what the issues are so women can consider them and be part of the political process. As with Stats NZ consultation on sex and gender, the Working Group for reducing barriers to changing registered sex set up to advise the Minister for Internal Affairs included no women’s groups.

So this is a fast written post that tries to just lay out the issues ahead of the submissions deadline closing tomorrow.

If you want to skip straight to writing a submission, there is a template on the Speak Up For Women page, or you can use the government page here. Submissions are public, and you should probably make it clear you are a NZ citizen or resident because it’s possible perceptions of international submissions may impact on the process. You can see submissions already made here.

A brief outline of the problems with sex self-ID

1. The BDMRR Bill makes changing biological sex to nominated sex on their birth certificate easier for trans and non binary people. This is a good thing for those people. Trans and non-binary people should have the same access to documentation and ability to take part in civil life as the rest of the population. The Bill removes the court, time length, and medical transition processes currently required and replaces them with a personal declaration by the individual, hence ‘self-ID’. Transgender, non-binary, or any gender non-conforming person should not have to medically or surgically transition in order to live the way they want to live.
2. Self-ID based on gender identity is a legislative change and a social change and a political change.
3. Gender identity ideology is the philosophical belief that everyone has a personal, internal gender that only they can determine. It can be fixed or changeable (eg gender fluid people) and not necessarily tied to biology or gender roles of male/female or man/woman (eg non-binary people). As far as I can tell the BDMRR Bill doesn’t address the needs of gender fluid people, or the myriad of additional gender identities (and presumably subsumes them under non-binary)
4. Separate to the straight forward legal needs of trans and non-binary people in point 1, gender identity ideology is a powerful political force that asserts that gender identity should trump and replace biological sex in law and most areas of society, and posits that anyone who opposes (or even questions) that is a bigot or worse.
5. Gender identity politics now says that being a trans woman requires no transition whatsoever. This alongside legal and social self-ID means that any male can say they are a woman at any time and this is to be accepted (no birth certificate required).
6. There is a clear conflict of rights between all of that, and women’s need for spaces, services and culture based around sex not gender identity. Women’s rights to single sex spaces were established for safety reasons, and to ensure that women are able to take part in civil society like everyone else (eg women’s toilets). In addition, women being with women is a positive and necessary condition for women to have their own politics and social well-being.
7. Open and informed debate about sex vs gender has been actively suppressed by gender identity activists and political parties (the Greens and Labour). ‘No Debate’ has been an intentional and actively pursued political tactic. My belief is that because of that, most women in NZ won’t know this Bill is about to be passed, or won’t know the implications.

How this might impact on women, a few explanatory examples

1. Males can be housed in women’s prisons. Where this is already happening internationally (including by men with convictions for sex offenses), women are being sexually assaulted, and women with PTSD from sexual or other assault are being further traumatised. Women inmates are having to organise sleeping in shifts and to have condoms. Self-ID, where a man can simply declare himself a woman, obviously increases the ability of males to access women’s prisons, whether they are trans women or not. This is a clear example of where women’s rights are being discarded to assert trans women’s rights, and where upholding the rights of both groups isn’t being considered (eg housing trans women inmates in specialised facilities).
2. Women needing services after rape or domestic abuse that are female only, may no longer have that option. This is already happening internationally. The need for women to have female-only space after being raped should be self-evident, but in the UK gender identity activists are lobbying to remove single sex exemptions under human rights legislation, and internationally rape crisis groups that still provide female only services are under immense pressure to include males (again, with social self-ID, any male who says he is a woman is one). Again, where is the political push for solutions for both groups eg dedicated rape crisis services for trans women? These could be stand alone or alongside women’s services.
3. Women wanting to run female only spaces and groups may not be able to, either via law or via social pressure and cancellation. Think lesbian dating apps, women’s health groups, feminist organisations, a body-positive support group for women. Again, this is already happening internationally. eg lesbians are being banned from dating apps for saying female only, or being told that organising female only lesbian events may breach human rights law.

Obviously but apparently needs saying, not all trans women are sexual predators (any more than men generally), and there are good reasons to be careful in discussing this in regards to trans women’s safety. However unless women can point out the problems without being called bigots, it becomes very hard to explain what the issues are. Gender critical feminists are usually willing to talk about this alongside the rights of trans women, but are often pushed into a defensive then offensive corner by gender identity activists.

Much of this debate is happening on social media where there is clear evidence of events like males saying they are trans women doing naked selfies in women’s refuges, or masturbating in women’s toilets and posting online. What happened at WiSpa in California is the classic example: a male person saying they are a trans woman exposes themselves in the women’s section of the spa, all hell breaks loose when women complain, GCFs are accused of being allied with fascists, and it turns out that the male/trans woman has a history of sexual offences and is now being charged over the WiSpa incident. Stop and think that through now: any male can say they are a trans woman in any women’s space, and women will be accused of being bigots if they challenge them. With self-ID, how are women to know if a male person is a trans woman or not? (and should that even matter?). It’s pretty clear that many on the left are willing to sacrifice women’s rights.

I’m not even going to link here because this stuff has been discussed by gender critical feminists for years now, and the left has either ignored it or actively abused the women raising the issues. Look it up if you are unaware of what is happening. I’m willing to provide examples and links in comments for anything I’ve said in this post, in the context of considered and thoughtful debate.

The point here is isn’t to demonise trans women. Most trans women just want to get on with their lives. The issue is about how society can ensure good, fair and safe lives for women and trans women alike. Most women and people generally support trans rights. Many people also on the face of it support self-ID. This appears to be because most people still think that trans women are post-op transsexuals and think of Georgina Beyer. But once they are asked about self-ID and it is explained what that means (that any male person can declare themselves to be female), support for self-ID changes. This from YouGov polling in the UK,

 

This doesn’t mean that trans people shouldn’t have rights. They should. Obviously trans people still face many barriers and prejudices in society and this should be actively addressed. Likewise, society should be enabling women to talk fully, frankly and openly about the issues that self-ID raises, because there is a conflict of rights and we have to sort that out.

Will the BDMRR Bill affect any of this? I think probably, because the change to self-ID isn’t simply an administrative issue. But I don’t really know what the impact will be in New Zealand, because both Labour and the Greens have taken the position that there is no conflict of rights, and so New Zealand women haven’t had a good opportunity to look at the issues and debate them. There’s been a dearth of coverage in the MSM as well.

The DIA FAQ page had one thing to say about women,

How will you protect women’s rights to sex segregated spaces if self-identification is introduced?

The sex printed on a birth certificate does not determine someone’s legal sex and any associated rights, and there is no legal provision for definitively determining sex in New Zealand legislation. A self-identification process doesn’t change the protections for sex segregated spaces.

People have been able to change the sex on their birth certificate since the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 was first enacted, and to self-identify gender on passports since 2012, and we haven’t seen any evidence of this being abused.

From this statement it is that it’s unclear if women have a legal right to sex segregated spaces based on biological sex at birth. One the one hand, they’re saying there is no legal definition of sex in NZ law, and on the other they’re saying that self-ID doesn’t change existing protections for sex segregated spaces. What they don’t do is clarify how women’s rights would be impacted. I think it is highly like that New Zealand will follow in the UK’s footsteps and women will have to fight to retain single sex spaces that are female only (i.e. that exclude trans women).

For this reason, I encourage people to submit on the Bill and oppose changes until a full political debate can be had about the social, political and legislative changes involved.

My own position is that trans rights would be relatively straight forward were women’s rights being considered alongside, but until that happens women have the right to push back against processes that put us and our well-being at risk.

The Speak Up For Women submission template page.

The New Zealand Government submission page.

*In this post I refer to biological sex using the terms female/male and woman/man. When referring to gender identity I use trans woman/trans man. If you want to to comment under this post, please make it clear what you mean when using any of those words.