Trans rights

This is England. Heartbreaking.

This week NHS England released their new guidance and every news outlet announced in bold letters, with the BBC putting it on their front page, that transgender women are to be barred from female hospital wards. Trans guys are banned from male wards, too, but they are invisibilised in the narrative, trans women are the ‘danger’, and so we’re the focus.

I have Multiple Sclerosis and so I need to use hospitals from time to time. I haven’t stayed in hospital in the last 10 years, but the time is coming. Now the guidance suggests staff will endeavour to put me in a side room, but who are we kidding the NHS isn’t the Tardis and isn’t replete with rooms they aren’t using for people who need them, and so I will be placed on a men’s ward. Every examination, every time I need to get up to use the toilet, every urgent response to my needs, will all be in a room full of men.

And of course, being placed on that ward reveals our transgender status to everyone. This woman, who most people think of as just another girl in the street, is going to have her gender history revealed to all who see her while in her most vulnerable state.

I can feel it already. The part of me so desperate to be realised in this world tugs at me, scared that we’ll go back, that we’ll put ourselves in the horrifying situation where we’re thought of as a man once more. I felt it when we fell off the Rocinante, our manual wheelchair, splayed out in the road surrounded by good, concerned people who saw this woman in need and stopped to help, asking urgently whether I needed an ambulance. I felt that pull to minimise the symptoms, to tell them I was ok, unsure of how much my appraisal of the seriousness of my injuries was being shaped by my fear of what would happen if I went to hospital.

Bookmarking because I am not a political optimist.

HRT Mom is a website dedicated to science-based, and lab tested methodology for homebrewing HRT. While there is much speculation as to how to best make HRT for injections at home, HRT Mom sticks just to the facts and avoids making assertions based on popular opinion or what feels most convenient.

I have spent over a thousand hours pouring over lab manuals, compounding manuals, USP guidelines, research papers, consulting with professional scientists, working in my home lab, injecting what I create, and writing reports on all the information I learn. All of this work is solely to bring you this guide. I’ve additionally invested thousands of dollars into equipment and experimentation to help work out the kinks in my lab. Up until recently brewing HRT at home has been a task of approximation. People share and publish guides and info on how compound HRT but they never fully understand what it is that they’re writing about. This website changes that. All information that is shared here is based on empirically validated research and its resulting logic. Any claim that cannot be backed up is flagged as an opinion of the author.

I have lost count of how many times I’ve left work over the past five years only to realize one push notification later that I had more rights in the morning than I did in the afternoon. The week after Trump’s passport executive order, I kept forgetting to breathe. While social media swirled with speculation about what this was meant to distract the public away from, visions of a grim future unspooled in my head. When it feels like your world is ending and the most people can be bothered to say about it is that something actually important must be happening somewhere else, the clear message is that what is happening to you is a second-tier issue—that you don’t really count.

The distraction discourse also doesn’t account for what happens when politicians supposedly on the “good” side embrace bigotry themselves. Is the response to, say, the recent decision by South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee Annie Andrews to release an anti-trans ad to dismiss it as a distraction—or to ignore it entirely? This wasn’t just a rhetorical shift. This was an otherwise progressive politician being dragged into the realm of authoritarian prejudice—the kind of choice that has potentially life-altering consequences for those of us who live here under the bus. Shouldn’t that matter?

Beautifully clear statement of principle by Erin:

Equality organizations exist to promote equality positions, and candidates that receive endorsements gain the prestige (and sometimes the resources) that are going out to these organizations meant to protect LGBTQ+ rights. As a result, supporters of these organizations now have to contend with the fact that some of their support is going towards helping elect candidates that call trans girls “boys” and actively vote for anti-trans policies. That may be a hard pill to swallow for the millions of trans Americans who are concerned about recession of their rights.

An alternate path does exist: putting significant pressure on Democrats who have embraced anti-trans positions not to do so, and withholding or withdrawing endorsements when they do. If equality organizations are not willing to do this, they risk having their goals co-opted and becoming merely another branch of the Democratic Party, rather than independent organizations willing to advocate for the rights of transgender people and to award their endorsements and grades only to those who meet the mark. It is the path many reproductive rights organizations have taken in refusing to endorse anti-abortion Democrats.

The Democratic Party and Democratic officials are under heavy pressure from paid consultants to adopt more anti-transgender positions and policies. Should Democrats embrace those policies and win, the wins will be presented as evidence that abandoning transgender people is what it takes to win elections, and the contagion will spread through the party. And right now there is nothing to stop it. A Democrat can take an anti-trans vote or make an anti-trans statement before an endorsement and receive it anyway, or after an endorsement and keep it. The blessing of the organizations built to defend LGBTQ+ people has become something a candidate can simply take for granted. What remains unknown is how far one would have to go to lose it. Meanwhile, transgender people will keep being cut out of the calculus in favor of candidates who throw them under the bus, with the endorsements of their own movement in hand.

Wow. Just wow.

The trans woman […] is not performing womanhood as mimicry. She simply is a woman, on the terms she was able to secure, which are violent and partial and which cost her everything she had. And she watches a man perform womanhood as mimicry, as a knowing costume, as the thing one puts on and peels off, and she watches the crowd reward his version above her real one. His artifice is legible and safe and funny. Her reality is the thing that makes people uncomfortable, because her reality cannot be switched off when the set ends, and a womanhood that cannot be switched off is a womanhood that makes a claim on the world, and claims are exhausting, and the crowd would rather have the version that knows it is a joke. Her reality is the problem. His artifice is the celebration. Everyone present has already decided which of the two they are able to love, and it is not her.

[…]

The drag show is the scene at its most celebratory and most unanimous and most certain of its own goodness, and it is also the occasion that most nakedly enacts the preference for the performance of transfeminine womanhood over the lived fact of it. The woman who can rise and perform is folded into the celebration. The woman who cannot, who is merely living her gender at cost with no act to offer, stands at the back. And if she names what she feels back there, the silencing I described at the start of this essay engages, and she is a TERF or a right-winger or a woman with internalized work to do, and she goes quiet, and the evening proceeds. The exclusion is not a bouncer at the door. It is subtler and more complete than that. It is an atmosphere with abundant welcome for her gender as spectacle and no welcome for her gender as a serious and expensive way of being alive. No one throws her out. She is simply taught, slowly, that there is no chair for her unless she is willing to perform, and that her seriousness, her reality, the one thing she cannot switch off, is the very thing that renders her unwelcome.

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.

[…]

These discoveries do not sit well in a world in which sex is still defined in binary terms. Few legal systems allow for any ambiguity in biological sex, and a person's legal rights and social status can be heavily influenced by whether their birth certificate says male or female.

[…]

So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.

A new code of practice has said that organisations offering single-sex services and spaces must exclude Trans+ people from them, or no longer label them as ‘single-sex’.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UK's equality watchdog, laid the Code of Practice before Parliament this Thursday, May 21st. It sets out that single-sex spaces, from toilets to changing rooms, must be served on the basis of what it calls 'biological sex', based on people's sex assigned at birth. It will come into practice after 40 days, if it is not opposed.

The code makes it clear that this is the case even if someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate that changes their legal sex. It sets out that this should now be considered their 'certified sex', instead of their 'biological sex', and that single-sex provisions must be delivered in accordance with 'biological sex'.

[…]

In almost all instances, it recommends creating 'third spaces' for Trans+ people to use, setting out that though people should use single sex services based on their 'biological sex', if Trans+ people are perceived to be another gender, it may be proportionate to deny them access to these too.

For example, it sets out that if a trans man is perceived to be a man, they could be denied entry to the women's toilets, even though their sex assigned at birth is female. It describes this as "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" because "other service users could reasonably object to his presence".

[…]

Although this guidance is not as bad as it could have been, this is horrific news for not only Trans+ people, but the whole LGBTQIA+ community. The Trans+ community are scared, angry and fearful about what it could mean.

Trans+ Solidarity Alliance says this code will become Labour's legacy, haunting them much like Section 28 did the Conservatives. Trans Actual have warned that this will impact everyone in the LGBTQIA+ community.

It will act as a blank cheque for anyone who wants to further narrow what men and women should look like, which will lead to increasingly polarised gender policing in bathrooms, changing rooms and spaces up and down the country.

I wish I could say I thought these concerns were overblown:

The law orders the Director of the Kansas Department of Revenue (which oversees the granting of driver’s licenses) to identify all people granted a driver’s license (or other ID) with a gender marker that does not correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth, a stipulation that applies almost exclusively to trans people.

It then orders that these licenses be invalidated, ordering the bearers to surrender their old licenses, at which time they will be provided a new license that has the wrong gender marker.

There is no part of that which isn't concerning.

Firstly, it requires the government to make a list of all people to whom this would apply to. Since the requirements are meant to only include a hated minority group, the government is essentially making a list of those which it views as its internal enemies.

Second, it required that the affected IDs be invalidated. This leaves those trans people who previously had safe IDs with no means of accurately representing themselves.

Since the primary means of identification for most Americans is their driver’s license, this would also mean taking away their legal right to drive a car, which is required for most daily tasks. Being able to drive is also a requirement for many jobs, and having a valid driver’s license is a requirement for many types of public services.

Third, the affected trans people would be forced to surrender their now invalidated IDs as a means of obtaining new ones. This serves to remove from circulation any existing IDs that do not misgender the trans people in question.

Lastly, these trans people will be provided with new IDs whose sex markers are based on what they were assigned at birth, rather than what their body (or appearance) would suggest today.

To an outside observer viewing such an ID seeing a person that appears to be one sex/gender, but whose ID marks them as the opposite is a dead giveaway that the person is trans. From there, they are marked out as different from the general population, and can then be treated differently based on whatever prejudices the reader sees fit or whatever discriminatory laws are relevant.

On Monday, Mississippi enrolled an anti-trans bill that will ban driver's license gender marker changes for transgender people across the state. The bill, which now awaits Republican Gov. Tate Reeves' signature, requires that all Mississippi driver's licenses reflect the holder's sex assigned at birth and explicitly states that court orders recognizing a gender change "shall have no effect" on license issuance. It is the latest in a wave of extreme anti-transgender identification document bans in recent months, following Kansas's decision in February to invalidate transgender people's driver's licenses overnight with no grace period—a story we at EITM broke. Though the Mississippi bill does not retroactively invalidate existing licenses the way Kansas did, any transgender Mississippian whose license comes up for renewal will be forced to carry identification that does not match their identity, should the governor sign it.

[…] 

The bill is the latest in a growing wave of anti-transgender identification document laws. In February, Kansas went further than any state before it, invalidating transgender people's driver's licenses overnight and sending letters demanding their immediate surrender—leaving many scrambling and unable to get to work, pick up their children, and navigate daily life with suddenly invalid IDs. Though Mississippi's bill does not contain those instant revocation provisions, the effect will be the same over time: as licenses come up for renewal, transgender Mississippians will be forced to carry documents that out them. According to the Movement Advancement Project, seven states already do not allow transgender people to update the gender marker on their driver's license. If Gov. Reeves signs SB 2322, Mississippi will become the eighth.

Genocide against trans people takes on patterns that set it apart from the mass murder genocides that people commonly associate with the crime, such as the Holocaust. Currently, the genocide against trans people follows a pattern – denial of identity (pattern #9 in the Lemkin Institute’s Ten Patterns of Genocide) – that makes it more familiar to the colonial genocides against indigenous populations, including the residential/boarding school systems in North America and Australia, where indigenous children were “allowed” to go on living if they gave up their identities, including their languages. Denial of identity involves two main steps: preventing people from openly expressing an identity and destroying institutions that reproduce the identity. Given that the denial of identity is the consequence of a well-defined hostility, even hatred, for the identity, the pattern is often characterized by incitement against the group. Alongside suppression and incitement, perpetrators of this pattern of genocide will simultaneously criminalize the identity, so that expressions of it or institutions that reproduce it become characterized as threatening and corrosive to the body politic and warranting state violence and coercion. People who assert or support the denied identity then become criminal elements that must be eliminated. In the case of the boarding schools, children who used their mother tongue or otherwise showed signs of their independent identity were severely punished.

[…]

What the anti-trans movement fails to understand is that trans people are not created through gender-affirming care. Their identities are real regardless of whether they have undergone any form of medical or even social transition. Gender-affirming care bans and policies forcing trans people to remain closeted condemn trans people to lives of suffering, but do not make them cis.