Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

B1044 – Gender Recognition Bill 2016

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    I don't know why people are so annoyed at this bill, just let people be called what they want ffs.
    Attack helicopters included? We're annoyed because social liberals are attempting to impose their deluded version of reality upon others and essentially overrule science and rationality with politics and emotions while discouraging unbiased medical research and treatment of these pathological conditions that are being ‘treated’ invasively and relatively irreversibly by expensive surgeries and hormonal therapy rather than where they originate—in the mind. This is about upholding common sense and preventing the society from delusions (including ineffective alternate medicine, quack doctors, etc.), not stopping a very tiny minority of individuals from being called what they want (also keep in mind that the rest should be equally free to choose to address them according to their biological sex).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Aye. As time goes by, more and more people will hopefully be less prejudice against people with certain genders and this is a step in the right direction for achieving that.
    Most people on here have said nothing prejudice against either of the 2 genders.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    I don't know why people are so annoyed at this bill, just let people be called what they want ffs.
    Call me His Excellency the Impeccable Supreme Leader Unown Uzer, First of His Name, Chairman of the UKIP Politburo, Defender of Britain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Attack helicopters included? We're annoyed because social liberals are attempting to impose their deluded version of reality upon others and essentially overrule science and rationality with politics and emotions while discouraging unbiased medical research and treatment of these pathological conditions that are being ‘treated’ invasively and relatively irreversibly by expensive surgeries and hormonal therapy rather than where they originate—in the mind. This is about upholding common sense and preventing the society from delusions (including ineffective alternate medicine, quack doctors, etc.), not stopping a very tiny minority of individuals from being called what they want (also keep in mind that the rest should be equally free to choose to address them according to their biological sex).
    Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with alternative medicine provision on the NHS nor quack doctors (outside of suitable CQC regulation to allow them to practice as they please), nor do I agree with the blurring of lines when it comes to sex (between male/female/transsexual). In a way I don't personally agree on gender fluidity, but that's more because I haven't had experience of it myself and I think it complicates matters when someone identifies as male or female in the same way as Sex.

    I just don't have a problem with people identifying as they wish and don't believe they should be discriminated against because of this, as Aph says unless they go around spouting it off every 20 minutes it's not really an issue.
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Call me His Excellency the Impeccable Supreme Leader Unown Uzer, First of His Name, Chairman of the UKIP Politburo, Defender of Britain.
    Just use Mx.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I've changed my mind on this bill, I think. It's probably a lot easier to do it by sex, or just have a Male/Female/Other option if it's done by Gender.

    I'll probably abstain, I'll read as the debate goes on and decide for sure.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think I agree with this. If you must insist on recognising gender in law (which I think only helps to reinforce gender stereotypes), then male/female/other is sufficient. In the same way as when you have to list your ethnicity, only ethnicity's of a statistically significant quantity are included as an option - for anything else you either choose the category you fit most with or tick other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    At risk of being laughed at for even asking this question, who wrote this Bill??
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Assuming it was Saoirse
    *puts hand up* Although to give credit where credit is due TDA helped write parts of it

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The state is not interested in what people call themselves. The state is interested only in what they are. Hence it records sex; it does not record gender.

    You might as well call for the law to register people who identify as non-criminals in an effort to get rid of the stigma and inconveniences of a criminal record; or a register of people who cannot drive but wish to identify themselves as drivers.
    Yet the state issues gender recognition certificates after putting people through state organised panels, which consists of people chosen by the state deciding if someone really is transgender by going through the 'evidence' provided by the person whose gender is being 'assessed' by the state. Furthermore the state will make foreign nationals go through this same process if they want to be legally recognised as the gender they are legally recognised as in their home Country. The state is currently far to interested in what people 'call themselves', which is why this bill replaces the above with a self-deceleration method such as in Ireland.

    As for your second point, this is just like the attack helicopter point, it's something that is completely unoriginal, and something completely unrelated which is designed to demean and ridicule. And not only that but it conflates transgender people with those who are criminals, which is totally irresponsible and frankly worrying given the amount of transphobic hate and intolerance that already is aimed at transgender people. I may think she is up there with the worse post-war Prime Ministers, but ass Thatcher said, "if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left" and that is what your second point is, a personal attack, not a political one.

    (Original post by Aph)
    that isn't my issue just to be clear. It's that afaik Mr, Mrs etc. Aren't legally enforced and that it shouldn't need to be something you declare on government forms and have on your driving license etc. If this was protecting cross-dressers (transsexuals are already protected) I'd support it but as far as I can see unless you go round telling everyone your gender identity no one is going to know so it shouldn't be an issue.
    Honorifics already appear on many documents, letters from your bank as one example, and are often one of the things on forms, be they Government or not, that you have to fill out, often with the choice between Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms. I'll consider removing this for a second reading, and it was a late addition to the bill, but I do think it is a step towards ending discrimination, rather than legislating for legislating sacks.

    I would also just come to your last point about gender identity. In order to get a gender recognition certificate in the UK, you have to live openly as the gender you identify as for two years, that means your friends need to know, your family (if you talk to them I suppose), your place of work ect. And many people who identify as non-binary or agender while they have no hope of getting a gender recognition certificate often live openly as the gender they identify as, telling their family, friends, colleagues, and often having gender neutral pronouns on social media and such. These people are already openly living as the gender they identify as, this just goes a step further and legally validates their identity. The vast majority of people this would benefit are already out of the closet and living as the gender they identify as.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Aye. As time goes by, more and more people will hopefully be less prejudice against people with certain genders and this is a step in the right direction for achieving that.
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Most people on here have said nothing prejudice against either of the 2 genders.
    Joe has hit the nail on the head for me. Not to recognise any genders beyond male and female, as I and I presume joe do, is not a prejudice at all. I am concerned that within society we are pandering to people who want to recognise their gender as something other than male and female and I believe this is having a negative impact on society and the well-being of individuals in general. We see, for example, teenagers in Brighton asked to select which one of 24 genders they feel they are (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oose-from.html) and we are also seeing increases in referrals to gender dysphoria clinics (https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ntity-services). I am concerned that some of the gender identity issues come not from genuine feelings of confusion over one's gender, but rather because they wish to 'follow a trend'. That may seem harsh and I don't deny that some individuals genuinely are confused over their gender, but once you start to encourage recognition of other genders beyond male and female, you're opening the flood gates. I believe that only recognising male and female genders is not prejudice at all, but it is necessary from both a biological viewpoint and to prevent children becoming confused.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Yet the state issues gender recognition certificates after putting people through state organised panels, which consists of people chosen by the state deciding if someone really is transgender by going through the 'evidence' provided by the person whose gender is being 'assessed' by the state.
    Such a certificate requires a medical certificate that the person concerned in suffering from gender dysphoria. People who are well cannot get one. Your bill enables ill people to gain public recognition of their illness. Why confine this to just one illness?

    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    it conflates transgender people with those who are criminals
    No it doesn't. I made it quite clear that they were separate examples. Stop putting words in my mouth. I notice you didn't mention driving - no doubt because it didn't allow you to make an emotional attack on me. How about people who identify themselves as being of a different race? Should they be able to get a certificate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Joe has hit the nail on the head for me. Not to recognise any genders beyond male and female, as I and I presume joe do, is not a prejudice at all. I am concerned that within society we are pandering to people who want to recognise their gender as something other than male and female and I believe this is having a negative impact on society and the well-being of individuals in general. We see, for example, teenagers in Brighton asked to select which one of 24 genders they feel they are (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oose-from.html) and we are also seeing increases in referrals to gender dysphoria clinics (https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ntity-services). I am concerned that some of the gender identity issues come not from genuine feelings of confusion over one's gender, but rather because they wish to 'follow a trend'. That may seem harsh and I don't deny that some individuals genuinely are confused over their gender, but once you start to encourage recognition of other genders beyond male and female, you're opening the flood gates. I believe that only recognising male and female genders is not prejudice at all, but it is necessary from both a biological viewpoint and to prevent children becoming confused.
    Government, what the ****?! :eek: If I have a child that is handicapped in some way, I think I'll love him regardless, but if the little brat comes from school one day and claims he's some non-binary otherkin, I'll disown him. Then I'll find the person behind the poll and punch him in the face.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Actually Kay_Winters to be perfectly honest I think that as a society we should be doing away with gender and thus gender stereotypes. Certainly not trying to make them more entrenched. I do see why you feel like this but to be perfectly honest I don't even think that we should have a change of gender certificate, gender should be a non-entity and just have people who are identified as 'human'. We also don't need to insist on labelling everything, I know it helps people to feel that they belong if they have a label to call themselves but it only serves to divide society. Why can't we just accept people for what they are and be done with it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Actually Kay_Winters to be perfectly honest I think that as a society we should be doing away with gender and thus gender stereotypes. Certainly not trying to make them more entrenched. I do see why you feel like this but to be perfectly honest I don't even think that we should have a change of gender certificate, gender should be a non-entity and just have people who are identified as 'human'. We also don't need to insist on labelling everything, I know it helps people to feel that they belong if they have a label to call themselves but it only serves to divide society. Why can't we just accept people for what they are and be done with it?
    Nonsense, human designates our species, gender and sex are part of our identity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Nonsense, human designates our species, gender and sex are part of our identity.
    Currently, but they don't have to be.

    Why do I have to label myself as a Hetrosexual, Demi-hetroromantic with far left tendencies, white skin, social grade C2DE, omnivore or whatever?! Why do we have this fixation of labelling everything and constantly needing to 'belong' or 'fit in' why can't we just accept that we are all who we are and be done with it? This perverse desire to seperate ourselves off into groups weakens us as a society and is profoundly stupid.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Currently, but they don't have to be.

    Why do I have to label myself as a Hetrosexual, Demi-hetroromantic with far left tendencies, white skin, social grade C2DE, omnivore or whatever?! Why do we have this fixation of labelling everything and constantly needing to 'belong' or 'fit in' why can't we just accept that we are all who we are and be done with it? This perverse desire to seperate ourselves off into groups weakens us as a society and is profoundly stupid.
    It's not separating anyone out, gender, sex etc. are identifiers and part of who we are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    It's not separating anyone out, gender, sex etc. are identifiers and part of who we are.
    Except it is and you clearly aren't reading what I'm saying or aren't thinking about it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Except it is and you clearly aren't reading what I'm saying or aren't thinking about it.
    There's no need to be so patronising. The idea that markers somehow put us in groups is ludicrous and I think that if you're going to accuse me of not reading what you're saying or not thinking about it (nonsensical as it is), I see no point in further debating you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    There's no need to be so patronising. The idea that markers somehow put us in groups is ludicrous and I think that if you're going to accuse me of not reading what you're saying or not thinking about it (nonsensical as it is), I see no point in further debating you.
    I think it's not unreasonable to say that you have very fixed, ridged, conservative views of the world which is what I was getting at and I really can't see how you can argue that that isn't true.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The primary role of government is to represent the people. What this does is completely ignore the concerns of the vast majority of people in favour of a group that makes up less than 1% of the current population. In addition, TRIGGER WARNING, there are only two genders. It's absolutely fine if you identify as something else, I have no problem with it. The judiciary and the legislature should stick to this, but it should respect those who identify as something else, but not go as far as this.


    TL;DR
    Were talking about a very very small tiny minority, over the majority of people.
    The branches of gov. should respect the decisions of others, but not by changing definitions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    The primary role of government is to represent the people. What this does is completely ignore the concerns of the vast majority of people in favour of a group that makes up less than 1% of the current population. In addition, TRIGGER WARNING, there are only two genders. It's absolutely fine if you identify as something else, I have no problem with it. The judiciary and the legislature should stick to this, but it should respect those who identify as something else, but not go as far as this.


    TL;DR
    Were talking about a very very small tiny minority, over the majority of people.
    The branches of gov. should respect the decisions of others, but not by changing definitions.
    Expect this does nothing which impacts the majority what so ever, it's not like this bill says "all cisgender people must report to the gulag for compulsory re-education, and will have to carry identity cards which show they are inferior cisgender scum"

    Government has to represent everyone, be they hetrosexual, cisgender, christian and white, or be they pansexual, transgender, Muslim and BaME.

    All this bill does is extend anti-discrimination law to cover a group who are discriminated against. Change the system to legally change your gender to a less intrusive, cheaper system that works better. And it reflects that due to society changing, more and more people who don't feel they fit within the gender binary are openly identifying as non-binary genders or as agender (which is basically how Aph wants all society to be by the sounds of it), and that like we recognise trangender individuals who are male or female within the law, we should equally recognise those who are transgender but not male or female.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    all cisgender people must report to the gulag for compulsory re-education, and will have to carry identity cards which show they are inferior cisgender scum
    Good policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    kill me now

    thank god students aren't in the government
 
 
 
Updated: September 19, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.