I am a trans ally. Trans rights are human rights, and we should be doing everything that we can to ensure that they are enforced and everyone is given the respect and dignity they deserve.
Unfortunately, all too often when engaging in this area one of the first hurdles is getting past inaccessible language.
First of all, there is the term “assigned”. People are “assigned a sex at birth”. That’s a really misleading phrase. What we actually mean is that they were assigned a description of their sex – typically male or female, based on characteristics that they have.
But that’s not really very accurate. I have a daughter, and we definitely didn’t go through a process of checking levels of oestrogen, progesterone and testosterone. We didn’t check her chromosomes, there was no extensive check for genital abnormalities. We “assign” a description of their sex, based on a whole raft of assumptions. It can be years later that people figure out that that was inaccurate.
So, we start pretty much everyone’s lives with those assumptions, and mis-describe it for everyone. And we don’t ever seem to talk about that. No wonder that some people hear the phrase “assigned a sex at birth” and get annoyed by it. It doesn’t seem to make sense, and in that at least, they have some justification.
Let’s also talk about “self-identification” for gender. Again, it is a really poor description of what is happening in that process. For too many people who are unfamiliar with what it means, it seems to suggest a complete laissez faire approach – someone can legally decide their gender identity is different without any consideration.
What we are doing is trying to move away from a medicalized position, particularly where people are forced to go through either a diagnosis or a panel assessment by people who don’t know them and don’t know the way in which they live. The phrase self-identification fails to inform people unfamiliar with this that this is still a considered, often lengthy process, and that any consequences of it – medical, psychological and social – would still need to be an important part of that.
A new term could help jump past that misunderstanding. I’m not saying it definitely would, but it could stop us having to have that bit of the discussion where you have to try and define terms before we actually get to the main point.
Oh, and finally, there is also the use of “trans debate”, another of the pieces of language that needs tackling. I have been – not unreasonably – told off for using it before, because it suggests that there is some way in which there could be a debate about whether trans rights should be accepted.
I accept this point, but I also think we have to be careful. We don’t stop people having human rights debates – because we are not debating whether human rights should exist; we are discussing exactly what they are, and how they should be implemented.
However, my own argument is based on an inaccurate comparison, because in human rights debates there are generally not the same “bad faith actors” actively challenging whether human rights should exist at all. That is not the case around trans rights, where the ‘debate’ is often instead a bullying tactic against a very small group of marginalised people.”
Maybe here what I am saying is don’t immediately tell people off for using it, just guide them to a different phrase.
Anyway, there’s my two penneth, and apologise for the errors I have almost made in my choices of language, and my understanding of sex and gender. And that, really, is my point. We need to be able to have warm, human discussions about what it is to be warm and human, of whatever sex and gender.
That also means finding the language to have those discussions and finding a way for people who are not on one side of the fence or the other to be able to be informed gently. To recognise wonderful – and not so wonderful – people as people, as absolute individuals who have some things in common, some not, and all of which are far from binary. That’s the heart of liberalism, the heart of standing up for trans rights, and the heart of love for each other.
* Sam Al-Hamdani is a party member, recent council by-election candidate, activist and member of his local party committee (Macclesfield) and on the North West Regional Party committee.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sausage company launches free rural bus service
Friends of Balgay event on Saturday! #dundeewestend
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
Joseph Bourke
Matthew Radmore
Roland
Mick Taylor
Katharine Pindar
16 Comments
Great piece, Sam. I hope the “debaters” read it
Interesting article. My view of ‘trans debate’ is nothing to do with denying rights but everything to do with protecting rights for everyone. For example, the Scottish census plans to ask people to identify their sex and simultaneously explains that this can be answered by people according to their gender identity. I find this concerning because by conflating sex and gender identity in this way we will not get accurate information about two pieces of information we need to know – the numbers in our population with male and female bodies (as we know that this information is needed to plan allocations of resources etc, such as for illness and diseases that affect male and female bodies), and also the numbers in our country who have a gender identity that differs from their biological sex (as that information is needed for purposes of equality monitoring such as in employment). Conflating sex and gender identity serves the interests of no one.
This is a perfectly reasonable article.
The problems arise because most people’s usage of English has not kept pace with our collective understanding.
Sex and gender are two completely different things. Factually most males are men and most females are women. Unforunately too many people talk as if there was a 1-1 correspondence between males / men and females / women, when that is not the case.
The comment from Brad Barrows provides a good illustrative example. The Scottish Government when conducting a census should know better.
Hi Sam,
I would not suggest I am a trans debater, I have a good friend who transferred from being a male to a female and is now very happy. I understand and have empathy for all he went through to change his gender.
You can debate language all you like but what word would you use to describe the situation. What word would they use to describe their situation.
They do have human rights but some may be trickier if that right is determined by gender and they were born one, but feel another.
Science has developed to helped us understand the predicament of people born with either the chemical or physical issues of gender and medical advances have helped them to change gender.
However, the strengths of society can also be its weaknesses: it takes time to challenge the norms and we should also respect the rights of people who abide by the norms.
In debating how the Trans community are protected and allowed to live the best life they can, we must take the hate out of the conversation. Trans campaigners that refuse to allow people to express views they do not accept is not helpful. Women have legitimate concerns that need to be debated openly. Shouting down opposing views is never healthy and for Trans rights to advance as I hope we all want them too then all groups need to be allowed to participate in the debated without fear of abuse and threats. That is not the Liberal way. Please debate in a way that wins the debate not shuts it down!
TA ” I understand and have empathy for all SHE went through ”
Fixed that for you. Given what you say, one can safely assume she would prefer correct pronouns.
WT “Women have legitimate concerns”
Yes, we do. And Cis women and trans women may well have different concerns. Writing “women” when I suspect you actually mean something on the lines of “cis women have concerns about trans women” is disingenuous.
I find this issue very difficult in practise, yesterday I was tackled about it whilst on a doorstep canvassing . The question was posed by a woman that the LD party does not take the nuances of the gender assignment debate far enough, and does not take on board feminist concerns that they want spaces which are safe and persons who present as wanting to be considered female with or without surgical transformations can appear as just males who are threatening or disadvantaging females in say refuge housing for battered females and in some sports where male biological development leave them with musculature and physique the are more effective than females who did not have male testosterone. I am also recollecting that some years ago I placed a homeless person undergoing transgender operations on a female corridor which had single sex bathrooms and toilets. For which action I had several protests from females who thought it was improper. I would appreciate any insights others have in respect of the issues and concerns of this initial article.
Jenny Barnes, I certainly do not intend to be disingenuous. I like many will fall fowl of using the wrong word occasionally. I am a gay man and I admit I struggle to keep up with the new language in the sexuality/gender conversation. I think I have a handle on the new acronyms and then more appear. I had to look up “CIS” a few days ago. To be clear my only point was to try and promote debate that does not resort to a level that shuts one side down as I honestly believe that will not help anyone. And some of us are not as up to date with the terms used others.
@Anton McNulty-Howard
I can help you in the sports area. Listen to the “More or Less” podcast for this week https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bmz69n and from 13:48 onwards, this exact issue is discussed.
In a few words, the point made is that anyone who has gone through puberty as a male has an intrinsic advantage as an athlete and that subsequent use of drugs to reduce testosterone level does not completely remove this advantage. We still need a women’s category in sport for those who went through puberty as women to ensure a level playing-field. Some sports (like darts or snooker) may be exceptions to this.
@Lawrence Cox: “We still need a women’s category in sport for those who went through puberty as women to ensure a level playing-field.”
I agree, although with significant qualifications.
Not all sports activities are competitive; where there are no winners and losers, and where there isn’t physically aggressive body contact, the issues of fairness and safety may not arise.
There is also a small minority of males who do not go through standard male-pattern puperty and whose bodies never get the testosterone kicker that makes all the difference between male and female sporting performance.
And nobody should be altogether excluded from competitive sports because of their gender identity or differences of sexual development – which is why it’s essential that there should be a protected category (very close to existing women’s sports) and an open category.
@Anton McNulty-Howard
I agree that this can be a very difficult area to discuss, which was my primary driver in writing the article.
With regards to the questions you have asked, I would first try to engage that person with a conversation about making sure everyone is safe, comfortable with who they are, and given equal respect and rights. I think it is important to do that first of all, because otherwise this becomes a debate where trans rights are somehow seen as being in competition with other people’s rights, and that is not the case.
If someone is not prepared to establish that first point, then they are arguing in bad faith – they believe that someone is in some way less worthy of respect and rights simply because they are trans, and that is fundamentally wrong. If someone were to argue that of any other description – colour, creed, sexuality etc, no-one would quibble with you saying that they are wrong to do that, and they should not do so here.
Once you establish that principle, it becomes much easier to have a conversation with someone about specifics, because you are finding policies and practices which enable everyone to feel comfortable, safe and respected, not arguing based on a false premise.
“With regards to the questions you have asked, I would first try to engage that person with a conversation about making sure everyone is safe, comfortable with who they are, and given equal respect and rights. I think it is important to do that first of all, because otherwise this becomes a debate where trans rights are somehow seen as being in competition with other people’s rights, and that is not the case.”
I agree that language and acknowledging everyone has equal human rights is important, but I disagree with your use of the word ‘competition’ above. Rights are not in ‘competition’; human rights are not a competitive concept. No one should be competing to be a ‘winner’ as that would leave losers. As you say everyone deserves equal rights. The point that I hear made between the rights of people with different protected characteristics is that sometimes rights relevant to those protected characteristics are in ‘tension’ or even ‘contention’ with people who have a different protected characteristic, but not in ‘competition.’ It’s important to always frame the problem accurately as otherwise I wholly agree that we get false premises that can lead to bad faith arguments. Dismissing people’s concerns about their rights however by using harmful labels, usually with the aim to silence them, will prevent good solutions being found. In the Liberal Democrats we pride ourselves on an evidence based approach so on a case by case basis let’s accurately frame the contention and look for solutions based on the evidence.
It is a matter of straightforward fact that someone who had a gender recognition certificate is recognised, in the case of (in simple terms – male to female) as there sex being female ‘for all purposes’. s9 Gender Recognition Act 2004. There is no requirement for any surgery to genitalia or otherwise.
To get a gender recognition certificate you have to have live in your ‘acquired gender’ for 2 years. That is I would suggest an awfully long time to have gone without needing to have a wee in a public toilet.
@Angie Robertson. My whole contention in that point is that those rights should not be seen as being in competition.
Dear @ Sam Al-Hamdani my point was that I do not hear people talking about rights regarding protected characteristics being in ‘competition.’ That is not the phrase I have encountered (and given your plea about language I think it’s important to state that!). As I say I sometimes hear people talk about such rights being in tension or contention or even a ‘clash’ of rights, but not the word ‘competition.’