Sex self-identification and costly signals of assuranceHolly Lawford-Smith (University of Melbourne)
May 2, 2019, 12:15pm - 2:15pm
School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne
Rm 353, Arts West, North Wing (Interactive Cinema Space)
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne
Australia
Topic areas
Details
The UK Government consulted in 2018 over proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that
would allow ‘self-identification’ for sex, by way of a single-step statutory declaration. New Zealand is
poised to implement a similar change, and several other countries have already done so. Debate over
this proposal has been either non-existent (there was no consultation in New Zealand, and
disagreement from gender critical feminists receives very little publicity) or has focused
overwhelmingly on the vulnerability of trans people. I focus on the specific issue of sex self-
identification in law emboldening entry by transwomen into female-only spaces. I argue that focusing
on the vulnerability of transwomen is unfairly addressing only one of the stakeholders to this legal and
social change. I focus on the claims that female people have to spaces without male people, and argue
that given the history and scale of male violence against female people, and the attitudes and
behaviour of male people against female people, women have a strong claim to such spaces. Any law
proposing to undermine this claim would need to provide women with sufficient assurance that they
were not likely to face the same risks or threats they face in fully mixed sex spaces. I draw on the costly
signalling literature to assess a strong, moderate, and weak gatekeeping requirement for legal change
of sex: sex reassignment surgery (as is required in most states of Australia); living for at least two years
‘as’ the sex the person wishes to acquire (currently required in the UK); and single-step statutory
declaration (proposed in the UK and about to become law in New Zealand). I argue that the first
provides strong assurance, the second provides weak assurance, and the third provides no assurance
at all, and so the latter, at least, is an unsatisfactory as a legal proposal for change of sex. I also say a
bit about how to assess the tradeoffs over physical threat (e.g. sexual assault) compared to other kinds
of threats (e.g. attitudes of toxic masculinity), and the extent to which threats of suicide should be a
part of the discussion of transwomen’s vulnerability.
Registration
No
Who is attending?
No one has said they will attend yet.
Will you attend this event?