#self-identification

Self-identification, Ewa Partum, 1980-89

'This is difficult, feminist art, but not "feminine" art. now that is a feat—to create feminist performances in Poland at the beginning of the '80s.(…)Back then, in the 70s, people were still discussing whether a woman is capable of analytical activities or whether she is only driven by emotion and impulse.

With Partum, there is no impulse and there never was. It is purely the work of the mind and a question of how to use what is commonly perceived as femininity and body in her art.'

A proposed amendment to India’s transgender law has sparked fear and anger among LGBTQ groups, who warn it could undo hard-won legal gains and take away the right to self-identify. The bill before parliament would narrow the legal definition of transgender persons to a limited number of traditional socio-cultural identities such as “hijra” and “aravani”, terms used for hundreds of years for a third-gender community. But critics say that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill excludes trans men and women, non‑binary or gender-fluid people and others who rely on self‑identification. It would also introduce mandatory certification by medical boards and district magistrates, with additional approvals for those undergoing gender-affirming surgery. The government says the bill intends to “streamline” the existing framework, plug implementation gaps and better protect vulnerable groups by strengthening penalties for exploitation, forced identity and trafficking. For transgender students at a makeshift tea stall in New Delhi -- many of whom have not even come out to their families -- the implications feel overwhelming. “I am very scared,” said one student, their voice barely above a whisper. “If the state decides who you are, what happens to who you know yourself to be?” Activists warned that the bill could upend the lives of thousands, and runs counter to a landmark 2014 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right of transgender people to self-identify. “This bill doesn’t just create problems... it throws our lives out of order completely,” said PhD scholar Vaibhav Das, who identifies as non‑binary.

The supposed transgender identity of the suspect is also a catch-22 for transgender activists. If the suspect is indeed ‘’truly’’ transgender (whatever this means), then obviously some transgender women are sex offenders who target girls and women. If the suspect is merely pretending to be transgender (a ‘’transtrender’’ if you will), then transgender activists have to admit that self-identification laws and policies are very prone to fraud and abuse, given that anyone can claim to identify as transgender, no questions asked

Finally, if they admit this incident did in fact happen, and if they admit the suspect is indeed a transgender woman, there is another problem for transgender activism. They have to realise transgender women can and do make girls and women feel unsafe when allowed access to female-only areas. However, transgender women supposedly need this access given they themselves are unsafe in male-only areas. Then the argument becomes that girls and women being unsafe is ‘’worth it’’ because in return, transgender women are protected. However, this argument can be easily flipped. If we accept the premise that transgender women are unsafe in male-only areas, then we could still argue this is ‘’worth it’’, given that in return, girls and women will be granted protection from transgender women. The argument works both ways, and so if the pro-transgender argument is considered the better argument, then we can conclude the safety of transgender women takes priority over the safety of girls and women. This is precisely the crux of transgender activism