A trans woman's passport marker harms other women's rights
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull said:
“I would take that back, yeah... by them having F on their passport, it makes different, a difference to my rights as a woman.”
The idea that legal documents affect rights, and that one person's legal status can impinge on another's, is a recognisable principle in law, so the claim that an F marker on someone else's passport costs women something sounds like a concrete legal argument.
The passport marker on somebody else's document does not touch your pension, your maternity pay, your access to a refuge, your protection from discrimination, or any other right you hold under statute. Rights are conferred by law and attach to you: they are not a finite resource that shrinks when another person is recognised. What this claim does is point at a trans woman who has gone through the full legal process of recognition and say that her existence costs other women something, without ever identifying what that something is, how the mechanism works, or which specific provision is diminished. The woman who pays for that argument being left unanswered is the one who fought for her documents and now finds them treated as a grievance.
What I said at the time:
“I find that view so selfish. You know, just those words, "It affects me as a woman." I mean, it's just the most selfish thing I've ever heard.”
Trans women who have undergone the full Gender Recognition Certificate process and whose legal documents would be revoked on the basis of an unspecified harm to others.
I have answered this one in full: Is hostility towards trans people just women's rights groups protecting women?