Talk

Advanced search

Is Transphobia Actually Sexism?

(178 Posts)
CiderIsRealAle Mon 25-Jun-18 02:09:30

(NC not new poster)

When a person is discriminated against or bullied because they present or behave in a way that defies sex sterotypes, it is a manifestation of sexism (often with homophobia thrown in).

This means the hastily added and confusing protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act is unnecessary, because sex already covers it.

For example. If someone is male by birth but changes to a female name and presents in ways associated with women - long hair, make up, dresses, etc and their employer insists they dress 'like a man' - that is sex discrimination and a double standard because they would accept a woman wearing the same clothes to work.

So how about removing 'gender reassignment' from the EA protected characteristics and raising awareness that a male (or female) who is being compelled to adhere to sex stereotypes is experiencing sexism?

How about transgenderism/transsexualism comes under the protected category of religion or belief?

Hate crime on the basis of sex (for not confirming to sex stereotypes) could be included too, which would mean that both misogyny and what is currently considered 'transphobia' would also be covered.

This would mean everyone is protected, including women, and no one's rights are trampled and if the now not needed GRA (gay marriage allowed + transsexualism is a protected belief/religion) the extra bonus is that the law would be based on reality again.

Snappity Mon 25-Jun-18 02:38:22

So, in summary, you want to remove gender reassignment as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 and get rid of the Gender Recognition Act. Quite apart from making it impossible to change birth certificates this manifestly reduces discrimination protection for trans people. One quick example - the ability to bring complaints of indirect discrimination would be wiped out.

blackdoggotmytongueagain Mon 25-Jun-18 02:53:39

It’s an interesting idea. It won’t be tolerated by the trans community, as snappity has demonstrated though - they have no desire to have their rights protected under their birth sex - they want the legal right to have the fiction of a sex change to be their protected characteristic. No law that protects biological reality will be tolerated, which is why they are so upset when organizations attempt to uphold the EA exemptions and segregate by sex.

thebewilderness Mon 25-Jun-18 03:04:38

There is no need to change ID or birth certificates if gender non conforming people and transgenders are protected as they should be based on their birth sex.

thebewilderness Mon 25-Jun-18 03:06:00

You would be able to complain even more under sex discrimination protections.

Snappity Mon 25-Jun-18 03:30:23

You would be able to complain even more under sex discrimination protections.

Suppose a golf club tried to stop most trans people joining by bringing in a rule that members had to show a birth certificate and passport in the same name and gender. That would disproportionately affect people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment so an indirect discrimination would be easy to bring and win. Without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment it would be impossible to to bring it as an indirect sex discrimination case.

Sorry, but people aren't stupid. The reduction in trans rights from the OP's proposal is considerable.

Snappity Mon 25-Jun-18 03:38:39

"There is no need to change ID or birth certificates if gender non conforming people and transgenders are protected as they should be based on their birth sex."

This claim is even more ludicrous.

Suppose an employer said, "We have a token woman on the board, we won't appoint any more.". A woman with a GRC was obviously the best qualified person in the company but was passed over and a man appointed. She could bring a sex discrimination case that she was suffering detriment as a woman compared with a man.

Without a GRC she would have no case because the comparison would be between two men.

The proposal is so detrimental to trans people that it is borderline transphobic.

thebewilderness Mon 25-Jun-18 04:11:10

You are just being silly now. If you have to show ID just like everyone else does that is not discrimination.

thebewilderness Mon 25-Jun-18 04:12:21

You won't need a GRC if you are properly protected as your birth sex.

Snappity Mon 25-Jun-18 04:23:12

You are just being silly now. If you have to show ID just like everyone else does that is not discrimination.

Birth certificate and passport I said. Do you understand indirect discrimination? Producing a birth certificate in the right name is hard for trans people.

Snappity Mon 25-Jun-18 04:25:38

"You won't need a GRC if you are properly protected as your birth sex."

So in my example about a woman with a GRC being passed over for promotion which went to a less-qualified man, show how she can bring a case of direct discrimination without a GRC.

Batteriesallgone Mon 25-Jun-18 05:19:18

Because they’ve decided to appoint somebody but discriminated against the best qualified person based on them being trans. It’s like if they passed over the best qualified man because he was Muslim. The company has discriminated against women and muslims in their appointing decisions, but they doesn’t mean the best qualified person, who is a Muslim, is also a woman.

Similarly discriminating against trans and women, does not therefore mean than trans are women.

Baroquehavoc Mon 25-Jun-18 05:48:32

Many people have different names on their passport and birth certificate.

massivelyouting Mon 25-Jun-18 05:56:16

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RiddleyW Mon 25-Jun-18 06:01:42

Because they’ve decided to appoint somebody but discriminated against the best qualified person based on them being trans.

But they’d be allowed to discriminate against the best qualified person for being trans in the absence of trans status being a protected characteristic.

RiddleyW Mon 25-Jun-18 06:06:17

Sorry should add that yes lots of transphobia is actually sexism.

Batteriesallgone Mon 25-Jun-18 06:12:26

The OPs argument is that trans WOULD be a protected characteristic though. The OP explicitly states that trans would be a protected religion / belief.

Nobody wants to say it’s ok to discriminate against people for how they dress or present. But how you dress or present is not a biological truth. A woman who wears a hijab is presenting as a certain religion, she is protected under equality legislation, but no one is trying to claim wearing a hijab is written into her DNA.

The right to present as ‘feminine’ doesn’t have to be related to biology in order to be a protected right. Because it’s not, femininity is not related to biology. Which is why women should not be compelled to wear high heeled shoes, and men should not be compelled to not wear high heeled shoes.

SnuggyBuggy Mon 25-Jun-18 06:12:29

Transphobia seems to be such a broad definition that it's pretty meaningless.

RiddleyW Mon 25-Jun-18 06:14:26

Oh sorry I misunderstood the OP. So the EA would be rewritten so that trans was covered under the religious beliefs part? How is that different in any practical sense? What would be the point?

Imchlibob Mon 25-Jun-18 06:28:08

I think you have utterly missed the point. No one I know (well none of the feminists on MN that I am aware of) is critical of any transaction person for following the dress and presentation stereotypes of the opposite sex, or wants to insist that people follow the stereotypes of their biological sex. That may well be something that transphobic right wing conservatives do nut this is the wrong forum to try to debate that.

The prevailing view among most feminists I know is that anyone is welcome to follow any gender-stereotype rules they wish, or none at all, it's a free country and it's absolutely fine to wear and style and decorate yourself and even name yourself as you wish. However none of this exterior decoration changes your sex, which is indeed a protected characteristic under the EA.

Meanwhile the opposite to this viewpoint - that the fact of whether one is male or female is based on how one dresses and presents, and can be changed at will, is in fact deeply misogynistic.

AngryAttackKittens Mon 25-Jun-18 06:38:21

When applied to non-conforming males it's mostly homophobia, even if they're not actually gay.

OddBoots Mon 25-Jun-18 06:53:51

Asking for a birth certificate and passport with names matching would discriminate against so many people that it would be a daft thing to ask for at all Snappity. Lots of people change their names when they marry or by deed poll, and birth certificates record sex not gender anyway.

AngryAttackKittens Mon 25-Jun-18 07:00:08

So we're just in make random nonsense up mode? Cool, cool. Meanwhile in reality nobody is going to be expected to carry birth certificate and passport around because they're important documents that are a pain to replace (and also not everyone has a passport - lack of class awareness showing again).

jellyfrizz Mon 25-Jun-18 07:00:17

Many people have different names on their passport and birth certificate.

The majority of women who marry for instance.

BlackeyedSusan Mon 25-Jun-18 07:22:24

lots of people have birth certificate and passport in different names. mainly women who have changed their name on marriage. thus asking for both of those to be the same would be sex discrimination...

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: