Trans Voices For Appeal Complain About Together For Yes Campaign

I'm blocked from it despite never having tweeted. Ever.

I am blocked from that Twitter account despite having never interacted with them

Don't forget the point of the whole movement is to erase differentials. It's crazy thinking 'well they can habevthis because pregnancy will be protected'. Women will no longer be protected by sex discrimination laws because men can get pregnant too (apparently). Therefore there will no longer be a law that protects women.

The role = the people

The point is the role named in the law are women. Sex discrimination happens without pregnancy. Therefore a 100 per cent male 50 per cent trans'women ' employment ratio would not be discriminatory. Taking on a TW not a woman would not be discriminatory because it would not be discrimination against women. Even though pregnancy is protected, potential pregnancy is not, and is assumed to be covered by the word 'women'. That cover would be erased.

at a simplistic level if an employer has 100 employees, 50 of whom are men and 50 of whom are women Depends on how you define men and women!

At the moment all of those men could be natal women, or all of the women could be natal men. How could you know?

Isn't that the point?

@agentcooper I know. I was just thinking today about how many great feminists/activists I know who are lesbians, who've been involved in this and other campaigns over the years. And they've never once asked for a special shout-out or centred themselves. They happily contribute to the pro-choice campaign even though they are much less likely to have a crisis pregnancy than straight women. Because unlike TRAs, they aren't towering narcissistic arseholes.

if an employer does not employ women for that reason they don't get a free pass because they employ 1 trans woman and 99 men

They would because the sex discrimination employment laws do not protect 'people who might get pregnant', they protect women

I don't follow your point. The point I was making was exactly that - anti- discrimination laws prevent employers discriminating against one sex or another. If an employer is discriminating against employing women the fact they can point to one trans woman employee does not mean they were not discriminating against women.

I actually find this really upsetting. Do they not see how massive this was for women in Ireland - literally a matter of life and death. How can they be so crass, so fucking callous?

Could they not just let this one be?

if an employer does not employ women for that reason they don't get a free pass because they employ 1 trans woman and 99 men.

They would because the sex discrimination employment laws do not protect 'people who might get pregnant', they protect women.

So far as not employing women of child bearing age I can only speak for my own industry but that would eliminate over half the available workforce.

That is viewed as a feature not a bug.

To be absolutely honest I would put money on it that for many employers if faced with a female candidate and a trans woman candidate they would pick the female candidate.

Computer techie industries and academia might be different but fitting in with the rest of the office and not rocking the boat counts for a lot.

Lass, how are men and women defined in law?

If men can be either male or female and women can be either male or female, then what are the actual differences between the category of men and the category of women?

That isn't my opinion- it is the law

I know. That's not the point. Laws change. Interpretations change. Perceptions change.

If there's one aspect of naivety in this issue I smile at, it's "the law says so-and-so". It's not just about law, it's about people dancing around what the law says and about the law either not being applied practically or being impractical for individuals or groups who are affected to enforce. Grey areas in law, particularly when there's a difficult public interest aspect, are notoriously expensive to take to the courts.

No it wouldn't. An act is discriminatory if it significantly affects one group more than another

Lass. It's your opinion

That isn't my opinion- it is the law. At a simplistic level if an employer has 100 employees, 50 of whom are men and 50 of whom are women and has a working practice which is detrimental to 40 of the women and 10 of the men that practice discriminates against women.

So far as not employing women of child bearing age I can only speak for my own industry but that would eliminate over half the available workforce.

No it wouldn't. An act is discriminatory if it significantly affects one group more than another.

Lass. It's your opinion. If "women" are not seen as female and "men" not male, and sex stops being considered a meaningful group by policy makers, which is what transactivists want, it's not so clear.

Yes, ereshkigal. The existence of legal protections for pregnancy and maternity (and note ‘MATERnity, ie, motherhood) does not cancel out the need for us to be able to discuss these issues as the sexed issues they are: relating uniquely to female experience.

Is anyone else wondering if the online support forums for men suffering from prostate cancer are being bombarded with trans activists telling them how selfish and exclusionary they are by referring to themselves as men?

When there are some men who identify as women who experience exactly the same problems but are excluded from the discussion by dint of the fact that they don't consider themselves to be men?

And dear Lord, can't you just refer to yourselves as prostate owners rather than men?

Actually just looked on the Macmillan Prostate Cancer Online Forum. No sign of TRAs policing language (or anything else) on there. linky

However, the resident Macmillan nurse on there is billed as a specialist on Men's Cancers.

This will not do.

It should be People's Cancers.

Yes, but as people have said, the idea that not employing women of childbearing age because they might get pregnant is sex discrimination would be undermined

No it wouldn't. An act is discriminatory if it significantly affects one group more than another.

If an employer does not employ women for that reason they don't get a free pass because they employ 1 trans woman and 99 men.

Yes, but as people have said, the idea that not employing women of childbearing age because they might get pregnant is sex discrimination would be undermined.

Pregnant women are not a protected class, it has to be about sex to be sex discrimination. If men and women can become pregnant, there is no sex difference to be protected

That is not correct. The state of being pregnant is protected. The anti-discrimination laws apply to any one who is pregnant, whether they say they are a woman, man or I don't know, Klingon.

Actually ‘pregnancy and maternity’ IS one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

Pregnant women are not a protected class, it has to be about sex to be sex discrimination. If men and women can become pregnant, there is no sex difference to be protected.

Anyone have any stats handy for the percentage of people who ID as trans who have narcissistic personality disorder? Because that's what's driving this kind of shit.

The most frequent personality disorder was narcissistic personality disorder (57.1%) and the least frequent was borderline personality disorder

These were patients seeking sex reassignment surgery so presumably all gender dysphoria sufferers.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301205/