Trans Voices For Appeal Complain About Together For Yes Campaign

The magical feminine essence!

If "women" actually just means people (who can be either male of female), then what the hell are these men who identify as women actually identifying as?

The TRAs are in the surreal state of affirming that "woman" does exist while simultaneously insisting that it doesn't exist.

Feminists being prejudiced in favor of preserving women's hard fought rights to speak for and about themselves is clearly an enormous problem for some people.

If we lose the ability to talk about pregnant women and about mothers, we lose the ability to challenge vast swathes of our oppression. We won’t be able to challenge the practice if not employing young women, it’s not sexist if men can get pregnant too. For instance.

This. NO.

Not surprised to see a good number of folks making it all about the transwomen/natal males though. Careful guys, your prejudices are showing.

Lol. Much of this bullshit is being driven by natal males to prop up the trans agenda. Because that's just the "natural" order of things. Because female and male socialisation.

There's no point saying we could give in to 'pregnant people' because it's not a lie. Because it will be illegal (discriminatory) to say 'pregnant women' and because whatever we give in to, wherever we give an inch, they take a mile, they will come for more. We HAVE to stop running. We must stand our ground.

Do when a 30 year old childless woman goes for a job interview it doesn’t once cross the interviewers mind that she might get pregnant?

And that maternity leave is expensive especially for small businesses.

Sex matters. It just does.

RatRolyPoly
I believe most folks are 'making it all about' women.

... The prevalence rates of Axis II disorders ranged from 4.3% (Fisher et al., 2013) to 81.4% (Mazaheri Meybodi et al., 2014b). The type of personality disorder varied from predominantly cluster B (Hepp et al., 2005; Madeddu et al., 2009; Mazaheri Meybodi et al., 2014b) to predominantly cluster C (Heylens et al., 2014a). ...

www.researchgate.net/publication/270281143_The_frequency_of_personality_disorders_in_patients_with_gender_identity_disorder

It’s not about whether pregnancy is a protected characteristic though - that’s a red herring. Much discrimination against women takes place either because they COULD get pregnant (eg, young women not getting jobs because they might take maternity leave) or because they HAVE BEEN pregnant (women not getting jobs because they are mothers and therefore assumed to be unreliable).

If we lose the ability to talk about pregnant women and about mothers, we lose the ability to challenge vast swathes of our oppression. We won’t be able to challenge the practice if not employing young women, it’s not sexist if men can get pregnant too. For instance.

I know someone who was canvassing for T4Y and they were specifically told to refer to pregnant people not pregnant women so I'm not sure what the perceived exclusion was.

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 preemptive insistence on "centering" trans people is the reason ENDA didn't pass in the US. So if the Together for Yes campaign did tell this group of people to get lost, well, looks like that was a smart move, politically speaking.

I don’t really want to strongly defend this point - if I was writing legislation, I’d write pregnant women without blinking. I get that the reason trans activists want the neutral language is to make us believe men can get pregnant - but you can’t actually control people’s thoughts, and back in the real world pregnant people = women.

I was just saying, to me, having the legislation say pregnant people isn’t the biggest problem with the transagenda. I’m not saying I’m ok with language being policed - I’m not down with being forced to say pregnant people rather than pregnant women - but the legislation itself, meh.

Anyway, like I said, I appreciate & understand all the counter arguments and am not going to continue to defend it, I’ve expressed my view.

If it is not only women who have children, you do not have a protected class of people who can be discriminated against because of their pregnancy.

How about the group of people who are protected are the, er, the pregnant ones? I mean how hard is that? Not hard. Don't discriminate against anyone who is pregnant. Easy.

The thing, as I assume everyone knows, with Ireland is that they also have this whole GRC legal fiction thing too. So a legal man very much can be pregnant.

And from what I can gather this group is transmen and other natal females of various gender identities. Not a great time to be sensitive about it, I agree, but at least they waited til after the vote.

Not surprised to see a good number of folks making it all about the transwomen/natal males though. Careful guys, your prejudices are showing.

Meanwhile I can't imagine the NHS refusing an abortion to a transman n the grounds that they are male and therefore aren't entitled to one...

Because all this is about SEX.

Kyanite you could rewrite all the laws everywhere to have a protected characteristic of pregnancy,

Lots of countries would need to do this though and change takes time, and can be used as a means to roll back rights.

If for eg you wanted to change the abortion law in England Wales (may be different in scotland, sure is in NI) to remove references to woman / women (just had a look, there are lots) then you open the law up generally for reform. With the DUP having an angle on the govt, and a general upswing in religious ideas, and the fact that this is always a contentious subject, it could be dangerous to open it up for discusson, and teh result could be an erosion of the rights we have currently. As it is, there are periodic attempts to reduce the legal amount of time you can get an abortion (outside of serious disability / risk to mother).

And it all takes time.

Both the TRAs and the MRAs are promoting the 3rd rule of misogyny: Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish, and want it codified into law.

Well, no, it's exactly the same a breastfeeding.

Saying pregnant people, implies (is to cover) the idea that men can be pregnant. The whole point is that people must not read it and think "oh it means women" they must think "oh this is about people, men or women, ones who happen to be pregnant".

The idea that men can become pregnant is as much of a lie as your breastfeeding / chestfeeding statement - it's exactly the same.

It's also a gift to MRAs and misogynists who will grab any chance they can to divert attention away from the struggles specifically faced by women / girls.

I completely understand objections or counter arguments to my last post. Erasure of women’s experience, if you can’t name an oppression how can you fight it.

I think my line would be - is it actually true or not. So chestfeeding - just isn’t true - it’s mammary (breast) tissue that produces milk, even in males. Chest tissue does not produce milk. Women being charged with rape - unless it’s by joint enterprise - just isn’t true, rape (in UK law) requires penis and penis-bearers are men.

The other examples about single sex provision aren’t straightforwardly about language and no I absolutely don’t endorse compromise when it comes to protecting women-only spaces. Seems obvious but just to be clear

But pregnant people - to me just equates with pregnant women anyway. It isn’t a lie.

If it is not only women who have children, you do not have a protected class of people who can be discriminated against because of their pregnancy.

The fact that people want to eradicate the word women is the game changer for me.
I understand your point Cwenthryth , but where do we draw the line ? Do we give in to pregnant people in order to keep breastfeeding rather than chest feeding? Do we allow mixed sex changing rooms in shops in order to have single sex changing rooms in swimming pools? Do we accept that sex crime statistics are now meaningless with 6 "women" being charged with rape but negotiate that women shouldn't have to share cells with "women" rapists? Do we ignore the statistics about sexual harassment of girls in schools and just open up all changing rooms and toilets to boys self id ing as girls but negotiate that we can still teach girls about their own biology and needs? Will it all be a trade off? Where do we draw the line?
I'm not inclined to give any quarter to people who bully, oppress, intimidate and silence women. Anyone who approaches massive societal change with a bullying #nodebate is not fit to be part of that society. Respect, discuss, negotiate not bully, intimidate and oppress.

Cwenthryth
Look at any of the charities supporting women with gyny or breast cancer.... why would they not also change their use of 'women' to 'people'?
Mumsnet?
Women's Aid?
Women & Equalities?

It will be in the details though.

So when you talk about in other countries "pregnant people can be imprisoned for miscarrying" or "pregnant people are not provided with decent healthcare" or even "young people who are forced into marriage, if they become pregnant are at a higher risk of death"

Doesn't this water it down?

If you say women and girls imprisoned for miscarrying
Women and girls denied decent healthcare in pregancy
Girls who are forced into marriage are at higher risk of death if they are impregnated

Then that brings to the fore, the fact that this is done to the female population.

I do think that it waters down a lot of messages to soften the language, leave room for saying, well it happens to men too, and if they're supposed to be in charge of everything, it must be inevitable / we need to support men more / why focus on girls and women when it's an everyone problem.. etc

Y’know - when it comes to abortion legislation, clearly by any reasonable definition - currently - pregnant person=woman (until such time as someone transplants a womb into a man, which is massively ethically dodgy but will happen at some point. And if/when it does, and that man becomes pregnant, and for whatever reason then needs an abortion, I want him to have the right to choose that). So, in this particular instance, I’d not be too upset by the wording pregnant people. Pregnant people are women anyway. I’d much rather ‘pregnant people’ than ‘pregnant women, transgender men, non-binary and genderqueer non-men’ or some such guff. And at least, in this instance, the language change isn’t actually seeking to redefine “woman” or co-opt female experience for trans-identifying males.

Perhaps it’s a case of pick your battles. I know, I know, it is a slippery slope. But at least ‘pregnant people’ isn’t a blatant lie.