"Let trans men be fem" what does this mean?

Equalities monitoring is common enough, and the 'identify as ' language was useful. Ethnicity is an area where id can be complex.

On the reasonable adjustments at work, that's another tricky one. Adjustments may need to be reasonably made for people who are temporarily disabled in some way, or have things that are a standard result of ageing. Is someone who has hurt their back and needs a special chair disabled, if they are going to get better? Would they describe themselves as disabled (probably not). Should they be counted as disabled for monitoring purposes? If someone needs a special screen due to ageing eyes, they should have it. Are they disabled? Yes, would they describe themselves as such? Who knows. Questions around what people can and can't do are never going to be exhaustive and are quite personal. They might be appropriate for financial claims or insurance stuff but this info is useful in other contexts where this questioning would be overkill.

The other point is that employers do discriminate on disability, without question. If it's not obvious, will most people disclose? Maybe once got feet under desk. Tricky.

I asked earlier when you posted if you were thinking of stuff like benefits and you weren't, but conversation has moved on. Benefits claims are different and heavily scrutinised. Adjustments at work, reasonable ones, can and often are made for all sorts of people for a range of reasons. Equalities monitoring is important, though lots of people don't like it. It's more that sort of thing where it is useful to know what's going on, and would it be sensitive to probe.

I suppose the bottom line here is, that fact and truth are out the window. Anyone can id as anything, more or less. Certainly on a form that is anonymous. So it's rendered the whole thing, all the equalities and d&i etc, pointless. And the weirdest thing is, it seems that minority groups are in favour, on the whole.

Started writing this hours ago so may be xposts!

Thing is asking lots of invasive and potentially sensitive questions to ascertain whether someone is disabled for something like equalities monitoring purposes is likely to be really unpleasant for a tranche of the people it is interested in iyswim

Yes, but I am presuming that the reason this stuff is being asked at all is because it's relevant to something like a job, or a claim for assistance, or something similar. Otherwise there really isn't any need to ask how the person identifies with regard to disability etc.

If a person wants to make that kind of claim, it can't be done without showing that they fit into the right group or category, can it? In that context whether they say they identify as disabled or are disabled they are still saying they qualify according to the laid out criteria.

It's common on many job applications here for example to identify as a member of various groups, for consideration in affirmative action programs. No one has to, but if they want to they really can't get around saying that they are in fact a member of that group, no matter how obscure they want to make the language.

This whole thing seems so back to front.

A lot seems to be to do with stereotypes, so men are people who are not 'feminine' and don't do things that are associated with women... These ideas around strict gender role are what some people (mainly feminists) have been trying to smash for years.

letsseethenshallwe "my son gets told he can't be trans because he's going into a career in children's nursing"

If these regressive attitudes were just held by the tiny percentage of the population that is "trans" then it would not matter very much but the fact that they are being pushed by schools, the BBC, etc. the whole damned establishment, and not just in the UK, is nothing less than wholescale social engineering - globally!

In answer to your original question. It is referring to the trans community itself not any other group. It refers to the fact that some trans men (the sort that post all over social media follow the TRA movement, normally anyway) will tell some trans men that they aren't trans cause they still either have feminine features or still do stereotypically female things. So my son gets told he can't be trans because he's going into a career in children's nursing for example it's damageing cause it's pushes stereotypes even thurther

Or other characteristics. I mean this applies to all equalities type stuff

Thing is asking lots of invasive and potentially sensitive questions to ascertain whether someone is disabled for something like equalities monitoring purposes is likely to be really unpleasant for a tranche of the people it is interested in iyswim

It's all a bit sensitive.

I would have been very upset at 14 or 20 or 25 having to answer questions which reinforced to me my disability when at the time I was in denial about it.

And you could say suck it up face facts, but these are some really difficult issues etc people can't always come to terms with them just like that.

So yes it's a good idea but the implementation would have to be so so careful.

Now I do as its just a fact tbh.

I have wondered if perhaps this isn't the attitude that it is best to cultivate in people, rather than this business about "identifying as". For example, does t really matter in most cases if you identify as disabled, or in any? Isn't it a matter of either having relevant medical issues, or a disability according to specific criteria that is relevant to the situation.

I think it's actually similar to the case above with HIV though not in the most obvious way. Does it matter that they identify as gay or not? Not really. What matters is that they meet a certain criteria, men who have sex with men. "Being gay" isn't actually a specific criteria in that way at all, nor does it always include sexual activity, which is why it's not so useful in that setting.

While it may be that sometimes individuals like the idea of "identifying" as disabled, if they meet the criteria and its relevant to a situation, I wonder how much it really helps anyone to not just take it as a fact- they meet the criteria.

It's quite personal.

I didn't Id as disabled when younger as I didn't like to think about it, and also I felt like I wasn't 'properly disabled' which was a denial thing probably.

Now I do as its just a fact tbh.

If I had been discriminated against on basis of my disability then how I felt about it inside would have been irrelevant. You don't stop being disabled just by not identifying as disabled.

And this is where its all been turned on its head with people identifying info groups that they factually do not belong in.

With this language, no one imagined that anyone would want to Id into avulnerable/ minority / oppressed group. The language was for people who were the thing, but didn't Id as it. Now it's the exact opposite.

It really is ridiculous if you think about it for more than 2 secs.

So I know that some profoundly deaf people choose not to define deafness as a disability and do not identify as disabled.

Does that mean that they are not covered against discrimination under the equalities act on the characteristic of disability?

I'd be interested to know what the answer to this is. My partner is deaf in one ear. Single sided deafness is a common and for the most part minor disability. He wouldn't even call it a disability. He, quite rightly, wouldn't qualify for any benefits on that basis. For most purposes it doesn't matter, it's more of an annoyance than anything.

However, he wouldn't dream of not telling an employer about it because in the work place people need to know if you can't hear them. They need to pass on instructions, which can be urgent, and which he cannot hear if you're on his deaf side, particularly if there is a lot of background noise. So he does need 'reasonable adjustments'.

Some employers ask about disability and he is never sure what to answer. Others ask about 'medical conditions that could affect your work' which makes it much clearer that he should be speaking up.

Does that mean that they are not covered against discrimination under the equalities act on the characteristic of disability?

They are still covered. Whether you are disabled isn't a matter of self-identification, but whether you have an impairment that has a "substantial" and "long-term" negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

Something that all nine EA protected characteristics have in common is that you cannot self-identify into them: there's some kind of testable criteria to decide whether you have that characteristic. GRA change proposals threaten that very sensible status quo.

So I know that some profoundly deaf people choose not to define deafness as a disability and do not identify as disabled.

Does that mean that they are not covered against discrimination under the equalities act on the characteristic of disability? I understand that they identify as members of a cultural and language minority but I don't think that is protected against in the act - race is protected but is perfectly legal to "discriminate" against employing someone who doesn't speak English.

Fraggling - spot on about the original purpose of language about "identifying" and how the meaning has become distorted:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3688624-let-trans-men-be-fem-what-does-this-mean?msgid=89981466

For example, the question "Do you identify as disabled?" rather than *Are you disabled?" on a job application form.

The question is framed that way in order to give the candidate the choice of whether or not to disclose that that they meet specific criteria, ie. not to invite people to claim that they have a disability according to their personal definition of "disability".

In the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) replaced the quota scheme, the designated employment scheme, and registration as a disabled person under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 (the "Green Card" scheme).

Nowadays, you don’t register as disabled in order to get rights under the DDA or Equality Act 2010; you just look at whether you meet the Equality Act definition of ‘disability’.

If you do meet those criteria, whether at the time of application or at some later date, you choose whether or not to disclose that to the employer. I do not know the latest stats but in the past many people only chose to disclose if they needed and wanted to ask the employer about "reasonable adjustments".

In relation to the OP, if someone "identifies as non-binary" that is irrelevant in terms of protection as an employee under the EA 2010 - unless they choose to disclose it as a disability, ie. as evidence that they have a mental health problem.

That contrast illustrates the importance of not including protection for "self defined" characteristics under the EA 2010.

However . . . I find it very worrying that EA 2010 protection for "Gender Reassignment" of transsexual persons, with its odd mixture of references to both "gender" and "sex", is open to abuse by someone claiming that all it takes to change "attributes of sex" is to wear a skirt a la Alex Drummond or the name on a driving licence from Stan to Tiffany. Little wonder that the world over the transgender lobby are trying to erase the term "transsexual":

7 Gender reassignment

(1) A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

• (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

• (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

I came across the profile of a woman on a dating app last night. She categorised herself as straight and pansexual. I don't think she's quite got the hang of this gender identity malarky yet.

It's almost like we're all non-binary, even those who swear blind that they are transmasculine or transfeminine.

My next three points are made best by people who are far cleverer than me:

Lysander Spooner: "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."

"Gender fluidity" means jumping from restrictive gender category to restrictive gender category. You are still restricted by your category du jour. You are still caged.

Audre Lord: "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

Gender roles are some of the "master's tools" and transitioning, aka begging for a personal exemption from the role usually forced upon your sex, is still maintaining the master's house because you are using the master's tools.

Malcolm X: "[D]uring slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro.

The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. [...]

So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself."

The handmaids and transmen are the "house Negros" of patriarchy. They identify with or even as male oppressors in the hope of better treatment from men. Radical feminists are the "field Negros" and we see the punishment for resisting patriarchy in the abuse meted out to Get The L Out, WPUK, and others.

I thought for a second that we might have a mutual friend OP, but then I remembered my friend is a non-binary transmasc pansexual. Pronouns he/they.

i.e. a woman married to a man who sometimes fancies other people. And dyes her hair crazy colours and rants about terfs online a lot. But still wears women’s clothes and doesn’t seem to be taking hormones or making any actual changes to their body.

(Yes I muted them because they make my head hurt and the constant asspats they get are annoying.)

But it's still better than pretending to be a Non fucking binary. Which is a hot mess of fly infested bullshit.

And yes, it's idiotic for women to pretend they are men and then dress in stereotypically female ways and then pretend to be gender bending. Also, to have babies and pretend it's a scientific miracle.

I mean that and disability and race, that sort of thing.

It's evolved/ being misused though, to mean something quite different.

If you are a femme trans man, surely that is being a woman? I have to say, I find it very difficult to see some of these new 'genders' as more than attention seeking or mental illness.

But if he identifies as straight he will not get the info about hiv.

That is what the language was invented for. As I say, it's been bastardised.

Well, no.

^The problem here, or part of it, is that language that evolved to be useful has been bastardised.

I had a job years ago around hiv. The initiatives were aimed at men who had sex with men, rather than gay men, as its not uncommon for men who sometimes have sex with men to identify as straight.^

I take your point, but the individual I'm talking about was in a monogamous relationship with a man (her husband). I know not everything can be put into boxes, but if I man sleeps with other men of argue that he's not 100% 'straight', regardless of how he identifies. Just like how a man who identifies as a woman isn't automatically female.

According to the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, "Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disorder that affects communication and behavior. Although autism can be diagnosed at any age, it is said to be a “developmental disorder” because symptoms generally appear in the first two years of life." www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml

I'd be much more impressed by a woman who defies stereotypes but doesn't feel the need to add a new label to themselves as some sort of woke apology mechanism. "I know I'm not 100% girly and won't meet your girly expectations but I have an excuse you see" oh fuck off. You're just a female, doing your thing. That should be okay. Women like the one mentioned in the OP drive me nuts.

Goosefoot interesting points, ime it's not necessarily linked to state benefits, if that was the thing you were thinking. Lots of people are id'ing into groups not seemingly with the intention of gaining anything from the state.

No, that's not quite what I was thinking, although sometimes that happens, particularly with parents wanting to get services for children or accommodation in schools. Even f there is clearly a problem, without a diagnosis there is no basis to ask for certain programs or resources.

My thought here is more on a conceptual level. Because of the way we've understood discrimination, or disadvantage, it's become very difficult to make claims of being disadvantaged, which the state must address in some way, unless you can make it some form of identity claim. For example as a woman, I can point to my class being most at risk of sexual assault, or differences in lifetime earnings, as examples of disadvantage to my identity group, and demand policy actions, or programs, to address these problems. I may or may not get what I want but the claim is understood on both sides to be a valid form - women should be equal to the comparison group (men, in this case) and where they aren't, the state has a responsibility to address the gap.

It's quite different than my personal disadvantage through luck, or my particular family history, or whatever, even if as a result I am much worse off than the average woman compared to the average man. As an individual with individual circumstances I have no claim to the state's intervention into those circumstances.

We could divide people up into hundreds of possible identity groupings of course, that have long term effects on people's circumstances, but ultimately the ones that count are the ones the state recognises, or the ones groups can convince them to recognise.

I think there are a lot of fall-our effects of this. People have significant motivation to see themselves as part of a state recognised grouping, or convince the state to recognise it, and to show somehow that they are disadvantaged as a group so they can make claims to programs, policies etc. (This gets into interesting questions about who they compare themselves to.) And that tends to spin-off to other forms of intervention as well from non-state groups. The state potentially has a lot of power here, as well as those best able to make their case for their group - it's in their interest to support the power of the state rather than to challenge it.

I think it's become increasingly difficult for anyone to claim that the state should look at their problems without putting it in terms of an identity group that's been disadvantaged compared to the norm.