Is Mumsnet shutting down GC views? FAO Justine Roberts

If you aren’t talking about negotiating a workplace clash of rights, why is this relevant?

So what if it does look ‘like a phobia’?
People do not chose to have phobias.

A person with arachnophobia wouldn’t want to flatshare with a spider enthusiast.

A person with a fear of enclosed spaces will avoid a night out at an escape room.

Perhaps you are just prejudiced against people with phobias?

Totally agree with this.

I don't want anyone wanting to be the opposite sex encouraged into major surgery to prove that they are serious. The idea of people making themselves infertile, incapable of orgasms and possibly needing lifelong medical care is appalling.

The whole of trans healthcare seems like a wild west situation, which can't be good for anyone.

Also feel very strongly that women's spaces - loos, hospital wards, prisons and domestic abuse support - are for biological women, full stop. Transpeople need the same as women, but not in a shared space.

What privilege or advantage does a male person gain either by dressing as a woman, or by transitioning?

didnt Philip/Pippa Bunce win an award in the City for best woman in finance one year? And he isn’t even trans 100% of the time, swaps about depending on mood. He took an award someone else should have won, an award which a woman could have been proud of, maybe looked good on her CV, etc.

This looks like a terrible analogy to me.

What privilege or advantage does a male person gain either by dressing as a woman, or by transitioning?

We know that these populations are subject to increased discrimination, stigma and hostility. We can see it live in action of FWR, indeed.

Even if they successfully 'passed' and everyone they met believed they were natal female, most people on FWR boards believe women face more discrimination and inequality than men, so they would be losing male privilege, wouldn't they?

Firstly, why would an employee even know about their colleagues mastectomy?
Breasts, or a lack of breasts aren’t relevant to any (legitimate) jobs that I can think of?

If the mastectomy is necessary due to say, cancer, while the person is employed at that workplace (and people know about it due to time off required) it would be covered by the ‘Disability’ characteristic, which isn’t defined by undergoing a process or proposing to undergo a process.

Breast feeding is covered by the Pregancy and Maternity characteristic but otherwise breasts aren’t relevant to EQ10

HTH!

...and I gave an example of why cognitive dissonance and the inability to express that due to social censure, might be a good reason why someone might avoid that person.

I'm really not talking about this from a legal perspective.

I am saying that in general day to day life, avoidance of someone on the basis of a characteristic they have and not on the basis of anything they have said or done (as was the case on that thread) looks like phobia to a lot of people.

An analogy that would better suit your example of cognitive dissonance around race would be if someone entered your workplace via a scheme set up to promote underprivileged black candidates into certain typesof role or ocupation.The funding for this scheme was provided by a charitable trust set up by a life-long camapaigner on behalf of equal civil rights for black people.

You suspect that this person is not all that they present, and in fact is a privileged white person posing as a black person. in fact you know this is the case, in spite of them adopting a new 'africanised' name and wearing their hair in cornrows. Do you say anything, or do you let it pass?

Good point from OP!

Why should women be kind to people who are nasty to them?

Also: Why is Mumsnet not firmly on the women's side?

I don't believe that the customer is always right but to blatantly work against the rights of your customers even when the fact that women have more rights now is one of the reasons why Mumsnet can even exist is stupid.

Last time it happened I switched to other social media sites.

@suggestionsplease1

For clarity could you please explain what you are talking about if not employment law because I got lost somewhere

As a thought experiment let's say there are 3 levels of interaction with / between work colleagues

1. Unfriendly / hostile / harassing / behaviour which will make them too uncomfortable to be able to do their job efficiently or would want them to change jobs.

2. Professional and polite but distant. No additional personal chat or sharing or outside of work socialisation.

3. Work friends, regular social events and outings together, personal chats almost everyday.

I would see 2 as the default, and 3 as something it might be possible to build upto with someone.

Under UK law a company might be liable if was seen to be tolerating behaviour type 1 but without getting into taat (for a thread I never saw)

Are you suggesting that 3 is the normal standard which TW should expect and that woman are obliged to provide or else you would consider them as being discriminatory. If I'm not understanding you please do correct me, do I have that right?

The OP did not say this at all actually. She had just met the person, and was speculating about her own discomfort if this were to be the case.

Sorry Joly that was to the poster making the ridiculous attempt to weaponise racism in another country about 60 years ago to try and argue women into putting their own lives and needs and equality aside to enable men to walk all over them.

My post was about the thread where the OP was directed to avoid someone purely on the basis of their trans status, for no other reason.

Autism, CSA/DA/DV, belonging to a culture or a faith or having a desire for dignity and privacy - women's lives do not revolve around the needs of bloody men. Get over it.

What you are missing is that the advice was given on the basis of what the person had done. What they did was as a male person use the single sex facilities designated for females.

I did read the thread and can confirm there is a lot of exaggeration going on in claims about what was said and suggested.

Honestly, what is the hangup on 'having undergone a process or part of a process' ?

If a woman had a double mastectomy for cancer reasons she would have undergone a process, right?

Not these useless racist analogies again. Male and female are distinct and stable, universal categories that transcend race, tribe or society.

Sex is instinctively noted and women and girls, in particular, have an innate vulnerability due to certain sex based differences between males and females; which is why the vast majority of human societies - whether they be black, white, slavic, jewish, asian........have sex based distinctions and discrete provisions.

Without such protections women and girls are not free or confident to partake in society at large or to access public spaces.

Black people are born black.

If someone not-born-black had undergone a process or part of a process that made them look a bit like a black person then perhaps your analogy would make sense.

Right now you are just exploiting black people’s history of oppression in the US to try and score a point in an online discussion about UK workplaces which is absolutely not cool.

That sort of workplace inequality is a more obvious indicator, yes - and that is why so many liberal feminists seem focused primarily on 'equal rights' in terms of jobs, pay and promotion etc

What is more difficult to explain is why, even after having children, some of these women still continue to deny more obviously sex based differences. Theer is/was an organisation/campaign group called 'Pregnant and F*ed' which seeems predicated on anger that women suffer some kind of 'motherhood penalty' in terms of limitations experineced on account of having children. Personally. See a lot of this sort of 'equality' feminism as seeking to be free of a lot what stems from being female - to eradicate or erase specific female experieneces......

This is the only explanation i can so far find for why so many women actively support TW being able to identify into women's spaces and services. In doing so I suspect they are suppressing, or ignoring, their own instincts.

And yes also there has to be reciprocal consideration from the TQ+ lobby that they have responsibilities too. And they are not helping this.

Women are repeatedly experiencing, right here on threads like this from TQ+ lobby supporters and TW posters, that if they have a need for a single sex space and a TW co worker appears in their work place,

1. be very afraid to say anything because it is likely to make a mess of your job and life
2. you are likely to be told that your needs/feelings don't matter and you must serve the male person's while the male person has no such responsibilities towards anyone else
3. it does not matter that you perceive this person as male, you must deny the evidence of your eyes and lie convincingly
4. whatever happens is going to be fucking awful.

And this is because, because of the absolute incapacity of this political movement to manage to care or be reasonable in provisions that work for all as opposed to 'do what we say or get out'.

And when women now are well versed in this? And many will experience a TW joining their work place with a sinking stomach of 'oh hell, I'm going to have to get another job because this person is likely to do all the making single sex spaces impossible/kicking off to HR/making loos and changing rooms no longer accessible to me/all hell breaking loose if I try to stand up for myself'?

It's pattern recognition, not phobia. It's a very understandable fear. You cannot repeatedly kick people in the shins and then scream 'hater' at them for daring to wince. If you want women to not have a problem don't create bloody problems for them.

So are you saying phobia is alright if the target has ' undergone a process '?

What about a mastectomy?

Well for sure. I'm sure some white people in the southern states decades ago felt cognitive dissonance when they were expected to work alongside and be nice to black people, which went against every fibre of their being and their understanding of what was right in society.

Why should they have had to put themselves through that?

Then you’ve missed the context of this thread, which was about a woman being uncomfortable with a colleague who has undergone a process or part of a process.

Have you forgotten the post you responded to by @Pluvia already? Try clicking ‘show quote history’ for a reminder.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

You really, really can't stop people avoiding men who are keen to violate their boundaries. And you really, really can't stop women talking about that.