GC Ultra / GC Lite?

It may just be me but I'm getting to the point where we're expected to be across so many disciplines to have a rounded opinion that it's feeling like we need an online course and a couple of residential Summer Schools to bottom this out.

With the oceans of free time and resources we have to dedicate ourselves to that…

At least Stella has now been very clear. She is all for fetishes she sees as minor being accommodated as normal in society. Because she believes that is liberal.

Ok Stella. So just where then are the boundaries between acceptable sexual behaviour and not acceptable? Who has the power to adjudicate on that boundary? She posed the position as one of ‘harm’. And yet, she cannot see certain harms that others see clearly.

She is concerned about children, but cannot see the issue with the lowering of sexual boundaries of society that has been causing children distress and discomfort. There seems a disconnect here.

My worry would be that arguing for this as well as single sex spaces will give fuel to activist who will say we are anti-trans rather than pro-women's rights.

The difficulty with that is it doesn't take much for people to make that categorisation, does it. It's obviously still a meaningful phrase to some but it's in such inappropriate use and such a common calumny that it is more of an annoyance to me or an index of suspicion that somebody may be in a position of bad faith.

For the time being we are stuck with erotic cross-dressers all over the place, and the law doesn't permit institutions to do anything about it as long as they look like Debbie Hayton and not Lily Savage.

Arguing that the law should change so that they are permitted to, is tantamount to saying that trans isn't really a thing. Because in the face off between sex and gender reassignment, sex is always more salient, except in the case of superficial appearance. If TWs can't change their appearance and are also treated as male for all other purposes then they are just men.

Which is what I believe. It appears I have reached the destination of my transphobia journey. 😱

Also what everyone else said whilst I was laboriously typing...

Malaga is right, transvestism is argued as a protected characteristic, it comes under gender reassignment under the equality act. This means that the employer must apply the same dress code rules for men and women.

Gender reassignment could be clearly defined to mean an actual act of gender reassignment rather than an expression of gender identity through dressing. I believe that this has also creeped in under 'stonewall' interpretation of the law rather than the original intention of the Equality Act. I remember back in 2010 there was debate in the legal profession about the meaning of gender reassignment and I don't think any one, at the time, would have thought it would include individuals like Pip Bunce or Eddie Izzard with boy and girl mode, or individuals with obviously fake prosthetic breasts.

So I think this could be addressed in an amendment of the act to set out clear definitions but I think we need to take care what we are arguing for. Obviously inappropriate dress could be dealt with under normal 'dress code' type policies in the work place.

My worry would be that arguing for this as well as single sex spaces will give fuel to activist who will say we are anti-trans rather than pro-women's rights.

I agree. And while we have this culture and legal framework I think we are stuck with men performing their fetishes at work.

Even if you repeal the GRA the EA would still protect transvestism at work.

I'm sure you've grounds for that but I don't recall them offhand so would need to consult EqA 2010 again.

I get what you mean. I agree it is ‘difficult’ now with males using hormones. But that is my point.

Those male people have artificially created those breasts unless they had a significant medical condition which was diagnosed as forming those breasts. The grey area has been created.

However, it is not hard to define. Providing the law was clear about sex not being able to be changed.

This was once thin edge of the wedge stuff. It is now not and therefore discussion on it is needed. For me, we are stuck in a situation where you have Stella O’Malley declaring sexual boundaries be dropped enough to allow people to be dressing for a sexual ‘charge’ while teaching children. And that this is part of a liberal society.

And we wonder why our children are now suffering being in a hyper sexualised society. Look at the extreme result of when France had Foucault and buddies activate to lower the age of consent.

I think it was a supposition not a suggestion it's been argued for.
I'd need to check her wording.

But it got me thinking.

Even if you repeal the GRA the EA would still protect transvestism at work.

Did JT make an accurate statement?

There are arguments for repealing the GRA 2004.

I've somehow missed anyone arguing for the repeal of EqA 2010. Has that happened on MN? In which case, I missed the threads (apologies).

Janice Turner said in her article on Saturday some GC feminists must want to repeal the equality act and it got me thinking.
Is this true?
Is this the only way to address transvestism at work?
Is that likely to be a winning campaign with the general public.

Except they never call themselves Brenda... more likely stuck with Roxy and her tits and her fetish.

I'm not sure about that.

If both having cosmetic breast surgery for personal satisfaction I'm not sure the fact you already have breasts makes a difference.

And if they're taking hormones they may argue they have some breast tissue to build on.

Anyway you'd first need an organisation which had a policy of no fake breasts for men and I can't see that happening anytime soon.

No one is even campaigning for that.

So we're stuck with Brenda and his tits and fetish.

This may be true. But it means abandoning the no sexual fetish at work argument.

Because if they're still wearing the clothes for thrills even when you're calling them he and they're using the gents, you still have the fetish at work issue.

I think that it is not actually so confused on the breast issue.

A female will be having breast reconstruction to match an existing breast or an enlargement to existing female breast tissue. This is clearly definable and therefore not subject to the type of discrimination where it has to be ‘equally’ applied to male people.

In case anyone finds it helpful, SO'M has published a clarification about clothes. It includes this:

People should be free to wear whatever clothes they want so long as it is within the bounds of decency.
…
When JK Rowling made her famous tweet I liked and shared it because I happily agreed with her. I had no idea that a large contingent of gender critical people didn’t actually agree with JK Rowling’s tweet. I did though. I thought it was a brilliant tweet because it was underpinned by the principles of liberal enlightenment, which i reckon are beneficial for society.

https://stellaomalley.substack.com/p/the-intricacies-of-sex-and-clothing?

Other matters aside, do we have general agreement on bounds of decency? Dress code in work. Lots of family sites have them (no inappropriate T-shirts, shoes must be worn etc.).

I think this is an interesting point actually. Men acting out fetishes at work might make women uncomfortable generally.

But I can't see how an argument to ban gender expression can really help us right now.

If we take on that fight as well as the fight for women's single sex spaces to be for females (by that I mean born not legal females), then it is surely just fuelling a this is an 'anti trans position' rather than a women's safety issue?

You could only say no fake breasts if you applied it equally to everyone. Women and men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Otherwise you'd be discriminatory. They'd sue you.

Unless you could argue there's a legitimate reason to treat women differently in this case?

I suppose in the case of reconstructive surgery following cancer could be argued for women.

But cosmetic breasts for women and men who've 'reasigned their gender' how would you argue that difference legally?

They'd try to out colleagues who'd had cosmetic breast surgery to make their case.

I see and know it's different. I want to know how this is legally and culturally argued against.

Indeed.

The EA has legalised transvestism at work.

This is a problem seperate from pronouns and sex spaces , and one I don't see an obvious solution for.

I'm confused about why people don't see that problem or want to discuss it.

So even when we've won on sex spaces and pronouns the Equality Act will still protect Brian coming to work dressed as Brenda with normal sized fake tits and wearing normal women's clothes for kicks.

Is that ok? Or is it involving us in his fetish?

If it's not ok, how could we successfully object?

And if you think men won't do this once they can't use the ladies then I think you are naive about men's sexual fetishes and what they'll do.

Red your comment about flying monkeys was very timely. Thank you.

I saw Iseult using the term for what Glinner was doing in backing Stella and I didn’t remember the connection with narcism when I read it. I now think I see that Iseult was probably making that connection without saying so directly. It was a carefully worded tweet and I saw it was not an accusation as such towards Glinner although he took it that way. She pointed out that his behaviour was like a flying monkey iirc. It was very interesting and made me stop.

I do see the parallels to the topic under discussion that you are trying to highlight. I did wonder about what seemed to be the over reaction of JT and AD. You have, as usual, provided the clarity for that aspect. I think I recognised it but didn’t name it specifically. I am not great at picking narcissists.

Just as an example, the school I worked at had "no spaghetti strap tops" as part of its dress code. I'm sure "no fake breasts" could be added.

I do see the problem with protection from discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment because wearing fake breasts is precisely the kind of behaviour they do to show they are serious about "changing their gender".

How do we deal with this in school? I personally would start with insisting that men such as Hayton be spoken about as male at school and children are told that, as an absolute minimum, they can call him Mr and Sir if they want.

Or even: can we object to men having normal sized fake breasts at work?

If so how?

Fuck me. Who knew that a few transsexuals being pandered to back in the 70s would lead to this question.

Or even: can we object to men having normal sized fake breasts at work?

If so how?