Trans sibling in law

I mean, all that says to me is fewer years spent in the real world.

I know someone with 6, he’s completely unemployable. It’s not a marker of supreme intellect.

Do you think we should be impressed that you have 3 degrees?

Even RG universities aren't immune to Mickey Mouse bullshit.

I mean, in fairness I have 3 and one of them is from a RG.

But yes, I gained them from Idiot College.

The thing with rights is you should never take them for granted.

All those 'battles won' need to be defended. They are never battles that are 'done and dusted'.

This is 101in understanding liberal democracy.

Again, interested to know who awarded you a degree.

I wouldn’t ask you to confirm because it would be outing, but I’d love to know where you studied your degree.

To take your first point, as explained in my post, women who couldn’t access contraception, or had no recourse to legal protection if raped, are still alive today and still impacted by their experiences.

Contraception cannot be taken for granted. We saw this when circumstances changed during the pandemic, and a change to insurance based healthcare could also impact access. I don’t understand why you think rights can be taken for granted in the U.K., when it is clear, as I said in my post, that they are being taken away in other countries.

The rise of pro-natalism has already been mentioned, but seems to have gone over your head.

What use talking about already won battles has on the here and now is always beyond me.

Yes, I see that. Again, interested to know who awarded you a degree.

You've VERY CLEARLY not read the book.

HTH.

PS Try reading it.

The basic principle of "trans rights" is that male people matter more than female people.

JKR doesn't have any particular beef with trans men, who are in many ways pawns in a game that doesn't benefit them at all. (No disrespect to people with genuine dysphoria who understand that humans can't change sex and that trans activism is problematic but still feel that presenting as the opposite sex helps them in some way.)

Spot the poster who reduced women to their uteruses.

The way society treats women is NOT why women aren't used in medical trials. Women effectively suffer because of OTHER WOMEN'S uteruses! (For arguably good reason!)

The way society treats us, has nothing to do with size differences in various situations. I can't physically lift certain things. This is dictated by my biology.

I am unlikely to win a fight with a man for all sorts of biological reasons. Nor am I likely to win a race against a man for all sorts of biological reasons.

The conditions I can get as a woman can be down to X chromosones and nothing to do with my uterus.

I find it more than slightly amusing that the gender studieress has been the one who reduced us to our uteruses!

OP’s post wasn’t even about a male person, so in fairness when I said in my original response to treat her in law politely, even if she doesn’t agree, I wasn’t asking her to prioritise a male.

Female people already do matter as much as males. Strikes me sometimes that what we’re asking for is to matter more.

It’s not a lack of knowledge, it’s a lack of seeing why it’s relevant now.

Yes, I understand that women’s fights for contraception took place. I’m grateful for that. But also have access to contraception that means I can choose, or not, to have children. Same for the vote, and employment, and so on and so forth.

What use talking about already won battles has on the here and now is always beyond me.

Big parts of it were about the various waves of feminism - what’s this one, tell women off for not agreeing with each other?

I thought every wave of feminism was about telling people off for not agreeing that female people matter as much as male people.

But then I don't have a gender studies degree, so what do I know?

Oh don't be silly.

@Primrose86's sister-in-law is a woman. Therefore her sister-in-law. People can't change sex.

My biology isn't just my uterus, but crack on.

Are you really this oblivious to the specific rights that enable women to have a choice?

In the U.K. unmarried women did not have a right to access contraception until 1974 (I’m sure within the lifetime of many posters, and certainly their mothers) and rape within marriage did not become illegal until 1991.

Many women alive today are still profoundly impacted by their lack of choice, and America demonstrates that women can’t take their rights for granted.

Your apparent lack of knowledge of the history of feminism and female issues does make me wonder what your gender studies degree covered.

Even the Guardian recognises that women’s sex specific health concerns are under investigated and downplayed as ‘women’s troubles’ that just need to be tolerated.

’invisible women’ by Caroline Criado Perez might fill some gaps in your knowledge.

Well done.

I think 26 is old enough to make that call so you just need to get on with however he likes to be referred to.

It depends how you lost your temper, as long as you say three hail Butlers after you should be fine.

Er, no. OP's sibling-in-law is and always will remain female, a type of woman, and as such, heavily dependent on women's rights.

Example: if they don't undergo a hysterectomy, they'll retain the ability to get pregnant, and will need to be covered by all the maternity rights granted to women. That was one of the points covered by the UK SC in its judgement, and which the TRA's would have happily ignored, thus leaving transmen with no maternity rights.

If they don't have a hysterectomy and don't take testosterone (or taking testosterone doesn't have enough of an effect), they'll keep having their periods, something that men don't have but so many women do.

They'll also have to consult a gynaecologist regularly, to take proper care of their female reproductive organs.

If they do undergo a hysterectomy, they'll have to take the same life-long care of their female body with no more uterus than other women who have a hysterectomy do. Their body is not, and never will be, a male body. It will always be a female one, not matter how modified.

Conclusion: OP's sibling-in-law may identify out of being a woman as much as they want, but they can never identify out of having a female body, with all the consequences that come with it, and the need for women's rights and accomodations.

Sorry, do the real intelligent people refer to themselves using some other means than I? Maybe I should use “one,” but I’m not the Queen so I’ll likely pass.

You’re very upset about a degree I did 11 years ago, very upset indeed. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to be an expert in the field, or to have some sort of huge vested interest in keeping up academic studies. Big parts of it were about the various waves of feminism - what’s this one, tell women off for not agreeing with each other?

The only reason I mentioned it was because there’s some assumption that people who don’t follow your exact line of thinking must be stupid or brainwashed by men.

God forbid a woman is capable of independent thought, or follows a different line of thinking to you. We must all be a hive mind, or thick. How very feminist.

I may have been born female, but I will not see that as an automatic disadvantage or feel somehow victimised by the facts of science. If we are victims (which we’re not always), it’s not your uterus doing it, it’s society and the expectations within it. Going on and reducing it back to being about basic biological fact won’t change a single thing in that.

But please do continue. I’m quite enjoying taking breaks from Netflix to be reprimanded; and you specifically seem super keen to do so.

Btw spot the genderists pronoun in this post.

I.

It's like a plague.

I haven't experienced x therefore it must not exist and be a reality.

I've just lost my temper and failed the gender studies entrance exam haven't I?

We could talk about how drugs work differently for men and women and how in general because of how drugs are tested (not on women of child bearing age) this has an impact on how effective treatments are for all manner of health conditions.

The fact that women CAN get pregnant has had a massive impact on the health care available to ALL women regardless of whether they choose to have children or not.

Why?

Because biology.

I know there was a point during COVID where it became apparent that women had better survival rates. Why? Because they discovered that oestrogen had a protective effect against the disease.

Because biology.

Women also suffer diagnosis issues for conditions women and men have because the test book symptoms are related to the male body. Women present differently to men for the same condition which leads to delays in diagnosis and therefore survival rates because symptoms in women are often not well known.

Because biology.

And then somone comes along to tell me that biology doesn't affect women and we aren't disadvantaged because of it and it's our choice to have children.

And that they have a degree in gender studies.

That degree isn't worth the paper it's written on.