Transwomen - pseudumenopausal symptoms due to hrt - asked to approve work policy

Hmmmmm... interesting

I would wonder if they did actually mean Transmen rather than Transwomen. I would clarify that with the author.

If it was intended, I would focus strongly on the definition of menopause. Specifically identify the function of menopause, how it relates the persons reproductive system. Really battle it out, and do not engage in any political discourse until menopause has been defined with surgical precision.

I have been practicing how to hold the line on the definition of woman in a way that cannot be interpreted as anything other than respectful. This involved saying things like "The definition of woman for me is based purely on biological sex. I respect your position is that it is a subjective feelingfor you, but for me subjective feelings do not cover the realties of living in the world with a female body". Something like that.

To onepost upthread's point about seeking a 'legal' answer - that is precisely what HR is for. To protect employers against legal claims, ETs, etc.

The SC judgment dealt explicitly with protections afforded because of situations or vonditions related to biological sex:

'177. As we shall demonstrate, a strong indicator that the words “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 have their biological meaning (and not a certificated sex meaning) is provided by sections 13(6), 17 and 18 (which relate to sex, pregnancy and maternity discrimination) and the related provisions. The protection afforded by these provisions is predicated on the fact of pregnancy or the fact of having given birth to a child and the taking of leave in consequence. Since as a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant, the protection is necessarily restricted to biological women.

178. The repeated references in these sections, to a woman who has become pregnant or who is breast-feeding only make sense if sex has its biological meaning. These plain, unambiguous words can only be interpreted coherently as references to biological sex, biological females and biological males. Put another way, if the acquisition of a certificate pursuant to section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 applies to these words, so that biological women living as trans men (with a GRC in the male gender) are male, they would nonetheless be excluded from protection when pregnant notwithstanding a continued capacity to become pregnant, and duty-bearers would not be able to claim relevant exemptions in relation to their treatment.'

An employer with a trans identity is protected under seperate pc. Any policy should be related to that. It can't be covered under pregnancy, maternity, menopause, etc, as these are all related to the pc of sex - women.

Ah: Menopause Hormone therapy.

Some aren’t even calling HRT for menopausal women, HRT.

True HRTs are physically life saving hormones such as insulin and thyroxine. As in, don’t take it and you end up dying (the former much more quickly than the latter.) Hence free prescriptions if you’re on them.

(I can’t remember what they’re calling hrt though in its place. I’d have to go hunting.)

The covering pregnancy and maternity leave groups is an excellent point.

If he’s using some sort of hormone blocker it will be more akin to cancer medication. Which causes hot flushes and joint aches etc.

How "out" as GC are you at work?

If you're not comfortable saying "this is rubbish and here's why". Which is fine, btw, I wouldn't be able to say this at work without fearing repercussions.

I would personally ask for citations for what they have put in there, and then criticise their sources if they manage to provide any.

A key point is that women identifying as trans/transmen/females who say they are non binary should all be covered in a menopause policy.

I'd suggest HR may wish to consult lawyers on.this. Bridget Philipson is sitting on the guidance, so it hasnt been updated and ACAS and EHRC haven't updated.

The SC judgement clarifies the law, though.

Indeed. How to show up exactly why men should have their own policies for their own problems rather than trying to make themselves women's problem and fucking the support and help women need but don't have because men dominate everything.

Why can't we even have menopause ourselves without men saying 'but what about meeeeeeeee?'

What about you? It's not your fucking problem.

Nice of OnePostWonder to come on here specifically to illustrate how the waters will be muddied by including male people in a very female-specific issue. Well done.

I haven’t come across it often either, usually referred to as medical menopause, or induced menopause, but it does come up. Either way I’d avoid the term in relation to TW who don’t have experience anything analogous to menopause.

I’ve heard it called “early” menopause (even if it will be reversible on completion of cancer related treatment)

I do like Any Sousa’s line which is along the lines that it doesn’t matter how much a man invests in his feminisation, it doesn’t make him a woman. And women are not responsible for the decisions that those men make nor do we have any responsibility to support that decision in any way when it comes to acting as if that purchase (financial or not) has made that man a woman.

In the NHS policies - yes - staff seemed to be offered extra time off for surgeries and medical treatments. It was very odd - as you say I thought other elective surgery might not be so well accommodated….

That’s a great angle - if they want an “inclusive” policy then it should include all menopause “symptoms”… might allow OPto challenge this more broadly and avoid penalties due to accusations of transphobia?

There are other endocrine treatments for cancer eg tamoxifen which induce menopause after cancer treatment and which are stopped after 5 years and periods resume

The question to be asked is also, how do female people benefit in any way from a male person’s subjective reality being treated as if it is material reality. It effectively commoditises female body functions by allowing the language unique to female people to be acquired for male people to repurpose for their own use.

There is no benefit to female people in that particular transaction, the commoditisation of our body processes, despite us constantly being told that it ‘enriches’ our experience as female people.

Exactly.

Yet, the discussion on menopause then becomes about how any male can experience something that is impossible for them to experience. Yet through linguist manipulation, is seemingly made possible.

TL: DR version: men’s bodies are messed up by high levels of wrong sex hormones for decades.

Got it.

You’re male, though, aren’t you? So none of this is relevant.

Perhaps OP, the approach to take is to discuss the negative impact of including people in a policy section that could lead to those people making changes to that policy that will make the policy less usable. Similar to when some male people become ‘women’s officers’ and start negatively influencing policies or organisational action so that those policies or actions don’t provide what female people specifically need. This makes the policy / action unfit for the purpose intended.

There is no need to consult a medical expert in the development of a policy about menopause where someone seeks to include male people. Including the side effects that results from male people taking hormones for cosmetic purposes in a section specific menopause creates inaccuracy and distraction.

If a policy is required for male people specifically for the side effects of their choice to use these or other hormones, that is a different discussion. The organisation then has to consider what other elective hormone supplement decisions it wishes to support specifically in policies. Or does the impact of that decision get included in the general policy.

Isn't the "accurate answer" simply that only women experience menopause because only women experience menstruation.

Whatever men experience, irrespective of whatever medication they are on, it is not menstruation and it is not menopause.

As a woman who has been on HRT for over 40 years now, I had one GP suggest I taper off oestrogen and progesterone in my late 40s. He explained this as needing to enter 'menopause' as I was entering the age. I've had other medical professionals convince me to stay on HRT until I die. I know I feel better with them, so this is the path I am taking.

In response to other responders, yes trans people use HRT to affect changes in their bodies. The exact changes are DNA specific for each individual and typical pubertal changes, as far as each body is capable of developing those changes, stop after some number of years of treatment. Absent gonads, trans bodies don't 'reverse back.' Permanent changes are permanent. The continued exposure of a body to HRT maintains the condition of tissues and bodily systems receptive to and controlled by those hormones. Stopping HRT affects tissues and bodily systems.

If you wish to provide a purely political answer to the topic, I'm certain you will find the words. If you are concerned about an accurate answer, please speak with a medical expert.

Only biological women experience menopause. Men who claim to be women do not experience menopause. Men who claim to be non-binary do not experience menopause.

Actually, “imbalances” between oestrogen and progesterone are not thought to be why menopause symptoms happen. In fact, it’s not actually precisely known why menopause symptoms are caused by declining oestrogen (one mechanism of action for hot flushes, for example, is thought to be that sudden drops in oestrogen trigger changes in the hypothalamus). But men on hormones are not getting any “imbalances”, because they are taking a steady dose of oestrogen. (Almost no trans women take progesterone.)

Just like the stuff about men on hormones getting “period” symptoms is also rubbish. PMS and period pains are caused by prostaglandins in the uterus and bowel rising when oestrogen and progesterone drop at the end of the cycle, largely triggered by the drop in progesterone. Whatever “period” symptoms trans women might think they are getting, they are categorically not experiencing uterine prostaglandins rising as a result of low progesterone.

Generally transwomen do take testosterone blockers along with the oestrogen.