Transgender person elected as Deputy Mayor in Sydney

Do you have an equal problem with people who declare their homosexuality later in life?

If you were an employer and you were looking to hire someone for a job, would you refuse to to hire a transwomen (even if they happen to be the most qualified candidate)? It's not a gotcha, I'm genuinely curious.

Please be specific.

Say explicitly what you think should not be said even if true in case it gives angry men excuses to be angry and we can talk aboit that.

Handwaving vaguely at "Some People" saying "some things" isn't helping.

I think that is a stretch TBH. Olly wasn't living in some redneck backwater, supressing his sexuality for fear of ostracism, or unexposed to ideas around gender identity. He was politically active, in progressive circles. He was openly 'queer'. He wasn't a woman then because he isn't a woman now. It's perfectly legitimate to examine claims that he was 'always a woman', and posters who believe he was can outline why they believe that.

On your other points, there is a world of difference between saying 'transpeople should not be in public life' and saying 'we can discuss the conflicts and challenges that arise when we try and accommodate groups with vastly differing world views'. I'd have the same outlook if we were talking about extremely religious people refusing, for example, to shake hands with members of the opposite sex (if that was required of their role) or demanding they don't sit next to members of the opposite sex.

There is nothing that shouldn't be said for fear of making men angry.

There is plenty that has been said seeded right through responses on this thread that hands ammunition directly to trans activists.

You're being played.

You're wasting your time. There's a bizarre GC purity test on here and unless you openly hate trans people for existing - or deny they exist - you're branded a TRA. It's sad and working against us but they refuse to acknowledge that.

I was getting there in understanding that with previous threads but this one has been really shocking. There's outright transphobia on this thread.

You can call it transphobia and I will call it reality. It is biologically and legally impossible to change sex, reality is winning.

There is nothing that shouldn't be said for fear of making men angry.

There is plenty that has been said seeded right through responses on this thread that hands ammunition directly to trans activists.

You're being played.

You're wasting your time. There's a bizarre GC purity test on here and unless you openly hate trans people for existing - or deny they exist - you're branded a TRA. It's sad and working against us but they refuse to acknowledge that.

I was getting there in understanding that with previous threads but this one has been really shocking. There's outright transphobia on this thread.

I am not stupid. I've thought through this a lot. Wargamed both sides.

Ultimately if the choices are to say nothing and be silently right in my own head but change nothing, or say something, know I will and indeed should have to justify it, and thereby work towards change, of course I will say something.

Again, please be specific about this "plenty that has been said seeded right through responses on this thread that hands ammunition directly to trans activists."

What exactly do you think should not be said?

Great question! I have had exactly that situation. He was the best candidate for the job, I spoke in his favour and we hired him.

I still however consider his beliefs sexist, and should he turn round tomorrow and run for public office, I wouldn't vote for him because there's too much scope in public office for sexist beliefs to be concretised into sexist policies.

FWIW I consider many trans people to be much the victims of Patriarchy as they are its enforcers. But that's very usual for marginalised people, they take on the values of the system that oppresses them. Trans and Female both.

Isn't it up to him to decide when he's ready to take the last step in living in keeping with how he feels?

Let me make this clear that I am not saying that anyone on this forum should not have expressed their personal views. What I am saying is that personal views like these below are unnecessarily handing ammunition directly to trans activists, and this forum is being played by trans activists in order to generate that ammunition

Referring to people as lying when they are expressing a genuinely held, if delusional, view, particularly when that view is supported by the law in the country that person lives in.

"How low can Australia go" when all that has been said at that point is that a trans person has been appointed deputy mayor, as if nobody trans should ever be appointed to a political position.

"Not chosen on merit" when is clear that he has huge experience for the role and he was elected unanimously.

Multiple assumptions that he has been chosen only because he is trans and not on the basis of his extensive experience.

Ridiculing and questioning his not coming out as female identified earlier in his life.

Assumptions with no evidence that he will prioritise trans rights over women's rights. Not discussing whether he might, but simply assuming that he will.

Let me make this clear that I am not saying that anyone on this forum should not have expressed their personal views. What I am saying is that personal views like these below are unnecessarily handing ammunition directly to trans activists, and this forum is being played by trans activists in order to generate that ammunition

Referring to people as lying when they are expressing a genuinely held, if delusional, view, particularly when that view is supported by the law in the country that person lives in.

"How low can Australia go" when all that has been said at that point is that a trans person has been appointed deputy mayor, as if nobody trans should ever be appointed to a political position.

"Not chosen on merit" when is clear that he has huge experience for the role and he was elected unanimously.

Multiple assumptions that he has been chosen only because he is trans and not on the basis of his extensive experience.

Ridiculing and questioning his not coming out as female identified earlier in his life.

Assumptions with no evidence that he will prioritise trans rights over women's rights. Not discussing whether he might, but simply assuming that he will.

I was getting there in understanding that with previous threads but this one has been really shocking. There's outright transphobia on this thread.

Mmn.

I remember when Madigan was made 'women's officer', and at that point I was still dewy eyed and trusting, and was happy to embrace this and see if he turned out to be a good women's officer.

Sadly pattern recognition is a thing. At this point I can't think of a man with a gender identity who has taken a women's post or role, or any political seat, without their sole focus and representation being for themselves as a trans person focused very much on trans alone as an issue to the exclusion of all else, and on their interests and the interests of other men with gender identities. And to attempt to use their responsibility and power to do harm to women, children and gay rights in the name of their activism. I don't agree with activists for any subject in positions of responsibility for this reason, when the seat merely becomes something to use in their activism rather than for its public function, but when the job requires impartiality and the capacity for equal treatment and consideration regardless of personal feelings, transactivism continually demonstrates an utter incapacity for this.

He may be the first to do this differently. But the pattern is now very, very, very established.

To keep trying to ignore that elephant in the room, plus that it's a little odd to overlook a person in a political role having an obvious massive issue with reality and living an entire lifestyle based on selective personal reality to avoid it - and expect them to be able to cope and be rational about all other parts of reality - is a bit 'apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?'. Is it really safe or sensible to have someone in that position taking a role like this?

And yes. I agree that it is fundamentally sexist for a man to identify as a woman.

@Franxi

Discrimination isn’t decision making.

Discrimination is the ability to make distinctions or discern differences. It is essential to decisionmaking.

Ok, sorry, I was talking about discrimination in the widely accepted meaning of the unfair or prejudicial treatment of a person or group based on specific personal characteristics. What you are defining as discrimination to me means noticing differences. I haven’t heard of this definition of discrimination. I don’t think anyone has a problem with noticing differences.

Is it the person being transgender that makes you think he is unsuited to office? Because that is discrimination. There are nice transgender people out there too, you know?

What are his policies? Is he going to actively work against women? If that is the case yes, he would be the wrong person for the job. Otherwise, give him a chance. It is not like being deputy mayor is a role reserved for women.