Would I be unreasonable to do either of these things? To tell a Sikh man

[Wheezo]

1. ... that if he wants to avoid being racially attacked he should remove his turban because to wear something so obviously advertising his 'difference' is to invite racial abuse of some kind which he could do more to avoid (same goes for anyone wearing clothes with religious/cultural/non-western/non-white associations that draws attention to their 'difference')

1. Attend a Black Lawyers' Conference (I'm orange white btw) and attempt to join in discussions about my experience of being discriminated against on the basis that my addiction to fake tan is limiting my career prospects

I think someone who did either of these things would be pretty darn unreasonable but I am coming across opinions that would suggest I am the unreasonable one so just testing it out in the blazing furnace of AIBU to see if it's actually just me.

Actually op, thinking about your other analogy... a mother saying to her daughter I'd prefer you to dress a certain way out of fear for her is not the same as someone in the oppressing class telling a person to take his turban off. If a man said to the girl "change clothes or I will rape you" then it would be the same.

My family were put in to concentration camps in WWII, if my great grandmother told my grandmother to please play down the whole "gypsy thing" during the occupation would you see her a sympathizer or a concerned mother? Many Jewish mothers I'm sure told their children to hide their identities. They were under attack. You can't blame them for being afraid. Mumsnet is a forum (mostly) for women. Being abusive about their fear for fellow women isn't helpful.

No we should not expect women to dress a certain way, walk a certain way in order to not be raped, but I also won't judge a mother who asks her daughter to wear shoes she can run in.

is self-identification the only requirement to class yourself as one of the protected groups?
I am not sure this is the only requirement but it is surely one that is necessary, There might others too, depending on what group you are talking about.

Do you have to have done anything irrevocable to yourself bodily before that self-identification is recognised or required to be recognised by others?
Again, it will depend as to which group you have been talking about. Being a woman sort of leads to needing the op if you are a man in the first place.
but it is not the only requirement.
I knew a 'woman' who was born as a boy. Because of some chromosomes issues, she never developed her male sexual attributes and when she was 7yo, her parents decided that she would have the op so and she became a girl. She, however, never felt a woman, even if she developed breasts when she was a teenager. She could also remember having a penis and was feeling like a man. In this case, it is obvious that the op wasn't the only thing that was necessary to become a woman.
There are also some stories about men in Iran who are 'pushed' into having the op MTF. However, a lot of them are actually either homosexual or tansgender but not transsexual and they are living the op very badly. The ones, who were 'real' MTF, are very happy about the op.

Wheezo - I think if you stop dwelling on crap analogies and actually went out and read the words of/ met some trans people, you'd get answers to your questions.

But I think you're trying to do a crap gotcha instead and I don't wish to indulge you any further, especially as there has been enough disgusting transphobia on Mumsnet in the guise of feminism already.

Vegans Good point about who's doing the telling. I always think it's so much worse when the police are advising women on what to avoid wearing/drinking/doing to avoid rape. A man threatening to rape a woman unless she changed her clothes is the same as a racist attacker threatening to attack the Sikh unless he removed his turban though isn't it? Not the police telling Sikhs to remove turbans for own safety, as some of the campaigns aimed at stating alcohol is involved in [x]% if rapes (without specifying whether it's drunk rapists or drunk victims or an equal number of each involved?).

In the case of WWII atrocities I think that people of specific groups were being hunted down by an entire army intent on their destruction. I would expect anyone to hide whatever the identifying feature(s) about them they could in that situation, to protect their lives and that of their families. Desperate times, or rather outright persecution and annihilation, call for desperate measures. There is a particular sadness which comes from having to hide who you are apart from even the terrible loss of loved ones, a betrayal of oneself if it can be phrased that way. [That is something a transgender person probably knows a lot about too.] But do we think there are armies of rapists organised to attack women though? And specifically women in certain types of clothing? Are women as a group under attack in the same way all those persecuted during WWII were?

I also agree with not judging any parent for acting out of good intentions in the genuine belief it will keep their child safe. However, if a parent never let a child leave a house (for their own safety) I think they would probably be judged. So I guess it comes down to how much of an imposition/limit on your own freedom (or your child's) you will tolerate vs your (or your child's) perceived level of risk? Or is it more complex than that?

I don't agree. The way Wheezo has approach the problem is interesting because it does not make it just a problem with trans but a much more general one.

Can someone who is white feel like they are part of the black community and is 'black'?
Can someone who is german feel like they are now english and behave like one?
Can someone who is working class feels like they are upper class and be upper class?

It's not just about trans and that's what is interesting about it.

Goth, seriously don't wish to piss you off. I will do some further reading. I dip in and out of FWR but I hate the thought that certain issues can only be discussed on FWR. The corralling of all 'women's' topics into FWR, and once they are discussed there, never being allowed to be posted about ever again in the rest of MN does not sit well with me. I'm trying to define my politics and my views while other people define theirs and sometimes we have to admit we find our own definition flawed and have to revise it. I am not viewing this as a heated debate (on the basis that the most outrage appears to be from people who have not read the whole thread) and posters are picking big holes in my analogies alongside pointing out where I have privilege and how that affects my view. I am grateful for the debate. It is an exchange of views. No one has to have a bunfight if they don't want one.

Just thinking that I probably wouldn't consciously seek to meet up with a transgender/transsexual person for the purpose of 'getting answers to my questions' though, I think that would be really rude. If our paths crossed and we became friends first maybe I'd end up discussing stuff with them but it would depend on the friendship and I'd certainly listen if they wanted to talk but equally a friendship can be just about hanging out in the same places having a fun time. Not all of my friendships involve me knowing about that friend's views on their gender or sexuality, certainly not their medical history so it may never come up. I don't think that's how you meant it though so would have to leave that introduction to fate. Actually what I definitely wouldn't do is turn up to a transgender/transsexual conference and invade their space unless I was invited.

That is very very true Kim. About the truest thing said so far on this thread.

But then why do people cleave to others they feel share similar if not exactly the same experiences. Why do people find support in that?

lady those people may feel black/English/UC. But they arent

Hate to break it to you, goth, I'm not transphobic. The transgendered people I've worked with along the way wouldn't agree with you either, I'm afraid. Nor does me being a mental health professional = me being homophobic. Because I somehow timewarp into the 1970s every time I go to work ?

I don't get why the analogy I used gets your hackles up, as I was not denigrating either group of people nor intending it to be denigratory. So why are you responding as if I were? They are both groups of people who want surgical help to bring their body into line with their internal identity, so why are you terming it 'imagined disability'? I certainly didn't, so pull that bug out of your arse. I dont want sone sort of bunfight either, would rather you posted more educationally / from your own experience / opinions about transgender issues.

Have missed all the bunfights on fwr though, so I get that people may be a bit battle weary and inclined to respond as such.

This must be a windup, surely?

Maybe i'm thick (ok don't answer that actually) but what has a Sikh man wearing a turban got to do with feminism??

Actually i see some lads who are Sikh but want to have trendy hairstyles just wearing the Sikh bangle but not the turban. It's an individual choice.

I would never advise a man not to wear a turban in case of being racially attacked... because the sad fact is that certain gangs would attack another man just for having darker skin than they do. Or for having lighter skin. Or for accidentally looking in the wrong direction. Or even just because they want to give another man a good kicking.

I would just advise any man to be careful & try to avoid potentially hostile groups of men... but not to get too worried or they just wouldn't go out; & that's sad.

As for the black lawyers' conference - i doubt you would get thrown out if you were white; & it would probably be appreciated if you showed an interest in the issues that the black lawyers wished to discuss.
I think that if you started discussing fake tan then they may think you are a bit of a numpty & laugh you off stage however... fake tan is a fashion issue, not a racial discrimination issue!!
As i'm sure you do know.

bejeezus,
what about people who arrive in the UK, aren't british but do get their british citizenship? They work here, have children, their dcs go to school, have lived in the UK perhaps since they were children etc...
So according to you, they might feel english but they aren't and can't.

Then you have the child of a british couple who is legally british. But that child is actually brought up, let's say in France and has never lived in the UK ever. Is he really english or do you think he would be feeling french?

In my experience, some children still strongly feel like they are british as adults and might do their utmost to go back to the UK and love here. And other will feel not british at all, will be more french than their french counterparts.

I completely agree with Kim. We are all unique individuals with unique life experiences.
And I think that denying that people 'who don't quite fit the mould' that they are feeling differently is wrong.

Btw, I would hope that it is possible to become part of the UC if you are working class and not just 'because you are born like this'.
I thought that we had move on from that sort of society a while ago.