First woman to fight on the frontline

[napmeistergeneral]

Transgender woman becomes "first female" in British army to serve on frontline.
Link is to the guardian but covered by other outlets also.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/17/transgender-soldier-is-first-female-to-serve-on-the-front-line

I don't doubt it's an incredibly hard and scary thing to be a trans woman in the army and for that chloe deserves support and praise. But I'm afraid I still feel unconvinced by the "first woman" claim.

AIBU to feel uncomfortable and unconvinced about firsts for women being claimed by trans women?

That person is not female. This is not an achievement for women.

I'm Sparticus!

Yes, Namechange, like Cisoff I would like to hear what you have to say, how you define "woman" and what you define as transphobia.

I haven't seen anyone wishing Chloe anything but well. We just don't agree that Chloe is the first woman to do anything.

In my experience simply pointing out that this soldier isn't female is read as transphobia in some circles, in which case there really isn't any middle ground.

Its fab news that whoever is the first female solider/airman/marine to serve in a close ground combat role won't get a fanfare if Chloe Allen has taken the mantle. The first female personnel would have been paraded around, put in all the literature and PR stuff, wheeled out to the newspapers, TV etc. Had every up and down documented. If Chloe has snatched this away then fab because its crap being pimped about like that. The military do it all the time to personnel of colour and its really annoying and the reason why many leave.

I'll be honest, it never occurred to me not to think of a transwoman as anything other than a woman. I am in the armed forces. There are other transwomen serving (think Hannah Winterbourne) and again, its never occurred to me not to think of them as women (same for transmen). Perhaps the Army chiefs lauding this news think similarly?

I dont see any issue with any of the posts on here as transphobic or suggesting any harm to any trans person.

We are defending womens rights to be seen as women and not some sub species of some primordial soup of genders.

Birth gender is determined by biological factors.
Chloe is not a woman in that sense, having a fully male body but wearing a dress and taking a few hormones for a couple of weeks doesnt change that. At this moment in time he is a male, what he wants to be or what he wants to be known as is up to him but he cannot dictate that he is a she. He can paint his nails to kingdom come but at this time he is still very much a man with the body, strength and biological features of a man and is catagoricaly NOT the 1st woman to go to the front line. He got there as a man then decided to want to be known as a woman. Nowt like having your cake and eating it then taking the glory for it.

He is belittling the fact that women can now go through the arduous training to go to the front line as infantry (of course women have been close enough to the front line to kick its arse for donkeys years without having to go to the papers about it, nor have a hue and cry made about it in the forces) He has done it through his service as a man, not as a woman.

If I meet any trans then I would be respectful of their wishes in the way they want to be addressed but I would expect the same respect back. I am a woman, not a ciswoman, not a lactating woman, not a mother woman, not a preganant woman, I dont need any other adjective to describe my gender, woman suffices. Right now Chloes gender is male.

Oranges your post looks like a big old 'i'm alright Jack.'

Chloe is a man, was a man, and will always be a man. It's nice for him that he has people to join in with his ideas about himself but not very nice for a lot of other women. But so long as he feels alright that's what matters?

I don't understand why it looks like i'm alright jack. The idea of being paraded over the media as the first female soldier in a close ground combat role would horrify me. I'm not the only one who would be horrified. I couldn't give a monkey's that Chloe has made the news as a woman.

It affects other women badly that men are accepted as women by virtue of self-declaration.

Obviously it doesn't affect you. But that doesn't seem to bother you.

The issue for me is that it's a symptom of something larger.

First female front line fighter... nee Ben
Two of the highest paid female directors (the Wachowski sisters nee brothers). There are no other women in the list.
Highest paid female CEO in the US is Martine Rothblatt (nee Martin).
There was another one in the British law establishment which escapes me.
When that awful person (who had recently killed a woman) won woman of the year.

There is an issue when people celebrate 'female achievement' when it appears that actual women are still prevented from achieving it. I see no issue with celebrating transpeople's achievement AND women's achievement.

For a tiny group of people, compared to born women, there is a remarkable amount of achievement going on. I think that's because male privilege. But maybe it's something different...

Birth gender is determined by biological factors

Birth gender?! Babies have no gender. They have a sex. Gender comes much much later.

Right now Chloes gender is male.

No. Chloe's biological sex is male. Her gender is female.

Chloe had made the news because Chloe is a transwomen

Chloe can't be a woman as a women is an adult human female

Females have the reproductive organs to carry and give birth (thought not all females are able to do so due to medical complications, not because they are male)

So a woman having a hysterectomy renders her not-female?

It affects other women badly that men are accepted as women by virtue of self-declaration.

But not the other way?

There is an issue when people celebrate 'female achievement' when it appears that actual women are still prevented from achieving it. I see no issue with celebrating transpeople's achievement AND women's achievement.

Yes, terry, this exactly. I suppose the other side of the coin is trans men and their achievements. Which are all to do with female biology. When you see a headline like "first man to give birth", you know immediately that it is a transman who has done so. There's no ambiguity. But "first woman in a combat role" is different. It could be a woman or a trans woman.

What I'm trying to say is that there aren't many "firsts" for transmen to achieve. But there are still many firsts for women and transwomen too, I suppose.

So there is much that can be claimed by transwomen, but transmen can only claim the biology of giving birth, lactating, menstruation. All of which arewereby definition female. So women (actual, cis) are erased twice. If that makes sense. Its confusing to me sometimes.

I would like to see all achievement celebrated, not just those of trans women instead of/ahead of women.

No of course it course it doesn't

A women who has had a hysterectomy has had a womb and likely to have had health complications of which there are many but they were still born with the reproductive organs (some do not fully develop) that women/females have and men/males don't

"No. Chloe's biological sex is male. Her gender is female."

You do realise that the transloons consider that a transphobic statement, right?

Because if a man thinks he's a woman, he's always been a woman. Always. His peen and all. Because women have penises too.

Just so you know.

He can't be serious: I actually think you can't be serious.

If having a hysterectomy meant a woman isn't female, then having a leg amputated would mean humans aren't bipedal.

What do you mean, not the other way?

Transwomen are badly affected by not being accepted as women? They say they're terribly badly affected. But as they do not give a single shit about how women, who already suffer mightily, will already suffer even more, then I'll leave it to them to come to terms with.

I speak of not all transwomen, many of whom are content to accept they are not women and don't go round making a glory and a fight of the whole thing.

I don't see what's to celebrate here at all. All those arguments that women are not suitable for combat roles because they get "hormonal"? Then all those sob stories about trans people suffering from a variety of MH issues.
Now this individual going into combat... frightening really.

Fine wrong word.
But at the moment Chloes sex is male. A dose of female hormones in the last month doesnt change that.

I dont care if he wants to become as near to a woman as is physicaly possible, more power to him its his choice. But right now he is biologicaly a man with all the advantages of a male body, which he has used to get where he is in the forces.

Women will have to go through a rigourous assessment to get to the front line which has now been overshadowed by somebody who already got there before 'he' decided to become 'she'.

I'll be honest, it never occurred to me not to think of a transwoman as anything other than a woman.

This used to be my view also. Until I realised that 'transwoman' now means anyone who simply says they are a woman. I always thought transwoman meant someone 'born in the wrong body' who takes steps such as hormones and surgeries to 'become' the person they think they are. People genuinely going through that trauma, I empathize with and personally do class as a woman once they no longer have a penis and such. Though even then they are not 'real women' but its needlessly cruel to keep labouring that point when they know this themselves.

Unfortunately people such as this soldier are now classed as the same as transwomen who are distraught in the body they were given and make actual changes to rectify this. This soldier is male. Joined the army male, is still male, has the same testosterone levels as a male and as such is typically stronger and faster than the average woman. I could get behind this IF transition was complete (by this I mean hormones lowering testosterone as much as possible and male body parts gone) and Chloe had redone her training with her 'naturally weaker' self and passed against the odds. But as it stands, Chloe is a crossdresser, not anywhere near a woman.

I could get behind 'more' this IF transition was complete*

Good point *WankingMonkey. I concede to your point that the definition of transwoman has therefore got too broad.

I also see some people thinking that this has snatched an achievement for women away. I was thinking very personally that if I were a woman considering going into a close combat role, I would not be wanting to be a media/internet focus. Having been in the Armed Forces for 20 years, I have not thought of this being a thing for womankind. Its about the individuals for me, not the female of the species.

But that's you Oranges, other women might think differently

Absolutely. I know a lot of service people. Most don't want to be media luvvies or have a big overt online footprint.

What do you mean, not the other way?

You said:

It affects other women badly that men are accepted as women by virtue of self-declaration.

So surely it also affects other men badly that women are accepted as men by virtue of self-declaration. (If that is how transgender is being accepted now. It can't only be one way.)