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?

Sorry to barge in everyone but we've had loads of reports about this thread and while we don't have blanket bans on specific words or misgendering please bear in mind that this is a really sensitive topic and we will have to delete any deliberate goadiness or posts that we think are designed to inflame or belittle.
As you were.....

Nooka, I've actually wondered about longer hair, potentially it could get in your sight line at a bad time? I'd want to have a buzz cut if I was on the front line.

Man continues in his male role, wouldn't sell as many papers I suppose.

As others have said far better, it's ridiculous and diminishes the achievements made by actual women.

we will have to delete any deliberate goadiness or posts that we think are designed to inflame or belittle.

By goadiness, do you mean biology and science?

Good for Chloe (not clare) i wish their transition well however she is not a woman fighting on the frontline she is a one month of hormones transitioning man earning a male wage on the frontline Chloe is discrediting all of the female soldiers who have yet to fight on the front line chloe isnt a trailblaizer Chloe is a transexual using her male privelage

This!

it's ridiculous and diminishes the achievements made by actual women.

But Soup Chloe paints her nails don'tcha know, she's all woman innit!

If Chloe is the first transwoman to fight on the front line, that's something progressive and worth celebrating.

Chloe is not a woman. By celebrating Chloe's achievements as a woman's achievements, the media is ensuring that when the first woman does fight on the front line, her accomplishments won't be noted - Chloe has already done it, so it's nothing special.

This is wrong. This is double-speak that conceals inequalities, very much like MTT individuals being counted towards the number of female CEOs and in other leadership positions. It's misleading and the very opposite of progressive as women's rights are concerned.

lorelei there are rules for women's hair just as there are for men's. the sight line is nothing to do with it. If you're at the sharp end you'll be wearing a helmet which makes the length of your hair immaterial. Otherwise, it's short (off the collar) or in a bun. Applies to Rastafarians and Sikhs as well as men and women. The earring thing is interesting. Most arms mention it in their dress regs but I guess as the infantry haven't had the issue yet, they've not amended their regulations.

I'm incensed by this story and will be writing to the press on Monday. I'm a vocal opponent of transwomen in the forces squalling women in the forces. To the point that my peers have already been in touch to ask where I'm writing to first.

This is not about women in the forces, this is about our seniors wanting to be seen as "right on" and I have taken them to task personally about this previously. They have no answers to the questions, the double speak, the fact that women will come out of this worse off (research proves that women get injured when they train in mixed platoons). They have no answers.

I haven't seen any goadiness. I've seen women on a female focused site challenging why a transgender person is being hailed as a female pioneer.

If it wasn't for mumsnet I would've blindly accepted that men can call themselves women in the name of equality without examining what implications that has for 'cis' women. These threads have made me recognise that whilst I fully support transgender rights, they are not not female. We have different challenges and these shouldn't be blurred.

The earring thing is interesting. Most arms mention it in their dress regs but I guess as the infantry haven't had the issue yet, they've not amended their regulations.

I'm guessing there are regulations about painted nails for serving women, even those who aren't on the frontline, though? Why does Chloe get to flout those rules?

It's pretty chilling that people are reporting a thread where the majority are simply pointing out biological facts, while applauding a transwoman's achievements.

How on EARTH can that be goady? The world has truly gone mad at this point.

Fliss says goadiness will be deleted, but I think that's a general warning rather than saying posts here are going to go. I certainly can't see any deleted posts yet?

It's chilling that the thread has been reported but nobody has been able to explain why the premise of the OP is wrong.

If this thread is deleted I will demand that every single transthread from now on is also deleted.

Who would report the thread? Why? Nothing offensive has been said.

I, among with many many other posters, feel pleased for Chloe and hope she stays safe in her role. I'm more than happy to say she because that's what she wants and how she feels and all bloody power to her but, and its a big but, Chloe isn't a woman. This media circus around her being the "first woman" is bullshit and it's damaging women's rights and we don't need that to happen.

It is so, so offensive that a man can paint his nails and say that he's female, a woman, and that this is accepted lest you be called a bigot. How did we get here? I never paint my nails. Am I still a woman? Am I female?

The same 'flood of reports' about a trans thread was what precipitated the Spartacus threads, if I remember correctly.

So glad there is a thread on this. Saw it on the news and thought it was very wrong they reported it as the first woman. Chloe isnt a woman, she is a trans woman and should have been reported as such.

Wow, okay. I had no intention of starting a thread that would offend, to the extent it be reported. I am sorry that people are offended.

As PP more articulate than me have expressed, my discomfort lies in trans women being celebrated as "the first woman to" rather than "the first trans woman to" achieve things that were previously not open to women or not historically achieved by women. Does this not thereby diminish the (subsequent) achievement of the first cis woman to do whatever that thing is (using the term cis here for clarity rather than by choice)? And further allow organisations/companies/governments to conclude that there is a level playing field (woman has achieved x, therefore there are no barriers to women achieving x), when in reality this may not be the case, particularly in professional fields and late-transitioning trans women (eg the highest paid female CEO in the US is a trans woman).

I'm not talking specifically about Chloe. She's an example of what I'm talking about. It is positive that Chloe has the support she needs and deserves to continue in her role. I want to support the right of anyone or self determine and live as they please. But where I struggle is the lack of differentiation between trans and cis women, in the context of rights and opportunities for cis women and the achievements of cis women.

Its a difficult subject I don't feel comfortable with the lack of differentiation but I also feel uncomfortable knowing that some will feel my beliefs to be discriminatory.

So sorry for the offense caused but thank you to those who have given their opinions to help me think more about this.

What is so insulting about these reports, is that all of them fail to mention that the only reason Chloe is the "first woman on the frontline", is because Chloe had special privileges when Chloe joined the army. Chloe's special privileges, were to do with the fact that Chloe had different biological markers than people who used to be known as women.

The group who used to be known as women (those people who have XX chromosomes, wombs, vaginas, fallopian tubes, clitorises etc. and whom we bring up to expect less and then pay them less because of those things) were not allowed to serve on the front line, but Chloe didn't have any of those biological markers, so was able to become "the first woman" on the frontline due to the special privilege of not appearing to look like or be a woman.

If only all women could do that. There'd be no glass ceiling and no need for feminism.

I don't get why anyone would report the thread either
Re hair, I had the fun of my hair tie pinging off at the gym just this week. Is the helmet designed so the hair would still be contained?

I would imagine no jewellery is allowed is it? Rings and degloving injuries etc, or is that considered own risk? (NB do NOT Google this if you don't know what I mean. I am practically retching just typing this)!

Women with long hair know how to manage it whilst wearing a beret, bearskin, helmet or whatever. It's why we go on exercise. It's almost insulting you think that no one has thought about it before tbh when we've been putting tourniquets on people for decades. It's not a trans issue, women have been getting shot at for longer than autogynephilia has been a word.

There are rules about jewellery. There are rules about everything. The rules are nothing to do with transwomen. My point is that the transwoman issue AND the women in ground close combat issue are moving more quickly than regimental dress committees.

Nail varnish (and makeup) are permitted as long as neutral. Hair colour must not be exaggerated and body piercings never worn whilst on duty. I can quote queens regs for days however, when I write to challenge this, I will challenge a number of phrasings in queens regulations which mean transwomen have free rein to do whatever they want.

*who are we to contradict her?"

We are people with eyes and an understanding of biology. If Chloe claimed to be a panda and insisted on living in the zoo would you say "who ate we to deny her panda-ness"?

Honestly, words mean things!

How sad that on a site predominantly for women that there have apparently been so many reports of this thread that mumsnet HQ feels the need to post about it. Now I can see a couple of posts using the term 'it' which I do think is unpleasant and dehumanising, but I really really hope that people aren't objecting to the many posts wishing that this case had been reported as the first transgender person able to come out and stay serving in the infantry/front line, rather than erroneously claiming that a woman (or even more inaccurately a female) has been able to serve. No woman has yet been able to serve on the front line and Chloe's success has not changed that.

Now I can see a couple of posts using the term 'it'

I don't use "it" but I can see how the phrase comes about. Doesn't want to be referred to as male, but if you use preferred pro-nouns you're drinking the kool-aid. This person isn't a she. When we say they are, we are part of the destruction of the term woman and female.

Do you "mis-gender" which we are told is ACTUALLY KILLING male-to-trans. Or do you do what they want.

You know when the abusive ex says "If you left me, I'd just kill myself", but by staying, in his mind, you're agreeing to his behaviour? It's like that.