Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

First woman to fight on the frontline

373 replies

napmeistergeneral · 17/09/2016 02:22

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?

OP posts:
FirstShinyRobe · 17/09/2016 23:35

Oh, how I wish someone like Beachcomber had done that interview with Chloe. 5 minutes of nonsense - call that journalism?

So, a cross dresser takes the plaudits for something that women have spent decades striving for. And all because Chloe likes wearing clothes that society deems to be women's. Nothing has changed! Deed poll and nail varnish. Not even a GRC in sight and Chloe gets the cookies.

It's a fucking travesty.

Game over, people formerly described as women. We got caught sleeping and kept arguing about feminists not being nice.

FirstShinyRobe · 17/09/2016 23:44

Honestly, that interview seemed to be from The Day Today. Although, I think it would have been more insightful if it were.

pontificationcentral · 18/09/2016 04:59

Actually I'm more than a little irritated by this. I made several appeals back in the day to be allowed to join the marines and for donkey's years have listened to all sorts of bollocks about why women can't possibly be allowed on the front line. I served for 16 years and did exactly the same job as my male colleagues (surprisingly even managing to cope with my long hair and respirator seals - honestly people, I can't believe I am reading the crap about 'oo what if my hair elastic breaks?') I went through being turned down for mountain rescue duties (the wives wouldn't like it) and hundreds of other petty refusals due to my sex (my SEX) and now the 'first woman' touted is a fucking man. I served alongside transwomen. I have no problem with serving transwomen (there are way more than you think) but for the love of God, stop this madness.
In areas where I served we had unisex facilities - I slept alongside male colleagues in tents, shellscrapes, showered in the same facilities. It did not make me a man any more than Chloe wearing nail polish makes her a woman.

PoisonWitch · 18/09/2016 08:35

It's a fucking kick in the teeth, especially for women like pontification.

RunnyRattata · 18/09/2016 08:54

I wonder how the army ARE planning to announce the first woman on the front line. I mean, they must have thought about it? Or will we all need qualifiers like born or cis now when male 'women' get the 'first woman' recognition? And will this be retrospective? Will a man be able to say that when he achieved something he identified as a woman and therefore become the first woman sidelining the actual first woman?
Head explodes.
Oh brave new world ... Confused

exLtEveDallas · 18/09/2016 08:56

What feels like 100 years ago I got called the "first woman on the front line" for going being posted to an Infantry Regiment (as an 18 year old private straight out of training) that was serving in 'Bandit Country' in Northern Ireland (it was a shithole camp in Bessbrook Mil). At the time females didn't get sent to Inf Regts, and in NI females weren't allowed to be seen carrying rifles.

It was seen as a huge deal - women lost their 'non combatant' status and we trained alongside the men for the first time (although back then allowances were still made in fitness tests etc and women didn't do the CFT which was a forced march carrying weight/weapon etc).

Prior to then we had our own capbadge, our own Corps (Women's Royal Army Corps) and shortly after my posting we lost both, when women were taken into their employing Corps instead.

I had always been mildly proud of that fact. Not that it meant anything really, but that I was one of the first to be treated as a 'real' soldier rather than just a WRAC (weekly ration of army c...well, I'm sure you can guess the rest).

Women had to fight to be accepted. For years after we still had COs refusing female postings. As late as 2005 I had an interview with a General who told me he was "pretty much ok with serving mums", but I still had a lot to prove to him - at that point I'd been to Bosnia, Kosova and fucking Iraq - and he hadn't!

This transgender soldier is a fucking PC joke. He is NOT a woman and he will NEVER know what it feels like, what it means, to be a woman on a battlefield. It's not wearing nail varnish and lipstick, that's for sure.

I'm looking forward to the First Female Infantry Soldier passing out of training - THAT I will celebrate. Not this abomination.

Genvonklinkerhoffen · 18/09/2016 09:00

Eve my first letter will be to soldier mag asking how we will describe the first actual woman to join the infantry in the light of this abomination. Chances of being published?

merrymouse · 18/09/2016 09:07

So, confusingly, Chloe doesn't appear to be the first trans woman on the front-line and what it means to 'serve on the front-line' isn't clear cut.

There are many reasons why women have not been allowed to have particular roles in the army, but they don't seem to have much to do with Chloe.

We are no more enlightened on the particular challenges faced by trans soldiers.

This just sounds like a Sun story that has been picked up by the rest of the media and reported verbatim, whether or not it makes sense.

RunnyRattata · 18/09/2016 09:10

Eve that's a kick in the teeth.
Flowers

merrymouse · 18/09/2016 09:11

Except the Sun don't appear to have taken a story and given it their own spin - this appears to be a story that was given to them by the Army. Confused

exLtEveDallas · 18/09/2016 09:21

There are plenty of Trans soldiers out there - Deb Penny being one of the first ones. I feel sorry for her really, as a bomb tech if she isn't 'front line' then I don't know who is. Although from what I know about her, she'd never have courted this publicity.

alizondevice · 18/09/2016 10:09

How convenient that the Guardian article does not allow comments. Angry I'm very afraid of what this whole trend means for actual females, formerly known as women and girls . . .

alizondevice · 18/09/2016 10:10

And Eve, your story is so moving. Your story is the one that needs to be heard. Flowers

merrymouse · 18/09/2016 10:26

Aaaaargh! It's so frustrating that nobody will have an open and clear discussion and give reasons to explain why it is so important to appropriate the term 'woman' to describe 'gender identity' which is vague, amorphous, and arguably damaging when we need it to describe the very concrete fact of biological sex.

exLtEveDallas · 18/09/2016 10:32

Thank you, but tbh I don't really see it as a 'story' - it was just the way it happened. I wanted to be a soldier, I became a soldier and I was lucky in that the 'rules' changed shortly after I joined.

In some ways I feel more sorry for the females before me, some of whom would have been the same as me (ie wanting to do the same job as the blokes), but weren't allowed. I was initially saddened at the loss of the WRAC and all its history, but soon realised it was for the better - it made doors open and the Army become more inclusive for women.

And I'm far more sorry for the women that had to leave after becoming pregnant, or the gay soldiers (M&F) who were also discharged before the rules changed.

Me? I just got on with it - as bloody Chloe should have. She should NOT be the poster child for women in the Infantry...That honour should belong to a woman. It should belong to one of the women in training RIGHT NOW...who may well be feeling she's kicked them right in the teeth.

napmeistergeneral · 18/09/2016 10:43

Thanks, Eve, that's an interesting perspective. And you should of course have been celebrated for your achievements Flowers

OP posts:
napmeistergeneral · 18/09/2016 10:52

And merrymouse, yes, I feel there is a lack of credible, open discussion as to why language is being used in this way. I accept that language evolves naturally over time, and that the use (and enforcement) or appropriate language is important in reducing and removing discrimination, but using "woman" to describe trans women particularly in certain contexts which celebrate the achievements of (trans) women is something I really struggle with.

It just feels like we are expected to accept language that doesn't reflect the experiences of women and invalidates some of the challenges still faced by women.

OP posts:
pontificationcentral · 18/09/2016 15:54

Exactly Eve - you said it much better than I did - it was late and I was frothing in the car Grin
The reporting is an absolute travesty.
And to be clear - it's not about celebrating an individual's achievement (in all honesty, most serving women would hate to be splashed all over the media - we know full well what happens when that occurs, and it ain't pretty) but apportioning credit where it is NOT due sticks in the craw. Women have fought way too long to be treated as equals to have a man upheld in this way.
I'm actually struggling with quite how mad I feel (which is ridiculous - I retired a few years ago having navigated my way through a still gendered quagmire and seen a lot of positive changes). It's raised a lot of memories that anyone not experiencing that level of gender bullshit on a daily basis would not quite appreciate - and I am aware it makes me look slightly irrational.

shins · 18/09/2016 17:13

I'd imagine thise reporting this thread are the ones who don't want to post themselves in support of "Chloe's" femaleness. Because they have no rational arguments or points whatsoever and have to resort to "telling on us".

ohdearme1958 · 18/09/2016 17:18

Shins, I suspect some of those who reported the thread were regulars but I also suspect most of them are people who register with an agenda which is to just wait for a certain topic to come up and either hammer away on the thread or report it when like you say they have no rational arguement.

msrisotto · 18/09/2016 17:43

So this is taking the piss. That video clip where Chloe says 'it feels great to be the first female infantryman but nothing's changed' is fucking ridiculous and is a slap in the face of actual women. WTF is happening to the world? WHO IS BUYING THIS SHIT? No one believes it. It's become too ridiculous to go along with anymore.

VeryBitchyRestingFace · 18/09/2016 17:55

It's like retelling of The Emperor's New Clothes for the 21st century.

If they say it often enough, somehow we'll all believe it.

nooka · 18/09/2016 18:05

It's quite a bizarre quote really. On the one hand indeed nothing has changed, so no story. Man wears a bit of make up and isn't told to stop. On the other hand if Chloe had really somehow been transformed from a man to a woman and could truthfully say 'I am female now' I think Chloe would almost certainly find that quite a lot had changed! Male and female bodies are different, and in a physical role that either matters (justifying the previous 'no women' rule) or it doesn't in which case once more this is a no story.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 18/09/2016 18:14

the first women is actually a male

Right ok then let's not let biology get in the way

icyfront · 18/09/2016 19:50

Back in the 1970s, when I was having babies, the view of the Medical Defence Union was that once a woman had set foot over the threshold of a maternity unit she had given implicit consent to anything and everything that was done to her, no explicit consent needed. Then there were protests, and now explicit consent is required.

But in Canada, at least, now we’re “pregnant people” or “birthing people”, and presumably we’re “menstruating people” as well, which makes me a “menopausal person” I guess.

It feels like being in one of those horrible nightmares where we’re trying to scream but no sound emerges. Why on earth is the straightforward term “woman” disappearing for the sake of a few biological males who wish to live a different kind of life. All those women’s rights, that were fought for so hard, seem to be evaporating. Was it all a case of “Man giveth, and Man taketh away”?

Now there’s a woman who has, since childhood, had the benefit of two testosterone factories, that have given her broader shoulders, narrower hips, bigger muscles, longer limbs, greater stamina, better pelvic floor muscles. She’s never had the biological disadvantages of being biologically female, but she’s a woman because that’s how she regards herself. Which is fine – mostly. Except that in this particular case, the right of a biological woman to be admired for achieving that First, showing that she can meet the physiological and psychological challenge (without the benefit of a testosterone factory) of being an Infantry soldier, is no longer there; it has been taken away from her.

This is another example of biological women’s wishes, hopes, desires, ambitions, achievements being undermined or dismissed.

I’m old. I had thought (foolishly?) the future was getting better for women. And yet, even here on Mumsnet, where discussion of women’s rights should be a priority, we have to be careful of what we say. And seemingly there are posters here who see discussions about transwomen as transphobic, or even boring.

I have learned, from reading many threads, that there are many transwomen who have made that significant change into a different life, including many in the armed forces. They’ve done that through probably very difficult times, and undoubtedly with support from their organisation, family and friends. Those would be very heartwarming stories, except we don’t hear about those (quite rightly, for privacy reasons). We don’t hear the quiet music of people of all labels, going quietly about their lives, we only hear the victorious trumpets.