Men wanting to be Women

[bert3400]

To think transgender women really have no idea what being a women is ? . Maybe it's time we had a 3rd Gender . Be interested in hearing what real women & transwomen feel ?

That's why I hate seeing it done so often;

That's really too bad for you, isn't it. Shame you don't get to control what other people think or say.

I was stating how I feel about something Eresh, not asking you to care, and certainly not asking you to act on it. Lord knows I wouldn't get very far if I did that.

I'll state then that I don't like the use of emotional blackmail to control people's actions and consider it a massive red flag.

My ex-husband used to tell me that if I was ever sad or angry about something he did to me, that was just me trying to manipulate and control him. So of course I had to be treated badly by him and be happy about it, so as to not be accused of being a twisted manipulator.

But that's a completely unrelated anecdote.

Bowl I don't understand; you can get the end result you want of spaces for natal-born women only, as and when that is demonstrably necessary.

I’m actually not sure we can if GRA changes and self ID go through. As far as I’m aware that would allow any man who self IDd to access say a toilet and remove the right of challenge from the women using it. As for exclusion on other bases - look at the current lawsuits in Canada - there’s a waxing salon being sued and a couple of women’s refuges being buried by litigation. It’s my understand that self ID PLUS changes to the equality act will effectively remove protections from women. I’m also gravely concerned about the impact of self ID on child safeguarding - from what I can see it will dilute safeguarding practice and that will affect all children, regardless of sex or gender. I’m not Ok with that.

Why does it matter to you the way in which we get there? You can win the practical battle, why keep fighting the ideological war?

Because it is important. To refer to the comment ages back about baskets of sanpro in individual toilets a s a solution for example. It’s not a solution - it’s removing a huge, legally enshrined protection and throwing crumbs at women. In my view, all erosions of women’s rights need to be challenged.
Society changes and generally what happens is the law creates the framework and society follows. It’s extremely important to challenge the ideology here because the TRA ideology itself is corrosive and toxic. It’s homophobic. It’s misogynistic. I don’t want to live in a society like that.

I’m talking about all the things that seem ridiculous- banning the word breastfeeding and replacing it with chestfeeding. Front holes, breeders (shudder, that’s straight out of the Nazi playbook.) it’s dehumanising - and women are already being attacked on multiple fronts as a class.

The ideological battle is important.

And to have someone say that it’ll all be ok, it’s fine, people won’t really DO all these things, we just need to get rid these sillyblaws that protect you and don’t worry, we will make sure it’s ok...

Just no. Heard that one before.

The LAW and the social custom protects us just now. I don’t think I’ve ever been so against a proposed law change. It’s the biggest threat to women’s rights in a hundred years. It’s huge. I’m not having it and it’s a hill I’m prepared to die on.

I feel that this subject has been done to death.

This

My ex-husband used to tell me that if I was ever sad or angry about something he did to me, that was just me trying to manipulate and control him. So of course I had to be treated badly by him and be happy about it, so as to not be accused of being a twisted manipulator.

You are the one trying to control the narrative and influence others and using emotional blackmail to do it, not me. And if you want my anecdote, my abusive partner threatened to kill himself if I did things he didn't like. This is a well known abuser tactic. It's on the Duluth wheel of power and control.

That’s before you even get to the more troubling aspects of TRA groups pressing for policing of language. I don’t want to live in a world where I have to watch my language in case I slip and say something that is a statement of fact. Such as transwomen remain men. They do. Humans can’t change sex. To legislate so that I can’t say that is to codify belief in law. Right now the only societies that codify belief are theocracies. Funnily enough nonone is beating the door down to go and live in any theocracy of any type.

YY exactly this.

Sex and gender reassignment have different levels of legal protection. Sex is more strongly protected.

We need
Self Id abandoned
Sex specific spaces extended
Repeal to the law which makes it illegal to ask for a GRC

@ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen "don't mis-mammal me" 😂😂😂

Sex and gender reassignment have different levels of legal protection. Sex is more strongly protected.

Is it? Is that documented somewhere please Pratchet?

I was under the impression there was no hierarchy of protected characteristics. In fact I think it was AllyMcBeagle who stated as much on another thread, but I can't be sure about that.

I am as sure as I can be that there is no hierarchy though, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Ereshkigal I'm not trying to control you. I'm not trying to influence your opinions in any way more than one does when one puts forward one's perspective in the context of a debate.

I am very sorry for your experiences, you know I am, but we are not trying to twist each other here, we are simply putting forward our differing arguments and opinions on a point. I completely respect the integrity with which you hold yours, and I hold mine with the same integrity. We are opening them up to scrutiny in a discussion. Surely in doing so we invite other people to react to them?

Crinkle77
So why come onto the thread then
Baby names are done to death imo. I don't go onto the threads and tell them that. I leave them to it

Regardless of hierarchy or not, they are protected for a reason. Self ID reduces the protection for women and girls and it reduces safeguarding for children. It impacts on the ability of people of faith to participate in the public sphere.

In short it sets up a rights conflict that can be avoided by simply not having self ID. self ID benefits only a tiny proportion of the population and impacts negatively on well over half the rest of the population. It’s madness to push it through. It’d be like codifying blasphemy.

Transgender people already have rights as a protected group. That’s good. But what’s not good is an ill thought out rights grab from other groups.

Pratchet I've found the quote here - she says that sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics and there is no hierarchy.

Don't think I wasn't aware of your DARVO, Rat. Let's leave it there.

Trans women are real women

We all know they are not. They know it too. We can't get anywhere with this mess until we all say so.

It’s not that

But not “50 something, not very conventionally attractive or successful woman”.

Basically where he’d be socially if he did

Oh no. Those weren’t “real women”
to him.

He was a mainstream young girl, you see.

Rat: gender reassignment is protected against negative discrimination eg You cannot be fired for being trans.

Sex is protected in the same way i.e. You cannot be fired for being a man or a woman. But sex is also protected in a way that allows 'positive' discrimination e.g. All -woman shortlists are allowed if they are a proportionate remedy to systemic discrimination (and if they don't, ironically, they discriminate against men) This is not allowed where gender reassignment is concerned.

Sex also has additional protections under the Equality Act e.g. Sex specific spaces that exclude trans people are allowed in certain corcumstances.

dinosaursandtea Is thousands of years of biology wrong then maybe you know something different and if you have a new medical discovery and submit you evidence to the medical review

Pratchet it is lawful to take positive action (note: not positive discrimination) for the good of any of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Not just women. This is allowed where gender reassignment is concerned.

This link explains positive action vs. positive discrimination.

This one describes what positive action is lawful under the Equality Act 2010.

That second one says explicitly:

"It is lawful under s.158 of the Equality Act 2010 for an employer to take action to compensate for disadvantages that it reasonably believes are faced by people who share a particular protected characteristic (ie age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation)"

Yes, there are specific exemptions written into the GRA which separate transitioned women from natal women in specific circumstances, but the Equality Act doesn't.

That doesn't mean you can't use the equality act to achieve that aim, it just means you have to lawfully discriminate on the ground of sex and on the grounds of gender reassignment. Voila - xx females only - where that is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, of course.

I know the difference between action and discrimination. AWS is positive discrimination.