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 ?

Perhaps I've misunderstood, hang about I'll hit Google...

AWS make use of a specific allowance of positive discrimination which is time limited to address the lack of women in parliament as Pratchet says.

This is the reason for the Jennifer James legal challenge. If self IDed trans identified males are allowed to apply then it no longer complies with the exemption allowed for sex. And therefore other male people could claim that it is discrimination against them.

This article from 2016 states "Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK. The 2010 Equality Act ... introduced ‘positive action’ to the UK: a way of trying to assist deep-rooted or historically disadvantaged groups by helping to ensure they have the same opportunities as other people."

It cites ‘Positive Action’. The Law Society, 6 Oct. 2011 as its source.

And Wikipedia says "The use of all-women shortlists (AWS) is a positive action practice..."

Do you have more reliable sources please?

Self ID is allowed by the back door in most cases but the exemption for AWS is about positive discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Which is just not using the words "positive discrimination" because it's inflammatory.

You can google all you like Rat. It clearly is what people are understanding by "positive discrimination".

This is the government briefing on AWS for 2016.

They most definitely are positive action.

It doesn't matter what people understand to be positive discrimination, there is a difference between the two.

And the whole point of this is that "Sex" is not some special kind of protected characteristic because you can take positive action surrounding sex but you can't with other characteristics, because you can take positive action surrounding any of the protected characteristics.

And you can't do positive discrimination for any of them.

So you really, really can achieve xx only spaces by applying the Equality Act, and who gets to be a legal female and who doesn't really doesn't seem to make a difference.

Ereshkigal here is the link explaining the difference - it was news to me too - but it isn;t just to make it sound nicer.

Pratchet said; "But sex is also protected in a way that allows 'positive' discrimination e.g. All -woman shortlists are allowed... This is not allowed where gender reassignment is concerned."

But this doesn't seem to be the case; you can take positive action surrounding any of the Equality Act protected characteristics, so sex is not "more protected" than gender reassigment (at least not in the Equality Act).

It does matter. It's a linguistic fudge because they know the idea of "positive discrimination" makes people angry. They're not fooled. At all.

Do you understand why the AWS can be legally challenged for most TIMs but not for ones with a GRC? Why it may be said to unlawfully discriminate against men if self IDed TIMs are allowed to be on them?

ereshkigal are you following the conversation here or just jumping in on one or two recent posts?

All women shortlists make use of a specific EA exemption on the grounds of sex. Having the protected characteristic "Gender reassignment" does not "change" a person's legal sex unless that person also has a GRC.

Not the case, or trans people would have no need to be on the women's shortlist. They could have their own.

I was responding to the point about positive discrimination and that it's just changing the language without the meaning. It's something that is often done, to be fair. And as I said, most people aren't fooled.

Yes I don't think there is a specific EA exemption for shortlists just for people who have had gender reassignment. But they might be allowed as a "positive action", maybe. I don't know why the sex based one has to be written into law, maybe there are other laws about short lists in general.

All women shortlists make use of a specific EA exemption on the grounds of sex. Having the protected characteristic "Gender reassignment" does not "change" a person's legal sex unless that person also has a GRC.

But is 'Gender Recognition' legally the same as 'Sex Recognition' ?

No, not unless there is a GRC.

The gender reassignment category is arguably irrelevant to all women shortlists. Gender recognition certificates create the legal fiction that a male person is female. So they are I believe also eligible. But not other male people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Just to try and clarify a few things (in broad terms):

• The Gender Recognition Act 2004 creates a legal fiction that people with GRCs have changed both sex and gender (subject to certain exceptions eg sport).

• For the purposes of the Equality Act, transwomen with GRCs therefore have the protected characteristics of female sex and gender reassignment; transwomen without GRCs have the protected characteristics of male sex and gender reassignment (I'm just referring to transwomen here to keep things simple).

• The Equality Act generally prohibits discrimination. Generally, direct discrimination (ie discrimination which directly relates to the protected characteristic - eg 'you cannot use this service because you are trans') cannot be justified. Indirect discrimination (ie something neutral which impacts worse on people with a particular protected characteristic) can be justified where it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim - ie there's a good reason for it and you're not acting disproportionately.

• However, there are certain exceptions in the Equality Act which permit certain things which would otherwise be unlawful. These include All Women Shortlists (which would otherwise be directly discriminatory against those with male sex) which are always non-discriminatory without the need for any justification. There is also an exemption so that service providers can provide single sex services which exclude trans people even if they have a GRC if doing so is justified. The wording of the single sex services exception is here is case anyone is interested - www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7/crossheading/gender-reassignment - and the wording means that it doesn't matter what the transperson's legal sex is. There are loads of other exceptions so I won't list them all.

• The exceptions in the Equality Act are specific and don't create a general hierarchy in any meaningful sense. So if there is a conflict between eg women's rights and transwomen's rights which does not fall with any of the exceptions, then the Court would have to determine it on the merits of that case and wouldn't say that women's rights generally trump trans rights or anything like that.

I hope that's helpful. I am always happy to try and explain further.

Anyway, back to the subject matter at hand, to me transwomen are not biologically female and I have not seen a definition of 'women' that makes any sense to me which does not relate to biology. If they have a GRC then they can legally be treated as if they were women in most circumstances, but this does not change the reality of biology.

Self ID will IMO inevitably put some women in danger for the reasons pps have mentioned - the danger is not from genuine transwomen but opportunistic men. It would be particularly bad if coupled with a removal of exceptions in the Equality Act (which the Government has suggested, although it's not clear whether they have dropped this). I guess I am content with the current GRC process as long as it is rigorous and requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

I have my moral compass that tells me when I see bigotry, I have the stories of trans women who are treated so appallingly by some radical feminists

I have never been treated appallingly by radical feminists. Not ever. Nor have I ever been on the receiving end of transphobia from women, feminist or otherwise.

Have radical feminists disagreed with me, often robustly so? Of course they have but disagreement, no matter how bluntly it is expressed, is not transphobia.

The only people who have ever treated me appallingly have been men.

If you want to address bigotry why don't you address the men such as the ones I mentioned in my post at Wed 16-May-18 23:10:18? I've never seen any so called trans allies attempt to address people or situations like that or try to help find a solution to them. But then again why would they? They're all too busy shouting at women for using the wrong pronouns or talking about biology.

As a woman I am not threatened by trans women.

Neither are the majority of women on here.

What they are scared of however is men being able to access all female areas and spaces and not being able to do a thing about it.

Transwomen have been using female toilets and changing rooms for years without issue but the allies always seem to conveniently forget that.

Some trans activists behave appallingly. I do understand their desperation.

So basically what you're saying here is that if someone disagrees with you then it is perfectly okay to punch them in the face or threaten them.

And then you wonder why everyone hates you.

Some women are born into the wrong body.

Nobody is born in the wrong body.

Gender dysphoria makes us feel that our body is wrong and that we should have been born the opposite sex but that doesn't mean that our body is actually wrong.

The phrase "born in the wrong body" was never meant to be taken literally. It is simply a description of how we feel. It is basically an attempt to get other people to understand what it's like.

I identify as a man at the weekend, ha ha

But isn't that the point of self identification?

The suicide rate in the trans community is high and you know this.

And how exactly will de-medicalising transsexuality and gender dysphoria solve that?

Whether you like it or not being a woman is not purely a social construct.

It is not a social construct at all.

It is a biological reality.

I’m not a woman because I was born with certain chromosomes.

Yes you are. Just like how I'm a man because of my chromosomes and no amount of hormones and surgery can change that.

I have taken steps to make my body resemble that of a woman and will probably continue to do so but I will never actually be a woman.

A transwoman? Yes. A woman? Nope.

Trans women feel THAT!!!

You have no idea what transwomen feel like unless you have been one.

Transwomen are all individuals. We are not a hive mind. We don't all want the same thing or think the same thing. We all have unique reasons for choosing to/needing to transition.

As a transwoman, I don't know what people are referring to when people talk about feeling like a woman or having an innate feeling of being female. I just don't. So I am not sure what you mean when you say transwomen feel that because it's not something I can relate to. Perhaps some transwomen do feel that but as we are all individuals, lots of us do not.

Why don't we try and find a way to get rid of the stigma attached to being trans? Maybe then people won't have to keep insisting that transwomen are women because there will be nothing wrong with being trans.

Just a thought.

And then you wonder why everyone hates you.

Hates us.

They have a sex change operation for that very reason so yes.

Humans cannot change sex. It is simply not possible.

What we can do however is make our bodies resemble that of the opposite sex but we will never actually be that sex.

I have been dealing with this for years and I have never heard any doctor or HCP refer to it as a sex change. In fact they have always made it perfectly clear to me that it isn't a sex change and that changing sex is impossible.

What we have is gender reassignment. It is not a sex change.

It is not helpful IMO to lie to people who are vulnerable and clearly struggling. If someone had told me that I could change sex when I was a teenager and then later found out it wasn't true then I would have been devastated.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve by telling outright lies to people who you know are vulnerable and need help and support?

If you want to be pedantic, transsexuals have been self IDing for years.

Whether that is because someone hasn't yet started or completed the process for a GRC or simply a case of being too young for one; we have to some extent or other always done it.

A change in law will not change anything for people with gender dysphoria and transsexuals in that regard.

All a change in law will do is make it easier for piss takers and perverts to take advantage as they will know that the law is on their side. At the same time it will also make it harder for genuine transsexuals who will just be expected to self identify rather than appropriate mental health support and guidance as they make their way through the process.

And of course, when we used to self identify then people would still use common sense and apply a bit of critical thinking.

Safe guarding and making sure everyone's needs were met weren't automatically labelled bigoted and transphobic.

Nowadays there seems to be very little common sense being applied. Certainly if self identification is made law then there will be no room for leeway and meeting people halfway. And this is what is so scary about the whole thing.

I'd had a lovely day 'til i read this thread. Good grief. What a wonderful show of compassion, level-headedness and reason. Wait.......