I’m not a fucking bigot.

[FuckHim]

Name changed.

I read the post about the attached poster. As a WOMAN who had a difficult pregnancy, as a woman who considered has had an abortion, I shared this with my DP. We’ve had arguments about woman’s rights before, and he thinks I’m transphobic. I’m not. I just know that women don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. This was another example.

DP has told me how I am wrong for being upset that woman aren’t referenced (but ‘men’ and ‘people’ are) in a pregnancy poster. I am transphobic, nasty and cruel.

Am I wrong to be upset? Considering the abuse I had when abortion came up, this matters to me. It matters so much. My self worth is at an all time low. I already felt disgusted after we had sex yesterday (his pleasure, not mine), and an argument quickly escalated where he kicked me out.

The argument has escalated this time with him taking me keys, telling me to leave, but be back by morning because he has work (so do I, and much earlier than him).

Now he’s decided I’m wrong for trying to leave and actually I’m supposed to stay with DS so he can go. I’m horrible person for ‘putting him’ in that position where I leave.

I’ve been feeling shit and low about myself. All I’ve wanted is a cuddle. In terms of the above poster, I feel like my opinion matters more as a ‘person’ who carries babies. He thinks I’m a bigot. Am I?

I don’t know what I’m asking. I know I’m done with this but I can’t cope with my opinions and views being diminished into nothing.

Your husband sounds like a complete fucking drip.

It also doesn't mean that all laws and anything legal related to biology are going to be erased and that no one will be able to define what a woman actually is

Without language that defines sex, yes, it really is impossible to have laws that protect women's rights. I'm struggling to understand how you think you are making a rational argument.

@merrymouse really? Because given that we already have laws that protect both women and trans people, I'm struggling to understand what is so irrational.

Also again your post is hyperbolic. I also never said there were no issues or grey areas, and your claim that according to stonewall basically everyone is trans just gives me the measure of you.

The only transpeople who are protected by current law are the ones with a Gender Recognition Certificate. The TRA and Stonewall, want that to change and for Self ID to be all that is required. If that succeeds then any man can identify as a woman at any time, the legal definition of woman changes and being a woman (as a protected characteristic) loses it's biological definition as literally anyone can be a woman (if they say so).

Now you might say that this isn't a problem because people who are trans are dysphoric, only they are not all. Some don't change their outward appearance at all.

This erodes womens rights.

Why can they be 'men with uteruses' but I can't be a woman with a uterus and not a 'person'?

[quote CloudyVanilla]@merrymouse really? Because given that we already have laws that protect both women and trans people, I'm struggling to understand what is so irrational.

Also again your post is hyperbolic. I also never said there were no issues or grey areas, and your claim that according to stonewall basically everyone is trans just gives me the measure of you.[/quote]
your claim that according to stonewall basically everyone is trans just gives me the measure of you

Anyone who doesn’t conform 100% to their sex stereotype would be non-binary. Are you a woman who likes football? Are you a little boy who likes dolls? They’d both fall under the trans umbrella

Anyone who doesn't confirm 100% to their sex stereotype would be non binary

Yes this, I would be, although I suspect many women would be.

Stonewall is problematic because it is telling organisations lies about the current legal position, single sex spaces are explicitly provided for by the Equality Act, there is no law that requires provision on the basis of gender. Unfortunately many organisations are ignoring the Equality Act and applying what Stonewall have lobbied them with, which already removes protections for women for which are explicitly provided for without due regard to legal processes for changing legislation in this country.

your claim that according to stonewall basically everyone is trans just gives me the measure of you.

Yes, you can tell that I can read.

This is what Stonewall say:

"Trans is an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, cross dresser, non-binary, gender queer."

I think you would struggle to find anyone on this thread who agrees that they have a gender that sits comfortably with the sex they were assigned at birth. It's also not clear what 'cross dresser' means in 2020, and 'gender queer' is particularly vague.

The point is not whether you think I am being facetious, but how it would be possible to define 'trans' or 'trans woman' or 'woman' if you want to protect the rights of any of these groups. You have to be able to explain why somebody would not be a member of that group. 'Acceptance without exception' doesn't work.

The only transpeople who are protected by current law are the ones with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Thats not quite true. You can suffer discrimination because somebody has assumed that you are a member of a particular group protected by the EA.

I don't get the point of the poster. Am I being really thick?

there were no issues or grey areas

Perhaps you'd like to tell us where you believe these lie then?

For instance. Do you think that women should be able to compete in sport without people have have benefited from male puberty and maybe also the excellent coaching and sporting opportunities afforded to males and not females? Is this one of your grey areas?

Do you think that the opportunities for females to represent female's interests on panels and boards should be opened to anyone who identifies as a woman?

What about awards and recognition for females that were introduced because of a) discrimination based on sex and b) women who have had to stop even for just 3-6 months to have a child?

What about female only rape shelters? Or do you believe that the women who say they have fear when a male bodied person is there should be ignored completely? Because their fear is 'phobic' and a transwoman's need needs to be prioritised so they should get over it? Or don't you believe that they genuinely have this fear?

It would be really interesting to know what your grey areas are. You don't seem to believe that women's rights (of which each of these are) are already being eroded, but maybe I am misreading what you are saying. In which case, please do correct me.

Am I being really thick?

Of course you are not being thick. The entire point is that this poster is a communication fail. It simply does not communicate clearly.

It's intention was to be inclusive and it refers to transmen as 'men' as per the mantra. Now, how you interpret the square is purely a personal thing as there is a drawing, and the words 'men with uteruses'.

As my husband said, he assumes that the major user of the service would go first and therefore women are now called men with uteruses by this organisation. He has seen the vulva owners, cervix havers and menstruators so he took it the next step.

@merrymouse

The only transpeople who are protected by current law are the ones with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Thats not quite true. You can suffer discrimination because somebody has assumed that you are a member of a particular group protected by the EA.

Yes that's right but that applies to any of the protected characteristics. It could apply to someone you presume has a GRC and discriminate against them.

Are you aware of any caselaw on that specific point Merrymouse I've not come across any ?

Are you aware of any caselaw on that specific point Merrymouse I've not come across any ?

Not without looking, but think its in the legislation, e.g. if somebody didn't give you a job because they thought you were muslim, you wouldn't have to prove that you were muslim to suffer illegal discrimination.

The poster is weird and seems pointless. Your husband sounds like a nasty, argumentative bully. I hope you manage to send him packing.

It could apply to someone you presume has a GRC and discriminate against them.

Also somebody who is just proposing to undergo gender reassignment would be covered by the protected characteristic. There is no need to have a GRC.

The GRC is relevant to your legal sex, not the characteristic of gender reassignment.

However, the lack of existing case law makes it very difficult to know how the legislation would be interpreted in a particular case.

@merrymouse

It could apply to someone you presume has a GRC and discriminate against them.

Also somebody who is just proposing to undergo gender reassignment would be covered by the protected characteristic. There is no need to have a GRC.

The GRC is relevant to your legal sex, not the characteristic of gender reassignment.

However, the lack of existing case law makes it very difficult to know how the legislation would be interpreted in a particular case.

Yes, I think it has mainly applied to religious belief and race.

But the fact is that a change from the existing status quo to self ID erodes protection of 'women' as protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Given the amount of discrimination (against women) in the workplace this is not progressive.

Trans people also deserve protection and it is not beyond the realms of possibility for BOTH to be protected in law.

“Louise, many trans men have top surgery but many fewer have bottom surgery; just as most trans women hang on to their penises etc.”

Thank you, Jux. I didn’t know that.

KitchenBandAid

Your self esteem and self worth are low because you live with a WOKE Wanker who thinks only his invalid opinions matter. “

Not sure. He doesn’t sound particularly woke to me. Just looking for another stick to beat OP with and this bandwagon is as good as any, maybe?

Not sure. He doesn’t sound particularly woke to me. Just looking for another stick to beat OP with and this bandwagon is as good as any, maybe?

Yes, I was thinking that too. Just another abusive misogynist.

But the fact is that a change from the existing status quo to self ID erodes protection of 'women' as protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Yes I agree.

The fact that the law protects people who are perceived to have a particular protected characteristic, does not make it less necessary to define clearly what that characteristic is.

I can be be the target of anti semitic behaviour because somebody thinks I am Jewish, but I can't claim that my love of bagels makes me Jewish.

I don’t understand the poster?

@merrymouse

But the fact is that a change from the existing status quo to self ID erodes protection of 'women' as protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

Yes I agree.

The fact that the law protects people who are perceived to have a particular protected characteristic, does not make it less necessary to define clearly what that characteristic is.

I can be be the target of anti semitic behaviour because somebody thinks I am Jewish, but I can't claim that my love of bagels makes me Jewish.

I like that analogy, it fits very well.

Am I wrong to be upset?

No, you are not. Women are being gaslighted.

Men are forcibly trying to remove our ability to talk about our basic biological reality.

Your DH is mansplaining & gaslighting.

Which company was it that made the poster?