AIBU to think Maya scored a victory for common sense today?

[DancesWithTortoises]

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1402922169559044096?s=20

news.sky.com/story/maya-forstater-woman-who-lost-job-over-transgender-views-wins-appeal-against-employment-tribunal-12329249

The law just cannot be allowed to tell people what to think.

Hurrah for Maya!

Male breast cancer exists. So, some men do get mammograms. Their medical need is met, as should yours be.

Men get mammograms when they are symptomatic but are not screened.

Are you saying that I should not be entitled to routine screening even though I have the same level of risk as women by virtue of my natal sex? I have to wait until I find a lump before I'm entitled to anything?

YANBU

Self contained unisex is not ideal for women. Many women have young children in prams and often can't close the door. Also, many women, including me, do a check for hidden cameras in shared loos, something that wouldn't even cross men's minds. Women have different needs and different things to consider.

Just let us have our own loos and changing areas in addition to self contained unisex and we will all be happy. It's really not that hard. If Stonewall had campaigned for this instead of silencing and harassing women, we would be there by now.

@BlueLipstickRocks

Male breast cancer exists. So, some men do get mammograms. Their medical need is met, as should yours be.

Men get mammograms when they are symptomatic but are not screened.

Are you saying that I should not be entitled to routine screening even though I have the same level of risk as women by virtue of my natal sex? I have to wait until I find a lump before I'm entitled to anything?

I don't think anyone is saying that. But what we are saying is when we go for a scan we're entitled to ask for a woman without being called a bigot.

That's really something that needs to be public knowledge.
Did you know that before you started transition? Were you warned?

There are dozens and dozens of medical issues associated with transition. Many are not communicated nowadays and hormones are being touted as the safe magic bullet. They are very much not. Similarly the surgeries are being trivialised when in truth its major surgery.

When I started Oestrogen moons ago I was given a list of 65 changes to expect. People underestimate the role of these hormones.

If people were told the truth then only those who were desperate would ever consider transition ie transsexuals with sex dysmorohia.

@BlueLipstickRocks

Male breast cancer exists. So, some men do get mammograms. Their medical need is met, as should yours be.

Men get mammograms when they are symptomatic but are not screened.

Are you saying that I should not be entitled to routine screening even though I have the same level of risk as women by virtue of my natal sex? I have to wait until I find a lump before I'm entitled to anything?

Let’s not derail this thread on Maya.

But, depending upon where you live, men are screened if they have a genetic pre-disposition / family history.

I am absolutely not saying you shouldn’t get screening. I am not sure how you read that in my comment. The research I linked does not agree you have the same level of risk of women but this is not the place to debate it.

But I really do think that the cost of taking hormones long-term needs to be highlighted more if that's a regular outcome, as I am sure young people are being sold it as a fairly costless process.

I am absolutely not saying you shouldn’t get screening. I am not sure how you read that in my comment. The research I linked does not agree you have the same level of risk of women

The research that was done was on Oestrogen only transitions, not Oestrogen and Progesterone.

But I really do think that the cost of taking hormones long-term needs to be highlighted more if that's a regular outcome, as I am sure young people are being sold it as a fairly costless process.

Very much so. Very very few ultimately benefit and people are being sold lies. But then big money for Pharma in pushing hormones and blockers.

The most worrying trend is those who seek Oestrogen and Testosterone without blockers. The supposed aim is breast growth without a reduced libido and impotence. Its extremely dangerous.

My niece is a transman and was not warned about some of the potential side effects such as vaginal atrophy.

I've suggested she look up Buck Angel who is open about the issues they've encountered

"It very specifically stated in the ruling that holding a belief is one thing but it does not mean that to voice that belief to someone who is trans could not be deemed to be harassment.....respectfully this ruling was not a free pass to make comments that could be seen as offensive."

It was specifically stated and repeated, I suspect to try and prevent misinterpretation. It was also clearly pointed out, harassment procedures in a workplace work with this issue as the same as every other issue. For someone to deliberately misgender someone to their face with the intent of causing distress that is absolutely harassment, the same as any other form of harassment.

But the whole point of the ruling was that in situations around women's rights and sex based needs, women cannot be denied the right to say the truth and the facts as they need to to make their arguments and defend their rights, and this is not harassment.

It is absolutely necessary for the sex based rights of the women who need them to be able to clearly point out that they are a group in their own right that is specific to biologically female born, female identifying people. And to be able to separate themselves in language and in boundaries from those not part of that class. To expect them not to do this on the grounds that it's too hurtful and harassing for those who want to be part of their class regardless of the impact upon them....

No. I'm not signing up to that. The ruling agreed that legally, no women cannot be made to co operate with and enact a belief that they do not hold, and at times that is going to require stating facts and perceptions other people wish were not said. But require to be said if there is not going to be an inequality of voice, representation and power in the situation.

I'd also point out, this is not a work place, this is a women's rights board and an argument you're choosing to engage with, so you cannot really expect women to make their case to you while restricting terms and concepts they may use, even if those terms and concepts are neutral, factual ones to them.

I completely agree that anyone with a heightened risk profile for breast cancer - including males with a family history, & males taking oestrogen, progesterone or any other drug that increases risk, should be routinely invited for mammogram screening.

It's not an exclusively female health concern, although obviously the vast majority of people needing that service will be women.

Maybe separate days for male screening, or separate days for biological females who need to not attend a mixed session, would ensure dignity & feeling safe for everyone.

I don't see why it's somehow being proposed as a convincing reason to get rid of women's spaces in the public sphere though - 'some males get breast cancer' - yes, we know.

@CorvusPurpureus

I completely agree that anyone with a heightened risk profile for breast cancer - including males with a family history, & males taking oestrogen, progesterone or any other drug that increases risk, should be routinely invited for mammogram screening.

It's not an exclusively female health concern, although obviously the vast majority of people needing that service will be women.

Maybe separate days for male screening, or separate days for biological females who need to not attend a mixed session, would ensure dignity & feeling safe for everyone.

I don't see why it's somehow being proposed as a convincing reason to get rid of women's spaces in the public sphere though - 'some males get breast cancer' - yes, we know.

I agree. Separate sessions for the dignity of all those needing them.

Males undergoing hormone treatment for prostate cancer may also be at greater risk of breast cancer.

It is important that male born people are tested for prostate cancer, no matter how they present themselves. I believe the risk of prostate cancer might be smaller in someone taking hormones, but the risk is still there.

It very specifically stated in the ruling that holding a belief is one thing but it does not mean that to voice that belief to someone who is trans could not be deemed to be harassment.....respectfully this ruling was not a free pass to make comments that could be seen as offensive."

Surely this is like the difference, for example, between saying you're an atheist if the topic of churchgoing or religion comes up in conversation at work, or if it is relevant to some kind of work-related circumstance, and randomly going up to a Christian or a Muslim at work and saying "I don't believe in your god. Your religion is a load of rubbish!"?

It should be regarded as no more offensive and unreasonable to say that you don't believe in a god than to say that you do. But making disrespectful remarks about others' beliefs, or aggressively or provocatively stating your opinion when there is no context or reason to be doing so is definitely unreasonable and could be regarded as harassment.

@BlueLipstickRocks

As someone else said, it feels a bit like retrieving my bicycle from the person who stole it and then complaining that they no longer have any transport to get to work on.

To me I see it as "Mr Stonewall and his friends stole my bike so that means it's OK for me to steal yours. If you need a bike go steal one from Mr Stonewall yourself". Dont forget the law says I'm allowed a bike and it can't be taken off me!

Why should I be personally responsible for Stonewall?

The issue is not with women taking back women's rights, its this desire that some have to see transsexual rights taken away. There's a difference between stopping self id & defending womens rights and looking to take away already established legal rights.

It's more that Mr Stonewall stole our bike and gave it to you. You innocently accepted it as a gift - but now it turns out it wasn't legally Mr Stonewall's to give, so you have to hand it back. You are very welcome to buy a bike of your own.

Rights are not gained through consent. Were there consent then rights are probably not needed. Rights are won. Women had to fight for their rights and many sacrifices were made with movements like the Suffragettes. Men did not consent, far from it, but rights were won as they should be and progress was made. Similarly I can clearly think of situations where people of colour had to fight for rights against an oppressor class of white who didn't consent.

I was asked yesterday to voluntary give up rights to prove I was a decent human being on the basis that women didn't agree. Are women giving back rights because men didn't agree? Of course not nor should they.

I’m too busy right now to address this post in its entirety as I would like to but I can’t let this grotesque false equivalence and inversion go unremarked on. (Apols if others have already picked it up.)

WOMEN ARE NOT THE OPPRESSOR CLASS.

MALE PEOPLE ARE THE OPPRESSOR CLASS.

Women as the more vulnerable of the sexes, the sex that has always been and still is disadvantaged, wanting boundaries is IN NO WAY COMPARABLE to men denying women the vote or white people denying black people access to decent facilities.

It is heinous to suggest this.

Men denying women the vote were those with the structural power and privilege, discriminating against women because they saw them as inferior.

White people denying black people access to the same facilities they used were the ones with structural power and privilege, discriminating against black people because they saw them as inferior.

WOMEN DO NOT HOLD THAT STRUCTURAL POWER AND PRIVILEGE IN THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.

We are not excluding you from society, as oppressors do to those they oppress. We are not trying to say biologically male trans people are inferior to us IN ANY WAY. We just want boundaries. Boundaries that exclude all male people, not just some, and that we should be entitled to for all the reasons listed over and over again.

On the contrary, it is MALE PEOPLE who seek to deny women our morally just right to boundaries in a world stacked against us who are the equivalent of those men who denied women the vote along with so many other civic rights, for so long.

THEY are the oppressors.

You are part of that, BlueLipstickRocks. It’s outrageous the way you try to turn it around and paint us as the bad guys, when you are the aggressor here.

Maya's ruling is important because up until now women have been fighting this with one hand tied behind our backs. The reason we don't think tw should be in single sex spaces/prisons/sports is not because we hate them or are afraid of them but because they are male. If we can all be honest about that then I think it is possible to find a solution. For me that would be accepting transsexuals in toilets/changing rooms, accepting transsexuals in women's prisons if they pass a rigorous selection procedure (e.g. low risk only, no sex offenders ever) , not accepting anyone not born female in women's sports. Maybe you disagree but unless we can talk honestly about the situation we will never find a way out.

It's more that Mr Stonewall stole our bike and gave it to you. You innocently accepted it as a gift - but now it turns out it wasn't legally Mr Stonewall's to give, so you have to hand it back.
You are very welcome to buy a bike of your own.

No, it was my bike. Mr Stonewall borrowed it and said I had to share it with everyone.

I will not return rights I have won in law for reasons I explained in a lengthy post I made earlier. I will support reform and strengthening of processes to support women but I'm not going to sacrifice myself in doing so.

We’ll said LangCleg, some people are just hard of thinking

Maya's ruling is important because up until now women have been fighting this with one hand tied behind our backs. The reason we don't think tw should be in single sex spaces/prisons/sports is not because we hate them or are afraid of them but because they are male. If we can all be honest about that then I think it is possible to find a solution. For me that would be accepting transsexuals in toilets/changing rooms, accepting transsexuals in women's prisons if they pass a rigorous selection procedure (e.g. low risk only, no sex offenders ever) , not accepting anyone not born female in women's sports. Maybe you disagree but unless we can talk honestly about the situation we will never find a way out.

Absolutely no issue with that whatsoever.

@BlueLipstickRocks

Sorry if I’m being slow/ignorant but a lot of your posts are focussed on the needs of post-op transsexuals. Don’t post-op transsexuals get a GRC and change sex in the eyes of the law? They can and do access women’s spaces, don’t they and have done for years and years. That’s the current position, as I understand it.

I’m struggling to understand why self ID or the erosion of women’s spaces are necessary to meet the needs of those men who’ve had surgery and are therefore legally recognised as women. I appreciate there may be some anomalies in respect of post-op transsexuals in for example, health screening, like you’ve pointed out - but fundamentally the current legal framework allows people who’ve had surgery to live as their acquired sex.

It's more that Mr Stonewall stole our bike and gave it to you. You innocently accepted it as a gift - but now it turns out it wasn't legally Mr Stonewall's to give, so you have to hand it back.
You are very welcome to buy a bike of your own

Well to be fair to Blue, if they are a transsexual who had gone through the process and have a GRC, then they did have a bike of their own that could be used in some, but not all places. As per the equality act and the GRA.

Stonewall came along and demanded everyone shared their bikes. Those with limited access passes (Blue) and those with an all access pass (woman). They misrepresented the law to persuade people that everyone should have an all access pass and it was breaking the law by not letting them do this.

Now we have to look at it again and work out who should really be allowed a limited access pass, tighten up the criteria for this as it's clearly flawed, and work out what the few remaining people with a limited access pass should and shouldn't be allowed to do with that.

'Post op' and 'GRC' are red herrings in this debate. There are many high profile trans people who publicly don't have a GRC. Jane Fae is very upfront about the fact its not necessary.

Compromise doesn't work for the most vulnerable women who are most at risk of either missing screening, or of violence if they attend the wrong session.
We aim to include those women, especially in healthcare.

If you want inclusive mixed sex sessions, ask for them and have them clearly labelled as such.

@BlueLipstickRocks

*It's more that Mr Stonewall stole our bike and gave it to you. You innocently accepted it as a gift - but now it turns out it wasn't legally Mr Stonewall's to give, so you have to hand it back. You are very welcome to buy a bike of your own.*

No, it was my bike. Mr Stonewall borrowed it and said I had to share it with everyone.

I will not return rights I have won in law for reasons I explained in a lengthy post I made earlier. I will support reform and strengthening of processes to support women but I'm not going to sacrifice myself in doing so.

Blue, I’d like to remind you that the rights you are legally claiming come from the Equality Act 2010…which also provides for single sex exceptions.

The single sex exemptions have been ignored or minimized by people in recent years.

Women are now mobilizing themselves to prevent that from happening and to enforce the exemptions that are legally permitted.

That is not contravening your rights that come from the EA. It is preserving the rights women already had and were specifically protected by the EA.

*Sorry if I’m being slow/ignorant but a lot of your posts are focussed on the needs of post-op transsexuals. Don’t post-op transsexuals get a GRC and change sex in the eyes of the law? They can and do access women’s spaces, don’t they and have done for years and years. That’s the current position, as I understand it.

I’m struggling to understand why self ID or the erosion of women’s spaces are necessary to meet the needs of those men who’ve had surgery and are therefore legally recognised as women. I appreciate there may be some anomalies in respect of post-op transsexuals in for example, health screening, like you’ve pointed out - but fundamentally the current legal framework allows people who’ve had surgery to live as their acquired sex.*

Your statement is entirely correct. For the most part a post op TS obtains a GRC which causes a reissue of a birth certificate as legally female. There are things that clearly need amending but that's essentially is.

However some on this group clearly reject such a law and seek its revocation on the basis that the solution impacts women. Apparently a solution needs to be found that doesn't involve women and in the interim I must surrender these rights as according to one person I accepted a gift from someone when it wasn't theirs to give.

Self ID is not necessary. I vehemently oppose it. I do not see any solution involving non post op transsexuals. I also believe that it is a reasonable request that the 4500 or so post op transsexuals with a GRC are able to share women's spaces.