Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 13 14

Original poster

Transgender kids article in today's Guardian

336 replies

TerraNovice · 05/04/2015 09:06

Did anyone see this article about Louis Theroux's documentary that airs tonight? www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/transgender-kids-children-change-sex-families

Admittedly I have some issues with it. Is it really good to give kids hormone blockers from childhood? And I do find one of the mothers' statement problematic where she says she felt like she had a little girl because her son liked her shoes and "feminine" things and wasn't interested if you put a truck in front of him. I find these ideas of gender really reductive. A child who is uninterested in traditional masculine or feminine toys etc may not necessarily be transgender, they could be an effeminate boy or a butch girl. Why pump them full of hormones when they are very little?

Any thoughts?

OP posts:

almondcakes · 07/04/2015 18:27

The UK is signed up to CEDAW. It is part of basic human rights for women that the government recognises and protects the reproductive role of women (defined by biological sex) and also removes stereotypes around gender roles.

So the nature/nurture thing is done and dusted, from that perspective. It is a breach of my DD's human rights if schools or any any other government organisation tries to tell her about pink lady brain makes girls nurses or whatever.

BriarRainbowshimmer · 07/04/2015 18:34

Stavvers and her ilk believe that the concept of sexual dimorphism (the fact that the human species has two distinct biological sexes) is essentialist and incorrect. She thinks that a penis can be a women's sexual organ just as much as a vagina can and vice versa.

I don't understand this. Do they actually believe this to be true or do they just enjoy being trendy and writing offensive comments to lesbians on the internet?

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 18:39

almond that is interesting about CEDAW? Do you have links?

How does it knit with the Equality Act, which protects the right of a person to identify as what ever sex they want, regardless of genitalia/surgery/hormones/whatever?

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 18:43

briar I repeat this all the time, but it is extreme gas lighting

Its such a nonsense, I have no idea how it has gathered any kind of credence

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 18:45

briar I repeat this all the time, but it is extreme gas lighting

Its such a nonsense, I have no idea how it has gathered any kind of credence

EhricLovesTheBhrothers · 07/04/2015 18:45

Briar, I assume they mean it completely literally as that is how they represent their views online.

stavvers.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/why-im-pro-trans-and-pro-choice/

StillLostAtTheStation · 07/04/2015 18:51

However that has nothing to do with the fact that 'female' and 'woman' are terms used to describe a person that can bear children, has a uterus etc

But according to the Stavvers set female and woman areterms which can be used to describe a person with a penis.

And according to medical records from Australia persons with those attributes can be (say they are) men.

almondcakes · 07/04/2015 18:53

People don't have a right to identify however they like under the equality act. They have to go through the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate.

I don't think that takes any basic rights away from women. If women were forced to identify as a gender rather a sex, I would see that as a major breach of women's rights. We are protected on the basis of our biological sex, not some notion of gender identity.

CEDAW is here:

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

StillLostAtTheStation · 07/04/2015 18:59

Intrinsically linking the capacity to get pregnant with womanhood is not just cissexist, but it’s actually quite misogynistic

I assume this refers to self-identified men who are non- transitioned becoming pregnant.

If one feels one is in the wrong body why would one then do the single most important thing which only a biologically female body can do?

WidowWadman · 07/04/2015 19:07

Still lost - alternatively it can be interpreted to mean that women who can't or don't want to bear children aren't real women. Which is pretty misogynist.

StillLostAtTheStation · 07/04/2015 19:09

So far as Equality legislation at its simplest if I were a man but decided I was transgendered if I had done so whilst still an employee my employers would have had to accomodate me and could not pass me over for promotion simply because I was no longer a man. They would breach equality legislation if they refused to call me "she" rather than "he".

But that has no bearing on the very particular needs and special cases applying to people who can get pregnant.

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 19:13

almond if a man wears a frock and lives as a women, he is legally recognised as a women. He can access women only spaces; toilets, women's shelters. FGM can no longer be classed as a 'womens issue' and prostate cancer is considered a women's issue.

almondcakes · 07/04/2015 19:15

Harvey, that isn't true. I have read loads of these threads and it simply isn't true in the UK.

StillLostAtTheStation · 07/04/2015 19:16

Widow really? A biological woman who can't conceive isn't thought of as a woman? By whom? Apart from transactivists? The phrase "barren woman" isn't nice but even that does not deny the womanhood.

I don't think many people would take the statement that "only(biological) women can get pregnant " to mean "(biological) women who can't get pregnant aren't real women" unless you wanted to work it up to mean that for your own propaganda.

FloraFox · 07/04/2015 19:18

I don't know anyone who thinks that women who can't give birth are not real women. They are real women because they have predominantly female reproductive systems. The statement "humans have two legs" does not mean a person with one leg is not human.

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 19:23

It is almond. MtF trans people have to be allowed to use the female toilets; otherwise you are denying they are women and that contravenes the Equalities Act. Happens in the last 2 places I have worked. It doesn't matter that they have penises.

One colleague left for a weeks annual leave as a man (worked with him for 8 years) and returned as a woman...using ladies toilets/changing rooms

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 19:25

RadFem 2013/4 was shut down because it excluded trans-women, from discussions on FGM amongst other things

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 19:27

Gender recognition certificate is to get birth certificate changed, I believe

ApocalypseThen · 07/04/2015 19:29

RadFem 2013/4 was shut down because it excluded trans-women, from discussions on FGM amongst other things

I find the denial of the right of women to associate with whomever they choose to discuss a topic of interest to those present quite shocking.

almondcakes · 07/04/2015 19:36

Harvey, that isn't what you said though.

It is not just a case of 'identifying' as a woman and legally being treated like one.

Some men identify as women but haven't told a doctor. They have no legal rights to be treated as a woman.

Some men have seen a doctor and are undergoing supervised treatment. They have some rights under gender recognition law, but this is not the same as being treated legally as a woman.

Some men have a GRC. They can put down that their sex is female legally and be treated that way, but the government recognises they have not really changed their sex, as this is impossible. The core definition of female has not changed to make prostate cancer a female issue and fgm a male one.

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 19:41

apocalypse I agree. But I feel 'topic of interest' is putting it lightly. FGM is a massively emotive and very personal/intimate topic. It is a big problem throughout the world. Women have varying degrees of their genetalia sliced off with no anaesthetic and some have their vaginas sewed up tight. So tight that it rips them to have sex and to give birth. This is done to girls from as young as 5 to puberty. Surely these women should be to discuss their experiences in the absence of men. Certainly in the absence of people who have had elective surgery to mutilate their own genitals

ApocalypseThen · 07/04/2015 19:44

I quite agree that FGM is more than a topic of interest but I have read before that it's not the only topic that penised people object to being discussed among vaginaed people without adequate supervision.

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 19:45

almond if a person with a penis and testicles is legally recognised as a woman, then indeed prostate cancer because a woman's issue. It has happened. There was a link on another thread, where an Agenda had been extended to include. I will find the link I i can

HarveySpectre · 07/04/2015 19:47

apocalypse

almondcakes · 07/04/2015 19:56

No, Harvey, because women as a group are legally defined as a biological sex.

The government has allowed some males who want to change their gender to do so, but as there is no such legal category as 'gender' for the rest of the population, it has allowed people with a GRC to change what is recorded under sex.

The UK government clearly stated that it it was impossible to change actual biological sex. The definition of biological sex has not changed. It is just that some people have been exempted from having to declare their real biological sex. I understand that there are a whole load of issues with that, but it is not the same thing at all as the far more serious situation of biological sex not being recognised and woman being generally understood as a gender. That would be a massive decline in human rights.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 13 14

Swipe left for the next trending thread