General Trans thread part 2

[ChiefClerkDrumknott]

Following on from this one General Trans thread
Because I'm not Elsa and can't let it go

Even a quick read of this thread suggest there is a lot of anger. ..
Some examples...

You don't need examples. I told you that we are angry

This "debate" between radical feminism and the trans community is being seen by mainstream as a particularly nasty fight with some issues, risks and fears (on both sides) being deliberately exaggerated.

And who do you think started the fight? I think you'll find some rad fem fears stem from being threatened with death and rape when they bring up objections to some of these 'issues' you glibly dismiss. Do you not think that's an understandable reaction? By the way, have you popped over to Twitter or Tumblr yet to plead with 'TERF' killers to be less aggressive?

As mentioned earlier, I may be completely wrong. Perhaps the best solution is to get even angrier, even more offensive and aggressive...

You know what, as I said we are angry and we are 'aggressive', if you term defending women's rights vocally and loudly and consistently aggressive

Ugh, that Independent article.

Some people are just looking for an excuse to be able to openly slate feminists.

For me it's Mill's positive and negative liberties thing again. (Or as someone on one of these threads put it: "Your right to swing your arm around as you choose stops a millimetre short of the end of my nose.")

The analogy with gay rights is a totally false one, because according people, say, the right to gay marriage did not impact on heterosexuals at all. As the slogan has it, "Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one."

But trans rights do impact directly on the rights of women. Insist that pre-op MTT have the right to go into a women's prison if they identify as women, then women lose the right not to share their living space in an already very volatile and vulnerable environment with people with penises. Insist that pre-op MTT can compete in the Olympics after one year of reducing their testosterone levels to the bottom of the naturally occurring male range (approx three times the maximum of the naturally occurring female range), and a woman boxer, say, loses the right to refuse to compete with people with longer reach, stronger muscles, greater height, etc. Her only option is to give up on the sporting career she's spent her whole life on.

A better analogy would be abortion rights. Some people (most of us) think that women's right to self-determination about their own body is the primary right. A minority thinks that the "right to life" of the foetus is primary. They can't both have their way - society has to make a choice.

The same situation applies with a lot of trans rights - if simply self-identifying is all it takes, then society has to accept that some people with penises are women and some people with uteruses are men - and bang goes any argument for women (in the traditional sense) having safe spaces (rape crisis centres, women's wards in hospital, women HCP for intimate examinations), having protection of employment following pregnancy (because now men get pregant too, it's no longer sex discrimination if you sack someone for becoming pregnant), there's no argument to prevent Davina Ayrton (convicted rapist - that's penis into vagina type rape in case anyone outside the UK isn't clear what I mean by rape) being housed in a women's prison.

Women's rights and trans rights in this sense are absolutely in opposition to one another. Society has to make a decision, and sadly a lot of the press has decided to back trans rights to the exclusion of any discussion at all about women's rights - see for instance this BBC guide to transgender terms which was an appallingly oversimplified and patronising guide to how we are now all supposed to think about the issue. Note that there is no questioning at all of the party line of "gender as what you feel inside" and "gender as expressed through how you choose to dress" - no room there for gender non-conforming people who are quite happy with their biological sex thank you very much, but think that socially imposed sex-roles are a crock of shit.

Good post Lurcio.

having protection of employment following pregnancy (because now men get pregant too, it's no longer sex discrimination if you sack someone for becoming pregnant)

Pregnancy and maternity protection protects people who are or have been pregnant. It is not based on sex discrimination. If the law were changed it will still apply to all people ( meaning women who become pregnant, men who become pregnant and Jack Monroe) Sacking a person because they are or have been pregnant is maternity and pregnancy discrimination. It has nothing to do with sex.

At an interview with an xx woman and an xy man hiring him solely because he can't get pregnant is currently sex discrimination.

If the candidates are an xx woman and a trans woman hiring the trans woman solely because she can't get pregnant would , I assume, not be sex discrimination if the law were changed (but one would need to see the exact terms of any new legislation to be sure)

It doesn't seem beyond the wit of parliamentary draftspeople to extend pregnancy protection to be anterior so that not hiring a person solely because of that person's potential of becoming pregnant is discrimination.

I suppose you might find there has to be a new set of discrimination criteria where treating person A less favourably than person B because of A's physiological/ biological characteristics is struck at.

In my example of an xx woman and a trans woman it would be discriminatory not to hire the trans woman just because she is trans ; but it would also be discriminatory to not hire the xx woman just because she might have a functioning uterus.

Ah but hiring the transwoman means the employer must have acknowledged (if not said aloud) that the tw is not actually female. And acknowledging that reality is LITERALLY A HATE CRIME

But ww had a perfectly good word for xx person up until recently - "woman". The last century or so have seen a massive leap forward at least in western countries in rights for the group formerly known as women. But it's been a long hard struggle -and some of it incredibly recent. Women getting the vote - only about 100 years. Women being admitted to degrees at Cambridge - I don't think that happened till the 1940s. Outlawing marital rape - didn't happen till 1991. Now we have to refight those battles as xx persons. Some of course will go through relatively unproblematically - I don't think for a moment anyone's going to take the vote away. But I do think that employment law is potentially a minefield. I have read reports of right wing employers arguing that because breastfeeding is something done by both men and women now, existing law requiring firms to provide expressing rooms etc under sex discrimination law are now null and void. Having children really becomes a lifestyle choice that any human being can make or not make as they choose and therefore not something that falls under anti discrimination legislation. Now hopefully this argument will fail, but the battle will have to be fought all over again without guarantees of success, and equally frustratingly, why should we have to? It's like a version of groundhog day.

Sorry that was meant to read right wing emploiyers in the US.

I left a couple of comments on a couple of buzzfeed articles for my sins. One of the articles mentioned the female condom and then added 'it must be said, not all people with vaginas are female'
Now I know they may have meant trans women with neo vaginas but I don't think they did.

If the law were changed it will still apply to all people ( meaning women who become pregnant, men who become pregnant and Jack Monroe)

that made me spray coffee

"then added 'it must be said, not all people with vaginas are female'"

I'm having trouble understanding why this qualifier is being added to all these articles these days.

When talking about running, we don't add "it must be said, not all runners have two feet" (some are amputees).

When talking about gloves, we don't add "it must be said, not everyone has two hands".

Surely it is a given that whatever the subject there will always be some exceptions of people with unusual physiology - congenital, accidental, or self-inflicted. We don't qualify every statement with another about how we are aware of the outliers. Why is it done when the subject is women?

I know. Especially when referring for example to a female condom - it's the condom designed for female anatomy, if you have paid someone to fashion you a working model of the female anatomy then it is for you. No need to point anything out. There is also an obnoxious post on today by Meredith talusan so no need to see who's driving their trans stance

Lurcio yes. Absolutely. Good post.
I must admint I am finding the issue increasingly depressing.
I have the frustrating feeling of silent (dream-style) screaming and I am simply not clever enough or strong enough to debate with someone with an opposing --(anti-feminist) viewpoint. I am worried it's affecting my mental health (drama queen) that someone else's naming of themselves can encroach so fundamentally on me, my sisters, daughter and nieces voices and safety and wellbeing.
Maybe I should stay off the boards for a while.
Thank you all for keeping up the discussion thouugh.

I have read reports of right wing employers arguing that because breastfeeding is something done by both men and women now, existing law requiring firms to provide expressing rooms etc under sex discrimination law are now null and void

That's not how sex discrimination legislation works. I'll explain later when I'm not at work.

felicity I feel the same

I hate hate hate having to just ignore it but otherwise it would frustrate me so very much

The weirdest thing is talking about it in RL with people who just don't get it.

Felicity I know what you mean. It's so easy to get caught up in it all, I start questioning whether my reaction is proportionate.

But then I remember that it's already happening in America, here too with Tara Hudson, Maria Miller's report. I find writing to my MP or relevant people in power about it feels better than social media consciousness raising.

Don't get me wrong, I think consciousness raising is incredibly important and some of the posters on here are responsible for many many peak trans moments and feminist awakenings.

I find that (without going looking for trouble!) i am either shouting into an echo chamber or a vacuum.

I think that case is in the US. Pregnancy/maternity discrimination is a bit complicated, I've been researching it. After the protected period after you've given birth which is a short period after the end of your maternity leave, the legislation falls under sex discrimination so the scenario is different if you broaden the definition of woman.

Felicity, I totally know how you feel. It makes me feel so powerless, but doing nothing and still keeping up with mumsnet/news etc makes me feel even worse, that I'm being bullied and gaslighted. I have had to take breaks when it got too much. I am a survivor of domestic violence so I find it really difficult to be shut up like this by the media etc, it almost feels like abuse. That's why I get do involved. Women are always always minimised and silenced.

Whenever I read about trans issues I can't get passed the bit about male privilege, it screams in my mind and won't stop.

Yes, definitely Posie.

And then you get fuckwitted articles written by idiots like that independent one that both doesn't understand and completely misrepresents the (radical, I suppose, given that there are so many lib fems that want to centre trans) feminist position on trans issues. It makes me want to scream.