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

Thanks Felicity, I guess it's a bit early for wine :)

not now (school run completed)
Blowing my LC bootcamp plan.

Jazz Jennings expects her sister to act as a surrogate for her when she wants to have a baby in future. I've said it before, I dearly hope her sister tells her to fuck the fuck off.

It's awful and damaging and you should be able to raise it as an issue, but I fully understand how difficult it would be.

not now (school run completed)

Don't tell the Daily Mail, they'll want to interview you

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

And act does not cease to be discriminatory just because it affects men and women.

An employer has 100 employees, 50 of whom are women and 50 of whom are men They do something such as a new shift roster which has adverse effects on 25 women and 1 man. That act is discriminatory. It affects 2% of the male staff but 50% of the female staff.

If the breakdown is 52 women, 2 of whom are trans women who are unaffected. Then the number of women affected goes down from 25 to 23. Just over 44% of female staff are affected adversely and 2.08% of male staff are adversely affected, so the act is still discriminatory.

So far as breastfeeding, in the UK, it is protected on employment law for up to 26 weeks. After that the general sex discrimination rules apply.

A restaurant can't for example stop a woman breastfeeding because it is discrimination based on sex. I don't see that adding trans women into the category of women makes any difference to a breastfeeding woman just because a tiny number of men breastfeed.

If a restaurant or an employer told a person to stop this will disproportionately affect woman, as that person will almost certainly be female. Breastfeeding men may find they are not protected since the vast majority of men don't (except in Scotland which has statutory protection for feeding a child in public. It does not specify the sex of the person feeding. The intention was to protect bottle fed babies and fathers)

The basis is not that something only affects women or only affects men, and if it applies to both, then it cannot be discriminatory. It may apply to both but if disproportionately affects one class then there is discrimination.

"And act does not cease to be discriminatory just because it affects men and women"

It stops being sex discrimination, though.

'You can't stop me from breastfeeding. It's sex discrimination'
'No it's not. Men can breastfeed too, and we would also stop men from breastfeeding.'

Her parents were lauded for being open minded as they took her on national tv aged six years old to discuss her being transgender.

In some of these cases I think its something like Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy that makes the parents do this. I really don't think all these parents genuinely have their children's best interests at heart.

She's about 14/15 so it wouldn't be so common to do this then. I think now people like to polish their impeccable liberal credentials in public. It's especially good for them now as they have the added bonus of being able to call people bigots who are critical of their parenting choices.

*"And act does not cease to be discriminatory just because it affects men and women"

It stops being sex discrimination, though.

'You can't stop me from breastfeeding. It's sex discrimination'
'No it's not. Men can breastfeed too, and we would also stop men from breastfeeding.'*

No. The vast majority of people affected by a breastfeeding ban will be women. Prohibiting breastfeeding disproportionately affects women. It is still discriminatory.

And therefore still discrimination based on sex.

"Prohibiting breastfeeding disproportionately affects women... And therefore still discrimination based on sex."

No. By definition, "sex discrimination" is treating one sex worse than the other in the same circumstances. Again, by definition, treating both sexes the same under the same circumstances is not sex discrimination, regardless of proportions.

More men drive then women but if all drivers are targeted with a new tax, it won't be sex discrimination because women drivers will be affected, too.

Sex discrimination is when one sex is treated differently (worse) because of their sex. It cannot be considered a factor when everyone is treated the same in the same circumstances.

I'll second LassWiTheDelicateAir discrimination laws do kick in when one sex is disproportionately affected, not just when exclusively affected. I didn't come on to say that though I just wanted to echo what was said up thread about the panic descending on me about it all, how fast this is taking hold and the one sided reporting in the mainstream press. It is just like hearing screaming inside my head when I read another bullshit article I have no right of reply to.

Yes it can if that treatment disproportionately affects one sex.

An employer introduces a new working pattern. It is applied to all workers. It is discriminatory if the effects are adverse on one sex and not on the other.

A ban on breast feeding in a public place might apply to both but it disproportionately affects one sex.

This from UK government site

direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others

1. How you can be discriminated against

Discrimination can come in one of the following forms:

direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others
indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage

Agree with Lass

It depends on how realistically (i.e. based on biology and practical need rather than protecting the feelings of trans people) they would frame the law in future. Some might say that treating a woman more favourably because she can get pregnant or has been pregnant is both exclusionary language and in breach of discrimination laws against transgender people. Because there will still have to be that category, for non-binary etc.

I really don't like the way it's going, and I hope I am being paranoid.

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

Perfectly put, have been trying to put this into words for a while, but never so succintly.

Venus any trans woman who becomes pregnant will be accorded all the favourable treatment any other pregnant woman gets.

Women are not treated more favourably because they can get pregnant; only when they are pregnant and in the immediate aftermath.

"An employer introduces a new working pattern. It is applied to all workers. It is discriminatory if the effects are adverse on one sex and not on the other."

You are agreeing with me

If both men and women breastfeed, then it is not discriminatory to throw out breastfeeding individuals. Because, as you just agreed above, its effects are NOT "adverse on one sex and not on the other".

Breastfeeding is likely to go on past the time where it is pregnancy/maternity discrimination (which is easier to show in practice than sex discrimination). Then the sex discrimination issues could make protection of breastfeeding rights more problematic hypothetically, the way things are going and based on how much women's established rights in society (certain sex-segregated spaces and facilities) are being eroded in favour of trans people.

I don't share your optimism that women won't lose out. No one cares enough to defend the rights of women except radical feminists, and they're not listened to because of this tide of PC bullshit and focus on men's identities and feelings rather than women's dignity, comfort and boundaries. We are going backwards, which makes the idea that all this is terribly progressive and enlightened incredibly ironic to me.

An employer introduces a new working pattern. It is applied to all workers. It is discriminatory if the effects impact more adversely on one sex and not on the other.

I missed words out. Please refer to my earlier example where something affected 50% of women and 2% of men. Or the quote from the UK site.

If a public place tries to ban a breastfeeding woman because it would also ban a breastfeeding man it is discrimination because it's going to be the case 99.9999% of those affected are women -disproportionately affects one sex.

Alternatively you can just keep on saying I'm wrong.

I'll say you're wrong, and I'll prove it too with a real example. There's no need for a hypothetical situation on this one :

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/ames-vs-nationwide-breastfeeding-discrimination_n_6653418.html

"In late 2012, former Nationwide employee Angela Ames filed a discrimination suit against the insurance company, alleging that she faced serious obstacles to pumping breast milk at work after her maternity leave and was ultimately pressured into resigning...

Sherwin also noted another reason the court denied Ames' motion for a hearing: "The trial court also held, nonsensically, that even if Angela had been fired because she was breastfeeding that was not sex discrimination, in part because men can lactate under certain circumstances."

That's the legal precedent, right there.

It's a US case. Please see the UK legislation
But bully for you.

This is how jazz Jennings describes using her sister as a surrogate

"People say, "Oh, you can always adopt," and I completely agree with that. I can adopt. But, like, I'll never have that moment where she comes out of my vag and I can say, "That's my baby." But since my sister has my same DNA, I'm convincing her to carry the baby for me. It can come out of her vag. We'll take my hubby's sperm and throw it in there and fertilize it."

Lovely.

So you don't care about this is happening to American mothers and you're not in the least concerned about internationally-operating companies or cross-cultural legal drift because the UK is wholly an island unto itself. Okay.

I guess there's nothing to worry about here, UK moms. ALL CLEAR!