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

It still won't be your baby, Jazz. But I expect we'll all be expected to pretend that trans women who used women as surrogates to have babies for them actually really did give birth to them.

I agree with you sillage, it's a worrying precedent. A lot of the SJW stuff is coming from the US via social media and policy and lawmaking there and the UK is not an island in that it is cut off from the rest of the world. This tumblr identity bollocks has come from there. And obviously it's shit for women there who are being erased both by the left and by the right (personhood pro-life bills etc)

^ yy to all of that re SJW and tumblr identity bollocks.

I often disagree with Lass, silage, but that's a bit unfair to her. She was quoting and describing UK law, on which I think she's right. She wasn't asked to comment on us law.

I don't think Jazz understands DNA..

I think that is an understatement, dr seuss

But then he isnt the first person to have a complete dissociation from biological reality in regards to trans issues

Lass - You are misrepresenting (misunderstanding?) UK law which you quote.

Law says sex discrimination is when something affects one sex less favorable than the other. This is what you quite, too.

But then you say it is sex discrimination when both sexes are affected just as badly, because more people in one sex do that activity than the other.

This is not true, and it is not in any UK law that you have quoted.

I just woke up hearing about Iowa and had a moment of vision. What's the betting that CJ would stand for the republicans next time around a la Trump? Potentially going up against Kanye in a weird Kardashian presidential take over.

The point being - if Hilary doesn't make it this time, it woud not surprise me one jot if the first woman president had a penis.

Cote, UK law covers things like minimum heights if they mean women are disproportionately affected without specific reason, even though some women will be taller and some men smaller. I think Lass is right about the interpretation of law here.

We will need a little more that Lass's biased optimistic interpretation of the law to stop worrying about the crippling of sex discrimination laws "because men do it, too".

What Lass and other proponents should be saying is that sex discrimination protects sex not gender, and hence females not the nebulous concept of "women". And that therefore nothing should change, since it will still be females and only females doing the breastfeeding.

But they don't or can't. Why? Is it so hard to distinguish sex from gender? Or is it just hard to point out the obvious - that transmen are female and always will be.

It's not "biased" to say that's how the law is used here, to look at disproportionate harm to one group.

And you are incorrect if you think all those commenting on how it is used think that trans men are of the male sex - not sure how you reached that conclusion.

I don't think Lass believes transmen are male. I'm just wondering why she is not using that argument to subdue fears re sex discrimination, which is a much easier argument to make - sex discrimination, not gender, and only females can breastfeed so...

Because she was responding to a point made about Breastfeeding with a comment about how UK law works with respect to disproportionate effects, then responding to those, including you, who said her interpretation was wrong.

Protected groups:

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

But the pregnancy/maternity protection only lasts for a certain amount of time after giving birth.

Apologies, I can't link, but I'm looking at a legal website which says "pregnancy and maternity discrimination is deemed to be automatic sex discrimination without the need to provide a male comparator. A male comparator, actual or hypothetical, is used in other sex discrimination cases to test whether a man would be treated more favourably under the same circumstances".

So it is still technically sex discrimination, it doesn't have its own special category enshrined in law, it just has to meet a lower standard of proof.

Can I also point out that the protection period is only from conception until the end of maternity leave. For women without the right to maternity leave, the protected period finishes 2 weeks after the birth. Then there would need be a male comparator as above in any legal challenge.

And breastfeeding in public only comes under pregnancy/maternity law if the baby is under 6 months (in England and Wales, Scotland apparently has a specific law covering feeding any child under 2). Other than that the claim will have to show a male comparator as it comes under sex discrimination law.

Discrimination because of factors which disproportionately affect one sex is considered "indirect discrimination" and I imagine is harder to demonstrate.

"After a two-year battle with the authorities, however, her family not only won the right for Jazz to play on a girls’ football team, but succeeded in having the U.S. Soccer Federation change their policy to permit transgender players to represent the team with which they identify"

And so it began. Well done, Jazz's parents, well done

FFS. Why are women so willing to step aside for transwomen?

I don't think "willing" is the word. I think a lot of this stuff has been done without our consent, only now are people waking up to it, but there is a fear about speaking out because it gets you labelled a bigot by those who either have vested interests, have been brainwashed by identity politics or haven't thought it through.

the vocal part of the trans community are horrible

I don't think women are used to being spoken to in that way

It used to be that if a man spoke to a woman like that he would be ostracised

now he's celebrated

There's a definite and vocal part of the left that champion the stepping aside of feminism for the rights of transwomen.

Inclusionary feminists.

I know if one who spoke of many trans people having a male voice but then public ally denied such a thing.

It seems like the left is too being manipulated by this "minority"group in which many of their number hate women in favour of their own trans agenda that includes erasing what it means to be a woman.

Of not if

The trouble is that many of these "inclusionary feminists" are men. Both trans women and non-trans men. Men who go around mansplaining feminism and telling women how to do it. I don't believe a man can be a feminist. He is a feminist ally, and as such should pipe the fuck down when actual women are discussing their feelings and experiences.

I agree with Lass' explanation of the legal situation around sex discrimination.

Quite separately to that, and quite separately to trans issues, equality law around pregnancy and maternity should be wider in scope, and should cover a longer time period after birth.