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

Most inclusionary feminists I've encountered are within a leftie women's group. Also pro sex work, another topic for another thread. Although the similarities are a definite shift toward male privilege and desires.

I've come across plenty of men on twitter etc spouting all the whorephobic, transphobic crap and claiming that they're feminists, and they do feminism better than radical feminists because it's all about women having "choice". It seems to me that's the only element of feminism most of them have grasped. I really wonder why?

I don't wonder why at all, but my sarcasm may not have come across. They have a vested interest in wanting choice to be pro shaving your pubes and being sex objects for men. NAMF, obvs. Or NAMFA, as I don't believe in male feminists.

"She wasn't asked to comment on us law."

My response to you is the same - it is shortsighted and naive to think you don't have to consider how, with the push of transgender rights, US equality laws are now being interpreted to deny women equal rights.

They came for the new mothers in the US and you didn't speak up because you weren't a new mother in the US...

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 isn't the problem that society is slowly fucking terrifyingly rapidly being convinced that there is no such difference between sex and gender, and that it all comes down to self-identification? That 'female' does not mean anything about biology / physical makeup / genitalia with which you are born because it is possible to have a 'female penis'. And anyone who denies that (or any lesbian who, heaven forfend, says she doesn't actually want to have sex with someone bearing a penis, because she's a lesbian and prefers vaginas!) is a transphobe.

Exactly Hovis birth certificates are changed, there is no acknowledgment of a person's actual sex if they have a GRC.

Two candidates are interviewed for a job. It is clear to the employer that one of them might need to take maternity leave (because she is a woman), and the other definitely won't (because they are a trans woman). These changes in law and language would make the distinction unsayable, they would both be women in the eyes of the law.

Lass did say that sex discrimination protects sex actually. And her examples referred to sex not gender.

That's precisely the issue Hovis.

These changes in law and language would make the distinction unsayable, they would both be women in the eyes of the law.

Yes, this is a point I've tried to make more than once, but people keep telling me it won't happen. With what is already happening, excuse me if i don't believe them.

The fact that pregnancy would only apply disproportionately to women and not exclusively an issue for women would as I understand it, if pregnancy protection for women were not extended specifically to cover this scenario (which I doubt it would be), mean that this would be considered "indirect discrimination" rather than "direct discrimination". And indirect things are always harder to demonstrate.

I also think that is the issue, and there are plenty of people who want to maintain that sex makes no difference, regardless of their position on trans people.

Maternity and pregnancy is a separate protected characteristic to sex.

Only for a short period after birth. We discussed this upthread. And it's not a separate category in and of itself, it's still sex discrimination, it just has a lower standard of proof as it's considered to be automatic sex discrimination.

After that short period of extra protection cases where women claim discrimination due to pregnancy/maternity issues revert to simply being covered under sex discrimination.

For instance a person had a postnatal illness that went on beyond the protected period. The company sacked them. The woman claimed discrimination and this was rejected, because it was found that a man in the same position being ill would be treated exactly the same. The postnatal element was considered irrelevant. This was an actual UK case.

I would rather see maternity and pregnancy protection extended and reinforced than have it all put under sex discrimination.

I totally agree. But I don't think they will necessarily extend it as far as being "pre-pregnant" as it were.

Did anyone get an email from Daniel Gold?

Yes, Vertigo. I've duly emailed George Barrow.

Off topic but just a thought I've had after seeing that 2 more men have been arrested in Morocco for being gay.
Could we put together an info graphic tabley thing that shows women's and LGB rights, when they were won, where they still aren't etc and compare them with trans? To highlight that so many rights haven't yet been won and how delicate those we have are to being called privilege.
Eg - dates from around the world that women got the vote, when (if in many countries) marital rape became illegal, same for homosexuality being illegal, same sex marriage etc. I think it would make a really interesting contrast with trans rights, especially when you look at countries where e.g. being gay is illegal but trans isn't.

Is it right that in Iran it's okay to be trans but not gay?

Yes, death penalty for homosexuality I think Posie.

Yep, life imprisonment if they're feeling generous :(

Ahhh the old you can remove your penis but not insert it into a man thing.... how progressive.

If someone puts together that infographic, i would include that abortion is not legal in NI (a lot of people dont know that) and that gay marriage isnt in austrailia (i didnt know that til it was in the news recently)

Two countries that are 'like us'.

I'll have a crack at it tomorrow Beyond unless anyone else fancies it. Good call on those ones! What else would people want to see represented?

Plan B emergency contraception (morning after pill) is illegal in Honduras.

Even in cases of rape etc or where the mother will be at risk. No exceptions.