Trans media watch are lobbying mnhq

[BeyondTheHarpy]

I know this has already been mentioned in the PL thread, but I thought it might be an idea to bring it to the attention of mners in a thread of its own.

After the PL debacle, there followed a thread in AIBU about toilet. On which this post appeared...
"I'm with you OP and I'm horrified by the transphobia on Mumsnet. I have done some work with Transmedia Watch who are trying to persuade MNHQ to treat transphobia as they would treat any other hate crime. I don't know what MNHQ have against the trans community or why they don't challenge the widespread belief that trans women are rapists in frocks who want to see fannies."

So, yeah, just letting you know that they are (allegedly) on the case with mnhq.

"The descent of peerages, dignities and titles of honour is not affected by the issuing of a GRC. For example, a peerage that is only handed down the male line can be inherited by a trans woman but not by a trans man, regardless of whether either of them have a GRC."

Of course not. We wouldn't want them to lose their privileges, would we?

Understandably, being referred to as Mr is so distressing to transwomen that it's a crime comparible to murdering them, but have no problem being called Sir

How fucking ridiculous.

Oh wow. I'm floored. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Yup, you read it here first. If you are MtF then your really can 'have it all'.

You can be a lady but also be a Lord. You can keep your male reproductive organs so you can "start a family" with your lesbian girlfriend but still demand to be legally recognised as a woman (saw that comment on a trans forum).

Yet people wonder why we are Spartacus. Give me fucking strength!

Can they get a damehood too?

Oh my, truly pissing myself with sardonic laughter at that.

"The descent of peerages, dignities and titles of honour is not affected by the issuing of a GRC. For example, a peerage that is only handed down the male line can be inherited by a trans woman but not by a trans man, regardless of whether either of them have a GRC."

Words fail me.

So, call myself a woman to gain access to women and children everywhere, reinforce detrimental gender stereotypes to suit me, talk over them and call them TERFS if they disagree, compete against them in sport, stop them using words like period, redefine their entire anatomy to suit me, tell them how to do feminism to suit me, accuse them of not being as womanly as me. Then nip back home at the weekend as a man so I can inherit the privilege of the title (and a seat in the House of Lords) above my older sister.

"The descent of peerages, dignities and titles of honour is not affected by the issuing of a GRC. For example, a peerage that is only handed down the male line can be inherited by a trans woman but not by a trans man, regardless of whether either of them have a GRC."

I think if were a genuine, medically transitioned trans person (rather than the rabid TRA or occasional dress wearer types), I'd be campaigning to have credibility-harming discrepancies like that resolved.

It would be good to hear from a lesser-heard, more moderate trans 'voice' on all of this.

Manu

I agree it undermines the credibility immensely.

They should campaign to get it changed.

And then watch the first female child identify as a man and take the title.

'The erosion of men's rights' issue would make an singularly novel and interesting debate.

*a

I read about April Ashley in the 1970s. I have always been very sympathetic to those born in the wrong body. Most mumsnetters are and treat such people with compassion.

What I do object to is when men (or whatever they want to call themselves) invading women's places like MN and trying to shut down discussion. Discussion helps us all understand the position of other people just as the autobiographies I have read over the years of trans people helped me in my teens and now understand how those people fee.

I have followed the UK legislative changes too particularly before 2004. It was always a very difficult topic but only because we are such a gendered society. The more sexism we rid ourselves of the less it will matter as we may be as likely to have men in high heels as women and ditto all the other stuff.

I am equally unhappy about websites like this stopping those with different views from others expressing them too. i want to live in an England and post on a mumsnet where people can deny the holocaust, say women are unequal to men and all the rest even though I dislike those views intensely. The free speech should trump (pun intended) all as long as we can all be polite about it.

As soon as you start pandering to the overly sensitive feelings of special groups you lose. Those people who get upset by reading things need therapy and help but that should not mean other people are censored.

However it is a devil of a job running websites with discussions groups fairly. I don't eny them their task and it is often simpler just to take material down if people object as you cannot have the time to analyse every dispute. However that then becomes unfair as those who are not robust and who complain all the time win.

I heard that Saint Caitlyn of Jenner still plays golf on a 'male-only' golf course...

So a bloke who likes wearing dresses sometimes is in the same category as someone with serious body dysphoria?

And this is the issue, but so many refuse to see it.

Twogoats

I'm not sure about that one tbh. Sherwood Country Club has female members albeit with their own (vastly inferior) separate facilities, including the dining room.

The statement from the club is rather ambiguous and doesn't say which facilities CJ uses citing "privacy". Rather ironic considering CJ made a reality show out of their transition. The club's ambiguity also extends to calling CJ Bruce Jenner as well as Caitlyn Jenner in the same statement!

This article doe state that CJ has been given a "women’s locker room spot at her country club"

www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/caitlyn-jenner-grateful-accepted-country-club-article-1.2551235

Aaarghh, forgot to put the link with the statement from the golf club

“TMZ never contacted the Club for any input into its story about Caitlyn Jenner, and it shows,” the statement read. “The story is almost entirely false, other than the fact that Bruce Jenner has been a valued long term member at the Club in good standing. That fact has not changed one bit. Caitlyn Jenner will continue to be a valued member of Sherwood Country Club, enjoying all that it has to offer to its members.”

www.golf.com/tour-and-news/caitlyn-jenner-still-welcome-elite-golf-club

from www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/what-corrections-can-be-made :

"The original information will always be shown in the register. After the correction has been authorised, a note will be added to the margin of the register. This will explain what the correct information is and when the correction was made.
All full birth certificates that are issued from this time will include the note in the margin.
Short birth certificates only include the child’s details and won’t have a note in the margin - they’ll just include any correct new details."

The UK Government has crossed a line there by referring to subjective "corrections" instead of objective "changes".

"...enjoying all that it has to offer to its members." To me that reads as though the rumours are true and Mx Jenner retains all the privileges of male members whilst having a female changing space.

I don't agree it is always a change not a correction. There are lots of different kinds of people and some are attributed the wrong gender at birth as they have lack of clarity with their sex organs

Noone is attributed a gender at birth though?

Disliking your sex organs does not mean you are actually in the wrong body. Anymore than me disliking my breasts means I have the wrong breasts :S

Its great to have a chance of 'changing' this, especially if it causes large amounts of distress. But we really need to move away from the 'designated female at birth' way of thinking. A 'gender' isn't 'chose' by a doctor when you are born, so it cannot be 'wrong'. A sex is noted. Only slight difference is in those who are intersex, which is nothing to do with trans

EnormousTiger wrote - "I don't agree it is always a change not a correction."

In case it's me that you disagree with, I did not claim that a change is never a correction.

My point is that a correction is always a change but some changes seem more equal than others. The UK Government has chosen to make a value judgement that the record of a trans person's biological sex will not only be changed (which is entirely sufficient to enable a trans person to adopt their new social role) but the change will also be regarded as a correction. I think this gives a false impression that the people who did the original identification at birth were incapable of recognising the difference between male and female genitalia, as if it was recorded wrongly on the original document due to e.g. incompetence. I think treating the changes as corrections makes it look as if the people who used biology to accurately and correctly record a person's biological sex were wrong and/or biology was wrong. The vast majority of trans people, however, have the normal anatomy of their biological sex as recorded at birth. This rewriting of history is changing the recording of biological sex into a recording of the feeling of a gender identity, that was not expressible at birth or may not have even existed at birth. It turns the data recorded on a birth certificate into a retrospective autobiographical opinion.

Although the UK Government are happy to "correct" that a baby boy with perfectly normal male anatomy was supposedly "wrongly" identified as male, the Government still continues (hypocritically?) to base its recording of a baby's sex on the same biology as it used in previous decades and on the same anatomical features as it used in previous centuries.

EnormousTiger wrote - "There are lots of different kinds of people and some are attributed the wrong gender at birth as they have lack of clarity with their sex organs"

If you are using gender as meaning biological sex, then being recorded as the wrong gender may apply to intersex people but it applies to almost no trans people* because there is no such lack of clarity for almost all trans people, most of whom will forever keep the very same birth genitalia that "wrongly assigned them to a gender".

(* for example, some gender identity researchers like to reclassify, as trans, any intersex person who switches their gender role behaviour)

'Although the UK Government are happy to "correct" that a baby boy with perfectly normal male anatomy' ... not to mention, standard XY chromosomes.

Amend/amendment would have been more neutral. Language matters.

With the talk of "assigned at birth" and "gender", things can get pretty confusing. I offer a summary of my understanding of some terms in case it may help anyone:

For intersex people and some people with other rare biological conditions including Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, biological sex may not correspond to external anatomy. Therefore, at birth, this very small group may be assigned a sex (often called "gender" nowadays). For everyone else, including trans people, their anatomy corresponds to their biological sex. Therefore, this enormous group is not assigned a sex at birth. Their biological sex is recorded at birth .

A person is assigned a gender role (expected behaviour), based on his or her biological sex (so it is sometimes called a sex role).

How a person feels about his or her anatomy and/or gender role is his or her gender identity.

So gender has a direct correlation to biological sex? But gender identification means you can switch?