Why isn't "trans" a protected characteristic in its own right?

[StoatInACoat]

I am a bit by this.

I think I'd support the idea that being trans should in itself be a protected characteristic and it being unlawful to discriminate/harass anyone on the basis of them being trans. I say I think because maybe I just haven't thought this through and there are issues with it that I've not considered.

But so far it seems eminently sensible to me. No more of this bullshit about identity becoming reality or about lady dicks or any of that. But trans being accepted as an identity of its own that merits recognition and legal protection.

That way we could draw a distinction between the oppression experienced by women (which is on the basis of their actual biological sex) and that experienced by trans people (which is I believe on the basis of their gender non conformity). The onus would be placed firmly on men to address such things as male violence and male policing of gender etc and to accept gender non conforming men into their spaces without harassment or abuse.

There really should be a campaign. I'd back it very vocally.

NB I get that TAs wouldn't be down with this idea but I don't care because nothing other than complete capitulation would make them happy and even that probably wouldn't tbh, and men-as-a-class wouldn't be down with it either as it would require them to actually change their behaviour, I just wish it was an idea that was out there as an alternative to what we currently have proposed

It is...

The protected characteristics

^The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.^

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

^Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.^

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

Your NB note pretty much sums up the why, Stoatin. It’s a male supremacist movement of heterosexuals with very nasty mixtures of personality disorders and paraphilias - narcissistim, autogynephilia, paedophilia, they’re all way over represented in such a tiny group. It’s about predation, not about helping the very few people in this group (male or female) with the mental illnesses that are described as dysphoria.

Pilates

Once upon a time I'd have called you a bigot but after spending time looking closer at this - i think there's something to your claim.

Unfortunately, because the ideology has been taken over by everyone that pilates as mentioned, the ship has sailed.

Whilst you can have compassion for genuine transsexuals, they are now in the minority.

The original legislation was designed purely for them. It worked, but only for a short time, because suddenly every predator in the country realised they can exploit it.

Every paedophile, narcissist, autogynephile and woman hating MRA jumped on the bandwagon at exactly the same time. And although, perhaps the motivations are slightly different, the intention is identical. Colonise womanhood and/or access women.

Like you, I am behind not discriminating against anyone on the basis of how they present. It's not even about calling them women, by itself. It's about the direct and fundamental clash of rights.

If they said we want to be called women, but we don't insist on changing the fundamental nature of what that means, then no one would really care.

It's about changing what it means, and therefore claiming all the (scant) rights that women have.

And yes, I'm sure there are many genuine transsexuals who don't want that, but that's just another version of NAMALT. And, unfortunately, because NAMALT, we're not talking about them and therefore they are not part of the equation.

Trans activists dont want to be thought of as trans and would see that suggestion as transphobic. They want to be treated as a full member of the sex they identify with and wont accept anything less.
So for example, they dont want a third gender neutral bathroom in addition to a mens and womens.

I also struggle with why the option of 'trans' as a category always gets pushed off the table with cries of 'transphobia' and TERF as soon as anyone mentions it.

I understand why, in the context of the aggressively masculine ways TAs are monopolising discourse, but I don't understand why in terms of lived reality.

To me, it seems that denying that you or someone else is trans is about the most transphobic thing you can do. Trans people have particular experiences around identifying with the sex of the body they were born into etc that people who aren't trans don't have. Denying that someone is trans surely annuls this part of their experience and identity?

I know that this isn't a widely held view, and I'm happy to modify it, but have never found an argument that enables me to do that.

Because autogynephilia isn’t about being trans, it’s about being a woman.

Claiming a trans-identity legitimises it, gives them leverage and a stick to beat people with and allows them to shut people up by saying your’re transphobic.

Non AGP transwomen generally do not kick up a fuss about a third space.

If someone is desperate to be considered a woman, rather than trans, and uses threats, censorship, etc, it’s a safe bet that they’re AGP.

Fortunately they are both considered trans, and you can’t objectively tell the difference, unless you are aware of the agenda, at which point it generally becomes a bit clearer.

To me, it seems that denying that you or someone else is trans is about the most transphobic thing you can do. Trans people have particular experiences around identifying with the sex of the body they were born into etc that people who aren't trans don't have. Denying that someone is trans surely annuls this part of their experience and identity?

I agree with you. I think that the fact that there is an option of legally changing sex is transphobic because it erases trans identity (and that person's personal history).

I understand that trans people do not have it easy but rather than forcing them into a legal sex binary that isn't their own why can't we protect trans people to be who they are without having to deny their own past? To be trans and proud instead of facing a lifetime of being worried about not 'passing' as the opposite sex.

‘We’ can. But they don’t want it.

Does AGP mean autogynephilia?

Yes, that's how understand it jellyfrizz. It's not even about 'being proud'; it's just about being who you are.

The only responses I've ever had to this are a refusal to engage with the discussion and the obligatory name calling.

Like Datun says trans identity isn't enough for some people, they want to change the definition of woman and female. And by denying them that you are LITERALLY DENYING THEIR EXISTENCE.

Does AGP mean autogynephilia?

Yes. It’s also called female embodiment fantasy, cissification, forced feminisation, cross dreaming/dressing.

It’s an exceptionally strong compulsion. And it is in enhanced by forcing people to recognise you as female. In every possible way.

Which is why a third space and acknowledging that they are trans, rather than a woman, simply doesn’t work.

Being able to access female spaces, where female biology is evident, in terms of things like Tampax machines, sanitary bins etc, is arousing. Forcing people to ‘validate’ you is arousing.

If you are getting a backlash by suggesting trans as a separate thing to womanhood, chances are it’s an AGP individual. Or a misogynistic men. They seem to be over represented in the trans community.

Curry, the transwoman who posts on here and people like Miranda Yardley, have absolutely no problem recognising the importance of sex specific places. They have no wish whatsoever to colonise womanhood. Curry has talked about it a lot. She would far rather be acknowledged as trans, because she has her own specific needs and wants as trans person.

Unfortunately they are in the minority and are not listened to, any more than women are.

I've just bookmarked Miranda Yardley's piece on AGP to read later, funnily enough.

Its current expression sounds part of the whole forceful drive to make fantasy concrete, thus denying the opportunity to reflect on fantasy, and forcibly encroaching on others' (women's) material reality.

It's so typical of the masculine refusal (within current gender power differentials) to deal with stuff internally, but choose to forcibly take over external space, be that a platform at a conference, dominating discussion or using women's toilets.

christinarossetti

This is another good site which isn’t afraid to say it like it is.

It will give you an insight into AGP

transgenderreality.com/tag/autogynephilia/

On a side note, when I first googled autogynephilia several years ago, there were numerous sites about it.

I haven’t googled it in a long time, when I did, the first page came up with dozens of sites saying it doesn’t exist!

In the cursory look I had earlier, it seems that AGP as a term was 'made up' in 1989.

Although I'm interested in these issues, I also feel wryly resentful that women like me are spending quite a lot of time pondering trans issues, whilst I don't get the impression that many trans people or men in general are putting quite the same effort into listening to and considering feminist viewpoints.

christinarossetti

Yes the excuses go from it’s made up by Ray Blanchard, to all women have it, to it’s the same as when a woman looks in the mirror before she goes out and admires her reflection.

The fact there are numerous sites devoted to it, seems to have bypassed the people who say it’s made up.

Internet - tricky little thing, with a long memory.

Interestingly, Grayson Perry is a self-confessed autogynephile. He wrote a piece that was printed in the Telegraph year or so back. Saying it’s mixed up with BDSM.

But he doesn’t think he’s a woman, or trans. And he isn’t interested in accessing women’s spaces or changing the definition of the word woman.

It’s basically just a more scientific term for your average cross dresser. Men don’t cross dress for the hell of it, they do it for the sexual kick.

Only now they’ve all been legitimised by the term transgender.

The main problem I with it is it’s basically a humiliation fetish. AGPs fetishise the fact that they perceive women as weak, subordinate victims.

They get off on being submissive and objectified. Hence the love of catcalling, etc.

I can’t say it’s a bothered me before, but now, the last person I want in my private spaces is a man who co-opts unconsenting women as part of their humiliation fetish.

And, as you say, women’s viewpoints are not part of the picture.

The recent phenomena of convicted sex offenders deciding to 'transition' whilst in prison, with some being transferred to women's prisons, is so symbolic of the violence force with with misogynistic men force themselves into women and their private spaces.

Representing themselves as the oppressed minority in order to do this is such an extraordinary act of manipulative double-think. It seems to be creating a situation where people tie themselves up in knots trying to talk about it because every attempt to introduce facts or material reality into the Utopian Dream of TAs Rights is received as some sort of threat or attack.