I stand corrected Lilly M can get pregnant

[panjandrumpyjamas]

I asked for a thread to be pulled as I thought I had made a mistake and that Lilly Madigan was in fact just joshing about being able to get pregnant but no...

Lily Madigan Dec 28
‏Womb implants are now possible. It's quite exciting. Expensive currently but yes if I wanted to in the future, reasonably I could get pregnant x
"I think you are unintentionally being transphobic. I can get pregnant. Not right now, which is true of many women. Please don't single me out" Lilly s own words.

twitter.com/madigan_lily/status/946555952303570944

I don t want this to be about LM as such but I think that some parts of the trans community have no idea of the medical implications involved in transition....

Atheists really do not believe that atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God."

No, they believe lots of other things too. But that's what atheism means.

I am sorry, I read the question following the is discussion of radical feminism as ‘and how is radical atheism explained?’

That is what I was answering, not what atheism means.

Superfluous ‘is’ in my first sentence, more apologies

The exceptions were touched on, but I understand they are very hard to implement.

And I’m pretty sure that’s going to be the next thing to be ‘amended’.

It's all down to public perception of what is reasonable. If the debate is open and transparent and there is enough public pressure the exemptions will be implemented. But people think women's views can be safely ignored and prioritise those of men.

Exceptions have been used for many many years in other parts of equalities legislation without issue. For example if you are supplying a service to a specific group of people and have good grounds to believe that should be delivered in a particular way when you advertise employment opportunities you can explicitly state that you are only looking for candidates from that group. This is discrimination that would normally be illegal. As an example I used to work in breast screening and all the radiologists were female. If you were male you could not be employed in a screening clinic because of the legitimate need of service users. The exemption was always stated on the adverts so it was clear why only women should apply. I imagine that organisations might well feel uncomfortable saying that transwomen were also exempted but legally they can do so so long as they can defend their reasoning.

But that’s just the thing, isn’t it? If transwomen are women, as per the accepted dogma, then the exemption won’t apply to them. It’s a total mind fuck.

Which wouldn’t translate to any of the other exemptions listed. I couldn’t say I identify as deaf to be a BSL counsellor, or Sue for discrimination because I identify as a black man to play Othello (I’m a white woman). It’s just the women’s spaces that are up for grabs.

Dh has got it!

He reckons lily is a plant, a patsy. He is being manipulated by either

a the tories

b the Russians

c North Korea

I think he is onto something....

But that’s just the thing, isn’t it? If transwomen are women, as per the accepted dogma, then the exemption won’t apply to them. It’s a total mind fuck.

Certain of the exemptions can apply to MTF trans people, even with a GRC. We need to make sure they stay and lobby to strengthen them and clarify the meaning of "gender reassignment". Agree it's a mind fuck, obviously!

One of the reasons I will never carry a donor card.

And relatives can override the donor card.

Are we still discussing this?

Men cannot give birth. Get over it!

But that’s just the thing, isn’t it? If transwomen are women, as per the accepted dogma, then the exemption won’t apply to them.

No it will, it does! Both of the exceptions use a specific example of a women-only rape counselling group. It it legal to exclude transwomen as group participants and as counsellors.

In a way you are right though as the exceptions can only practically be used if the transwoman lets it be known that they are trans. There doesn't appear to be anything to stop a transwoman getting a GRC, changing their birth certificate and then applying for a female only job while not disclosing that they are trans.

There doesn't appear to be any legal way of identifying a trans employee or job applicant with a GRC unless they have disclosed this information themselves, even if they present like Muscato. If it's not legal to say a person is trans it cannot be legal to use the exceptions in the EA.

Fuck this Orwellian shit.

In a way you are right though as the exceptions can only practically be used if the transwoman lets it be known that they are trans. There doesn't appear to be anything to stop a transwoman getting a GRC, changing their birth certificate and then applying for a female only job while not disclosing that they are trans.

The thing is that at the moment this is subject to a certain amount of medical gatekeeping. So the numbers who can do this are restricted. Which is why it's so important to oppose self ID. It's not "irrelevant" to women as trans activists say.

I think we need to challenge on two fronts. Stop self ID in the GRA, and push for women's rights to female spaces etc to be laid out in the EA and the definition of "gender reassignment" made in a way that does not disadvantage women as a group discriminated against and oppressed on the grounds of sex.

Trans Activism uses Trumpisms to work.

Those who use these methods are not trolls. Do not label them as trolls as this underestimates their power and their danger.

This is useful to help understand.

Dangerous to underestimate or dismiss these as fools.

nooka and PencilsInSpace i completely agree with you that the intention behind the exemptions was to allow common sense initiatives such as women-only rape counselling groups, or employment initiatives targeting underrepresented groups.

The problem with the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" phrasing is that, if challenged, you generally need to have objective (often empirical) evidence to support it.

For example, it would not necessarily be enough to see off a legal challenge by saying "of course the majority of women would not want to receive rape counselling from a man who self-identifies as a woman - it is common sense", no matter how obvious that assertion seems. You would probably need to support it with hard evidence - surveys etc - confirming that. Even then, it is a balancing act for the courts to determine whether the decision was BOTH proportionate AND had a legitimate aim. Any resultant discrimination against one class of people with a protected characteristic must be outweighed by the benefits to another class of people with a protected characteristic.

What worries me is that smart trans-activists could bring test cases challenging positions targeted at natal women. I'd actually be surprised if this hasn't happened already

I think also part of the problem is that the protected characteristic for women is "sex" rather than "being a woman". So framing us as a specific protected group in a legal question is difficult.

Ereshkigal exactly - the definitions of gender reassignment and sex as a protected characteristic already conflict with each other:

7 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.

11 Sex
In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

The explanatory notes to the EA 2010 specifically state that trans women can be excluded from acting as rape counsellors for natal women, but only if this can be objectively justified. I don't think it has been challenged yet and, in any event, explanatory notes are not part of the Act itself and are not endorsed by Parliament.

I wonder if it would also clash with sexuality as a protected characteristic if a person was accused of homophobic discrimination or harassment against lesbians but it was shown that they didn't discriminate against heterosexual MTFs ( trans "lesbians").

Which is the position of many trans activists.

Ultimately if we carry on down this road, sex will cease to be a protected characteristic as it will become meaningless.

Discrimination against trans people will still be illegal, but effectively discrimination against women (and lets face it how often are men discriminated against for being men) will have no comeback. How could it, when anyone can be a woman?

With regards to age - I have seen the argument made that LM is only 19 and thus shouldn't be held to the same standard as others/be forgiven for a youthful folly/be guided - that LM's age is used as a defence of repeated misogyny, lies and total unsuitability for the political role suggests to me that those making this defence subconsciously recognise LM as male. The young woman Paris Brown was forced to resign as Youth Police & Crime Commissioner at 17 years old for offensive tweets she had made between the ages of 14 and 16. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22083032

Age may be irrelevant to political clout and wisdom. For example, Mhairi Black was only 20 years old when she entered Parliament and she is a force to be reckoned with. As a lefty she is one of my political icons.

According to analysis by @ PilgrimTucker on Twitter (12:56 am, 30 Dec 2017), who is honest that the figures are estimates and a broad gaze, since becoming women's officer Lily Madigan has tweeted:
7 tweets on women's issues.
700 tweets on trans issues.
1000 tweets about Lilly Madigan.
It seems likely that these round figures are a joke to re-enforce a point but I can't imagine the press and public overlooking such a disparity of interest by an elected Labour Woman. It is an almost Trumpian use of a public profile by an elected official.

Laying aside the trans ideology LM represents for me a wider grievance of feminism. In my opinion one way women and girls are kept out of power and positions is women and girls can never be wrong, only men and boys have that luxury. It is as if patriarchy argues that women are both inferior to men yet should also be held to a higher standard than men. To me this is a calculated method of control. Socially and culturally I have noticed that all the articles which are along the lines of 'Drunk Britain' or 'Obese Britain' or 'Promiscuous Britain' seem to be illustrated by pictures of women doing the offending act. The press and some politicians are quick to blame single mothers but not a word is mentioned about absent fathers. Prostitution is blamed on prostitutes, not the demand created by punters. There are examples ad nauseum. Where are the men? This double standard of youthful mistake vs. bad woman is most apparent in what has been termed the sexual double standard but I believe it is much wider in our patriarchal culture.

"Where does he think these wombs are going to come from?"

From transboys and transmen, of course

They will be expected to act as surrogates and then womb-donors.

As handmaidens.

But wombs from transmen usually are shrunken due to the effects of taking testosterone.

Then I have no doubt that transboys will be bullied into parting with their wombs sooner rather than later.