Trans unpeak.

[Regularhuey]

After reaching peak trans I have followed a few well known Radical Feminist groups on SM to learn more.

Sadly I have come across actual genuine transphobia in GC groups which I thought was just propaganda put out by TRAs.

Because I only ever hung around in naice intellectual spaces such as here, I thought they would all be a bit like MN feminist chat.

One summary of a conversation went along the lines of

Group post
"There's a Transwoman fitting bras at a London branch of M&S" Shock face.

Replies include "oh no (angry face) I'm never taking my daughter there"

Me:
"Men can work as a bra fitter. We should be able to ask staff for a female fitter if we want one"

Cue loads of hypothetical scenarios that we don't know will ever happen and predictable posts about AGP and boycotting M&S.

Anyway this is just one example of many I've come across recently.

I just suppose, as GC feminists perhaps we should be doing more to call out transphobia when we do see it because it seems lots of people are using GC feminism to express their hostility to Transpeople.

@Zero Privacy for the majority should be protected.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just pointing out how difficult it would be to scrap the Gender Recognition Act even if politicians were inclined to do so.

For some, the ability to have a GRC and to be legally recognised as their chosen gender means a lot. Maybe not to all trans people but to some.

Genuine question about GRCs: why do so few people get one? Paris Lees hasn't got one, and you can't really get more 'authentic transwoman' than them - in fact they sometimes talk about not having one like a bit of a badge of honour?

I don't think Paris Lee's is the archetypal trans woman. Yes I think she looks quite feminine but the things she says would not necessarily represent most trans women.

Yes, that's true I guess Italian - but their whole USP, if you like, is being trans, they obviously lives their life 'as a woman' (whatever that means) so I don't know why they havent got a GRC?

I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea that it should be possible to get legal recognition as something you are not.

This was always bad law that conflated immutable sex with the right to personal expression.

The law should recognise material reality and be constructed to address inequalities that result from those realities.
Not, designed to misrepresent and rearrange reality so that the inequalities persist but cannot be recognised as such any longer.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea that it should be possible to get legal recognition as something you are not.

Yes, this is where I am at too, and it's why you can't really compare the trans rights movement to gay rights, or black rights or anything else really.

No other movement has had at its core, the demand that people are recognised, in law, as something that they are absolutely not.

And women weren't as bothered about it before, because the very few people who did live in this way just got on with their lives and didn't demand anything of women. That's changed and now women are saying 'actually..... No'.

Worth remembering that Kees is legally as well as biologically male.

Yy Ellen

Kees Lees jeez

I'm increasingly seeing the label 'transphobia' being used to mean 'woman not putting the best interests of a trans person first

Yes, that's exactly what it generally means now. And it's quite interesting how the people accusing women of it so rarely challenge men when they take the piss or say there's no way they'd consider having sex with a trans identified male.

Would you preserve their rights against discrimination under the Equality Act?

Yes. Discrimination doesn't mean "not being able to invade the privacy and ignore the boundaries of female people." So I'd obviously tighten things up a bit.

It is very encouraging if the example of a woman not wanting a transwoman to touch around their breasts is the worst example of "transphobia" the OP could find.

The reason they are going so hard against this bra fitting thing is that they know full well most women would consider it an invasion of privacy.

ZeroFoxGiven the thread had moved on to also talk about other instances where intimate or personal services were being provided. It is the general principle that is relevant.

Here, we have the opposite I think it is similar - in that if M&S didn't want to employ a trans woman as a bra fitter to other women then they wouldn't have to. It's their decision same as you have highlighted for the other service (more sensitive topic obviously). Presumably M&S think employing such a person won't put off women from using their shops and services; maybe they know something we don't? Time will tell I guess.

It is very encouraging if the example of a woman not wanting a transwoman to touch around their breasts is the worst example of "transphobia" the OP could find.

Yes!

LangCleg We now have same sex marriage and an equal pension age. So the original need is no longer there. It also allows issuing of a new birth certificate, which would mean in situations were trans people have to use it they are not forced to out themselves or disclose (or confirm if suspected) their medical history. Same as other people don't. That will be important to some.

Gender expression/non-conformity within EqA is the rational area for legislative protection for trans people.
It's one area for protection. There are others like above. Also being able to get married as the right sex not just the same sex.

the protected category should not be the nebulous inner feeling -"gender identity" - but a matter of practical and material reality - "gender expression" - so that it can be properly adjudicated in the courts. To the benefit of trans people.
Agree with that. To the benefit of all, particularly vulnerable women.

ZeroFoxGiven the thread had moved on to also talk about other instances where intimate or personal services were being provided. It is the general principle that is relevant.

The example that you gave is at best irrelevant to anything that has been discussed in this thread. Genuine question - what post do you think it relates to? I haven't seen anyone saying that there aren't some exemptions in the Equality Act which allow employers/service providers etc, in certain limited circumstances, to treat transwomen differently from women. All I have seen is people concerned about the fall out when companies fail to apply those exemptions.

I think it's not on to come along and condescendingly suggest that people read the Equality Act when you clearly have no understanding of its application. You have also accused people of scaremongering which I have not seen any evidence of.

Presumably M&S think employing such a person won't put off women from using their shops and services;

Well it is clearly putting some women off. This whole thread was started because some people on here are planning to boycott M&S, and the OP thinks that this is transphobic because men can be bra fitters and they think women should just not be given a trans bra fitter if they ask for a female (despite the fact that as detailed in my posts above, this wouldn't be possible under the current law).

I don't think this is an example of transphobia for what it's worth. If someone would be happy with a male bra fitter but not a transwoman bra fitter then that would be transphobic. But I don't think that is anyone's position.

If someone would be happy with a male bra fitter but not a transwoman bra fitter then that would be transphobic. But I don't think that is anyone's position.

Exactly. And the elephant in the room

What about elderly female residents in care homes? My mum was looked after ie. given a bath, by a male care assistant and although it didn't seem appropriate to complain at the time, I wonder now if I should have done, and how it would have been handled. I assumed I would have been told that as female care assistants bathe male residents, equal opportunities would say the reverse was also acceptable.

Was I wrong to have stayed silent?

.

Was I wrong to have stayed silent?

If your mother was comfortable and happy with the care given and the person providing it then no.

If she didn’t want to be bathed by a male then yes, you could have said something.

Same sex carers for personal elderly (indeed any age) care should be available. The workforce is very female dominated so it really shouldn’t be an issue finding a female carer to do activities like bathing.
Sadly elderly men in care homes have too few Male carers.

Again equal ops isn’t really true here - a woman is far more at risk of sexual assault by being bathed by a man than vice versa.

Safety is far less of an issue with women bathing elderly men - it’s more dignity (which is still important of course.)

Can I just ask: the exemptions in the EA do not apply simply to the specified circumstances do they? It's a 'such as'?

Thanks, Bowlofbabelfish

Funnily enough, it was a young male carer who persuaded her into having her first bath (after six months), so I guess she didn't have a problem. She had Alzheimer's so couldn't really give consent.

I do wonder if older male residents are more comfortable with female carers, that vice versa though, as their generation is more likely to associate 'nurses' as female.

I think it’s certainly possible they are.

In this case I think go purely on how you see the situation - if she’s comfortable and you’re happy there’s no issue. There are undoubtedly many excellent, professional Male carers and If a patient is happy then there’s nothing to complain about.

It’s more of a female patient does not want a Male carer for any reason at all - they should never be forced.

"Gender expression/non-conformity within EqA is the rational area for legislative protection for trans people."

"It's one area for protection. There are others like above. Also being able to get married as the right sex not just the same sex."

What do you mean by right sex? Do you mean gender identity? Gender and sex are not the same thing.

I need to think about this. Would I, say in twenty years, be happy with a male carer providing me with intimate care if I was in a care home?

Right now, whilst I have capacity to make that decision, no. Maybe I should tell my children.