Trans Voices For Appeal Complain About Together For Yes Campaign

[SunsetBeetch]

You couldn't make it up at this point, could you?

""Trans Voices for Repeal would like the..Together for Yes campaign..to formally acknowledge the pain their actions have caused trans people in Ireland, the negative effect their campaign has had on the mental health of trans people and the unnecessary nature of this exclusion."

twitter.com/doormatt134/status/1000620731468845057?s=19

medium.com/@transvoicesforrepeal/trans-voices-for-repeal-call-on-the-together-for-yes-campaign-to-formally-apologise-to-trans-people-84931f0fa85d

I don’t really want to strongly defend this point - if I was writing legislation, I’d write pregnant women without blinking. I get that the reason trans activists want the neutral language is to make us believe men can get pregnant - but you can’t actually control people’s thoughts, and back in the real world pregnant people = women.

I was just saying, to me, having the legislation say pregnant people isn’t the biggest problem with the transagenda. I’m not saying I’m ok with language being policed - I’m not down with being forced to say pregnant people rather than pregnant women - but the legislation itself, meh.

Anyway, like I said, I appreciate & understand all the counter arguments and am not going to continue to defend it, I’ve expressed my view.

Anyone have any stats handy for the percentage of people who ID as trans who have narcissistic personality disorder? Because that's what's driving this kind of shit.

The preemptive insistence on "centering" trans people is the reason ENDA didn't pass in the US. So if the Together for Yes campaign did tell this group of people to get lost, well, looks like that was a smart move, politically speaking.

I know someone who was canvassing for T4Y and they were specifically told to refer to pregnant people not pregnant women so I'm not sure what the perceived exclusion was.

It’s not about whether pregnancy is a protected characteristic though - that’s a red herring. Much discrimination against women takes place either because they COULD get pregnant (eg, young women not getting jobs because they might take maternity leave) or because they HAVE BEEN pregnant (women not getting jobs because they are mothers and therefore assumed to be unreliable).

If we lose the ability to talk about pregnant women and about mothers, we lose the ability to challenge vast swathes of our oppression. We won’t be able to challenge the practice if not employing young women, it’s not sexist if men can get pregnant too. For instance.

... The prevalence rates of Axis II disorders ranged from 4.3% (Fisher et al., 2013) to 81.4% (Mazaheri Meybodi et al., 2014b). The type of personality disorder varied from predominantly cluster B (Hepp et al., 2005; Madeddu et al., 2009; Mazaheri Meybodi et al., 2014b) to predominantly cluster C (Heylens et al., 2014a). ...

www.researchgate.net/publication/270281143_The_frequency_of_personality_disorders_in_patients_with_gender_identity_disorder

RatRolyPoly
I believe most folks are 'making it all about' women.

Do when a 30 year old childless woman goes for a job interview it doesn’t once cross the interviewers mind that she might get pregnant?

And that maternity leave is expensive especially for small businesses.

Sex matters. It just does.

There's no point saying we could give in to 'pregnant people' because it's not a lie. Because it will be illegal (discriminatory) to say 'pregnant women' and because whatever we give in to, wherever we give an inch, they take a mile, they will come for more. We HAVE to stop running. We must stand our ground.

Not surprised to see a good number of folks making it all about the transwomen/natal males though. Careful guys, your prejudices are showing.

Lol. Much of this bullshit is being driven by natal males to prop up the trans agenda. Because that's just the "natural" order of things. Because female and male socialisation.

If we lose the ability to talk about pregnant women and about mothers, we lose the ability to challenge vast swathes of our oppression. We won’t be able to challenge the practice if not employing young women, it’s not sexist if men can get pregnant too. For instance.

This. NO.

Feminists being prejudiced in favor of preserving women's hard fought rights to speak for and about themselves is clearly an enormous problem for some people.

If "women" actually just means people (who can be either male of female), then what the hell are these men who identify as women actually identifying as?

The TRAs are in the surreal state of affirming that "woman" does exist while simultaneously insisting that it doesn't exist.

The magical feminine essence!

Anyone have any stats handy for the percentage of people who ID as trans who have narcissistic personality disorder? Because that's what's driving this kind of shit.

The most frequent personality disorder was narcissistic personality disorder (57.1%) and the least frequent was borderline personality disorder

These were patients seeking sex reassignment surgery so presumably all gender dysphoria sufferers.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301205/

Pregnant women are not a protected class, it has to be about sex to be sex discrimination. If men and women can become pregnant, there is no sex difference to be protected.

Actually ‘pregnancy and maternity’ IS one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

Pregnant women are not a protected class, it has to be about sex to be sex discrimination. If men and women can become pregnant, there is no sex difference to be protected

That is not correct. The state of being pregnant is protected. The anti-discrimination laws apply to any one who is pregnant, whether they say they are a woman, man or I don't know, Klingon.

Yes, but as people have said, the idea that not employing women of childbearing age because they might get pregnant is sex discrimination would be undermined.

Yes, but as people have said, the idea that not employing women of childbearing age because they might get pregnant is sex discrimination would be undermined

No it wouldn't. An act is discriminatory if it significantly affects one group more than another.

If an employer does not employ women for that reason they don't get a free pass because they employ 1 trans woman and 99 men.

Is anyone else wondering if the online support forums for men suffering from prostate cancer are being bombarded with trans activists telling them how selfish and exclusionary they are by referring to themselves as men?

When there are some men who identify as women who experience exactly the same problems but are excluded from the discussion by dint of the fact that they don't consider themselves to be men?

And dear Lord, can't you just refer to yourselves as prostate owners rather than men?

Actually just looked on the Macmillan Prostate Cancer Online Forum. No sign of TRAs policing language (or anything else) on there. linky

However, the resident Macmillan nurse on there is billed as a specialist on Men's Cancers.

This will not do.

It should be People's Cancers.

Yes, ereshkigal. The existence of legal protections for pregnancy and maternity (and note ‘MATERnity, ie, motherhood) does not cancel out the need for us to be able to discuss these issues as the sexed issues they are: relating uniquely to female experience.

No it wouldn't. An act is discriminatory if it significantly affects one group more than another.

Lass. It's your opinion. If "women" are not seen as female and "men" not male, and sex stops being considered a meaningful group by policy makers, which is what transactivists want, it's not so clear.

No it wouldn't. An act is discriminatory if it significantly affects one group more than another

Lass. It's your opinion

That isn't my opinion- it is the law. At a simplistic level if an employer has 100 employees, 50 of whom are men and 50 of whom are women and has a working practice which is detrimental to 40 of the women and 10 of the men that practice discriminates against women.

So far as not employing women of child bearing age I can only speak for my own industry but that would eliminate over half the available workforce.

If there's one aspect of naivety in this issue I smile at, it's "the law says so-and-so". It's not just about law, it's about people dancing around what the law says and about the law either not being applied practically or being impractical for individuals or groups who are affected to enforce. Grey areas in law, particularly when there's a difficult public interest aspect, are notoriously expensive to take to the courts.

That isn't my opinion- it is the law

I know. That's not the point. Laws change. Interpretations change. Perceptions change.