Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Please change my mind : trans

307 replies

lurker33 · 29/05/2018 17:52

I've been lurking in the feminist boards for a while now, watching the discussions on trans. I am generally a live and let live kind of person, as long as it's not affecting anyone else adversely. Unfortunately I am coming to the conclusion that transgenderism is not a good thing; mainly because it appears to be reinforcing gender stereotypes. Why can't we have boys that like traditionally girls things and girls that like traditionally boys things?

Recently I was at an event where there were people who were talking about their experiences in a technical, male dominated area. 5 speakers were billed, two of which were women. Oh, well done organisers of said event I thought, for providing a well balanced panel of speakers, including two women who I could hold up as role models to my 8 yo daughter who had attended with me.

On further reading it transpired that one of the women billed was actually a transwoman.

How can I hold up a transwoman as a role model for my daughter, especially one who has transitioned late in life? My daughter won't have the same opportunities that a boy growing up will have, won't have to put up with the casual sexism us women all have to deal with, and quite frankly my daughter has nothing at all in common with this speaker.

It made me quite angry, which surprised me, and it dawned on me that calling transwoman a woman is actually an insult to women. I'll get flamed for this I'm sure but I can see a similarity to blackface where it's insulting for a white person to pretend to be black as white people are opressors of black people. It's insulting for a man to say he is a woman when men are opressors of women.

I do acknowledge the transwoman's struggle to be accepted for who they are, but that struggle has nothing in common with the struggle that women go though every day. Transwomen should be free to live their lives as they see fit but please don't think they have anything in common with women other than being part of the human race.

Transwomen are transwomen and are of the male sex, women are women and are of the female sex. There is nothing wrong with excluding people from a group if they don't have any attributes of that group. If you are insulted by scientific fact then perhaps you need to think again.

I am not sure what I am asking really. My female socialisation means that I feel slightly dirty for having come to this conclusion. If there are any transphilic people out there, I am happy to have my mind changed if you provide me with some coherent arguments as to why I shouldn't feel this way.

OP posts:
SupermatchGame · 30/05/2018 22:20

For the purposes of protecting an individual's privacy which is also legal.

A GRC can't really change a person's legal sex if they can be legally excluded from sex based services, can it?

Baroque it isn't about 'can't really change a person's legal sex'. It actually does change a person's legal sex.

RatRolyPoly · 30/05/2018 22:24

It changes their legal sex in all cases. The exemptions are times when they are exempt from being treated exactly as their new legal sex; e.g. in sport. A GRC-holding female is subject to conditions that a natal female is not. They are not, however treated as a natal male.

So they're not exemptions to them being considered their new sex and so being treated instead as their old one. They are exemptions to treating them exactly as their new sex. They must be treated exactly as their acquired sex except in those circumstances.

Does that make sense?

Baroquehavoc · 30/05/2018 22:38

Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't.

I'm interpretating it as someone with a GRC can be treated as their desired sex, unless sex is important, than it is legally ok not to treat them as their desired sex.

RatRolyPoly · 30/05/2018 22:50

Have you read it Baroque?

"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman
Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."

The "provisions" (e.g. the exemptions) state in what way someone with a GRC can be treated differently to someone of their acquired sex.

They do not state how someone is "exempt" from being treated as their acquired sex and so should be treated as their former sex. That is not what's in there.

So it's not "transwomen are women except when there's good reason, then they're men" - as per your interpretation. It's "transwomen are women except when there's good reason, then they're TRANSWOMEN".

RatRolyPoly · 30/05/2018 22:54

unless sex is important, than it is legally ok not to treat them as their desired sex.

In those cases it's not on the basis of their sex that you're discriminating against them, because their sex is female. You're discriminating against them on the grounds of their "gender reassignment" - which is also a protected characteristic - and is allowed when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. I'm quite sure that's right.

YourVagesty · 30/05/2018 23:05

I noticed the other day that the women who pulled the Hampstead Men's Pond stunt (bravo) were rightly perceived by the men at the pool, and by the attendant police, as female. I can't quite imagine the police turning up to remove a group of transwomen on the basis of them being men. Imagine that.

One rule for one etc...

Anyway, I agree OP. I find it offensive and refer to it as 'womanface'.

LangCleg · 30/05/2018 23:11

You're discriminating against them on the grounds of their "gender reassignment" - which is also a protected characteristic - and is allowed when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. I'm quite sure that's right.

For once, I agree with Rat. The exemptions are permissions to discriminate against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

thebewilderness · 30/05/2018 23:12

Corporations are not people, my friends, in spite of the fact that the laws treat them as such in order to give them advantages over actual human people.

Baroquehavoc · 30/05/2018 23:17

So it's not "transwomen are women except when there's good reason, then they're men" - as per your interpretation. It's "transwomen are women except when there's good reason, then they're TRANSWOMEN".

Where did you get that quote from? I never mentioned 'men'.

Nethertheles, someone with a GRA can be excluded from sex based segregation legally.

lurker33 · 31/05/2018 00:01

Thank u Rowan for that link
www.peaktrans.org/bad-arguments/

The article is well thought through. I notice that the writer is Maria of speakers corner fame (I have been lurking for a loooong time).

Milly - Have you read the article that Rowan linked to and I've pasted above (sorry, no idea how to get a clicky link)? I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal of any of the points argued.

OP posts:
GardenGeek · 31/05/2018 00:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 00:14

For once, I agree with Rat. The exemptions are permissions to discriminate against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

They are yes, but the need to exempt some people on the grounds of sex who have the protected category of gender reassignment is only an issue because they're not actually that biological sex. So it's a bit circular to think of it as just a certain EA characteristic they possess (not you, but the way others are framing it) Rape victims may be caused distress if their counsellor is male (specific example given) not because they have a bit of paper saying they are a woman. And the exemptions are not all in the EA and corresponding to gender reassignment, they exist in the GRA too i.e. primogeniture. So a first born female who transitions will not inherit by law (I think the father can opt out of this but if not it's covered by this law).

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 00:17

In those cases it's not on the basis of their sex that you're discriminating against them, because their sex is female. You're discriminating against them on the grounds of their "gender reassignment" - which is also a protected characteristic - and is allowed when it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. I'm quite sure that's right.

This is basically sophistry, Rat. Of course their actual sex is relevant. Because the law recognises there is a difference between the legal fiction of being female and the reality.

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 00:20

It's "transwomen are women except when there's good reason, then they're TRANSWOMEN".

Who everyone knows are actually men i.e. adult human males.

differentnameforthis · 31/05/2018 03:35

except you don't appear to have read any of my posts... On the contrary, I have read so many of your posts.

Italiangreyhound · 31/05/2018 05:46

*RatRolyPoly "It changes their legal sex in all cases."

RatRolyPoly "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender..."

So what changes, their legal sex, or their legal gender? Because lots of people say they are different (and I would see them as different). So if it is actually their gender that changes then it makes sense that when the question is about 'sex', that they can be excluded from some sex category if the change is not based on 'sex' and is actually based on gender.

And if it is not based on gender, why is it called a gender recognition certificate?

I am not being argumentative but I find it weird that 'gender' is talked about a lot by transgender people and yet it seems to be conflated with sex.

(Rat - hope your baby is better)

RatRolyPoly · 31/05/2018 06:48

So what changes, their legal sex, or their legal gender? Because lots of people say they are different

Unhelpfully sex and gender are actually conflated in the GRA itself. So in the GRA... it's both.

Baby is still sad but but now no so sick, thank you :)

LangCleg · 31/05/2018 10:19

They are yes, but the need to exempt some people on the grounds of sex who have the protected category of gender reassignment is only an issue because they're not actually that biological sex. So it's a bit circular to think of it as just a certain EA characteristic they possess (not you, but the way others are framing it) Rape victims may be caused distress if their counsellor is male (specific example given) not because they have a bit of paper saying they are a woman.

Yes. Specifics of legal terminology over actual spirit of the law. Rat is technically correct but in a way that skims over the reasons for the exemptions.

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 10:27

Yes. Specifics of legal terminology over actual spirit of the law. Rat is technically correct but in a way that skims over the reasons for the exemptions.

Exactly.

Italiangreyhound · 31/05/2018 11:42

That's the trouble Rat we know sex can't change, so it makes the GRA seem less valid if it confusing 'thinks' or makes us think sex has changed.

I wonder how much actual women have been involved in the laws around this. My guess is not so much.

Hope baby gets better soon. Flowers

Baroquehavoc · 31/05/2018 12:16

I can see how the GRA took shape. It was trying to protect a small number of people who just wanted to fit in. A TS would go out if their way not to be outed, therefore would avoid many situations including certain womens spaces and roles. And a GRC would allow them to travel and work without the risk of being outed.

But that has changed. Many are happy to talk about being trans (and there is nothing wrong with that) and want access to all female spaces and roles.

So rather than TS doing their best to be like women and seen as women, we have a situation were the definition of women has to change to accommodate TIM.

If we are to accept TIM as women, we need to be truthful and look at why sex segregation is wanted and needed. Girls and women needs and wants are still valid and just pretending that the don't matter is not helping anyone. I don't understand why any kind considerate person would think otherwise.

GibbertyFlibbert · 31/05/2018 12:24
Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 12:37

Pure sophistry. No, because I'm entitled to apply for certain roles reserved only for actual females, while males with pieces of paper to say they're female aren't. So no they are not in any way as female as actual women. The law (both the GRA and the EA) recognises the difference between the legal fiction and the reality and that that difference matters in some situation. Fine. It should apply in more. That's why we are not going to shut up about it.

Ereshkigal · 31/05/2018 12:40

If we are to accept TIM as women, we need to be truthful and look at why sex segregation is wanted and needed. Girls and women needs and wants are still valid and just pretending that the don't matter is not helping anyone. I don't understand why any kind considerate person would think otherwise.

This. But I'm never going to accept them as women, as they are in most cases quite obviously male. But I do want them to have legal protections as trans people. Apart from that personal disagreement, great post!

R0wantrees · 31/05/2018 12:44

(extract)
"There are very few circumstances where a birth certificate can be changed. This is because a birth certificate is an historical record, which was correct when the birth was registered"

www.deedpoll.org.uk/CanABirthCertificateBeChanged.html

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.