Is Transphobia Actually Sexism?

[CiderIsRealAle]

(NC not new poster)

When a person is discriminated against or bullied because they present or behave in a way that defies sex sterotypes, it is a manifestation of sexism (often with homophobia thrown in).

This means the hastily added and confusing protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act is unnecessary, because sex already covers it.

For example. If someone is male by birth but changes to a female name and presents in ways associated with women - long hair, make up, dresses, etc and their employer insists they dress 'like a man' - that is sex discrimination and a double standard because they would accept a woman wearing the same clothes to work.

So how about removing 'gender reassignment' from the EA protected characteristics and raising awareness that a male (or female) who is being compelled to adhere to sex stereotypes is experiencing sexism?

How about transgenderism/transsexualism comes under the protected category of religion or belief?

Hate crime on the basis of sex (for not confirming to sex stereotypes) could be included too, which would mean that both misogyny and what is currently considered 'transphobia' would also be covered.

This would mean everyone is protected, including women, and no one's rights are trampled and if the now not needed GRA (gay marriage allowed + transsexualism is a protected belief/religion) the extra bonus is that the law would be based on reality again.

One quick example - the ability to bring complaints of indirect discrimination would be wiped out.

Please explain how this is not just sexism

Taking back our rights that trans activists have successfully removed, rather.

NCing for this is a huge red flag.

Suppose a golf club tried to stop most trans people joining by bringing in a rule that members had to show a birth certificate and passport in the same name and gender.

I don't understand what you mean. Birth certs show your sex not gender (unless GRA falsified it - which could be scrapped /reversed).

If a golf club discriminated against a person because they'd changed their name/presentation in such a way that defies the stereotypes associated with their biological sex, then that golf club is committing unlawful sex discrimination by insisting members adhere to sexist stereotypes.

So in my example about a woman with a GRC being passed over for promotion which went to a less-qualified man, show how she can bring a case of direct discrimination without a GRC.

How about a person who is passed over for promotion by someone less qualified, but conforms to sex stereotypes, is recognised as sex discrimination for both sexes?

A bit like the way women are can be promoted or not, on the basis of their willingness to look a certain (sexist) way.

Producing a birth certificate in the right name is hard for trans people.

Surely this is no different than people who change their name by deed pole?

Sorry, but people aren't stupid. The reduction in trans rights from the OP's proposal is considerable

But the only example given in golf course membership....

I agree with angry re the homophobia bit as well

Ive got no interest in taking anyones rights away

But i don't understand how this does when you would still be able to do it under religious reasons, or sexism or homophobia or you coukd add in gender presentation or transphobia I suppose

But this isn’t taking back any rights for women. If so, I have missed the point. It’s simply removing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. If a man decides to transition and faces problems at work, those are due to gender reassignment, not sexism. Sexism is behaviour that tends to treat members of one sex less favourably. It’s an extremely tenuous argument to say that by bullying a trans person, that is in fact treating a whole sex class less favourably. It’s not.
I can’t see this coming across to anyone as anything other than wanting to remove existing rights.

So the EA would be rewritten so that trans was covered under the religious beliefs part? How is that different in any practical sense?
Because it would scrap the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' which currently ratifies a personal subjective belief in 'innate genders' in law, which discriminates against non believers. Otherwise 'souls' might as well be a protected characteristic - which discrimates against atheists and would similarly lead to confused providers not protecting/serving people with characteristics based in biological reality.

But i don't understand how this does when you would still be able to do it under religious reasons, or sexism or homophobia or you coukd add in gender presentation or transphobia I suppose

Gender presentation & transphobia are already covered by sexism, religion/belief and homophobia.

Meanwhile the opposite to this viewpoint - that the fact of whether one is male or female is based on how one dresses and presents, and can be changed at will, is in fact deeply misogynistic.

Precisely.

When applied to non-conforming males it's mostly homophobia, even if they're not actually gay.

Precisely.

Without a GRC she would have no case because the comparison would be between two men.

Well, yes. That is true. Two adult human males. The person would still be able to claim discrimination against protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

But this isn’t taking back any rights for women.

Well, quite. I'm interested in women and girls and their rights, spaces, services and protections.

Whatever protections trans people want to fight for are only relevant to my priorities if they negatively affect the rights, spaces, services and protections of women and girls.

When applied to non-conforming males it's mostly homophobia, even if they're not actually gay.

YY.

When applied to non-conforming males it's mostly homophobia, even if they're not actually gay.

Also, this point is germane to the standard for hate incidents being perception of victim not motive of perpetrator. Our statistics probably exaggerate the number of transphobic incidents and underestimate the number of homophobic incidents.

I agree that we shouldn't scrap gender reassignment as a protected characteristic but I think in terms of protected characteristic of sex they should always be male.

If a man decides to transition and faces problems at work, those are due to gender reassignment, not sexism

That is the perspective of someone who shares a belief if innate gender. For pepole who don't subscribe to it, it is this:

If a man decides to defy sex stereotypes and wear clothes/etc associated with the opposite sex and is discriminated against as a result of it, that is sex discrimination.

Transphobia isn't sexism. Sexi isn't descrinibation on basis of being gender non Coforming. It us discrimination on basis of sex. So you are discriminating against someone because they are a man or a woman at a basic level. They don't have to be gender non conforming for it be sexism. Being a girly woman or a manly man does prevent one from becoming a victim of sexism. Transphobia is discrimination on the basis that someone is tansexual. It doesn't matter what sex they are, it is the fact that they have decided to present as the opposite sex that forms the basis of discrimination.

I agree that we shouldn't scrap gender reassignment as a protected characteristic but I think in terms of protected characteristic of sex they should always be male.

So you approve of the way this confusing article of personal faith was sneaked into law?

The person themselves may interpret it as being due to gender reassignment, but in fact it's more likely due to gender nonconformity (which the kind of person who'd be shitty about that likely perceives as linked to homosexuality whether it is or not), and someone who looks or behaves the same way and has no genderfeelings whatsoever would in all likelihood be bullied or harassed in the same way by the same people.

Not every instance of the 'phobia' is motivated by the same reason. If gender ID was a protected characteristic, then trans people would have the same protection as other groups.

But there still need to be exceptions, because not every instance of what is perceived as exclusionary behaviour is a case of discrimination.

This means the hastily added and confusing protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act is unnecessary, because sex already covers it.

I don't think that actually works on the current wording of the Act unfortunately. Parliament has made it clear, for example, that they don't think that a right to cross-dress is covered by the Act.

This reminds me of that case brought before gay discrimination had been banned. IIRC a woman with a female partner argued that she would be treated better if she was a male with a female partner, so it was really her sex which was the reason for the discrimination. But the case failed and the court said you would need a specific law to prohibit discrimination against gay people.

However, I think beefing up the Act to include protection for people who do not conform to stereotypes would be really progressive and a great idea. With some clever drafting, you could even make it relevant to other protected characteristics (eg older women who like wearing short skirts should not be treated badly by an employer if they are happy with their younger female employees wearing short skirts).

An amendment could have the effect of both protecting transvesites (ie men who dress as women but are not intending to undergo a permanent process of changing their gender) and would also force employers to accept women wearing flat shoes instead of heels if their male employees can wear flats.

I wouldn't necessarily scrap gender reassignment though as a protected characteristic as there are some situations where this offers additional protections that wouldn't be covered by sex - eg time off work for surgery which they are undertaking as part of the reassignment process.

With some clever drafting, you could even make it relevant to other protected characteristics (eg older women who like wearing short skirts should not be treated badly by an employer if they are happy with their younger female employees wearing short skirts).

Actually ignore this bit of the above, it's not a good example. It's not really a stereotype and might already covered. My brain's not working brilliantly today. But there are some other stereotypes associated with other protected characteristics that could be relevant.

So you approve of the way this confusing article of personal faith was sneaked into law?

No, but I think there needs to be an individual protected characteristic for these people. It doesn't have to be called "gender reassignment". It could be about being "gender non conforming" generally.