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.

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.

Surely that could be time off on mental health grounds? Body dysphoria is a health problem.

I'd cover gender dysphoria and surgical transition under "disability" maybe?

Cross posted with you OP

‘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.’

Exactly.

Males that are non-conforming are presumed to be gay men, I have lost count of the amount of people who assume they are gay. Any discrimination they experience is almost certainly due to being perceived as being homosexual.

Having gender reassignment as a protected category impacts females, as it means we have to justify why those it covers should not be permitted into our spaces. If it was written into sex discrimination law that males and females could not be discriminated against due to how they dressed, then that would not infringe on females rights, as it is it does infringe on our rights, as it makes us justify why non-conforming males should be excluded from our spaces.

Many people are discriminated against due to not conforming to stereotypes, they shouldn’t have to subscribe to a belief system in order to be protected from that discrimination. Neither should people be forced to accept a belief system or be seen to be being discriminatory, we don’t have that for any other belief system.

I agree with this.

Transgender people are already protected under the "beliefs" protected characteristic. Gender reassignment should be removed as it is unnecessary and confusing. Equally the GRA should also be scrapped.

Transgender people should absolutely have the same rights as everyone else (and they do) but making other people share your beliefs is not a fundamental right and neither should it be.

Surely that could be time off on mental health grounds? Body dysphoria is a health problem.

I'd cover gender dysphoria and surgical transition under "disability" maybe?

Hmm. Possibly that might work for time off as long as gender dysphoria remains as a mental health condition (I am aware that there are various campaigns to stop this).

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

And this is covered in hate crime law - you don't have to be lesbian/gay - if you are targeted because the perpetrator thinks you are.

I think there needs to be an individual protected characteristic for these people.

Why?

What isn't covered elsewhere?

Suppose an employer said, "We have a token woman on the board, we won't appoint any more.". A woman with a GRC was obviously the best qualified person in the company but was passed over and a man appointed. She could bring a sex discrimination case that she was suffering detriment as a woman compared with a man.

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

There is already discrimination by perception in the Act, which means that eg if you're employer discriminates against you because they think that you are gay, you can bring a claim for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation even if you are straight.

So a transwoman who passes as a woman can bring a sex discrimination claim, regardless of whether they have a GRC.

OP don't you ever sleep? You have been posting since 3.30am!

Perhaps the OP is in a different time zone...

this isn’t taking back any rights for women.

Of course it is.

It means that sex is a protected characteristic for females that males can't identify into (which currently renders it meaningless as a protected characteristic).

Providers are going to be clearer about that, so they will stop tiptoeing around this nebulous notion of innate gender and base their policies in concrete reality, in such a way that protects women regarding the material reality of their lives instead. That actually protects women on the basis of their biological sex, as the original hard-won laws intended.

I think the telling thing about this example

Suppose an employer said, "We have a token woman on the board, we won't appoint any more.". A woman with a GRC was obviously the best qualified person in the company but was passed over and a man appointed. She could bring a sex discrimination case that she was suffering detriment as a woman compared with a man.

Is the total lack of outrage at the idea of a company being happy with one ‘token woman’ and the focus then being on which man gets to take the next spot.

How about challenging all discrimination? How about saying diversity is not a benefit it’s a baseline expectation?

I bet a board of 50/50 or majority women would be a lot less likely to discriminate against a trans person.

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

No its not true. Imagine a woman is passed over for promotion because a female colleague 'does femininity' and she doesn't, she would be within her rights to call that sex discrimination - because women in that business are being held to certain standards that men aren't. For example the woman who was sacked for wearing flat shoes to work.

Actually the bit that jumped out at me was this.

A woman with a GRC was obviously the best qualified person in the company but was passed over and a man appointed

I mean, obviously, right? How could this hypothetical person possibly not be the person best qualified? Especially compared to all those "other" women with vaginas.

I don't think the changing name on marriage thing is relevant — marital/civil partnership status is also a protected characteristic, which I imagine that could fall under.

I don't really think you could cover it under homophobia — it would just make people confused about the definition and tie sexualities and gender closer together, which I think would be a bit rubbish for everybody.

Sexism isn't discrimination on the basis of being gender non Conforming.

It can be. For example a woman being told to go home and shave her legs before she is allowed back to work. That is sexism and sex discrimination, because the male colleagues are not being subjected to that body policing. Likewise it would be if a hypothetical male is sent home for wearing make-up and a skirt, which female employees are not sent home for.

It is discrimination on basis of sex. So you are discriminating against someone because they are a man or a woman at a basic level.

Yes sexism/sex discrimination also covers discrimination on the basis of sex.

They don't have to be gender non conforming for it be sexism. Being a girly woman or a manly man does[n't?] prevent one from becoming a victim of sexism.

Of course. Sexism is based on sex and sex stereotypes. Conforming to or rejecting those stereotypes doesn't protect you from sexism, they both come with their own sexist baggage.

Transphobia is discrimination on the basis that someone is transsexual.

What is a transsexual? How is a transsexual different from someone who strongly (in their own mind) defies the stereotypes associated with their sex?

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.

You could re-word that as - it is the fact that they reject the stereotypes of their sex which leads to discrimination (sexism), along with confusing people about their sexuality which is homophobic discrimination and may also have grounds in their religion/belief in 'innate gender' where their appearance in an expression of that belief, that they are discriminated against.

I don't think the changing name on marriage thing is relevant

Marriage isn't the only reason people will have id with a different name to their birth certificate.

appearance is an expression of that belief.

Apologies for saying the same things others have said already - I have been working through the thread chronologically.

As for sleep - I am in a UK time zone and yes, the issue of subjective beliefs being enshrined in law at the expense of women and girls is something I am literally losing sleep over.

It is an enormous and pressing concern.

No compromise or workaround is going to work sadly. Not when one side will settle for nothing less than the removal of women from society.

But the whole ludicrous (and dangerous) situation hinges on (a) there being such a thing as 'women's clothes/ behaviour' or 'men's clothes/ behaviour' and (b) on anyone caring if you don't stick to the ones those rules.

If we just taught kids that they can wear what they like, play with whatever toys they liked and have the personality type they liked then not only would this cease to be a problem, but there'd be no difference between trans and anyone else anyway.

Transgender can only exist in a society with rigid stereotypes and penalties for not honouring them.

What would being trans mean and how could you know you were if your dad was a florist who wore a dress as it was cooler in the greenhouse and your mum drove a tractor or racing cars.

No compromise or workaround is going to work sadly. Not when one side will settle for nothing less than the removal of women from society.

But surely many people go into politics with a sincere desire to make the world a better place - there may be sociopaths who do it for egoistic reasons, but they have to be in the minority right?

Is there no reason for hope?

I am afraid I can’t see either how this benefits women or how it is not an example of simply wanting to remove rights from a group. If the need for sex segregation is enshrined in law then why do you need to scrap a law that offers protection to another group?

You really are performing mental gymnastics to argue that it is sexism and as Ally has said, this is unlikely to be held up in court and has given the example of gay people having to argue sexism and failing. As for arguing it is a disability (mental health) probably best not to go there. I am pretty sure it would be subject to challenges.

On another note, is there an official group leading this campaign? I think it needs some organised effort and maybe even proposed drafts of updating the equality act. I think the recent confirmation from the government that they will listen to women is a positive and the opportunity needs to be grabbed by the horns so that a substantive proposal can be put to them of what women in fact want. ManFriday has done a great job at raising awareness- I just think it would be fantastic if a women’s group could put forward actual wording of what we are seeking in terms of updating the EA (which is needed regardless of whether self-ID comes in I think).

I am afraid I can’t see either how this benefits women or how it is not an example of simply wanting to remove rights from a group.

How is that other group defined?

How are they distinct?

What does 'gender reassignment' mean?

How can people interpret 'gender reassignment' in such a way that doesn't nullify the protected characteristic of 'sex'?

How can gender be reassigned without ratifying a belief in two distinct 'genders' which can be 'reassigned', which is basically enshrining sex stereotypes into law.?

If the need for sex segregation is enshrined in law then why do you need to scrap a law that offers protection to another group?

What extra protections does this group need that aren't covered by sex, sexuality and religion/belief?

What extra protections does this group need that aren't covered by sex, sexuality and religion/belief?

Do you mean "What extra protections does this group need that wouldn't be covered by sex, sexuality and religion/belief if the EA was rewritten to cover gender reassignment under religion/ belief".