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.

You really are performing mental gymnastics to argue that it is sexism

No I'm not. I stopped performing mental gymnastics in order to pretend that 'gender reassignment' is a distinct thing, and it all became crystal clear.

LastTrainEast

*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.*

Sorry but this is wrong.

I will say it again - Being trans is NOT about ones preferred choice of clothing or presentation or toys we play with or hobbies we have. It is about our bodies. Even in a world where everyone could wear whatever they want with no judgement, the dysphoria would remain. This is what makes trans people different to everyone else.

With respect to getting rid of the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment.. wow. I have read a lot of far out ideas over the weeks but saying that being transgender should come under the protected characteristic of religion? This shows a deeply flawed understanding of what being transgender actually is.

Transphobia can be a form of homophobia I think, but it depends on the person perpetrating the crime. For example there are many people who are completely comfortable with gay people but have a problem with trans people specifically. This is Transphobia, but those that don't distinguish between gay and trans I guess this would just be straight up homophobic.

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".

In a roundabout way - but I think the belief would be one of 'innate gender' rather than of gender 'reassignment'.

Okay, we obviously disagree on this. I don’t understand it. Maybe the priority in the EA for now is single sex spaces though?

This shows a deeply flawed understanding of what being transgender actually is.

Please clarify what it is, that would be very helpful.

Maybe the priority in the EA for now is single sex spaces though?

In practise 'gender reassignment' and 'case by case basis' are are miles wide in scope and hard to understand or interpret, which confuses providers and they are moving away from providing for single sex.

Yeah I know. That is why if the EA were amended to place a duty on service providers to provide single sex spaces in certain circumstances would address that. It would give women legal redress if a service provider failed to do so. The aim is surely to protect women, not to claim that being transgender is either a religion or a mental illness? Let trans people have specific legal protections but let women have them too.

‘Maybe the priority in the EA for now is single sex spaces though?’

We can’t have single sex spaces, if the EA allows males covered by gender reassignment, into our spaces. The only way we can have truly single sex spaces, is if we stop permitting all males into our spaces, regardless of how they identify. We can’t have truly single sex spaces, while certain males are being permitted entry, due to having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Many of us want to regain all of our single sex spaces and not have to justify each one.

The aim is surely to protect women, not to claim that being transgender is either a religion or a mental illness?

Transgenderism is a non-material/observable personal belief that one's 'gender' is somehow and innate, intrinsic part of one. How can it be anything else? There is no way to objectively verify it.

Let trans people have specific legal protections but let women have them too.

What is a trans person?

No

IF someone is being discriminated against by being trans ie genuine discrimination, not hurt feelings at not being accepted as biologically of the opposite sex.

Then the discrimination is based on their appearance NOT their sex, therefore not sexism.

Then the discrimination is based on their appearance NOT their sex, therefore not sexism.

But surely if a woman is bullied/discriminated against for not shaving her legs (her appearance) that is sexism?

So why doesn't that work the other way around for men who don't observe male stereotypical appearance?

CiderIsRealAle Please refer to the paragraph I typed before the one you quoted for starters.

Being trans is not a belief. Gender Dysphoria is not a religion that one subscribes to. It is a real thing.

I agree with the OP and I think that this is a truly progressive idea that would ensure that transgender people cannot be discriminated against for being trans whilst simultaneously protecting the hard-won rights of girls and women.

It would be an excellent solution to the current conflicting rights problem. It would also have the potential to create some badly needed common ground between trans rights and women's rights. The two groups would be fighting for and defending the same thing; the right to be sex stereotype non compliant.

But I don't see the trans movement wanting that. Their current fight is for transwomen to have the right to be women and to have women's rights despite the biological impossibility of changing one's reproductive sex and the material reality of girls' and women's reproductive sex being the reason why we need women's rights.

So the conflict will continue and unfortunately there are plenty of sexists who don't give a shiny one about trans rights who are happy to support a fiction of gender reassignment as it erodes women's rights.

Gender Dysphoria is not a religion that one subscribes to. It is a real thing.

Body dysphoria is a real thing, but it is a mental condition/disorder which can be covered by mental health/disability.

To take it a step further and say that dysphoria is a recognition of one's 'innate gender' is actually veering into belief/religion, because 'innate gender' is not objectively provable like a soul isn't (yet people of pretty much all faiths believe in them).

CiderIsRealAle - Please refer to the below. It is not a mental illness.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

It would be an excellent solution to the current conflicting rights problem.

But how would it? Couldn't someone equally claim they've been discriminated against by being denied access to the women's loos but just on the basis of their belief rather than the basis of their gender reassignment.

‘That is why if the EA were amended to place a duty on service providers to provide single sex spaces in certain circumstances would address that.’

In order to think that there should only be ‘certain circumstances’ these males should not be permitted into our spaces, you have to believe that gender reassignment is a magical thing that changes someone from one sex to another. Those of us that do not believe in gender ideology are arguing that female only spaces should not make exceptions for particular types of males, if males are excluded, then all males should be excluded no exceptions.

I assumed that poster just meant "certain circumstances" as in they need to provide single sex toilets and changing rooms but not buses and supermarkets. Might be wrong though.

Please refer to the below. It is not a mental illness.

Thanks for the link NatLuc but it says Biological sex is assigned at birth, which immediately invalidates everything else on the page.

We aren't assigned a sex we are a sex.

Therefore I don't trust the rigour of the piece.

Couldn't someone equally claim they've been discriminated against by being denied access to the women's loos but just on the basis of their belief rather than the basis of their gender reassignment.

No. For example, Sikhs are supposed to carry a sword with them - which would obviously be unacceptable in the work place because of the safety and wellbeing of other employees, so they mainly carry a small non-functional representation of a sword.

So a person who said they believed in innate gender which means they are entitled to use the loos for the opposite sex could be challenged because sex is a protected characteristic, so they must find ways to act in accordance with their beliefs that don't impinge on others rights.

CiderIsRealAle It is your right to 'believe' that. But I will place my trust in the NHS.

There is no need to change the law as it is now.
Transgender people can get a GRC if they want to be recognised.
Trans people should be protected by laws against harassment.
Women's spaces should be protected by sex.
It's a none issue.

"So a person who said they believed in innate gender which means they are entitled to use the loos for the opposite sex could be challenged because sex is a protected characteristic, so they must find ways to act in accordance with their beliefs that don't impinge on others rights."

So now you do admit that removing gender reassignment as a protected characteristic would reduce the rights of transsexual people (to use the term in Equality Act 2010)

I will place my trust in the NHS

Of course, the NHS has fallen in line with your subjective beliefs and ideology in sharp contrast to reality.

This is why I now believe they can't be trusted to communicate impartial, objective facts. It is a sorry thing for us non-believers, to not be able to trust the NHS

So now you do admit that removing gender reassignment as a protected characteristic would reduce the rights of transsexual people

I am not sure what you mean. Could you walk me through what you are thinking there please?