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.

How long do we have to tolerate a thread which tries to turn a medical condition into a belief?

There is no need to change the law as it is now.

Why?

Transgender people can get a GRC if they want to be recognised.

Why?
What is being recognised?
What if this impinges on the protected characteristic of sex and women's rights?

Trans people should be protected by laws against harassment.

All people should be protected from harassment based on their sex, sexuality, religion, disability.

Women's spaces should be protected by sex.

Yes.

It's a non issue.

Why? I could do with some hope.

How long do we have to tolerate a thread which tries to turn a medical condition into a belief?
If there any any posts that offend you, feel free to report them.

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.

IMO, no they couldn't because we would be doing away with the fiction that gender reassignment changes a person's reproductive sex. So the legal position would be that a transwoman does not have the right to access female sex segregated space but they are legally protected against harassment, discrimination, etc in male sex segregated spaces for being transgender and non compliant with (sexist) sex role stereotypes.

It's a moot point though because it goes against what the trans movement is currently fighting for which is the right to impose their belief that reproductive sex is not a material reality on everyone (including girls and women who are oppressed as a consequence of the material reality of reproductive sex).

I like the OP's suggestion as it is the first time I've heard of an idea that aims to protect both on the basis of reproductive sex, and, on individual sex role identity, which does not put the 2 in conflict with each other.

Genderists would never go for it though and will call any such idea transphobic because they want absolute compliance with an ideology.

Artemis yeah, as Riddley said, I just mean the circumstances where sex segregation is appropriate like prisons, sport etc. I mean, I don't think we have reached the stage where we should have total segregation for absolutely all aspects of life (although it would be more peaceful for sure).

Look, I am not sure it comes across as very progressive at all I am afraid. I presume you are suggesting it be accompanied by a repeal of the GRA, making being trans a non-thing. So from the trans point of view, I am sure you can see that it looks like all existing rights gained over the past 15 years or so are being removed.

Surely if women are given sex-segregated spaces where needed, the fact that some people are transgender and are legally recognised as such isn't a direct threat to women?

How long do we have to tolerate a thread which tries to turn a medical condition into a belief?

No. A medical condition is indeed a medical condition, no one has said otherwise. However 'innate gender' is a belief. Convince me otherwise instead of stamping your foot and saying this thread shouldn't be tolerated.

Transgender people can get a GRC if they want to be recognised.

Why?
What is being recognised?
What if this impinges on the protected characteristic of sex and women's rights?

It's a GRC, not a SRC.

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

OK, imaginary scenario. A is a trans woman and works in an office. When A starts to go through transition, other workers react negatively and start making comments to A. A complains to the bosses and they react by saying that it would probably be best if A resigned because they don't really want that sort of person working there.

A can now easily argue discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. It is not discrimination because A is a man, as when A presented as male, there was no issue. The issue started when A came out as transgender. The reason for the abuse is because A is transgender. Nor is it because of religious beliefs either because transgenderism is not a religious belief under the definition of religion.

So under your proposal, A would be unable to argue that there has been discrimination.

Surely if women are given sex-segregated spaces where needed, the fact that some people are transgender and are legally recognised as such isn't a direct threat to women?

Sex segregated spaces is one aspect. The GRA enables people to falsify their birth certificate to say they were born the opposite sex. This means that in all stats and so on they are going to impact meta measures to assess and address sex inequality, health, crime, etc. Also it is not clear in the EA which sex that person is then protected as. It confuses and potentially nullifies sex as a protected characteristic.

CiderIsRealAle - So if it is a belief, what do you say to the fact that a male who has 400% higher estrogen than a male should have and testosterone levels less than most females, being happy and mentally healthy? Not to mention I actually have the drive in my life now to look after myself and look towards the future.

High Estrogen and low Testosterone (particularly at these levels) should make me depressed, lethargic, suicidal and generally not having a good time.

Why am I therefore happier than I have ever been in my life? I would call that scientific evidence of Trans healthcare being based in reality not faith.

@Snappity - I don't mind to be honest. I think it shows a poster's true motivations.

spontaneousgiventime - Homosexuality was also once viewed at in the same light. I think that if the gender dysphoria manifests it's self in self destructive behavior and depression then yes it can result in mental illness, but if it is managed correctly then it is more a symptom. For example, now that I am on HRT and 'out' as who I am, my dysphoria has mostly dissipated. It's more an annoying itch I sometimes get but can't scratch.

It confuses and potentially nullifies sex as a protected characteristic.

All you need is one line in the legislation to clarify that nothing regarding gender reassignment is to be taken as affecting biological sex as a protected characteristic. You can even rename 'sex' 'biological sex' in the act for the avoidance of any confusion.

Re the stats, even if the number of trans people with a GRC doubled tomorrow, it would be statistically insignificant. I am not keen on new birth certificates either but the original one does remain on record, so there will be a record of the number of males and females born etc. I guess you could also require that for the purpose of crime, statistics record male, female and transgender people as three categories.

Thank you Peak

Imagine another scenario. A woman works in an office. She decides to stop shaving her legs and stop wearing high heels some months after working there. Other workers react negatively and start making comments to her. She complains to the bosses and they react by saying that it would probably be best if she resigned because they don't really want that sort of person working there.

She can now easily argue discrimination on the basis of sex. It is discrimination because she is a woman, even though when she presented as according to prescribed sex stereotypes, there was no issue because the men in her office are not also compelled to wear heels and shave their legs. The issue started when she started defying gender norms. The reason for the abuse is because she is not subscribing to sexist stereotypes. It could also be because of person beliefs because she is a conscious objector of genderism, which can be classified as a personal deeply held philosophy or belief.

Under my proposal, a man who went through an analogous situation would also be able to similarly claim discrimination - which covers your hypothetical situation PeakPants

So under your proposal, A would be unable to argue that there has been discrimination

Using the OPs example of sexism they would be able to argue discrimination, as they are being managed out because they are a man not conforming to manly stereotypes. Sexism.

Or using the example of belief, they would be able to argue to discrimination based on their belief system, transition being an important part of that.

X posts

PeakPants, in your example the person would be defended by a law that states that discrimination against men for wearing stereotypically feminine clothing /wearing make-up/having breast surgery/having a name commonly associated with women/etc. is sexist.

It would be massively progressive on reading from the same page that says women don't have to wear high heels/should get paid the same as their male counterparts.

So if it is a belief, what do you say to the fact that a male who has 400% higher estrogen than a male should have and testosterone levels less than most females, being happy and mentally healthy? Not to mention I actually have the drive in my life now to look after myself and look towards the future.

Dysphoria is not a 'belief' it is a mental condition/health condition. 'Innate gender' is a belief.

High Estrogen and low Testosterone (particularly at these levels) should make me depressed, lethargic, suicidal and generally not having a good time.

Glad you are feeling better for the interventions.

Why am I therefore happier than I have ever been in my life? I would call that scientific evidence of Trans healthcare being based in reality not faith.

Healthcare and medical interventions are of course real things - its not like going to a witch doctor or priest. Practitioners may or may not believe in innate gender though, they may be pretending to, in order to avoid litigation or hurting feelings.

Why am I therefore happier than I have ever been in my life? I would call that scientific evidence of Trans healthcare being based in reality not faith

I'm sorry but that is not scientific evidence. Lots and lots of people feel better after homeopathic treatments. This is not evidence that it is anything more than a placebo...

No problem itsAllGoingToBeFine

ItsAllGoingToBeFine pharma grade hormones are nothing like homeopathic treatments. Sorry but to say it is placebo is simply not true because placebo implies that nothing has actually been altered.

Hmmm, I can sort of see that but as Ally said above, the courts in the past have refused to extend the sex discrimination thing to someone being gay, even though your point about not conforming to female ideals (having a male partner) would surely apply there too. And it's not quite the same as the leg-shaving because the woman there is not claiming to be a man. The discrimination could occur regardless of a person's physical appearance, so it's not really about not conforming to male ideals, but the fact that they are transgender.

Personally, I can't see it working. It might be a utopian vision for some on here, but even though it is here being spun as a positive for trans people, I really don't think it will be perceived as such. It also takes a LOT for previously introduced rights to be completely reversed- I can't really think of an example of that happening in the past.

As I said above, things could be made much simpler and clearer by simply clarifying that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should not be construed as affecting the protected characteristic of biological sex.

discrimination against men for wearing stereotypically feminine clothing /wearing make-up/having breast surgery/having a name commonly associated with women/etc. is sexist

Not if the person does not do any of these things or if the poor treatment starts when they express an intention to transition but before they alter any part of their appearance, e.g. if they tell HR they will transition and are fired shortly afterwards. I think it's very hard to argue that is sexist and much more simple to say it is because of gender reassignment.

pharma grade hormones are nothing like homeopathic treatments. Sorry but to say it is placebo is simply not true because placebo

I was comparing hormones to homeopathy! I was pointed out that because an individual or some individuals state something like "I feel happier" does not scientifically prove anything! Anecdote does not equal data, and correlation does not equal causation etc etc

Not if the person does not do any of these things or if the poor treatment starts when they express an intention to transition but before they alter any part of their appearance, e.g. if they tell HR they will transition and are fired shortly afterwards

Discrimination on the basis of belief would be pretty doable

And it's not quite the same as the leg-shaving because the woman there is not claiming to be a man.

How about a belief one has changed sex, in line with a personal faith in 'innate gender' does not mean subscribers are at liberty to compel others to treat them according to their belief? Ie - a Jewish person cannot stop a non-jewish person eating foods that are not kosher.