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.

e.g. if they tell HR they will transition and are fired shortly afterwards.

what if a woman tells HR she is now a conscious objector to genderism and will no longer shave her legs or wear heels and is fired shortly afterwards?

Yes it is.

It's the person who claims to be the opposite sex who is being sexist, because they are stereotyping and also often hamming the stereotype (MtF frilly dresses and high heeels, FtM acting macho and taking up extreme sports.

So yes sexism is happening, just not from the person who is asking why that have to be a manor a woman - can't they just be - themselves, irrespective?

Discrimination on the basis of belief would be pretty doable

It's probably not a good one to run tbh and there is a real opportunity at the moment to try to get something substantive in terms of protections for women and to clarify and solidify feminists' position on this. Yes, you could now try running the argument that there is no such thing as trans other than a misguided belief, but how do you realistically expect that will go down?

Anyway, I think I have said enough on this for now.

I know plenty of Butch Lesbians , who have been asked to leave ladies loos

my boyish girlfriend is one, , then the woman objecting asked my G/F for a selfie and autograph ,outside the ladies

my G/F looks quite like Tom Fletcher from McFly !

on a serious note this rule will not apply to someone with a GRC already , anyone attempting to stop anyone could be arrested , and could be charged with a hate crime, fingerprints taken , DNA ,

but why not go for it , I can recommend a good solicitor !

ItsAllGoingToBeFine of course it can be classed as scientific evidence?

Sertraline did nothing for my depression because Serotonin imbalance was not the root cause of my depression. It was being trans and requiring my sex hormones to be altered. Hormones change brain chemistry over time, I don’t think it’s a stretch to draw correlation or cause as to why this is? Not trying to say I have a lady brain, but it’s definitely different enough to have needed the opposite sex hormone as the dominant hormone to allow me to lead a mentally healthy life.

The only things severely affecting my mental health these days is the attitudes of other people towards me being trans. And having the wrong plumbing.

you could now try running the argument that there is no such thing as trans other than a misguided belief

How about correctly describing it as a commitment to a sincere, deeply held philosophical belief in innate gender, worth protecting as much as any other belief or religion?

It doesn't have to be disparaging.

NotAnotherNoughtiesTune - if you truly believe this is the motivation for transition, to wear high heels and frilly dresses all the time.. you clearly don’t know any trans people..

I’m sat in flats, jeans and a blouse.. with my hair looking a mess and tied back as I didn’t get the chance you wash after going to the climbing wall yesterday.. totally pushing the female stereotype..

How about correctly describing it as a commitment to a sincere, deeply held philosophical belief in innate gender, worth protecting as much as any other belief or religion?

This^

‘I presume you are suggesting it be accompanied by a repeal of the GRA, making being trans a non-thing.’

Of course, a law should never have been passed that permits people the right to change sex and male’s to access female spaces etc. Apart from the ‘right’ to enter women’s spaces, take women’s places on sports teams etc, what rights are they missing as males? They can be covered from discrimination in may ways, which has already been highlighted to you, if you don’t think these laws are strong enough then fight to strengthen them. We don’t need to be able to change sex to combat sex discrimination. How is that remotely progressive?

‘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.’

Removing these laws would stop them being permitted to be legally recognised as the sex they are not, and would stop them forcing us all to go along with it, it would also stop them being permitted into our spaces etc. Yes sneaking something so insidious as this law under the radar, and getting away with it for so long, may mean it comes a shock to them that women are now fighting it. However, if we all knew about it at the time, in other words if it wasn’t sneaked in, then we would have never allowed it to pass without massive resistance in the first place. Just because it is has been in place for X amount of time doesn’t mean it is right, many unjust laws have previously been on the books for many years, before 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?’

It is a threat to women for many reasons we are oppressed because of our biology, not because we conform to specific stereotypes or not. A male should be able to wear whatever he likes, he can never become female though, allowing males the legal fiction that they are female erases sex as a meaningful category. There are also many reasons that women want female only spaces, not just for safety, privacy and fairness, but also to be able to gain some respite from a male dominated world. We shouldn’t have to justify that because now males insist they should have the right to be included for whatever reason.

yy Artemis

Hi Natluc

How are you doing? Hope you are good.

Just to put my oar in: I am with Peakpants here. Gender reassignment should remain a protected characteristic. My only concern is with the exemptions and how to ensure that the 2 characteristics don’t impinge on each other.

I believe transgender people are entitled to compassion and respect for the treatment that best affords them relief from their GD. However compassion does not mean forgetting WAG ‘s unique vulnerabilities. I will prioritise WAG in my feminism but that doesn’t need to be at the expense of others. Look how deftly Christina Criado-Perez is navigating these issues.

how to ensure that the 2 characteristics don’t impinge on each other.

What if there is no resolution, because 'gender reassignment' ratifies:

1. Innate gender as a material reality, rather than a personal belief (so you can't argue against its existence).

2. Two rigid sex stereotypes that can be 'reassigned' (if gender is a spectrum on the other hand - reassignment is entirely the wrong word, because it would be 'shifting' back and forth by degrees, rather than the either/or nature of 'reassigning' something), which is oppressive to women (and men).

3. Fictional overlap between male and female in the protected characteristic of sex (which nullifies the meaning of sex as a protected characteristic).

Yes CiderIsRealAle

I don’t see how people can argue that having a sexist law that enshrines stereotypes in law, that makes it impossible to disagree with a belief system, and that makes biological sex meaningless, is progressive at all. I think in the rush to not offend they are not thinking through the implications of things.

Thank you Artemis.

I also needed to really think it through and get past my fear of offending in order to see it, so I can understand why it is making some people baulk initially.

Elletorro - I am very well thank you, I hope you are too? At least as good as you can be for a Monday..

I agree. Personally I think that the exemptions that exist need to be enforced without fear. But only where they actually should be. I do not think toilets, changing rooms or deciding what school a trans adolescent goes to are demonstratively suitable for lawful discrimination.

Professional sport & School level sport (before HRT but after the onset of Puberty) - Yes, but I am not sure if I am personally in favour of blanket coverage.. Which makes me feel conflicted.

HCP allocation for treatment - YES. Patient comfort always comes before any rights that a trans HCP might have.

Crisis Centres - Yes, but I think that there are ways around this without outright excluding a trans person from receiving the help they need too.

These are just a couple off the top of my head.

CiderIsRealAle I think you are right most people feel like that initially, I am glad you did get over the fear of offending though, because you have made some great posts.

foxyliz26 - Whether in your view TW and TM are welcome in gay and lesbian bars as well, or not that comment cracked me up!

Personally I think that the exemptions that exist need to be enforced without fear. But only where they actually should be.

Who gets to decide which women spaces really need to be female only? Don't you think it would be more honest if those womens spaces that don't really need to be female only are renamed. What's the point of women's spaces that welcome anyone?

Artemis you've made some great points too, in fact, I appreciate everyone's considerations and contributions on this thread (apart from perhaps the comment that it shouldn't be tolerated )

What's the point of women's spaces that welcome anyone?

Quite.

Snappity's example has so much wrong with it that I don't know where to start:

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.

Snappity is much happier with a state of affairs where the biologically male person with a GRC could be considered to be the "token woman on the board" and the women in the office would have a hard time claiming sex discrimination because they're all supposed to be happy to pretend that a male with a GRC = female representation.

You really see no problem with that, do you, Snappity?

Baroquehavoc - Well this is the crux of the matter isn't it? I don't think I have an answer I could give that is absolutely watertight. The only thing I will say though is that by allowing trans women in to women's spaces is not the same as welcoming 'anyone'.

NatLuc. What do you mean, you don't know which facilitates should be female only? Or you don't know who should make that decision?

How do you propose to keep men out of women's spaces?

allowing trans women in to women's spaces is not the same as welcoming 'anyone'.

That, unsurprisingly is your view, it certainly isn't mine. As you have admitted yourself you have the 'wrong plumbing'. That means you should be nowhere near my six year old granddaughter when she is in an intimate setting. That by the way is safeguarding not prejudice.