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.

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'.

If being a 'trans woman' is not clearly defined it kind of is.

Yet if you have a space for those who believe their 'innate gender' is female, then it would be clear that it was a space for followers of a particular philosophy and nothing to do with biological women. Which is as absolutely fine as is the assembly of followers of any other belief, as long as spaces for biological women aren't usurped in order to facilitate them.

Baroquehavoc I mean I don't know who should ultimately get to make the decision that affects tens of millions of people.

But from what I understand, (FYI I only transitioned permanently in December 2017) the system whereby there was an unspoken understanding between women and transwomen was working fine until recently. I have never had any problems..

When it comes to MEN though.. I think women and transwomen need to work together to make spaces leche free. I think that anyone can be a leche - man, woman, transwoman or transman, anyone. And that regardless of the space people find themselves in, group policing and working together to turf out anyone who is causing problems.

I would also hope that when responding to calls.. that the police have sufficient training and ability to read the situation to know when someone is taking the michael and trying to pull the 'but I am trans' card. Which is not okay.

NatLuc. That's a bit vague. What do we do to keep men out of women's spaces?

You seem to think calling someone when something has happened is enough? What do we do to maintain dignity and safety?

Baroquehavoc I know I am sorry.. I am not coping well with this heat today.

I had a whole message typed out to spontaneous too but I reread it and decided it was waffly crap. So I will just say this - no of course your granddaughter should not have to see any penis but there are (IMO) reasonable ways around this without excluding transwomen.

As per my other message though.. I think vigilance is key. I think that when needed then exemptions should apply. I do not think there is any water tight works-in-every-situation solution to this which is why I think that the case by case basis system that the exemptions exist for is best.

I just think there needs to be better guidance once when and how it is appropriate to use them.

I think that anyone can be a leche - man, woman, transwoman or transman

But what of the people who want to be separate from people from the opposite biological sex for reasons other than fear of lechery. Additionally female bodied lechers aren't as threatening to women as male bodied ones.

Hmm. I don't think you understand why we have sex segregation, because otherwise you wouldn't be so dismissive. If you really had the need for segregation, you would be fighting so hard to keep men out.

Hey Natluc

I think we have “more in common” here. I’m glad to see that you condone the exemptions and it seems to me that the difference between us actually a question of degree regarding when they are invoked.

The issue is not you; it’s that society and institutions still struggle to understand the needs of WAG and to champion them. That’s a function of patriarchy and maintenance of a status quo.

I’d like to explore with you the instances when you do agree with using the exemptions. But it’s hot and I have to do dinner so maybe later?

Elletorro - I hope that dinner making doesn’t cause you to pass out from heat!! But enjoy whatever you make and you can message via PM or through threads I would also like to explore this.

Baroque - I think that it is a little unfair to assess my needs to be included in at least some segregated areas and at least some of the time or my understanding of them based on an admittedly half arsed message.

I’m not trying to be dismissive, I’m just honestly not with it today lol.

The problem I have, is that what is being proposed is three types of areas: ones for everyone, ones that claim to be sex segregated, but not really; and ones that are sex segregated.

The sex segregated ones are for when sex is important. But what are the middle ones, the ones that pretend to be segregated, but aren't really? If sex segregation isn't important in these situations why have them?

I think what TRA want to happen is that these areas become places where they can go to freely without being challenged. (And don't claim that nobody has a problem with being challenged). But how can anyone make a service for women and girls, make it clear that that includes anyone who identifies as a women or girl, but keep the men out? If we don't need to keep the men out, why have these spaces?

I've been here years and nobody has given me an answer to how to keep the men out. I've been told I have to campaign to make spaces safer, to call the police, that women rape too, that men will get in anyway, but no one seems that fussed to keep these spaces men free. So again, what is the fucking point of these spaces.

I've been here years and nobody has given me an answer to how to keep the men out. I've been told I have to campaign to make spaces safer, to call the police, that women rape too, that men will get in anyway, but no one seems that fussed to keep these spaces men free. So again, what is the fucking point of these spaces.

There is no point in them for biological women.

And people who are not biological women who want them have very different needs from biological women, so they will never be able to make a compelling case for biological women to want to adopt them. There's no way a space for both biological women and people who believe their innate gender is female can be spun to be relevant to or to benefit biological women.

you have no business being in our gay spaces, we know you don't support lesbian and gays , just want to hold your hen nights down there to see the freak show !

Foxyliz you talk like you've been sent back to 1983 to report back. I don't know if it's paranoia or internalised homophobia or grandstanding for TRAs but, and for the 100th time, this really isn't a homophobic place.

Natluc

The areas we agree on are:

Sports, professional and probably most post 12 year old sports (ish)

HCP provision - what about locked mental health wards?

Crisis centres.

How would transgender people participate in competitive sports? How can they be included without it impinging on WAG?

If we can work out solutions that are good for both groups then maybe we can extrapolate models that would work in the more contentious areas

Elletorro

That seems an awful lot of work.

Repealing the GRA
Scrapping the protected characteristic of gender reassignment
Ratifying 'innate gender' as a genuinely held belief/philosophy
& adding crimes against people based on sexism to the list of hate crimes.

Is far easier and has the benefit of not being based in non-material subjective belief, gender stereotypes and the nullification of sex as a protected characteristic.

There's no need to be agonising over where to draw the line.

Perhaps its time we admitted that having people with certified disorders drafting self-interested laws and sneaking them through parliament without proper consultation and consideration hasn't been the best thing for society and democracy?

Hi Cider

I don’t agree with removing rights. I don’t think it is fair on those who have relied upon them until now. I have some experience of losing rights myself and it hurts; it can easily become a grudge and would radicalise many.

Politically I think it would be toxic.

There will always be conflicting rights. The gay wedding cake case for example. There does need to be a balance.

Ultimately I believe that this will be resolved via test cases; which take years to unfold. In the meantime I’d like to consider solutions because that’s possibly a much easier win.

I still think we can resolve this. If we work out the common ground then we can make inroads into the contentious areas and possibly find novel solutions.

I don’t believe Snappity or whoever drafted the equality act. I’m very suspicious of whoever was involved in putting together the EHRC guidance however and I do agree that this should be investigated.

Whoever drafts these things should be declaring an interest. Would be interested to find out who they were and get notes of meetings etc. I think the recent guidance cane out in Nov 2015

I don’t agree with removing rights.

Which 'rights' would be removed in my propositions (apart from current unfair 'rights' of one group to nullify the rights of others)?

Press for Change. Christine Burns & Stephen Whittle. Both certified with the same disorder.

Christine Burns actually boasts about sneaking in the GRA!

Cider - as of last week I believe:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/06/18/being-transgender-is-not-a-mental-illness-world-health-organisation/

So you have no faith in the NHS.. But are you going to ignore the WHO as well?

And as for ‘seems like a lot is work’ that is because the lives of a lot of people hang in the balance of thus balance being found. You can’t just ‘scrap’ it because you are incapable of seeing, with empathy that the PC of Gender Reassignment is necessary. Just because it does not fit with your narrative that I am a mentally unstable and deluded individual more akin to a fringe religious worshipper.

I am not the authorative voice on how to best reach this balance, nor do I have the answers to go toe to toe with most of the GC posters on MN but I know the answer sure isn’t abolishing the rights of so many people and reframing their protected characteristics to switch the connotations and pragmatics of what that PC entails.

Elletorro I am not sure about locked mental health wards.. I would assume that like any high risk patient there are provisions in place to take them away from those they could hurt. Similar to the setup prisons have where if a transwoman prison can still be placed in the male estate with the most dangerous prisoners? I’m not sure though.

As for sport - I think that whilst Estrogen/Testosterone levels give a great ball park level of reassurance of performance.. I think if there is an large discrepancy in physique compared to a standard deviation of other athletes for the same sport then further tests and physical exams could be performed to see how they compare to other natal female athletes. If it is deemed that they fall within acceptable limits then I believe that they should be allowed to compete.

As far as younger athletes (puberty level).. I think it gets a bit more complicated due to the complicated issue around prescribing puberty blockers...

I’m sorry if those answers aren’t as detailed as you wished for..

I get told off (jokingly) when I do walls of text as it’s something I used to be terrible for lol.

The only right I can see that people would lose is the right to perpetrate a fraud by changing their identification from one sex to the other.
That is a bizarre thing to codify into law, and the consequences could be dire given the problem of identity theft.

Ok Natluc so you are allowed into changing rooms and my granddaughter is there that day. She strips off her clothes and runs around nude. Her mum believing that space is for natal females doesn't run to cover her. Should you be in there?

This is not hypothetical, my DGD would do that.

You are in good company. My posts get a bit involved too.

I agree with you about sports. From what I understand there should be measurements made of lung capacity, muscle mass and other such things beyond just hormone levels.

That is going to inevitably remove some transwomen from the competition. What is to be done for them? I imagine there won’t be a big enough group for them to be able to compete against each other? Maybe that’s just tough luck.

I think the medical stuff is going to be difficult to assess on a case by case basis. My understanding of mental health is that often patients are admitted in crisis situations. There simply won’t be time or resources to get a panel together.

The issue is to keep everyone safe. Incidentally I have a relative who designed hospitals and he said that the secure mental health wards were terrifying; everyone smelled of BO because of the state of fear.

I actually think this is a bigger deal than prisons.

What would you hope for here? I’m thinking there needs to be sex segregation and transwomen also need to be segregated from men.

Would a transman feel safe/ be safe with the men?

So you have no faith in the NHS.. But are you going to ignore the WHO as well?

Apologies, I don't click on PN links for a number of reasons. However, there are very large, well funded organisations such as the Open Society Foundation which give huge lobbying clout to the campaigns backed up by their virtually inexhaustible legal funds. It is unsurprising if the WHO, just like the NHS, now subscribes (on paper) to a belief in innate gender.

And as for ‘seems like a lot is work’ that is because the lives of a lot of people hang in the balance of thus balance being found.

Women and girls lives are hanging in the balance.

You can’t just ‘scrap’ it because you are incapable of seeing, with empathy that the PC of Gender Reassignment is necessary.

I'm reasonable, I'm sympathetic to people with difficult lives. Why not put a compelling case forward that doesn't come back down to subjective belief? I'll listen.

Just because it does not fit with your narrative that I am a mentally unstable and deluded individual more akin to a fringe religious worshipper.

I am not commenting on your stability, but if you have dysphoria, then you have a disorder. And I am comparing you to a person who believes in God and souls (just like, i think, the majority of people in the world do) which I don't believe should be disparaged.

Can you codify belief into law? Can you mandate expressions and demonstrations of submission to a belief.
It has been done before. It never ended well for women and girls or for the government that enforced belief and punished heretics.