So what rights do transpeople think they don’t have?

[YuhBasic]

Because I’m still not clear.

Sorry if this has been answered before 😕

PotivelyPERF Ooh so cynical..

@DubaiismyBlackpool "even then they have to have their spouses permission to divorce."

No, nobody needs their spouse's permission to divorce.

I don't understand what's the problem with £200, either - if I really wanted something that wouldn't put enough to put me off.

No, nobody needs their spouse's permission to divorce

Don’t you potentially have to wait 2-5 years if nobody admits fault? But I thought there was general agreement that the law should be changed to make divorce easier.

I'm still confused by the idea that a legal change which will confer, in some situations, access to spaces and rights that are sex segregated for very specific sex based reasons, should be made free, and administratively as simple as signing a form or ticking a box.

It's like they want it to be even easier than getting a driving license or a passport, which arguably confer much lesser opportunities. Why should it? Why is changing a legal document of record and gaining certain sex based rights something that should be less onerous than getting a passport?

Blame is excluded from divorce, now. You used to have to wait 5 years if the partner didn't want to divorce you.

I thought there was a government consultation in no fault divorce / had the law already changed?

www.theguardian.com/law/2018/sep/07/uk-government-launch-consultation-no-fault-divorces

Hamster brilliant posts as usual. Nail = head.

Side bar: I just love it when a man turns up to oh so reasonably and paternally split hairs with women on why they're being silly and how they really should do what he says on a matter in which he has zero skin in the game.

If anyone with a male body is in a changing room, hospital ward, toilet, whatever, I will not be getting undressed. A transwoman has the right to use their own sex's provision, in most policies to request somewhere private for their use, and increasingly to access the opposite sex's provision as well. Three choices. What's my alternative to just giving up access to that provision?

Many women can't just 'be reasonable'. The answer is no.

It’s a lot more than 200 if you end up going private/ abroad for the medical sign off. One needs to understand why they do that

dad
The phrases transwoman and woman are perfectly good. Transwomen is acceptable to many transwomen, especially those who have undertaken surgery and are living as women. . Implying or saying that transwomen are women will trigger fear, leading to more polarised positions and a breakdown in communication . If you want sensible debate, avoid such deliberately provocative assertions.

A trans acquaintance posted on their Facebook just today - this particular person wants the right not to be discriminated against in job hiring.

In particular, this person thinks that generally employers "don't need to choose between hiring qualified candidates and hiring trans people. When this is a real scenario, I see options. Shadowing opportunities, splitting the work, planning a hand over to a trans person with built in learning opportunities and timelines. If you had to hire a cis person in an emergency situation, cool. I get it. Maybe it needs to be a time limited contract so that a new hiring process can take place when time permits."

Okay, I hope I would, given the chance, choose to put in that kind of effort to increase access to people who are actually under-represented, like disabled people and actual women and people with certain skin colours and so on. But people who were raised as men are not exactly under-represented in the workplace. So this person wants society to agree that they should get preferential treatment and everyone should bend over backwards to make sure they're as included and as happy as possible. That's an attitude we typically associate with men, cupcake. You want to be a woman, start by not expecting everything to be all about you.

^why can't the trans person be a qualified candidate? Why are they assuming they would have no skills?

Greengloves I think they're saying that in general trans people are qualified for things but if you have a choice between a qualified "cis" person and a less-qualified trans person you should be going for the trans person every time. The person who posted it is a trans person who certainly sees themselves as qualified for plenty of things so I don't think the background assumption is that trans people aren't qualified, I think the background assumption is that all employers are bigots.

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying.

ALmost certainly true. Not only is the transperson different to the hiring manager, which is partly why women and people’ of colour get discriminated agaiant, but any hint of dishonesty, which is what presenting as the opposite sex will trigger in the unconscious brain, can lead to distrust.

By law you always have to choose the most qualified candidate. 'Positive Action' is only allowed when choosing between two equally qualified candidates.

I would allow transwoman access to gender-appropriate bathrooms, and affirmative action programs which are for the benefit of all women.

Doesn't matter what you would allow. You don't have a horse in this race. How much women choose (or don't choose) to give is none of your business.

Merry that sounds off--surely if I want to employ an utter nincompoop that is my prerogative, provided it can't be proven that I discriminated against protected candidates in order to favour the nincompoop. I don't think eg Pips Bunce should count there.

This is specifically in cases involving positive action - the principal being that it can only be used to choose between two candidates of equal merit.

In practice though ‘merit’ is pretty subjective.

Erm, I'm feeling a little under fire.
The OP was asking what rights the trans people thought they didn't have at present, after listening to Woman's Hour, I thought the points that came across were going in front of a panel and divorce.

Now, just my 2p worth. What a load of bollocks.

The 'debate' on woman's hour was pitiful and if the Beeb really was impartial they would've pointed out the obvious flaws in the trans argument or at least have someone on to refute. But the Beeb didn't and after the Newsbeat pity party story, it's clear to see how 'impartial' the Beeb really are.
Even the divorce argument was left unchallenged, but then that could've been the Beeb, while appearing on the trans side, were giving the trans persons enough rope to hang themselves with as most folk know/think both spouses must consent to divorce or wait the 5 years. Trans or not.
As for going in front of a panel and the associated costs, if I were trans it would be a small price to pay to be the person I always felt I was.
I've always known/felt I was born too small, the years of abuse, harm and blatant discrimination I've endured all my life have driven me to the brink of taking my own life many times. Now, does that mean society should change to agree that I'm really 5 foot 6 and any who disagrees needs to be re educated?? Or that the NHS should operate on my body to make it a reality? Of course not, it's bloody ridiculous.
But 'we' can't say that can we to anyone trans.

@IfNotNowThenWhen1 Doesn't matter what you would allow. You don't have a horse in this race. How much women choose (or don't choose) to give is none of your business.

I was asked the question, and answered it.

And while I take your point that it's women who are directly affected, I think human rights are everyone's business. TRAs think their rights to be treated legally as woman are at stake; GC women think those rights impinge on their sex-based rights. However much it might be anathema to you, what men think will help decide which way this legislation goes.

@RiverTam Home Office data on transphobic hate crimes is here

PositivelyPERF That's the nicest compliment I've had all day. I have my suspicions it wasn’t meant as a compliment

It really wasn't an insult or a compliment - just a statement of fact. Any feminist who says "transwomen aren't women" is a GC feminist.

I have a great deal of sympathy with GC feminists, and as I mentioned about, I've been called a TERF, while you appear to think I am a TRA. My closest female relatives are GC feminists, while most of my work colleagues (who are much younger SJW types) are fourth wave "transwomen are women" feminists.

What I do know is that being public about about GC views is dangerous, while being public about TRA is not, even though the general public instinctively support the GC position. I don't like the way the debate has been stifled, and I would hate this legislation to go through just because MPs are too frightened to appear transphobic. I am still trying to figure all this out. On the one hand it feels like all the other civil rights battles, on the other hand, for the first time, the group who are potentially losing out are not the dominant group.

what men think will help decide which way this legislation goes.

Thanks for reminding us, none of us realized.

To be fair, although it is difficult for men to comment on the experience of being female, it should be possible for anyone to recognise that women and men are physically different and that those differences have clear consequences.