Are feminists getting played?

[Maniak]

It makes me sad that feminists are spending so much time banging on about bathrooms in a world that has women still working for no pay, old women still more likely to be poor, surrogacy, underfunded maternity care, and poor support for carers. And other stuff.

Yes, the trans thing is annoying, but have you noticed how it always fires up before major elections? It's like Afghanistan in the 80s when the US provided just enough weapons to keep the war going so Russia would use all it's energy and get weak.

I feel like feminism is getting distracted with the trans stuff. At most, it should take up 10 percent of our feminist attention. But I rarely see feminism these days that isn't all about trans. Seriously. Do you think we're getting played here? Is trans really such a big deal?

Policy makers, legislators etc must use precise language. It matters a great deal and as we live under laws and systems we need to care.

The hyperindividualised notion of 'well I know and so do my mates' is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't matter in the face of trying to change systematic oppression. You know surrogacy - the economic coercion and farming of women and trafficking of children - is wrong, so what. That has no impact unless you can persuade those writing laws and policies. To do that you have to get public opinion. The 'I know and so do my friends' is the first baby step.

When surrogacy happens to 'people' we loose the analysis of exploitation based on sex. It gets removed from a global framework. Then the individualism comes in to undermine criticism.

Well, I suppose I value my own knowledge and the knowledge of women around me. And I value it more than whatever language policy is produced by some organization somewhere.

'Some organisation somewhere' produces the legislation that enables access to contraception, maternity pay, the Equalities Act, the census, prison and hospital policy, council and government spending, education policy etc. etc. etc.

What are the women around you going to do - have a whip round if you get sacked for being pregnant?

You’re showing remarkably poor comprehension Maniak . You appear to be arguing against points that no one has made

We know what a woman is though. You know, and I know, and everyone knows. So if we wanted to have a conversation about women, we could easily. Sure, in some contexts we might be forced to say "cis women" or "biological women" or whatever the language of the day is. Yes, how annoying, but discussion is still possible.

Can we write laws on that basis? And will those laws stand or will they be deemed discriminatory? From what I gather shelters for "biological women" get defunded now for their discriminatory mission.

@thatdoctorem "When surrogacy happens to 'people' we loose the analysis of exploitation based on sex. "

See, to me it doesn't matter at all if law and policy use the word "people" to refer to surrogates. They are people. People who are pregnant seems simply accurate.

But if we want to talk about surrogacy in the context of women's role in society, we can talk about women. We do. Most of that conversation occurs informally, so we can use whatever language.

Well, I suppose I value my own knowledge and the knowledge of women around me. And I value it more than whatever language policy is produced by some organization somewhere

Well, it's not about you or us is it?

It is about the girls who trained for years just to get kicked down the league table because a male entered the race.

It's about less money to deal with violence against women and girls, because men do it, and they are included in the statistics of females.

It's about women and children being locked up in prisons with men who are in prison for rape.

It's about women who are on shortlists because as a class, women get less chances; only to be kicked out in favour of a man.

How utterly self absorbed to think it is about you?

People who are pregnant seems simply accurate

While missing the single thing that all those people have in common

Why have those particular people been chosen to have their bodies exploited? Gosh, it’s really impossible to say

@deepwatersolo "Can we write laws on that basis? "

Of course not (?) Laws are always written up formally in their own language.

Maniak, do you really not get that if a woman is sacked because she is pregnant and tries to claim sex discrimination, if males are included in the group 'women', and women are in the group 'men' and we are in law just a mass of humanity only distinguished by who likes pink and who likes blue, she could be told she has no case because men can be pregnant too, and many of the 'women' aren't of the large gamete producing class?

"While missing the single thing that all those people have in common"

That they're pregnant with babies intended for other people?

They were chosen to be exploited because they were pregnant with babies for other people?

Talk about cart before the horse

Try again

@floralbunting I'm not sure what the laws are but of course people shouldn't be sacked for being pregnant. Has that happened?

And what has placed them in this position of being pregnant and having to sell babies to others? Choices are not made in a vacuum.

FloralBunting

I think that's an important point but one which people find difficult. Once they get it, they see it and it's clear, but for some reason many have difficulty seeing how the protected characteristics of a group are related to the inherent physical characteristics of the group.

She doesn't even have to be sacked, no employer will have to hire women as their diversity ratings can just be men when the workforce 'identify' as women and BINGO.

No need any more. Back to the kitchen ladies.

Maniak, are you having a laugh?

I'm not sure what the laws are but of course people shouldn't be sacked for being pregnant. Has that happened?

What, ever?

@BernardBlacksWineIceLolly

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Only women can get pregnant, so if you're talking about pregnant people, it's a more accurate category than women because most women are not pregnant. (?)

🙈🙉🙊 I’m gonna Grey Rock

@floralbunting "Maniak, are you having a laugh?"

I mean, has a woman been sacked for being pregnant as a direct result of changes to language because of trans. And no, I'm not joking. I haven't heard of a case like that.

My gosh, do you really not know that women are discriminated against in the workplace for pregnancy and indeed sacked? It highlights the importance of words again, often instead of sacked it is phrased 'contract not renewed'.

Estimated [https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/managing-pregnancy-and-maternity-workplace/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination-research-findings 54,000 women a year] reported that they were either dismissed; made compulsorily redundant, where others in their workplace were not; or treated so poorly they felt they had to leave their job

And I can’t believe I’m having to tell someone on a feminist forum that for fucks sake

We really do need to be able to talk about male violence though. We can't do that if there are no lines between the two sexes, or if they're ridiculously blurred. Those who don't fit with the normal man or woman definitions are exceptions and will be treated on a case by case basis as necessary.

Oh no, link fail

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/managing-pregnancy-and-maternity-workplace/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination-research-findings