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?

The protected class is Pregnancy in Equal Act

Yes-the person can call themselves whatever they like- if they are dismissed because they are pregnant they have suffered discrimination. The employer is not off the hook just because they might have trans women employees.

@deepwatersolo "Can we write laws on that basis? " Of course not (?) Laws are always written up formally in their own language.

Laws are written in a language that does not use words like female, woman, sex (all words whose definition is under assault courtesy TRAs)? I indeed did not know that. I imagine this will be news to lawyers, too.

I may well not have been, Lass, I am not a legal bod like yourself. But the reality of sex based discrimination against women is something covered in law, and it has to do with biological realities, not inner senses of gender.

Besides, my point was that I am now utterly incredulous that the OP is in good faith at all with the eyelash batting naivete stuff about women being discriminated against via reproductive potential in the workplace. You may spend the next few pages parsing my layman's argument if you want, but how about I just admit the specific detail was in error and leave the wider point about reproductive potential to stand?

I’m still waiting for the mysterious factor behind these terrible things that keep happening to certain people for no discernible reason at all @maniak

Lass women are discriminated against at interview because of their reproductive potential, because of care demands for elderly relatives which society places on them. So yes, if a company could choose a 'woman' free from these biological possibilities and social roles (because they are the opposite sex) I'm pretty sure they would

Do you have experience of actually hiring people in a commercial situation? I do. Do you seriously think that with so many graduate professions having well over 50% female intake employers don't take the best candidate?

In a nothing between 2 candidates situation I'd toss a coin. There rarely is such a situation.

Fitting in with the rest of the staff, not rocking the boat counts and I'm pretty sure that for many employers a natal woman or man for that matter would have the edge over a trans person.

Actually laughing out loud at how this thread purporting to encourage feminists not to get distracted has now become 'women, you've never had it so good!'

Pfft.

And with that, I'm off to to drink much wine and enjoy my holiday. Peace out to my actual sisters xx

Do you have experience of actually hiring people in a commercial situation? I do. Do you seriously think that with so many graduate professions having well over 50% female intake employers don't take the best candidate?

Weirdly, in our organisation questions are asked when female managers end up with female staff; because male managers always 'manage to hire men' as if we are deemed to have failed if we don't hire men. And that's with a female CEO. And in this male dominated industry we as females are still questioned when we hire women, even though we stick like glue to the process that we need to prove we used when hiring people. and because we don't down grade women when we are scoring them.

I have absolutely no doubt that if they could get away with it, many companies would hire more men if they could.

It seems to me that the groups I’ve identified above need some support

Maybe they could have special spaces to help keep them safe. Maybe they could be targeted with aid and assistance. Maybe they could get together to provide each other with support and solace

If only we knew what factors united them we could really target that aid. Make sure it gets where it’s needed. Really tailor those protections

Help us @Maniak, you’re our only hope

I am, apparently, a Dutchman. Who knew?
Ps I’m not

What did you say BigBall?? I am agog

If women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and there are, let's say 15 different ways you can do it.

In maniaks scenario there are 15 different ways that people are oppressed. They're not connected, they are all completely different, with no common denominator.

No sexism.

Therefore no feminism.

Bingo!!

In Northern India in the last 3 months, there have been no babies born that are assigned as female. Something really odd is happening that means all the babies are coming out assigned as male babies. I do wonder what that might be??? We must research what is causing these babies to be all assigned as males over such a long time scale? Perhaps there was an offer on male baby clothes in the region or something?

Which in the case of pregnancy it would not. The protection is given to the state of being pregnant. It's the same as employers making provision for breastfeeding- it is the act of breastfeeding which is protected.

The problem is that if you view pregnancy in isolation, you ignore the fact that women face discrimination because it is assumed that they will become pregnant, and then they face consequences for having taken time off work or given up work when they were pregnant.

An average women may only spend 18 months actually being pregnant, but the consequences of being identified as having the potential to have children - and actually having children - last for years.

Child bearing is very clearly related to lower pension provision - particularly as women in their seventies and eighties now would have had no maternity rights if they had children before 1975 . However, they obviously aren't pregnant now.

Even now somebody who had children in the 90's will have had very different maternity rights to somebody who gave birth in the 2010s. It's not enough to just talk about 'pregnant people'.

Fitting in with the rest of the staff, not rocking the boat counts and I'm pretty sure that for many employers a natal woman or man for that matter would have the edge over a trans person.

I don't think the risk is that women would be pushed out of the work place by trans women. I think the risk is that legislation that is unclear and completely unenforceable would be ignored - a win for MRAs more than TRAs.

@ThatDoctorEM Did I say anything about clothes? I don't remember meaning to.

I can certainly think of many tech companies that would be quite relieved if they could count males as women hires and could, for the purposes of pay-gap info, count salaries paid to males as being paid to women.

Some of these companies are the same companies aggressively silencing female protest of genderism on social media.

Weird coincidence, innit?

Great post Merrymouse

I very much doubt that in a competition between 2 candidates of equal merit as employees that a 30 year old natal woman would lose out to a 30 year old trans woman. Who is going to fit in, who won't be difficult counts for a lot.

Why bother with either?

Why not just choose somebody who ticks all the establishment boxes?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lord

(Thanks Bernard!)

The problem is that if you view pregnancy in isolation, you ignore the fact that women face discrimination because it is assumed that they will become pregnant, and then they face consequences for having taken time off work or given up work when they were pregnant.

Exactly. I am a child free woman. Yet, ever since I entered the job market I have dealt with employers assuming I would have children (even if I said I would not, not that it was their business but being a woman there were times I was in a position I felt I had to be clear on it because of the assumptions made that could affect promotions or postings). There was always an expectation that I would eventually take time off for 12+ months of maternity leave or possibly never return. It got worse when I married because of course now that I am married I would want to have children tout suite, and well, what would they do in 6 months when I needed to leave for a year or more? And no, these are not assumptions, they were comments I was given or told. And now that I am one of the employers, I see more clearly in these employer circles what other employers consider when they hire women. I see how much in 2019 both men and women employers express reluctance to hire a young women if a man is available because they operate on assumption not only will the woman have children, they will use all their maternity leave as they are legally entitled to, and they will possibly never return to work either. Never mind that men can also take leave, that’s seen as either unlikely or something worthy of handclaps for being progressive.

In my own healthcare I also had to advocate strongly for everything from IUDs to sterilization because IUDs has to be removed for pregnancy (I could not just decide on a whim I guess to get pregnant or have it happen in some unplanned fashion?) and of course did I know sterilization was permanent. Yes, Thad is the point. It was only when I was in my 30s I started being taken seriously in my desire not to have children, before that I was treated as a silly girl who did not know my own mind and I would be struck down by baby fever at any moment. I similarly had to advocate for years for my prophylactic mastectomies (hereditary risk) because did I know it meant I could never breastfeed? Yes. Of course I did. My sister is going through the exact same thing now, the first risk specialist she went to told her she was overreacting (to that genetic risk) and having prophylactic mastectomies would mean she would miss our on bonding with a future child by breastfeeding. She told my sister, who has watched both our mother and grandmother get breast cancer in their 40s and die in their 50s that being able to breastfeed was more important than her desire to take steps known by the medical community and the risk community to be effective to reduce her risk significantly, and she should probably wait until her 40s and after any children because you know, she might not ever get cancer anyway. Right, she might not but she also has a known risk and wants to take accepted steps to reduce that. I told my sister to register a complaint on that doctor.

The problem is that if you view pregnancy in isolation, you ignore the fact that women face discrimination because it is assumed that they will become pregnant, and then they face consequences for having taken time off work or given up work when they were pregnant.

Yes. Needs to be stressed.

Its the perceived potential to be pregnant, not whether you are pregnant or have plans to have children or not. Or whether you are physically able to have them.

Its potential

And since you can't be asked an interview of your family rearing plans or reproductive potential, decisions can and are made on the basis of sex / age based assumptions.

This means that if you know someone is a transwoman, either because they actively tell you, or because they don't fully pass this isn't an assumption that will be made of them.

They are NOT the same as an infertile woman of childbaring age for this reason.

An old boss of mine, did talk to me in the past about what my plans were to have children and the impact it would have on the company if I decided to (there were only him and three other employees of which I was the only female). I worked there for over 13 years and it was a real concern for him even with financial recompense he would get - it was the loss of skills and knowledge of the company and customers he'd have to cover. It did put real pressure on me, not to have children. At the time I was adamant I didn't want them for my own lengthy reasons and told him this much to his relief. My reasons were tied up with complex and long standing frustrations and unhappiness about being stuck with being the shitty sex that got the raw deal as they give birth. It certainly didn't help me psychologically. But I do KNOW I was definitely not given a pay rise despite my performance because of his concerns about having to cover maternity, as he ACTIVELY TOLD ME that was one contributing factor. I couldn't have ever raised a claim though as he didn't give a raise to the other two employees - due to their lack of performance - and I'd have never have been able to prove what he'd said to me. It would have been his word against mine.

It also goes beyond discrimination questions. I think that women and men make different calculations around childbirth and childcare. That has implications for all kinds of things, at a systemic level. How can you talk about that if you don't have words?

"But I do KNOW I was definitely not given a pay rise despite my performance because of his concerns about having to cover maternity, as he ACTIVELY TOLD ME that was one contributing factor."

@redtoothbrush your boss is an asshole. At least he said it out loud though. That is the worst.

But what can be done about something like that though? He was unusual saying it straight like that, probably a lot of people would lie, and like you say, if it went legal it would be your word against his. So legislation can't do much.

So, I mean, the idea of queering up gender to the point where nobody knows what sex people have. We're not anywhere near that point, but if we were - assuming it's possible (a big assumption I know) - if bearded, muscular trans men began regularly astonishing their bosses by getting pregnant and asking for maternity leave. Then that would help with that kind of discrimination, right?

I don't know what else would. Maybe if society was structured so that pregnancy was not such a liability. If mothers didn't have to "drop out" so drastically from everything. That would be a better solution but also, at the moment, seemingly impossible.