"Let trans men be fem" what does this mean?

[TheMessyCleaner]

Ok so I wouldn't put myself firmly in either camp, I'm pretty sure some of my friends would say I'm transphobic' but honestly I'm just curious about why we need labels.
One of my daughter's friends mums identifies as 'non binary' yet I've never seen her without a skirt on or make up or long hair worn in a traditionally feminine style. She's in a long term relationship with a man, her daughter is very 'girly' in terms of dress and is not old enough to dress herself so I presume this is the mum's choice of clothes etc.
We are friends on Facebook and she constantly posts memes from a group named 'let trans men be fem.' I thought this was first about m-f trans women but no it appears to be aimed at women who identify as male who want to still be feminine. I try to be accepting but honestly wtf.
If we just got rid of all those silly labels (cis, terf, non binary) then we could all just be hot girls who want to wear eyelashes and nails and also want to fuck other hot girls or guys from time to time or wear a suit to a wedding or have short hair or do whatever the hell we wanted!
Yes no one understands trans men who want to be feminine because it's a stupid idea that biological sex has anything to do with what we wear or want to rub bits with. Can't we just be us?

So I know that some profoundly deaf people choose not to define deafness as a disability and do not identify as disabled.

Does that mean that they are not covered against discrimination under the equalities act on the characteristic of disability?

I'd be interested to know what the answer to this is. My partner is deaf in one ear. Single sided deafness is a common and for the most part minor disability. He wouldn't even call it a disability. He, quite rightly, wouldn't qualify for any benefits on that basis. For most purposes it doesn't matter, it's more of an annoyance than anything.

However, he wouldn't dream of not telling an employer about it because in the work place people need to know if you can't hear them. They need to pass on instructions, which can be urgent, and which he cannot hear if you're on his deaf side, particularly if there is a lot of background noise. So he does need 'reasonable adjustments'.

Some employers ask about disability and he is never sure what to answer. Others ask about 'medical conditions that could affect your work' which makes it much clearer that he should be speaking up.

It's quite personal.

I didn't Id as disabled when younger as I didn't like to think about it, and also I felt like I wasn't 'properly disabled' which was a denial thing probably.

Now I do as its just a fact tbh.

If I had been discriminated against on basis of my disability then how I felt about it inside would have been irrelevant. You don't stop being disabled just by not identifying as disabled.

And this is where its all been turned on its head with people identifying info groups that they factually do not belong in.

With this language, no one imagined that anyone would want to Id into avulnerable/ minority / oppressed group. The language was for people who were the thing, but didn't Id as it. Now it's the exact opposite.

It really is ridiculous if you think about it for more than 2 secs.

Now I do as its just a fact tbh.

I have wondered if perhaps this isn't the attitude that it is best to cultivate in people, rather than this business about "identifying as". For example, does t really matter in most cases if you identify as disabled, or in any? Isn't it a matter of either having relevant medical issues, or a disability according to specific criteria that is relevant to the situation.

I think it's actually similar to the case above with HIV though not in the most obvious way. Does it matter that they identify as gay or not? Not really. What matters is that they meet a certain criteria, men who have sex with men. "Being gay" isn't actually a specific criteria in that way at all, nor does it always include sexual activity, which is why it's not so useful in that setting.

While it may be that sometimes individuals like the idea of "identifying" as disabled, if they meet the criteria and its relevant to a situation, I wonder how much it really helps anyone to not just take it as a fact- they meet the criteria.

Thing is asking lots of invasive and potentially sensitive questions to ascertain whether someone is disabled for something like equalities monitoring purposes is likely to be really unpleasant for a tranche of the people it is interested in iyswim

It's all a bit sensitive.

I would have been very upset at 14 or 20 or 25 having to answer questions which reinforced to me my disability when at the time I was in denial about it.

And you could say suck it up face facts, but these are some really difficult issues etc people can't always come to terms with them just like that.

So yes it's a good idea but the implementation would have to be so so careful.

Or other characteristics. I mean this applies to all equalities type stuff

In answer to your original question. It is referring to the trans community itself not any other group. It refers to the fact that some trans men (the sort that post all over social media follow the TRA movement, normally anyway) will tell some trans men that they aren't trans cause they still either have feminine features or still do stereotypically female things. So my son gets told he can't be trans because he's going into a career in children's nursing for example it's damageing cause it's pushes stereotypes even thurther

letsseethenshallwe "my son gets told he can't be trans because he's going into a career in children's nursing"

If these regressive attitudes were just held by the tiny percentage of the population that is "trans" then it would not matter very much but the fact that they are being pushed by schools, the BBC, etc. the whole damned establishment, and not just in the UK, is nothing less than wholescale social engineering - globally!

This whole thing seems so back to front.

A lot seems to be to do with stereotypes, so men are people who are not 'feminine' and don't do things that are associated with women... These ideas around strict gender role are what some people (mainly feminists) have been trying to smash for years.

Thing is asking lots of invasive and potentially sensitive questions to ascertain whether someone is disabled for something like equalities monitoring purposes is likely to be really unpleasant for a tranche of the people it is interested in iyswim

Yes, but I am presuming that the reason this stuff is being asked at all is because it's relevant to something like a job, or a claim for assistance, or something similar. Otherwise there really isn't any need to ask how the person identifies with regard to disability etc.

If a person wants to make that kind of claim, it can't be done without showing that they fit into the right group or category, can it? In that context whether they say they identify as disabled or are disabled they are still saying they qualify according to the laid out criteria.

It's common on many job applications here for example to identify as a member of various groups, for consideration in affirmative action programs. No one has to, but if they want to they really can't get around saying that they are in fact a member of that group, no matter how obscure they want to make the language.

Equalities monitoring is common enough, and the 'identify as ' language was useful. Ethnicity is an area where id can be complex.

On the reasonable adjustments at work, that's another tricky one. Adjustments may need to be reasonably made for people who are temporarily disabled in some way, or have things that are a standard result of ageing. Is someone who has hurt their back and needs a special chair disabled, if they are going to get better? Would they describe themselves as disabled (probably not). Should they be counted as disabled for monitoring purposes? If someone needs a special screen due to ageing eyes, they should have it. Are they disabled? Yes, would they describe themselves as such? Who knows. Questions around what people can and can't do are never going to be exhaustive and are quite personal. They might be appropriate for financial claims or insurance stuff but this info is useful in other contexts where this questioning would be overkill.

The other point is that employers do discriminate on disability, without question. If it's not obvious, will most people disclose? Maybe once got feet under desk. Tricky.

I asked earlier when you posted if you were thinking of stuff like benefits and you weren't, but conversation has moved on. Benefits claims are different and heavily scrutinised. Adjustments at work, reasonable ones, can and often are made for all sorts of people for a range of reasons. Equalities monitoring is important, though lots of people don't like it. It's more that sort of thing where it is useful to know what's going on, and would it be sensitive to probe.

I suppose the bottom line here is, that fact and truth are out the window. Anyone can id as anything, more or less. Certainly on a form that is anonymous. So it's rendered the whole thing, all the equalities and d&i etc, pointless. And the weirdest thing is, it seems that minority groups are in favour, on the whole.

Started writing this hours ago so may be xposts!