Mumsnet says Trans Rights are Human Rights!

[ool0n]

I always assumed Mumsnet were not the biggest supporters of trans rights, given the stories about them. But this is a good statement on Twitter, "of course trans people exist, and of course trans rights are human rights"
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367071394870276099

Also I thought using terms like cisgender or cis were against the rules, this isn't true either -
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367080005193318401

So can I get a trans rights are human rights, trans women are women, trans men are men and non binary people are valid!

Transpeople should just be, like the rest of us. Stop shouting about being something they are not. Everyone who is human had the same human rights. Transgender people have other rights but they are different to women's rights. Not beteer, just different. And those of us who support women's rights for women are not transphobic.

@Frogartist

That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are

Well you wouldn't get any marks if you gave that answer in a Biology exam.

Can you show me a biology exam that says "define woman"? They might ask what are the biological aspects of sex, I'd say -

1. Chromosomes
2. Genetics
3. Hormones
4. Primary physical sex characteristics
5. Secondary physical sex characteristics

Humans are sexually differentiated primarily by hormones, and the cells receptivity to those hormones. None of this is particularly relevant to the social category "woman", so I doubt a biology exam would ask me that. But I'd be interested to see this exam you are thinking of.

Surgery can change primary aspects of bio sex

Er, no. Any trained research biologist will tell you, sex is determined at the cellular level. Large gametes (female, women) small gametes (male, men).

Ah, I see, okay. HRT is used to refer to treatment women have, usually post-menopausally. These are 'replacing' hormones that women have, hence the 'R'.

You're talking about people taking what are usually called 'cross-sex' hormones. This is where the confusion comes from.

And yes, it may affect secondary sexual characteristics. But not sex. We are in agreement, so. What other kind of 'sex' do you recognise than biological sex?

I have already pointed out that trans people, by laws that have existed in various forms for 80 years and which haven't changed in over a decade, already have the right to use the spaces which align with their gender identity. And I'll again poiint out you cherry picked lines form laws and traduced the overall meaning!

These rights are protected in the Equality Act and the common law which it fundamentally repeats. I have set all of this out already in this thread and you're welcome to follow the links and confirm that this is the law. It's also backed up by the statutory guidance issued by the ECHR. And again, I'd ask anyone to read the whole document not any single section. Or you could equally say that pregnant women cannot be gansayed, ever! Or BAME people; or old peole. Or any of the other protected charactersitics. Again, that traduces the actual law

So "female single sex areas" already includes trans women and have done since before basically everyone in this thread was born. Yes! And?

This is one of the greatest evils of TRA behaviours. For decades transpeople have lived with little fuss or bother. Used facilities they felt most confortable in and assumed they bothered noone. Women like myself often noticed and felt uncomfortable, bad, unpleasant in having noticed. So said nothing and bore with it. That became the norm.

Then along came TRAs and theor loud shouts of TWAW and No Debate. And women wised up and said Piss Off! The status quo was broken and now nobiody is comfortable anywhere! Great move!

Pretending that it doesn't and that it hasn't is trying to remove remove human rights or legal protections from trans people. Nobody this ide of the debate is pretending anything. But it is not a human right or an immutable legal right.

OolOn no surgery can create female body parts. A breast implant is called a breast, but isnt breast tissue. A neo-vagina is not a vagina, and implanting or re-creating ovaries, fallopian tubes or a uterus is just impossible. Nor can I increase my lung capacity to that of a males, or ever have a prostate.

We can attempt to make ourselves look like things, but that will not change our actual biology.

These things also matter hugely. A "woman" bleeding from the genitals for 5 solid days has very different implications depending on their biological sex.

I know no trans people, have no view one way or the other.

My first thought though was, are Trans women not human then?

People are people

Can you show me a biology exam that says "define woman"?

Strawman number 653.

That would be a waste of fucking time in an exam. The whole biology exam is based on the English language definition of woman = adult human female.

@PheasantPlucker1

BigotryisBad People have argued long and hard about whether jaffa cakes are cakes, or biscuits. If someone said believing jaffa cakes are cakes is a belief what are they implying?

Is it:
A) Jaffa cakes dont exist.
B) Not everyone believes jaffa cakes are cakes.

So when I said believing transwomen are women is a belief I meant just that. Of course they exist, but whether or not they are women depends on your definition of the word woman.

Why are you so desperate to see hate and transphobia?

Trans people are not 'cake or biscuits' to be debated at your whim.

Can you not see how even this comparison is transphobic?

As noted previously, I am answering points made in good faith and you, clearly, are not.

Of course trans rights are human rights! But there's a connotation there that evil feminists wish to deny transpeople their human rights.
'Trans rights are human rights' ~ of course they are!
People might as well chant, 'Water is wet!'. Snow is cold!' 'Generally dogs have four legs!'
I am sick of it.

The minute a TRA provides more, on one of these threads, than fallacies, circular logic and offense, I'll pay attention.

Until then, it's a waste of women's time engaging.

Humans are sexually differentiated primarily by hormones,

No, chromosomes and then hormones.

It works entirely differently in chickens which is how you end up with chickens that are half male and half female.

Or you could equally say that pregnant women cannot be gansayed, ever! Or BAME people; or old peole.

This is why sex discrimination is generally illegal but a woman can’t become a Catholic priest, but although religious belief is protected a B&B can’t refuse customers because they are gay.

There is nothing new about the concept of conflicting rights in Equalities and human rights legislation.

Trans people are not 'cake or biscuits' to be debated at your whim. But womens rights are at your disposal? OK! That sounds fair!

BigotryisBad
You are acting in good faith?
So can you actually admit that at no point I ever said "transpeople dont exist?"

I cant engage in discussion with you when you cant follow simple ideas and use your own misunderstanding to accuse me of hate, so please stop tagging me.

Thanks!

@TheFormerChild

Of course trans rights are human rights! But there's a connotation there that evil feminists wish to deny transpeople their human rights. 'Trans rights are human rights' ~ of course they are! People might as well chant, 'Water is wet!'. Snow is cold!' 'Generally dogs have four legs!' I am sick of it.

DS1 puts forward a very good argument for why water is in fact not wet. But I don't want to derail the thread. (And he's wrong but I love his debating ability.)

There is nothing new about the concept of conflicting rights in Equalities and human rights legislation. Bigotry doesn't seem to understand that! Hence the repeated assertion that by quoting from a single section of the Act a specific truth can be ascertained.

A facile interpretation, but there you go!

Hang on, chickens can do what now??
Im off to google that one!

@Twistiesandshout

"This is the thing that confuses me. You are one if you say you are - VERY few concepts in the world are like this. I"m not a royal if I say I am.I'm not black if I say I am. I'm not rich, or 8 years old, or blind, or a cat, or beautiful, or thin, or a member of the Labour Party, or an astronaut JUST because I say I am. We acknowledge that in the world membership of categories have conditions that have to be met. I can't be thin if I weigh 500 lbs. I can't be blind if I have 20/20 vision. I can't be 8 years old if my birth year is 1950. So why is 'woman' magically the only concept where the mere utterance 'I am one' makes it so? "

This above is brilliant

Absolutely.

A couple of weeks ago I visited a site where you could input your date of birth, sex, chronic health conditions, postcode, ethnicity, and other details and it calculated your risk of catching Covid and dying.

My risk was 1 in 16,000, DH’s risk was was 1 in 5,800. Only difference in our replies to the questions was biological sex.

Accurate sex definition is critical in healthcare, treatment and outcomes.

[quote NewarkShark]@bigotryisbad I’m an employment lawyer with a big focus on discrimination. Happy to discuss this in detail with you because I don’t think the Equality Act says what you think it says.[/quote]
Given that I've quoted the sections of the act and linked to it...

You're welcome to dispute my interpretation but I've put out the actual wording of the law.

@QueenoftheAir

Surgery can change primary aspects of bio sex

Er, no. Any trained research biologist will tell you, sex is determined at the cellular level. Large gametes (female, women) small gametes (male, men).

I'd love to see a reference that states biological sex is only referring to reproduction and "gametes". Every biology source I've found refers to "chromosomal sex", "hormonal sex", etc. I've never seen a reputable source - not one in the last couple of years shoe horned in by gender critical people please - that says biological sex is only equal to "gametes". The Trump administration tried to define people's sex by biology, and they didn't propose gametes, they proposed sex assigned at birth and "genetic tests" to determine anyone who appealed. Thousands of scientists objected, including Nobel prize winning biologists and geneticists. Biological sex isn't one characteristic, it's a set of characteristics. not-binary.org/statement/

You're welcome to dispute my interpretation but I've put out the actual wording of the law. We all would dispute your interpretation, for the reasons I've outlined a few times now!

Humans are sexually differentiated primarily by hormones

This is the kind of thing you say when you have never had to worry about dealing with a period, never had to go through IVF, never had a miscarriage, never worried about giving birth. It is completely detached from the reality of sex.