Do women lose out twice in topsy turvy land?

[Sexnotgender]

Was musing whilst awake at 3 this morning with a crying baby.

In topsy turvy land where men are women and women men I wondered if women lose out twice where there are quotas for sex based diversity.

Where there must be women represented then transwomen will be considered for the women’s roles. Will transmen be considered for the men’s roles or is that unlikely? The men’s quota is usually pretty full already!

As the dominant/oppressive sex it’s unlikely they’ll be punted out to accommodate transmen. Just look at the primogeniture legislation for example. Heads I win, tails you lose.

It is likely the case OP.

I mentioned this on the final page of the AIBU thread "to NOT think women rights are being attacked" because one poster said that the 'younger generation' will get inclusion right, blah blah blah, right side of history.

Of course that generation will quickly realise it doesn't work as they have been told it would. Because

Being sold superficial utopian dreams that don’t reflect the current material reality with millennia deep foundations is not going to be successful.

Our girls have been subject to sexist discrimination since birth, no matter how much we like to think this is not so, it is still true. So, when they reach adult hood and realise that the females, transmen, who are their friends are still subject to sexist discrimination to some extend, YET, the transitioned males are being promoted, awarded, invited to participate on panels, take roles set aside for females, sporting achievements etc. They will see the reality is not that utopian dream.

Because equality for females had a long way yet to go.

Any person denying this disparity still exists is clearly living somewhere that maybe we shall all move too as it sounds lovely.

But no. The next generation will quickly wake up when they realise they and their friends are still facing SEX discrimination and it needs to separated out from gender discrimination. And they will realise that some of them were complicit.

Well, in Scotland that's a definitive yes for the law intended to rectify the underrepresentation of women on public boards.

The way the Scottish Government wrote the law, any male person is considered female for the purposes of the law who uses a female name (although no proof of actually doing so is required). Any female person seeking to identify as anything other than a woman is excluded from the provisions of the bill.

And an amendment to the Bill, tabled by a female MSP, ensured that a male person who identifies as a woman is a more valuable woman than a female person for the purposes of this Bill. So if a male person who identifies as trans and a female person compete for a seat on the board, and all other things being equal, the former is to be given precedence over the latter.

So we lose three times:

1. Share our 50% of board seats allocated to female candidates with transgender candidates of the male sex, all while

1. transgender candidates of the female sex are excluded from applying for seats allocated to female candidates and are not in their turn given consideration for the 50% of spaces allocated to male candidates. That's because no law to remedy the underrepresentation of males on company boards exist, because they have been and still are overrepresented on most boards. And

1. in cases of direct competition, and all other things being equal, a transgender person of the male sex is to be given precedence over female candidates, regardless of their trans status.

I think it goes even deeper than losing out twice. It’s already happening sometimes that men who claim they are women/lesbian tend to take over leadership or representation positions. In that position, the only people they generally represent are men like themselves. Of course this is seen as acceptable as it’s claimed they are fighting for the rights of “the most marginalised women”.

So if they are officially there to represent women, but are not in any way representing women, then there is no longer anyone fighting for, or even accurately representing our position and rights. Worse still, when they’re fighting to undermine our rights themselves. It’s more like an exponential problem than simply losing out twice.

Ok so not just nonsense my exhausted brain thought at 3am! God this is all so depressing.

You’re killing me @AnyOldPrion 😢

@Sexnotgender

You’re killing me *@AnyOldPrion* 😢

I think the entire regime will eventually topple because it will become impossible to ignore the unfairness. Either that or the medical scandal that I suspect is also on the way will trigger backlash against the rest.

I have dark days when I wonder whether the upside down will somehow prevail. If they had stopped pushing for men to have ever more women’s rights, and had accepted the status quo (which is already strongly in their favour) they might have done so. They could even have asked for more protection and representation for those who transition and that would likely have been granted without question.

But if they continue to push for men to have all women’s rights and access to all our spaces, as they are pushing now, public opinion will eventually reach a point where even the most determined politicians won’t be able to ignore the voices of rational people pointing out the myriad reasons that it won’t work.

I suspect that as more and more males take the Women's Officer roles, the chairperson and executive roles for the Women's committees, sit on female health boards, force misrepresentation by taking female board roles on boards that then become more male than female in balance, those young women fighting this will grow.

They are out there. As long as we can fight to keep them being able to speak, they will cut through the bullshit.

But if they continue to push for men to have all women’s rights and access to all our spaces, as they are pushing now, public opinion will eventually reach a point where even the most determined politicians won’t be able to ignore the voices of rational people pointing out the myriad reasons that it won’t work.

I think that, but then more and more outrageous stuff happens and people still say nothing! I worry there isn’t a tipping point.

I mean, honestly who would have thought rational people would sign off males playing women’s rugby? But here we are.

@Sexnotgender

Was musing whilst awake at 3 this morning with a crying baby.

In topsy turvy land where men are women and women men I wondered if women lose out twice where there are quotas for sex based diversity.

Where there must be women represented then transwomen will be considered for the women’s roles. Will transmen be considered for the men’s roles or is that unlikely? The men’s quota is usually pretty full already!

As the dominant/oppressive sex it’s unlikely they’ll be punted out to accommodate transmen. Just look at the primogeniture legislation for example. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Maybe you should reserve the deep thoughts for when you're fully awake?

So no thoughts of your own, PumpkinSpiceWoman, just a nasty dig at the OP?

I agree with previous posters. I'd add another dimension - we're told we're bigots for merely pointing out the unfairness of the situation. As proved by a previous poster.

Thanks @Keepemguessing. Nothing useful to add I see Pumpkin.

Maybe you should reserve the deep thoughts for when you're fully awake?

No reasoned response to the thoughtful messages put forward by the OP and AnyOldPrion?

I do notice a theme with these TRA posters. They are seemingly unable to put forward a coherent answer to genuine questions.

I do notice a theme with these TRA posters. They are seemingly unable to put forward a coherent answer to genuine questions.

It’s helpful when bystanders stumble across posts though and see the reasoned, coherent arguments tabled by only one side of the debate.

Yep girls and women definitely lose out 2 fold.

Not only do they lose places in sports to male born people. They also have to sometimes play against or with females who have taken testosterone.

Now females who have transitioned rightly get placed in womens prisons and I'd never ever advocate for them to be placed in the male estate but let's not pretend it must be a bit of a mind fuck for the women. Not only to.be incarcerated with male bodied people but also females who may well pass quite well if they have taken medication.

Non binary fir male bodied people deems to involve hair dye and a tutu. Non binary fir female bodied people involves binding and mastectomies in some instances. So very much nore physically harmful than than males.

Makes still retain access to pretty much everything they want but females not so much. Even on testosterone they will not beat the men at sports and. therfore men will not lose out.

Take the pomds also fir example. Women who IDd as men fir the day were asked to leave the male pond.

Men and males now have access to three ponds tbe mens/mixed/and womens. But there's now nowhere that's female only.

@Helleofabore

I suspect that as more and more males take the Women's Officer roles, the chairperson and executive roles for the Women's committees, sit on female health boards, force misrepresentation by taking female board roles on boards that then become more male than female in balance, those young women fighting this will grow.

They are out there. As long as we can fight to keep them being able to speak, they will cut through the bullshit.

I know it's difficult to do so, but is this being tracked anywhere?

I think it started in the student unions, but there does seem to be a wider concerted effort now to take over Women's organisations. Seems all that is needed sometimes is a loud voice, some determination...and a wee bit of intimidation?