“Trans womens rights are womens rights”

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Says Angela raynor twitter.com/lbc/status/1549000583742455809?s=21&t=qgvRnVgFhJgygk_b4Qxg2w

so that’s “mens rights are Women’s then”’

She’s either stupid or duplicitous but either way Labour can’t be trusted with Women’s rights

Maternity rights are female rights. Gender identity of said female is irrelevant to their claim on said rights

I wonder whether the actual solution in the end is to stop using the convenience of 'mens' or 'womens' rights, and be more specific about the criteria which apply in each individual situation.

I'm not suggesting losing the word women to apply to our sex category when campaigning - but when we get down to formal wording, going into more detail.

Eg
Employees who have given birth are entitled to xyz from the date of the child's birth

Employees who acquire parental resposibility for a child during their employment (whether through birth or adoption) are entitled to xyz

I think it might be what people are trying to do with 'birthing parent' (being generous) but language is key to avoid making us feel like body parts

Also

Only swimmers who have not been through male puberty may compete in the women's category (FINA's actual decision - beautifully put)

Only students who are registered with the school as female may use the girls toilets and changing room (schools always see identity documents when students register, and GRC is only after 18, so that would be sufficient. IF schools were on-side)

What we can't have is keeping the existing broad-brush men/women categories, but change those categories to be based on

What we can't have is keeping the existing broad-brush men/women categories, but change those categories to be based on gender identity rather than sex.

(sorry, don't know why the last few words got lost from the end of my post!)

I genuinely think it might be a way out of the 'women need xyz' vs 'but transwomen are women' deadlock.

If we can express clearly exactly what the specific needs are in each different situation (long, hard work - because we should be precise enough that we must be situation-dependent) then maybe we can get away from semantic wrangling.

And the advantage of clear, precise thinking and precise definitions is that it hopefully will flush out any remaining sexism/discrimination which isn't justified (proportionate means to reach a legitimate aim), but which has hung around for historic reasons and because nobody really thought about it and challenged it.

So instead of a birthing body a woman is ‘an employee who has given birth’. So gender neutral language by another entrance. Or how about we just confirm a woman is an adult human female and only women can give birth.

Actually the Employment Act 1996 refers to maternity leave for an "employee" which is not defined as a man or a woman. The legislation and regulations use the word "she" but obviously don't define if that is in the biological or gendered sense. Besides which, no one is going to fight to lose rights.

Well a transwomans not gonna need maternity rights that’s for sure. So it’s kind of obvious it’s in the biological sense.

Transwomens rights are mens rights. the rights men have always held over women by dint of strength, patriarchy and plain violence. the sense of entitlement felt by many transwomen are a reflection of the patriarchial hegemony.

And angela Raynor needs to fuck off, politically and as a womam.

I think I know what this slogan is meant to mean, but it just doesn’t make sense.

Transwomens rights are mens rights. the rights men have always held over women by dint of strength, patriarchy and plain violence. the sense of entitlement felt by many transwomen are a reflection of the patriarchial hegemony.

But those things aren't rights’ are they? Not legitimate legal rights.

They are men using their might. So yes, as you say in the second half TRAs use men’s might to claim what are women’s sex-based actual rights.

It ought to be obvious but... I fully expect to see TW try to claim maternity leave and maternity pay for their paid-for baby or a child they've fathered.

In that case why not go with female and male. So female employees get maternity leave, male employees get paternity leave and either sex can get adoption/foster leave.

I can't agree with you @BetterFuture1985 when you say no one is going to fight to lose rights.

There is a barrister who occasionally graces these boards, who is proud of having renegotiated maternity & paternity leave for a 'sex swap' couple (as the tabloids would call them). So the one who carried the baby and was going to give birth got the paternity leave, while their partner, who was presumably the ejaculator, would get the maternity leave.

I can only imagine this was the first baby, for the paternity leave person at least. Because I know of not a single woman who has given birth who would seriously welcome going back to work only two weeks after giving birth. Yes, it can in theory seem attractive to get back to the adult world and it does depend on the nature of the work: I'm sure working from home, or being able to do your work from your bed after the baby's birth might seem ok before you've actually given birth but when you factor in the lack of sleep, bleeding, lactating, labile mood .... and don't get me started on having to walk to the station at 7am and then stand for an hour on a crowded train etc etc so soon after giving birth.

It's one of the most callous things I've heard for years. It shouldn't have ever been allowed. However, the barrister reported that the couple seemed very pleased with the arrangement. Antenatally, I'm sure they were as it affirmed their gender identities. But barristers don't stay in contact with their clients once the business is done and I wonder how that panned out for the couple concerned.

But I'd definitely say one of that couple was negotiating to lose rights, if not fighting to do so.

In that case why not go with female and male. So female employees get maternity leave, male employees get paternity leave and either sex can get adoption/foster leave.

Because in a lesbian couple, there are 2 female parents

And that's without the complexity of a 'sex swap couple' like raptor describes.

Much clearer to say eg:
After an employee has given birth, they aren't permitted back to work for minimum of 4 weeks unless signed off by a doctor. This is required for health reasons.

A pregnant employee is also entitled to stop working up to 10 weeks before the due date.

Between them, new parents may have up to 52 weeks parental leave for a new child (including the time taken above), which can only be taken as above and/or immediately after the child is born or adopted. The parents must share the leave sequentially, if they choose to share it. The first 6 weeks of this combined leave will be at 90% of the employees salary, and the remainder at 60% (say). The leave entitlement belongs to the parent who has given birth, who must agree if any is to be given to the other parent.
.