Transwomen - pseudumenopausal symptoms due to hrt - asked to approve work policy

[GrimDamnFanjo]

I have to comment on a paper that’s come for approval. It’s a policy regarding menopause at work.
theres detail regarding the experience of black women, women with disabilities, trans men and those who identify as non binary and a line that transwomen may experience pseudomenopausal symptoms due to taking hrt.
is this true?
is this any different to anyone having side effects for drugs they take or am I missing something?

Explain to me @onepostwonder how you change sex
Seriously.

Pretty sure secondary sexual characteristics can be altered with the judicious application of the other sex’s hormones, but the gametes don’t change, the chromosomes don’t change. It’s skin deep.

im also fairly certain clownfish can change sex (directors cut of finding nemo) but last time I checked fish aren’t people

Yes it does.

And we waiting for the details and fhe clarification for how female people will be excluded from a menopause policy if they are going through menopause?

The list is getting rather long of claims unsupported by evidence.

It really is like someone makes a claim and expects women to believe those claims based on nothing but say so. Meanwhile those women make claims that are backed by science and statistics but are accused of hate, and limitations of understanding. It is a little like Billings’ menacing ‘what are you going to do?’ jeer.

And meanwhile the subjective reality of some male people is expected be considered proven material reality because of emotional reasoning and manipulation. The gaslighting continues.

Cue some vague waffle about Hijira

Is it? Presumably the women the policy is applying to are actually individuals? Are they planning on giving extra consideration to all black women no matter what symptoms they have? Or less to Asian women?

It seems very extraneous to the needs of a workplace HR policy.

Of course the real reason is the same reason they have mentioned men. They need to mention all the groups in order to appease the id pol gods.

So you want a menopause policy in order to cover symptoms that would not be sufficiently severe to be covered by disability? I'm just struggling to see the need for a stand-alone policy, but happy to be convinced if you can explain.

Yes, changing sex requires an animal to have the ability to produce one gamete type, then go through a metamorphosis that changes its body so that it then has the ability to produce the other gamete type.

In #SadTimes episode number 1138, no human has done this. Hell, no mammal has ever done this. Even those chappies who really, really identify as a #TrueAndHonestWoman have never done this.

The infinite tale of woe continues, and even evolution is against them.

Taking loads of opium and banding your cock and balls so that they die and fall off does not make one female. It makes one a eunuch.

Diabetes and migraine would come under sick leave; they are also things that an employer could reasonably expect could be treated to some extent. Menopause is both an equality issue (because it can only be experienced by women, and so involves potential aspects of discrimination); but it also isn’t in itself a disease, and though aspects of it might fall under sickness policies, it fundamentally is something that isn’t just about sick leave or disability or required adjustments or discrimination, but can involve aspects of all of those things. That’s why it needs a special policy: precisely because you can’t pathologise it as illness.

That’s one important reason why men/transwomen shouldn’t be included in a menopause policy: for the same reason the Supreme Court gave in its recent judgment. Menopause is really about (potential) sex discrimination; and sex discrimination doesn’t make any sense as an equality issue if you include gender in it. A menopause policy fundamentally rests on sex as a protected characteristic.

If what transmen want is protection from discrimination due to aspects of taking hormones that cause unavoidable physical symptoms, then this protection should rest on their protected characteristic (gender reassignment); and it should be included in a company’s policies on gender reassignment, not in their policies on menopause.

Wonders if my comment correctly identifying what a eunuch is will stand.

It doesn't make sense, it should all be covered as medial issues, like every other hormone related thing that a man or women might experience. Including age related things.

Discrimination on the basis of age, sex, or disability are all covered in various ways, and there are protections for people who are ill as well, they don't all need their own policies.

It's just faddishness.

I'm not advocating for a policy. But I can see that a policy could be useful. If migraine is severe enough to cause disability, it will result in absence. There may be a need for reasonable adjustment for shift patterns, or for post-migraine days where absence isn't necessary but performance may dip.

Menopause isn't as discrete asmigraines, for example or a diabetic hypo. It may be that the menopausal woman is generally more anxious, tired, loses confidence in their abilities, etc. Without awareness of menopause, employers could think that they are losing their ability for their job, rather than facing a period of adjustment.

ACAS has quite a good guide
www.acas.org.uk/menopause-at-work

Using the very narrow sex realist definitions of 'change' and 'sex' would force everyone to agree with the notion that people cannot change sex.

It is not a question of "agreeing with a notion". It is reality, hence "sex realists". The opposite notion, which you appear to subscribe to, is "sex fantasists". Very probably in more ways than one.

The rest of the world does not maintain such restrictive definitions or beliefs.

Not that I believe that for one moment but all across the Ancient World, people used to believe that animals could be impregnated by the wind. Consensus is not a reliable way to determine reality.

Animals impregnated by the wind
Conway Zirkle
Isis, Vol. 25, No. 1 (May, 1936)

When CAMERARIUS first published the evidences of sexuality in the flowering plants, he was faced with the necessity of proving that wind could carry pollen from one flower to another. In the course of his presentation he cited several classical examples of the fertilizing power of air, and even quoted a passage in
VIRGIL's Georgics which tells how certain mares were impregnated by the west wind. He thus called attention to a very ancient fantasy. In his famous letter to VALENTINE, De Sexu Plantarum Epistola, Tilbingen, I694, he referred to these mares and to the "wind-eggs " of several species of birds:

"Those unfertile eggs of birds produced without the influence of the male are generally called wind-eggs because, as ARISTOTLE explains, in springtime the birds seem to receive a fertilizing breath from the west wind. VIRGIL also refers to this when he describes the excited condition of the mares: ...

"These words can be applied better to the conception of plants than to that of animals, for the latter, although they may be moved and stimulated by the wind, receive no germ from it, but plants owe much more to the wind because in the spring, their organs of conception are directed to the Zephyr like so many nostrils to inhale the rustling airs and the flower dust. Impregnated by the wind's breath, (oh wonder to relate) they conceive without copulation. Also the egg that is impregnated here in the plant through the medium of the wind or the air, the carrier of the male principle is fertile and not a wind egg. PLINY also commends the power of Favonius (the west wind)... That must now certainly be interpreted with a grain of judgment, for apart from the old fable about the wind-impregnated Spanish mares, how can such a fruit be other than a sterile thing, a wind egg, a misbirth."

Strangely enough most classical and medieval philosophers believed that certain mammals and birds could be impregnated by wind, although they were ignorant of the wind's function in the cross-pollination of the flowering plants. This belief in the existence of what we might call anaemophilous animals is extremely ancient. From the earliest times it existed in Egypt, Greece and the Orient and ultimately it became a part of the intellectual heritage of many races. It spread along the sea routes of the whole eastern hemisphere, and it has been found from Portugal to Japan, and in all of the countries between. Our first record of this belief comes from the Iliad, our last from the folklore of the Ainu; between these extremes are records by Greek philosophers, Roman naturalists and early Christian saints. Medieval schoolmen copied the classical accounts while Arab travellers, Chinese geographers and modern anthropologists have reported numerous instances of the existence of this belief. Indeed few scientific errors have had such an honorable history.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/224987

I seriously doubt that as many people today believe that people can change sex. Even if they do, it is still a fantasy.

When onepost refers to a 'narrow' definition, we have to remember that the correct word is 'accurate'.

Damn those realists for being accurate! Struggle session required!

I am 100% behind having 'awareness' of menopause and the symptoms that may be experienced. Same with menstruation. Maybe men would argue for 'andropause'. I'm just not convinced about the need for a separate stand-alone policy.

Yes, I think I am more inclined to this line of thought. Anyway, there is enough derailing of OP's thread without me adding to it.😘

Weird how trans-identifying men call the cross-sex hormones they take ‘HRT’ but trans-identifying women don’t.

Then they come to believe that what they are taking actually is HRT as in the drug regimes prescribed for menopausal women. Then in the next leap they come to think that must mean they’re going through menopause. Incredible belief in the power of words to shape the world.

It’s actually quite useful having an example on this thread of how batshit all this is and how inimical to women’s rights to healthcare. Otherwise it’d be hard to believe. One might be tempted to take the easy route and let a few nonsense sentences into the policy.

Pelvic bone structure can’t change either. Which is damn useful for archaeologists looking at adult skeletal remains. They know at a glance what sex the skeleton is.

Apparently male pelvic bones are structured in a way that allows freer forward motion and running. Femal pelvic bones have evolved to expand and move to allow a baby to be born.

I am being critical I would argue the source of the information (Sex Matters) coudl be interpreted as having a political agenda.

If these results came from The Trevor Project I would have more faith in them.

In our office the female toilets were being upgraded. A survey went around to all the women to ask if they would want to share the toilets with the men- 90% said no. The person who sent the email around wears a rainbow lanyard and is part of the "Rainbow Collective" and I wonder if it was someone else whether the results would have been different.

I am being critical I would argue the source of the information (Sex Matters) coudl be interpreted as having a political agenda.

If these results came from The Trevor Project I would have more faith in them.

In our office the female toilets were being upgraded. A survey went around to all the women to ask if they would want to share the toilets with the men- 90% said no. The person who sent the email around wears a rainbow lanyard and is part of the "Rainbow Collective" and I wonder if it was someone else whether the results would have been different.

Amazing you sound like an expert in transitioning.

What is it about being seen as a woman that is important to you? I haven't seen any transgender women ever being asked this and so I have very little understanding of what if feels like to be experience those feelings?

Yes, those are members of the sex that typically produces large gametes.

Exactly. There are eunuchs and there are men who cross dress.

The Trevor Project has a political agenda in the exact same way.

The Trevor project? The Trevor project is highly biased and usually uses very poor methodology. Have you actually ever looked at the research they produce? The questions are also leading and not neutral.

These are neutral questions asked without any leading. They are asked of an open population with varied age groups, political party habits and geographical spread. It is important to check the data everytime you see something like this, and I included the data tables expressly for the purpose.

Also, it was commissioned by Sex Matters but done by a reputable pollster. Those corporate pollsters cannot afford to be publicly known to produce biased data, it is their very livelihood.

They are also consistent to the YouGov tracker information for the UK that has been collected since 2018. The results have also been consistent to other polling too. I am happy to direct you to the other sources. I offered to do that for the PP as well.

I have looked at the Trevor Project data for their often quoted mega survey and it is very poorly done.

“A survey went around to all the women to ask if they would want to share the toilets with the men- 90% said no”

I have yet to see a survey of the general population come out any differently.