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?

Nice of OnePostWonder to come on here specifically to illustrate how the waters will be muddied by including male people in a very female-specific issue. Well done.

Indeed. How to show up exactly why men should have their own policies for their own problems rather than trying to make themselves women's problem and fucking the support and help women need but don't have because men dominate everything.

Why can't we even have menopause ourselves without men saying 'but what about meeeeeeeee?'

What about you? It's not your fucking problem.

A key point is that women identifying as trans/transmen/females who say they are non binary should all be covered in a menopause policy.

I'd suggest HR may wish to consult lawyers on.this. Bridget Philipson is sitting on the guidance, so it hasnt been updated and ACAS and EHRC haven't updated.

The SC judgement clarifies the law, though.

How "out" as GC are you at work?

If you're not comfortable saying "this is rubbish and here's why". Which is fine, btw, I wouldn't be able to say this at work without fearing repercussions.

I would personally ask for citations for what they have put in there, and then criticise their sources if they manage to provide any.

Some aren’t even calling HRT for menopausal women, HRT.

True HRTs are physically life saving hormones such as insulin and thyroxine. As in, don’t take it and you end up dying (the former much more quickly than the latter.) Hence free prescriptions if you’re on them.

(I can’t remember what they’re calling hrt though in its place. I’d have to go hunting.)

The covering pregnancy and maternity leave groups is an excellent point.

If he’s using some sort of hormone blocker it will be more akin to cancer medication. Which causes hot flushes and joint aches etc.

Ah: Menopause Hormone therapy.

To onepost upthread's point about seeking a 'legal' answer - that is precisely what HR is for. To protect employers against legal claims, ETs, etc.

The SC judgment dealt explicitly with protections afforded because of situations or vonditions related to biological sex:

'177. As we shall demonstrate, a strong indicator that the words “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 have their biological meaning (and not a certificated sex meaning) is provided by sections 13(6), 17 and 18 (which relate to sex, pregnancy and maternity discrimination) and the related provisions. The protection afforded by these provisions is predicated on the fact of pregnancy or the fact of having given birth to a child and the taking of leave in consequence. Since as a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant, the protection is necessarily restricted to biological women.

178. The repeated references in these sections, to a woman who has become pregnant or who is breast-feeding only make sense if sex has its biological meaning. These plain, unambiguous words can only be interpreted coherently as references to biological sex, biological females and biological males. Put another way, if the acquisition of a certificate pursuant to section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 applies to these words, so that biological women living as trans men (with a GRC in the male gender) are male, they would nonetheless be excluded from protection when pregnant notwithstanding a continued capacity to become pregnant, and duty-bearers would not be able to claim relevant exemptions in relation to their treatment.'

An employer with a trans identity is protected under seperate pc. Any policy should be related to that. It can't be covered under pregnancy, maternity, menopause, etc, as these are all related to the pc of sex - women.

Hmmmmm... interesting

I would wonder if they did actually mean Transmen rather than Transwomen. I would clarify that with the author.

If it was intended, I would focus strongly on the definition of menopause. Specifically identify the function of menopause, how it relates the persons reproductive system. Really battle it out, and do not engage in any political discourse until menopause has been defined with surgical precision.

I have been practicing how to hold the line on the definition of woman in a way that cannot be interpreted as anything other than respectful. This involved saying things like "The definition of woman for me is based purely on biological sex. I respect your position is that it is a subjective feelingfor you, but for me subjective feelings do not cover the realties of living in the world with a female body". Something like that.

I think that as trans identifying men don’t go through menopause, obviously, they have a series of symptoms related to hormone use for other reasons, you could just move that line about pseudomenopause to the transitioning policy, and change pseudomenopause to hormonal side effects. Alternatively move it to the sick policy to cover all people affected by medical hormonal treatments for a variety of conditions.
it should be fine to keep the menopause policy for people who are have a mense to pause in the first place. It’s also ok to ask people who disagree to look into the mechanisms of menopause more throughly to understand the policy requirements better. You can take HRT for menopause, but not everyone does, it’s not about HRT.

Obviously the concept of trans women experiencing menopause symptoms is nonsense because by definition to be a trans woman you have to be male. But why are black women, disabled women singled out in this policy?

They are women, not some sort of subset that experiences menopause in a different way.

I think the most important thing to establish is whether it not trans identified men are covered by the policy should they decide they are in menopause.

If your work for example allows additional flexibility for women experiencing debilitating symptoms, are these same accommodations open to men?

I would question this and suggest it would be clearer to have any accommodations for people who are taking cross sec hormones to be covered in the transitioning at work policy. Based on what you have described above, I would guess you have one of those (and I would also bet you don't have a detransitioning at work one)

I think there’s lots of useful advice here such as clearly defining what menopause means, clearly defining HRT, asking/checking your workplace trans policies, separating political arguments from biological facts and legal frameworks, and so on…

But this is why the working world is wild. You are being asked to comment on a policy that you have absolutely no clue about. What is your role? Where is the legal team? Who are the medical experts? What other policies have been reviewed to create this document? So so pointless.

There was a piece in the news last week about men who are taking medication for prostate cancer; they didn’t say menopausal symptoms. They said causes hot flushes, fatigue, joint pain etc. the piece was about research looking at taking half doses being as effective with less side effects.

if his medication is causing such side effects he perhaps needs to have a review and decide if it’s really worth it. His risks of cancer and heart attack are currently raised due to the medication.

A very important post.

If there is a policy designed for women who are menopausal, then no, a male perspective about something else is not in the slightest bit helpful. Why include it?

And the reason why it's an important question, is because it would not have fucking occurred to anyone to ask it.

Women's difficult biological functions are being repurposed to validate men. It's the whole point of the company including them in this policy.

So make them say it.

Ask how it helps women.

It doesn't.

Make them think it, and then be forced to say it.

I dont know thats necessary?

Edit: I mean this bit: focus strongly on the definition of menopause.

The protections related to menopause, as pregnancy and maternity, cover women. They do not cover men.

My previous workplace had a 3 page “menopause guidelines for managers” document.
Two thirds of one page was about the “male menopause” and how men experience declining testosterone as they age and how it affects them.
Couldn’t give women 3 pages in a document without “what about the men” popping up.

I agree with others that transwomen don’t experience a pseudo menopause. Any side effects are due to taking huge amounts of hormones not designed for their bodies. I read that they take 6 times the amount of oestrogen that a menopausal woman takes.(would have to fact check that though).

In the real world yes, but when you are balancing the not so sublte sexist politics of the current corporate environment a more tactful nature that stating the obvious is sometimes required.

Hmm. I'm considering it from the legal HR standpoint. Women are protected under the EA from diacrimination on basis of sex, and those protections related to sex (pregnancy, maternity) flow from that. This was the SC judgment. It'd be logical that menopause would have the same mechanism.

IANAL and wd be good to hear legal opinions on that.

Menopause symptoms don’t come from taking HRT. They come from ovarian failure, and can be prevented by taking HRT. Then they can recur when HRT is stopped. Presumably men who want to be women continue to take the hormones for ever, so not only do they never actually have a real menopause, they also never stop the hormones, so don’t have a hormone withdrawal either. So they shouldn’t be in your policy at all.

Just to point out the hopeless ridiculousness of this whole ideology.

I had one GP suggest I taper off oestrogen and progesterone in my late 40s. He explained this as needing to enter 'menopause' as I was entering the age.

I was going to say this can't possibly be true, but given the nature of some doctors, it probably is.

A doctor recommended that a man, who had taken female hormones all his life to try and look like a woman, stop doing that in order to pretend he's doing something that only women can do.

Jesus. It's all just so bloody pathetic.

Surely it's what the term 'get a life' was truly, truly invented for.

I agree, but the reality is that the type of people that are pushing for all of this are very difficult people to have in the workplace and have influence over the lead managment. Peoples jobs are at risk if they challenge this, and that isn't going to help anyone.

Their behaviour is intense and extrordinarly persistent. They have something to lose. Whether its because they have "black and white thinking" or are highly motivated by to either soothe a dysregulated nervous system or persue a sexual fetish.

Thats why holding the line rather than pushing a this point is the correct action. I am not based in the UK but the SCR just fed into their already extreme victim complex and if you want to the hold the line it has been done with being reasonable and with respect.

Yes, @ArabellaScott that was what I was suggesting - viewed from the 210 EA, and the clarification of existing law by the Supreme Court, menopause would be related to sex, and limited to [biological] women.

(I hate having to use an adjective to indicate I mean women).

Trans-identified men are covered under the PC of "gender reassignment." Any claim or policy under the PC of sex (for trans-identified men) would relate to their treatment in comparison with non-trans-identified men, not women.

If it's covered under sex based rights for women then adding a man to a group is not in line with that.

It's that simple.

Transmen will only be relevant if they haven't been taking cross sex hormones because although they are the correct sex the reason for their medication isnt related to reproduction it's related to gender reassignment and it may be inappropriate to include them (as per the SC ruling). Their protection will otherwise come under gender reassignment

Im on HRT in part for mental health reasons... I needed HRT rather than have a total breakdown. This doesn't stop me going through menopause.

Going through deliberate withdrawal to have all the symptoms that women are trying to avoid as a form of validation is precisely why women shouldn't have men in a menopause group because it actively undermines what they are dealing with.

It makes going through menopause a 'right of passage to being female'. It's sick fuck territory and right up there with shit like withholding pain relief during child birth for this female right of passage shit. Aka misogyny

Yes @RedToothBrush you've put it brilliantly! The SC decision confirmed that it is that simple.

I think that @GrimDamnFanjo could murmur something about "making us vulnerable to litigation..." if the company/workplace doesn't adhere to the SC clarification of the 2010 EA. She could phrase it as worried concern about leaving her employer open to lengthy and expensive legal cases, which will also hit the news and could do reputational damage, as well as expensive legal costs.