Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Transwomen and pregnancy

8 replies

oldtiredcyclist · 28/05/2026 13:47

The human rights commissioner for Australia, Dr Anna Cody, says that an employer must assume that a transwoman can get pregnant.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLo6IYQU

OP posts:
KnottyAuty · 28/05/2026 13:52

That is not an entirely correct statement - Cody doesn’t say anyone must assume a TW can be pregnant.

This is about discrimination by association - someone assumes you have a protected characteristic and discriminates against you even if you don’t.

eg you dont have to be gay to be protected from homophobia.

Cody is idiotic talking about pregnancy tho!

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 28/05/2026 14:28

If a bloke isn't offered a job because he has said at interview that he does plan/want to get pregnant, the grounds for not employing him are obvious: he is mad, and they don't want to employ a mad person because of possible further manifestations of insanity being bad for the workplace.

(Being mad isn't a protected characteristic, is it? Or does it come under disability?)

RogueFemale · 28/05/2026 22:02

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime I expect you'd be safe rejecting an applicant with a mental disability which made it impossible to do the job - such as dementia. Dunno if 'deluded' or 'misogynistic' counts as a mental disability these days when it's so widespread.

spannasaurus · 28/05/2026 22:20

They're tieing themselves in knots because they won't say , if an employer mistook a transwoman for an actual/biological woman

They can't risk being accused of thinking that transwomen aren't really women

QldGCandproud · 28/05/2026 22:44

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 28/05/2026 14:28

If a bloke isn't offered a job because he has said at interview that he does plan/want to get pregnant, the grounds for not employing him are obvious: he is mad, and they don't want to employ a mad person because of possible further manifestations of insanity being bad for the workplace.

(Being mad isn't a protected characteristic, is it? Or does it come under disability?)

Edited

Exactly this, but we must not say this out loud, or even think it in Australia...

Datun · 29/05/2026 01:25

KnottyAuty · 28/05/2026 13:52

That is not an entirely correct statement - Cody doesn’t say anyone must assume a TW can be pregnant.

This is about discrimination by association - someone assumes you have a protected characteristic and discriminates against you even if you don’t.

eg you dont have to be gay to be protected from homophobia.

Cody is idiotic talking about pregnancy tho!

Edited

She didn't really say that though. If she had said, if you don't know the person is trans and you think they're a woman, and you discriminate on the basis that she might become pregnant then that's wrong.

But they didn't spell it out. At all.

I'm assuming it's because they didn't want to actually even acknowledge that the hypothetical person is male.

They won't even give it out as a possibility!

There has to be ructions right across Australia about this. Or if there isn't, there will be.

it's really difficult to believe how they can't see what absolute fucking idiots they look.

Datun · 29/05/2026 01:26

spannasaurus · 28/05/2026 22:20

They're tieing themselves in knots because they won't say , if an employer mistook a transwoman for an actual/biological woman

They can't risk being accused of thinking that transwomen aren't really women

Oh spanna, you said it first. I missed your comment.

Gateappreciation · 29/05/2026 05:16

it’s almost comical, a bit like a French and Saunders sketch, if it weren’t for real.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page