NHS U turn on trans terminology

Parental leave should be available to parents and should be decided by them and no one else.
Of course there is an emotional and physical impact on the mother. Of course that should be accommodated.
It's the old mistake that providing something to others necessarily limits it to some. It doesn't. Extending opportunities never does.
It's a patriarchal concept that has always been used to prevent change. Nothing about extending parental rights means maternal rights will be limited. On the other hand as "Pregnant and Screwed" shows the patriarchy is actively using the system to punish women.

Glorianny it seems to me that you think that transpeople should be ashamed of being trans and should try to hide it by pretending that they belong to a sex that any blood/tissue test will show to be inaccurate.

Why should trans people be ashamed of being what they are and treated as what they are, people with bodies of one sex, but a mind that makes them more comfortable living the life of someone of the opposite sex.

Is *everything^ with which you disagree written off as a patriarchal concept?

Who gets parental leave is up to the parents, agreed - but it would be an irresponsible father who would agree that the mother of his child should go straight back to work after the birth of a child, particularly after a caesarean delivery.

This is very much a side issue though. The point is that women have been discriminated against for years, and allowing males to be called women will provide a loophole for employers who wish to discriminate again to do so without affecting their data. Statistics, like language, matter as they help us to make sense of the world.

Nobody is saying that all employers would do this, just as nobody is saying that all transwomen do anything - the point, which I would have thought was obvious, is that those with a will would have a loophole, and that could easily be plugged by registering transwomen as such on HR records. These need not be made public other than in anonymised form (ie x% of employees are trans), but would reflect the actual sex distribution in an organisation and how many employees at senior level are female.

M0nica

Glorianny it seems to me that you think that transpeople should be ashamed of being trans and should try to hide it by pretending that they belong to a sex that any blood/tissue test will show to be inaccurate.

Why should trans people be ashamed of being what they are and treated as what they are, people with bodies of one sex, but a mind that makes them more comfortable living the life of someone of the opposite sex.

Transpeople don't need to be ashamed of anything. As I have frequently said I know the sex of very few people and few people know mine. Most know my gender which is what anyone knows about transpeople
.
If we are all to have blood tests to determine our sex it would seem to be an unnecessary and expensive intrusion.

Doodledog

Is *everything^ with which you disagree written off as a patriarchal concept?

Who gets parental leave is up to the parents, agreed - but it would be an irresponsible father who would agree that the mother of his child should go straight back to work after the birth of a child, particularly after a caesarean delivery.

This is very much a side issue though. The point is that women have been discriminated against for years, and allowing males to be called women will provide a loophole for employers who wish to discriminate again to do so without affecting their data. Statistics, like language, matter as they help us to make sense of the world.

Nobody is saying that all employers would do this, just as nobody is saying that all transwomen do anything - the point, which I would have thought was obvious, is that those with a will would have a loophole, and that could easily be plugged by registering transwomen as such on HR records. These need not be made public other than in anonymised form (ie x% of employees are trans), but would reflect the actual sex distribution in an organisation and how many employees at senior level are female.

No but the patriarchal concept of degrees of equality is a well known idea. As is the idea that extending rights to one group of people necessarily reduces the rights of another group. Neither of course is accurate.

I asked before would women dressing in a more masculine way be more likely to be employed? If employers can tell by looking (and that is the only way they would know about a trans identity) then perhaps that might happen. It's just as likely as this idea that an employer will recognise a transwoman and employ her because she won't get pregnant. She could of course adopt a child and take that leave.

So there isn't really a loophole. Anyone can form a family. Anyone can have children. Anyone can take leave.

Why would the sex distribution in a company matter? I assume you mean transpeople would have to be registered with HR. Or are we as usual ignoring transmen because they don't fit preconceived notions

Why would the sex distribution in a company matter?.
Oh . . . I see what you mean! You don’t think it matters if males get jobs that females would be likely to apply for and get, thus manœuvering females out of those jobs, as long as the jobs went to TIM who are claiming to be women.
You might have noticed that females have been fighting against that patriarchal misogyny for a long time, but evidently it’s OK with you.
Or are we as usual ignoring transmen because they don't fit preconceived notions

If the we means you, then that might well be true, who knows how you feel about the rights of TIW? Or are you now claiming to speak for everyone else?

Where is there evidence of TIW taking male jobs, cheating in male sports and claiming to be men in circumstances where
a male has been requested?

Glorianny

M0nica

Glorianny it seems to me that you think that transpeople should be ashamed of being trans and should try to hide it by pretending that they belong to a sex that any blood/tissue test will show to be inaccurate.

Why should trans people be ashamed of being what they are and treated as what they are, people with bodies of one sex, but a mind that makes them more comfortable living the life of someone of the opposite sex.

Transpeople don't need to be ashamed of anything. As I have frequently said I know the sex of very few people and few people know mine. Most know my gender which is what anyone knows about transpeople
.
If we are all to have blood tests to determine our sex it would seem to be an unnecessary and expensive intrusion.

Transpeople don't need to be ashamed of anything.
That's exactly what M0nica said.

Most know my gender which is what anyone knows about transpeople
I'm sorry if you are struggling but really, most posters are sympathetic and totally accepting of transgender people.

It is the vociferous minority intent on their campaign of misogyny which upsets and annoys women and so many transgender people too.

Are transmen part of the patriarchy? I suppose they must be. How very traitorous of them, no compassion for the class they've left behind.

Is transracial as acceptable as transgender? I don't see any difference between Rachel Dolezal who is a transracial black woman to any male who identifies as a transgender woman. Despite my many attempts I note that Glorianny who promotes the cause of transgender women, has never answered my questions nor expressed any view on transracial identities. I wonder why that is? My theory is that transracial acceptance might attract rather more criticism than transgenderism and many (including Glorianny) are not equipped to resist that condemnation.

Natal sex is an immutable fact.

Gender identity is subjective.

When a man identifies as a woman he is identifying on his subjective feeling about what it is to be a woman which will depend on various factors, including his own personal perception of women. Hence the variety in appearances- which can include full beards and prominent genitalia.

If the man has gone through male puberty, he will have developed the muscle-mass, bone density, endurance, and concomitant strength. Testosterone inhibition might lessen the overall stamina, but not markedly and not sufficient to level the playing field in most sporting events.

How society includes and deals with men identifying as women without discriminating against them is one thing, but the fact remains that transwomen are men, however they identify. Make-up, clothes, long hair - do not change a man into a woman.

I found your comment insisting very few people know your sex and you know the sex of very few people next level woo woo gloryannie
Fantasy land has no place in real life discussions like this

Glorianny

M0nica

Glorianny it seems to me that you think that transpeople should be ashamed of being trans and should try to hide it by pretending that they belong to a sex that any blood/tissue test will show to be inaccurate.

Why should trans people be ashamed of being what they are and treated as what they are, people with bodies of one sex, but a mind that makes them more comfortable living the life of someone of the opposite sex.

Transpeople don't need to be ashamed of anything. As I have frequently said I know the sex of very few people and few people know mine. Most know my gender which is what anyone knows about transpeople
.
If we are all to have blood tests to determine our sex it would seem to be an unnecessary and expensive intrusion.

A classic example of Glorianny failing to read posts properly and then replying to the post she wished she had read rather than the one someone has actually written.

I wonder how she will mis interprete this post.

Why would the sex distribution in a company matter? I assume you mean transpeople would have to be registered with HR. Or are we as usual ignoring transmen because they don't fit preconceived notions
I am struggling to believe that you are not aware of this, but will suspend disbelief and answer anyway, with apologies to those who don't need this pointing out. It would matter because large employers keep DEI records (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion, in case you decide to ask for an explanation of that, too) to ensure that there is not a mismatch between the profile of their employees and that of the country as a whole as regards sex, race, disability etc. If transwomen are registered as female the numbers registers as such will obviously rise, and those figures will be skewed. This could result in the numbers of women being employed falling. As I keep saying, statistics, like language matter. Is that clear enough?

As I also keep saying, transmen have little or no impact on the rights of women, so they are not brought up as often on these threads, but clearly any legislation brought in would apply to them too, as it would be based on sex, not so-called 'gender'.

Rosie51

Is transracial as acceptable as transgender? I don't see any difference between Rachel Dolezal who is a transracial black woman to any male who identifies as a transgender woman. Despite my many attempts I note that Glorianny who promotes the cause of transgender women, has never answered my questions nor expressed any view on transracial identities. I wonder why that is? My theory is that transracial acceptance might attract rather more criticism than transgenderism and many (including Glorianny) are not equipped to resist that condemnation.

This illustrates my point perfectly. If someone blacked up to get a job that is advertised as being suitable for a person of colour, or was employed and added to the stats to show that E Powell & sons or T Robinson Ltd had fulfilled their DEI requirements would you be supportive of that, Glorianny?

If someone blacked up to get a job that is advertised as being suitable for a person of colour, or was employed and added to the stats to show that E Powell & sons or T Robinson Ltd had fulfilled their DEI requirements would you be supportive of that, Glorianny?

There is a word for that - the inappropriate adoption of customs, practices, appearances, etc of one group in society by another (usually more dominant 'other').

Cultural appropriation.

The outrage it engenders and the offence is causes is acknowledged by the more liberal-minded who, clearly, do not apply the same criteria when one sex appropriates the other and demands that not only does it become the other, but that we acknowledge it so without argument.

Yes, the difference is that someone saying 'I know I wasn't born with black skin, but I feel black' would be (rightly, IMO) ridiculed, or even prosecuted if they tried to use their self-id to their advantage. Otherwise, there seems to me no difference at all.

I definitely think that drag is akin to cultural appropriation, because the aspects of 'femaleness' appropriated by drag queens tend to be exaggerated sexual ones, and the purpose of the act is often to ridicule women. Whether it is offensive or not depends on the degree of affection in the comedy. I never found Lily Savage offensive - maybe because Paul O'Grady (and therefore the character of Lily) had empathy with the women he was satirising.

Iam64

I found your comment insisting very few people know your sex and you know the sex of very few people next level woo woo gloryannie
Fantasy land has no place in real life discussions like this

Who has actual proof of your sex Iam64?
Apart from medical staff, sexual partners and family. Unless you are an active naturist of course. I suppose that would make a difference. I'm not.

M0nica

Glorianny

M0nica

Glorianny it seems to me that you think that transpeople should be ashamed of being trans and should try to hide it by pretending that they belong to a sex that any blood/tissue test will show to be inaccurate.

Why should trans people be ashamed of being what they are and treated as what they are, people with bodies of one sex, but a mind that makes them more comfortable living the life of someone of the opposite sex.

Transpeople don't need to be ashamed of anything. As I have frequently said I know the sex of very few people and few people know mine. Most know my gender which is what anyone knows about transpeople
.
If we are all to have blood tests to determine our sex it would seem to be an unnecessary and expensive intrusion.

A classic example of Glorianny failing to read posts properly and then replying to the post she wished she had read rather than the one someone has actually written.

I wonder how she will mis interprete this post.

M0nica you said it seems to me that you think that transpeople should be ashamed
I replied
Transpeople don't need to be ashamed of anything
Obviously a rebuttal of your statement about me.

I'm then told I haven't read your post properly.
If you don't want me to post answers try not to keep telling me what I think. Then I won't need to correct you.

Doodledog

*Why would the sex distribution in a company matter? I assume you mean transpeople would have to be registered with HR. Or are we as usual ignoring transmen because they don't fit preconceived notions*
I am struggling to believe that you are not aware of this, but will suspend disbelief and answer anyway, with apologies to those who don't need this pointing out. It would matter because large employers keep DEI records (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion, in case you decide to ask for an explanation of that, too) to ensure that there is not a mismatch between the profile of their employees and that of the country as a whole as regards sex, race, disability etc. If transwomen are registered as female the numbers registers as such will obviously rise, and those figures will be skewed. This could result in the numbers of women being employed falling. As I keep saying, statistics, like language matter. Is that clear enough?

As I also keep saying, transmen have little or no impact on the rights of women, so they are not brought up as often on these threads, but clearly any legislation brought in would apply to them too, as it would be based on sex, not so-called 'gender'.

But Doodledog you believe transmen are women, so their employment would matter in the figures wouldn't it?

If transwomen are recorded as men and transmen are recorded as women this could lead to organisations staffed mainly by people who look like men, using transmen to skew the figures of women employed.

Wouldn't that impact on all women?

Perhaps the maternity issue would be influenced as well. Companies employing transmen and registering them as women would be reasonably certain very few would need maternity leave.
Or are we admitting now that whole concept is flawed?

Doodledog

Yes, the difference is that someone saying 'I know I wasn't born with black skin, but I feel black' would be (rightly, IMO) ridiculed, or even prosecuted if they tried to use their self-id to their advantage. Otherwise, there seems to me no difference at all.

I definitely think that drag is akin to cultural appropriation, because the aspects of 'femaleness' appropriated by drag queens tend to be exaggerated sexual ones, and the purpose of the act is often to ridicule women. Whether it is offensive or not depends on the degree of affection in the comedy. I never found Lily Savage offensive - maybe because Paul O'Grady (and therefore the character of Lily) had empathy with the women he was satirising.

But "drag" isn't an exclusively male pastime. It's commonly acknowledged that everyone has a drag queen aspect to their personality.
Here's one woman who does drag and tells you why
minkaguides.com/can-women-be-drag-queens/

What I believe isn't relevant. The fact is that laws about sex equality are there to stop people being discriminated against on the basis of their sex. If they are being bypassed by 'gender' considerations already then they have already been watered down, as many of us on these threads pointed out would be a logical consequence of self-id.

If someone can opt into a sex class they make a nonsense of that protection. I don't understand how that is not obvious. Unless of course it is, and you are clutching at straws again.

In anticipation of your straw grasping, I even pointed out that laws would apply to transmen as well as transwomen (how could they not be, as even one of us has a sex, and the law is about sex discrimination), but clearly you didn't read that far, as you spotted a 'Gotcha!' opportunity.

Clearly there is a conflict where one group (women) has protection against sex discrimination, but another (transwomen) nullifies that by having protection against their 'gender' being used against them.

But "drag" isn't an exclusively male pastime. It's commonly acknowledged that everyone has a drag queen aspect to their personality.
Here's one woman who does drag and tells you why
minkaguides.com/can-women-be-drag-queens/

Commonly acknowledged? You're having a laugh. Here is a quote from your 'source' to save others the bother of reading it:
I’m a woman. I’m a drag queen. I exist. My drag is valid. Therefore, yes. End of story.

That's not the sort of 'evidence' that would convince many doubters - not unless they really believe everything they read.

Doodledog

Rosie51

Is transracial as acceptable as transgender? I don't see any difference between Rachel Dolezal who is a transracial black woman to any male who identifies as a transgender woman. Despite my many attempts I note that Glorianny who promotes the cause of transgender women, has never answered my questions nor expressed any view on transracial identities. I wonder why that is? My theory is that transracial acceptance might attract rather more criticism than transgenderism and many (including Glorianny) are not equipped to resist that condemnation.

This illustrates my point perfectly. If someone blacked up to get a job that is advertised as being suitable for a person of colour, or was employed and added to the stats to show that E Powell & sons or T Robinson Ltd had fulfilled their DEI requirements would you be supportive of that, Glorianny?

Glorianny Can we have the evidence for But "drag" isn't an exclusively male pastime. It's commonly acknowledged that everyone has a drag queen aspect to their personality. because I don't think I know a single person that believes that.

Doodledog I've quoted your post because maybe Glorianny missed it, and it's something on which I'd be interested in hearing her opinion.

I don't see any difference between someone like Rachel Dolezal identifying as black and altering her appearance to make herself happy and a man or woman who identifies as something they're not and altering their appearance to make themself happy. And in her case Glorianny, she did 100% pass as she held the position of president in a chapter of the NAACP. That it was a total deception and gained her a place she was not entitled to was disgraceful. I think her case is the same as Mridul Wadhwa's who also gained a position by deception.

'It is commonly acknowledged' means 'I (*Glorianny*) believe'.

If RD wanted to 'live as' a black women, I don't suppose she'd harm anyone (although I haven't really thought much about the implications) but as with the transwoman who got to the top in the WI it seems as though there is an element of cosplay when people go on to take roles that influence the lives of the group they have adopted as their own. It's as though they feel that people who have been perfectly capably doing things their own way for years need an outsider to come along and manage them. Not only that, but an outsider from the very group from which their organisations were set up to differ.

I believe that as "drag" has become more mainstream, more women are taking part.

I didn't know, and don't believe, that everyone has a drag-queen aspect to their personality...

... more likely that it's a concept 'acknowledged' amongst drag artistes.