NHS U turn on trans terminology

The whole of your post is based on the false belief that men are necessarily stronger and more active or forceful than women.
No, it really isn't. It's based on the fact ('fact' as in 'something that is indisputable') that for many years all women were discriminated against. I am using 'discrimination' in the true sense of the word, rather than as a catch-all for the belief that objecting to behaviour and a sense of entitlement of individuals can be irritating to other individuals - it is on record and remembered by many that women were legally paid less than men doing the same job because it was believed that they would be weaker and less active or forceful than men, and that they would have children and leave, or claim maternity pay when it came in. Transpeople have legal protection from such discrimination.

I recommend some research into the Amazons. Long believed by a patriarchal society to be the fantasy of Ancient Greeks they are now emerging as a real entity.
No thanks. I have no real interest in them, and have other things to research just now.

You seem to subscribe to the belief that there are jobs women cannot do. It's similar to the belief once common that women had smaller brains and so could not cope with the same level of intellectual study men do. Thank goodness that has gone.
You seem to subscribe to the belief that you can read my mind. I have no such beliefs (ie that there are jobs that women cannot do, or that we have smaller brains than men). Please show me where you gained that misconception, as I can assure you it is misplaced.

An older women does not need maternity leave, are they more likely to be employed?
In anticipation of this straw-clutching, I pointed out that I no longer risk that sort of discrimination, but support women who do. I hope that in turn they will support laws that prohibit discrimination on grounds of age.

As an employer would be unaware of anyone's trans status quite how will they manage to know that a transwoman will never require maternity leave? Anymore that they might be aware that a transman could do?
I appreciate that you believe that transwomen are undetectable, but as many of us have pointed out many times, you are very much in the minority in that belief.

It's great to support discrimination laws for others, just a pity that some are not supported because of personal beliefs.
It is indeed. Maybe one day you will come to realise how far your own personal beliefs discriminate against women. I won't hold my breath though.

Galaxy

No they wont be employing a woman. No one actually believes that. It's why we are having a discussion. They are Male. My belief actually has no impact on their sex. If I say transwomen are women, they will I am afraid remain Male.

It's like being at a Peter Pan performance, if we all clap really hard and loud and declare our belief in fairies then Tinkerbell will survive. And believing a man can become a woman by saying he is, and others vociferously pretending to believe the transformation, is every bit as ludicrous. Facts are facts, born male, die male, there is no possibility of changing sex.

No they wont be employing a woman. No one actually believes that. It's why we are having a discussion. They are Male. My belief actually has no impact on their sex. If I say transwomen are women, they will I am afraid remain Male.

Doodledog

*Who wouldn't?*
Saying what?

I think it's fairly obvious that the answer is here:
But quite how an employer would be aware of an applicant's trans status I don't know. They'd be employing a woman.

An employer would not be employing a woman if the employee is a transwoman. They would be employing someone who does not need maternity leave, will not suffer menopause and has the strength of a man. Not all of these things will necessarily be important, but the reason for sex equality laws was that at various times in the lives of women, and for particular jobs they may have been. Women were routinely discriminated against on the grounds that they were likely to have children, so could be fired when they married. They were paid less on the grounds that they were likely to be weaker than male counterparts. This was all in living memory.

Assuming that males are women could very easily undo the work of feminists that took decades to achieve. Would you happily undo it so that males can continue with the fantasy that they can become women just by saying it is so?

As for 'pretending discrimination is the same for all women is harmful and wrong', I haven't heard such insulting nonsense in quite some time. Anti-discrimination laws only need to be used when someone is discriminated against. I don't need to be protected from laws prohibiting racism, but I don't want to see them abolished. I no longer need maternity provision, but again, I am happy to support it for those who do. There is no point in having discrimination laws if they do not apply across the board, but that doesn't mean that everyone should need to use them at each stage of their lives.

The whole of your post is based on the false belief that men are necessarily stronger and more active or forceful than women.
I recommend some research into the Amazons. Long believed by a patriarchal society to be the fantasy of Ancient Greeks they are now emerging as a real entity.

You seem to subscribe to the belief that there are jobs women cannot do. It's similar to the belief once common that women had smaller brains and so could not cope with the same level of intellectual study men do. Thank goodness that has gone.

An older women does not need maternity leave, are they more likely to be employed?

As an employer would be unaware of anyone's trans status quite how will they manage to know that a transwoman will never require maternity leave? Anymore that they might be aware that a transman could do?

It's great to support discrimination laws for others, just a pity that some are not supported because of personal beliefs.

Galaxy

They wouldnt be employing women. They would be employing men.
We dont believe whst you believe. I dont know how else to say it.

It doesn't matter what you believe really does it?
The employer will be employing someone whose identity is that of a woman. Hence they are employing a woman.
You may think what you wish.
I don't believe lots of stuff but that is irrelevant in the way things work.
It's also irrelevant in discrimination.
You may believe a transwoman is a man, but if a policy is introduced which discriminates against women, transwomen will be subject to that discrimination. Your belief won't stop that.

Who wouldn't?
Saying what?

I think it's fairly obvious that the answer is here:
But quite how an employer would be aware of an applicant's trans status I don't know. They'd be employing a woman.

An employer would not be employing a woman if the employee is a transwoman. They would be employing someone who does not need maternity leave, will not suffer menopause and has the strength of a man. Not all of these things will necessarily be important, but the reason for sex equality laws was that at various times in the lives of women, and for particular jobs they may have been. Women were routinely discriminated against on the grounds that they were likely to have children, so could be fired when they married. They were paid less on the grounds that they were likely to be weaker than male counterparts. This was all in living memory.

Assuming that males are women could very easily undo the work of feminists that took decades to achieve. Would you happily undo it so that males can continue with the fantasy that they can become women just by saying it is so?

As for 'pretending discrimination is the same for all women is harmful and wrong', I haven't heard such insulting nonsense in quite some time. Anti-discrimination laws only need to be used when someone is discriminated against. I don't need to be protected from laws prohibiting racism, but I don't want to see them abolished. I no longer need maternity provision, but again, I am happy to support it for those who do. There is no point in having discrimination laws if they do not apply across the board, but that doesn't mean that everyone should need to use them at each stage of their lives.

If only it could be acknowledged that transwomen are a subset of men not women, most of these problems would disappear.
The term transwoman was chosen to confuse and obfuscate what was happening. They should have been described as transmen ie men who had a transgender identity. They are born male and will die male, adopting a different way of presentation, but should be broadening the bandwidth of what a man can be.
A transoman can never be a woman, that title is taken by adult human females.

They wouldnt be employing women. They would be employing men.
We dont believe whst you believe. I dont know how else to say it.

Galaxy

No they wouldnt. Saying it again and again doesnt make it so.

Who wouldn't?
Saying what?

All the posts about discrimination in medical matters are relevant to some natal women but not for all.

I'll try an example
Women may be discriminated against in the provision of maternity services. Not all women will be affected by this.
Within that discrimination black women frequently suffer more discrimination than white women.

Pretending discrimination is the same for all women is harmful and wrong. Recognising there are degrees of discrimination, and those it affects most, is a step towards eradicating all discrimination.

No they wouldnt. Saying it again and again doesnt make it so.

Doodledog

Yes, you really do have to explain. If you are saying that women a are already discriminated against, how is it that if males say they are women - except that women need a 'cis' prefix, that we have no right to spaces of our own, or to keep to our own sex class in sport, that this doesn't simply add to that discrimination? In fact, it means that transwomen have less discrimination than women, as we already have to deal with sexism, but now we have to compete in strength-based areas with male-bodied people. We also have different life stories, as it is women who have periods, who get pregnant, and who give birth. If men are able to say they are women, what happens to the hard-won employment rights that prevent discrimination on grounds of pregnancy/maternity? An unscrupulous employer can show that they are not discriminatory by employing or promoting transwomen above those pesky women who might need time off when they become 'birth-givers'.

If the discrimination faced by transwomen is simply the same as that of women, then they are already ahead of us in those stakes as they are protected by hate crime laws, which women are not.

It's absolutely dystopian.

I agree we should have a misogyny law, but trying to claim this as a reason that transpeople are somehow better off than natal women is a false equivalent. Their trans identity is protected, their status as women isn't.
So someone who is abusive to women will say things which affect all women including transwomen and will not be committing an illegal act. That should be changed.

This links in to the false idea that one group of people obtaining human rights is necessarily detrimental to another group. It's how the patriarchy holds on to power, pitting one group against another.

I don't understand why you can't grasp that there is discrimination against all women including transwomen and then there is discrimination against a specific group of women.
Trans discrimination
Racial discrimination
Sex discrimination.(which of course only affects natal women)

No one can or should ask a question about future plans for children at a job interview. And if the idea is that women who might give birth will not be offered jobs, then those women who have passed the menopause will be regarded as more employable. But quite how an employer would be aware of an applicant's trans status I don't know. They'd be employing a woman.

I know, Dickens - it's wearing. It's particularly irritating when people post to say that neither 'side' listens to the other. That's just not true. It's just that when you know that whatever you say will be deconstructed in the hope that something might not have been as clearly expressed as it might have been, and met with 'if you can't see that . . .', or 'isn't it funny how you. . . .' it really does inhibit how you can express yourself. If you then take extra care to spell things out so that there is no possible ambiguity you are accused of making 'long posts'. Navigating all of that detracts from the headspace needed to make the point you want to make. Could that be deliberate?

So many people have joined these threads saying that they have a 'balanced' approach and a 'moderate' point of view, as though we don't, but after a few attempts at expressing that, they realise that it's pointless. Anything other than complete surrender to the mantra is met with diversions, obfuscation and condescension. They either fade away or become more direct in their posts themselves.

I was very 'moderate' until I came up against all the word-twisting, sneering and general unpleasantness (eg accusations of being like the KKK, having my professional competence questioned, compared to Nazis and so on). My first post on this topic was a simple question about expanding the bandwidth of 'gender' norms so that children didn't feel the need to 'transition'. I was met with such aggression that I took the advice to 'educate myself' and realised that what that means is either that the 'advisor' doesn't know the answer, and anyway you won't be deemed 'educated' until you bow down to the mantra. Asking questions is deemed to be 'demanding', and everything you say will be scoured for 'Gotcha!' opportunities.

Despite that, I still believe that transpeople should be treated well, should have protection in law, and should be able to choose how to live their lives. I do not, however, believe that trans rights should trump women's rights (or men's, for that matter), and I will never believe that TWAW. They aren't. That seems moderate to me. Is anything other than a belief in the impossible and an acceptance that men's rights are paramount 'extremist'?

I sympathise with children and young people who have been caught up in all of this, but am yet to see an answer to the very first question I asked about this - why is the answer to a child who doesn't follow stereotypes about the appropriate 'gender' behaviour for their sex be that they are 'in the wrong body', and not that it doesn't matter if something is supposedly 'for girls' or 'for boys'?

Doodledog

Yes, you really do have to explain. If you are saying that women a are already discriminated against, how is it that if males say they are women - except that women need a 'cis' prefix, that we have no right to spaces of our own, or to keep to our own sex class in sport, that this doesn't simply add to that discrimination? In fact, it means that transwomen have less discrimination than women, as we already have to deal with sexism, but now we have to compete in strength-based areas with male-bodied people. We also have different life stories, as it is women who have periods, who get pregnant, and who give birth. If men are able to say they are women, what happens to the hard-won employment rights that prevent discrimination on grounds of pregnancy/maternity? An unscrupulous employer can show that they are not discriminatory by employing or promoting transwomen above those pesky women who might need time off when they become 'birth-givers'.

If the discrimination faced by transwomen is simply the same as that of women, then they are already ahead of us in those stakes as they are protected by hate crime laws, which women are not.

It's absolutely dystopian.

I think it's a lost cause Doodledog because whatever you say, there will be a what if... from Glorianny.

We point out that women, because of their biology, experience the rites of passage of womanhood like menstruation, pregnancy, etc, etc, and are then challenged with what if women don't go through those stages, would you deny them the right to be women?

It's an absurd reduction of the argument for the sake of "gotcha" and, in this case, an accusation. Does it really need to be pointed out that the majority of women go through at least one of those rites of passage, and that if they don't, it doesn't alter the fact that they are still women?

I realised at this point that further debate is pointless. There will always be whataboutery, what-if and are you saying that...

It is quite clear what we are saying. Transwomen are men identifying as women. They are not and never will be, women.

... I'm bowing out - to use a bit of youth-slang... it's doing my head in...

Some people believe it's ok to enforce speech doesnt mean it isnt abusive controlling behaviour.

Glorianny says

They look like women. They identify as women. So if say a company or an organisation has restrictions which discriminate against women transwomen too will be discriminated against whatever form that discrimination takes.

But transwomen are not women, so any discrimination in the circumstance you describe is not the same.
A male cannot be discriminated against as a
female, because he is not a female and therefore not a woman and is simply lying his way into a situation involving women. So he is being discriminated against because he’s a man and that’s for men to deal with.

Yes, you really do have to explain. If you are saying that women a are already discriminated against, how is it that if males say they are women - except that women need a 'cis' prefix, that we have no right to spaces of our own, or to keep to our own sex class in sport, that this doesn't simply add to that discrimination? In fact, it means that transwomen have less discrimination than women, as we already have to deal with sexism, but now we have to compete in strength-based areas with male-bodied people. We also have different life stories, as it is women who have periods, who get pregnant, and who give birth. If men are able to say they are women, what happens to the hard-won employment rights that prevent discrimination on grounds of pregnancy/maternity? An unscrupulous employer can show that they are not discriminatory by employing or promoting transwomen above those pesky women who might need time off when they become 'birth-givers'.

If the discrimination faced by transwomen is simply the same as that of women, then they are already ahead of us in those stakes as they are protected by hate crime laws, which women are not.

It's absolutely dystopian.

Doodledog

What discrimination do you think transwomen face, Glorianny? You say on one hand that you can't tell them from women, and on the other that they are discriminated against for the way they present - which is it?

Transwomen have all the legal rights that women have, and more of their own - I just don't see how they are discriminated against or vulnerable because of being trans. Some of them will be discriminated against for their behaviour, for social awkwardness, for 'difference', just as many other people are - the world can be a cruel place. To save you the 'Gotcha', I will state what I suspect is obvious - it is not ok for anyone to be discriminated or vulnerable, but if people try to enter places not meant for them, to cheat at sport, to insist that others define themselves by terminology that suggests compliance with an ideology they don't share then those others will get annoyed, and some of them will act on their annoyance. There's not a lot that can be done unless the discrimination breaks the law - and the law already gives transpeople greater protection than given to others.

Gosh Doodledog do I really have to explain?
They look like women. They identify as women. So if say a company or an organisation has restrictions which discriminate against women transwomen too will be discriminated against whatever form that discrimination takes.

And yes I suppose it is a form of discrimination not to use the pronoun they prefer because of your personal beliefs. Just as using the "n" word is discrimination against black people. Some people might believe it is OK, that doesn't make it right or stop it being discriminatory.

Transwomen experience trans discrimination.
What discrimination Glorianny?

Doodledog We can come to the same conclusions about the inconsistencies of discrimination against transwomen, but I bet we'll still be wrong!
Why do I already feel there'll be 'reasons' why Rachel Dolezal is different?

Snap, Rosie. We cross-posted but said the same thing.

What discrimination do you think transwomen face, Glorianny? You say on one hand that you can't tell them from women, and on the other that they are discriminated against for the way they present - which is it?

Transwomen have all the legal rights that women have, and more of their own - I just don't see how they are discriminated against or vulnerable because of being trans. Some of them will be discriminated against for their behaviour, for social awkwardness, for 'difference', just as many other people are - the world can be a cruel place. To save you the 'Gotcha', I will state what I suspect is obvious - it is not ok for anyone to be discriminated or vulnerable, but if people try to enter places not meant for them, to cheat at sport, to insist that others define themselves by terminology that suggests compliance with an ideology they don't share then those others will get annoyed, and some of them will act on their annoyance. There's not a lot that can be done unless the discrimination breaks the law - and the law already gives transpeople greater protection than given to others.

Transwomen experience trans discrimination.
Their common experience is discrimination because they are regarded as women.

If your transwomen 'pass' so well that nobody can tell they're really men then I'm surprised they are experiencing trans discrimination. I can well believe that transwomen experience negative reaction because they don't look like anything other than a man wearing womanface. It's insulting and on a par with blackface. Do you support Rachel Dolezal who identifies as black, feels she should have been born black, has adopted traditional black hairstyles etc to be her authentic self, where she can at last be happy and fulfilled?

Rosie51

Remind me what the essentialand unchangeable attribute you need to be a transwoman? Oh yes, you must have been born male. Not one person born female can ever become a transwoman.

Glorianny, I think it's rather telling that you'd even consider a woman not experiencing any of the female experiences mentioned might not be considered a woman. I've never yet heard a biological realist express such a view, it always comes from those who claim that saying the magic mantra can instantly turn a man into a woman.

I don't consider any woman who has not undergone those experiences to not be a woman that's the whole point Rosie51. People who are regarded by society as women who identify as women, whatever their medical experiences, or indeed their biology are subjected to the same discrimination. On the grounds that they are seen as a woman.
Some women experience other discrimination as well.
Black women experience racial discrimination
Poor women experience financial discrimination
Transwomen experience trans discrimination.
Their common experience is discrimination because they are regarded as women.
You may think they are men. You may believe they are men. But in every day life they are treated as women and so they share the discrimination women face. Which is not based on sex, because sex is biology and few know our biology, but upon gender which is how we are seen by the world and treated by others.

And they arent discriminated because people perceive them as women, they are frequently fawned over as extra special men. I actually think the discrimination they experience is probably closer to what gay men experience. Gay men experience discrimination for all sorts of reasons but one of the reasons is something like they arent what men are 'supposed' to be. This isnt what I believe obviously but it is at the root of some forms of homophobia. So no one thinks julian Clary for example is a woman but he is vulnerable to discrimination due to his presentation.

Remind me what the essentialand unchangeable attribute you need to be a transwoman? Oh yes, you must have been born male. Not one person born female can ever become a transwoman.

Glorianny, I think it's rather telling that you'd even consider a woman not experiencing any of the female experiences mentioned might not be considered a woman. I've never yet heard a biological realist express such a view, it always comes from those who claim that saying the magic mantra can instantly turn a man into a woman.