Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[kabbes]

No, it isn't hyperbolic at all. The nasty side of the Men's Rights Movement (MRA's) say that we, by our very biology, opress those who are born male. It also asserts that we have a female essence that makes us act the way we do. The way to rectify this is to remove rights for women either by being "Egalitarian" (read, ignoring gender as a socialised imposition) and removing sex based shortlists, protections etc.

Current trans rhetoric seems to be that women who are "cis" opress those born male (trans women) by their biology. It also asserts we have some female essence which makes us act a certain way. The way to rectify this is to redefine woman to include males, thus eroding sex based protections, shortlists etc

Looks like the same shit. Smells like the same shit.

It doesn't have to be like this.

And this stuff has side effects. Creating ways of short-cutting equality legislation sets up perverse incentives. My company is setting up a French entity, where they have gender quotas for the board (yes, I know, who cares about board members etc etc, but stay with it). They want to use the UK board, give or take, but this is too male-heavy. It seriously came up in conversation that for the purposes of French board meetings, they could have some board members self-define as women. As a proposal, it was rejected quickly. But the fact that it is even mentioned, and not as a joke, shows a worrying direction of travel.

 

[MochaSoul]

It' hijacking a whole movement. It only benefits capitalists

 

[Wilf]

If ever there was an appropriate point to trot out the line 'the is the (il)logical ends of identity politics', this is it.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

And this stuff has side effects. Creating ways of short-cutting equality legislation sets up perverse incentives. My company is setting up a French entity, where they have gender quotas for the board (yes, I know, who cares about board members etc etc, but stay with it). They want to use the UK board, give or take, but this is too male-heavy. It seriously came up in conversation that for the purposes of French board meetings, they could have some board members self-define as women. As a proposal, it was rejected quickly. But the fact that it is even mentioned, and not as a joke, shows a worrying direction of travel.

Seriously? Fucking hell. I thought those jokes about the boardroom being full of white dudes but self-defining as women and black to get the quotas through were bad taste.

That it actually is being taken seriously as a strategy? Fukin hell.

 

[kabbes]

Seriously? Fucking hell. I thought those jokes about the boardroom being full of white dudes but self-defining as women and black to get the quotas through were bad taste.

That it actually is being taken seriously as a strategy? Fukin hell.

And why not? You weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of all the options. If you already have difficulty getting the right person for a role and something presents you with the opportunity to expand your list of potential options, it has to at least be considered. My company is unusually good at least wanting to comply with things in good faith and show themselves as being aboveboard (in many ways, they are liberal in the soul), so this meant the option was quickly dismissed. Other companies are rather more cynical and sneaky and I have no doubt they will test the idea more thoroughly.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

kabbes You've proper shocked me.

 

[kabbes]

kabbes You've proper shocked me.

Today’s joke is tomorrow’s left field idea and next Tuesday’s everyday occurrence.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

I guess we're fucked then girls.

Back to the kitchen we go.

 

[Athos]

I guess we're fucked then girls.

Back to the kitchen we go.

The perfect place to reflect on your cis privilege.

#beyondirony

 

[MochaSoul]

The perfect place to reflect on your cis privilege.

#beyondirony

It does feel rather like watching the worst of a 70s satirical film come to pass.

 

[bimble]

And this stuff has side effects. Creating ways of short-cutting equality legislation sets up perverse incentives. My company is setting up a French entity, where they have gender quotas for the board (yes, I know, who cares about board members etc etc, but stay with it). They want to use the UK board, give or take, but this is too male-heavy. It seriously came up in conversation that for the purposes of French board meetings, they could have some board members self-define as women. As a proposal, it was rejected quickly. But the fact that it is even mentioned, and not as a joke, shows a worrying direction of travel.

No wait, please explain - you haven't done a typo, the idea mooted was seriously for some of the board members to just pretend that they identify as women to satisfy the quota requirement ? Not even to dress as one / feel like they have the soul of one etc?

 

[MochaSoul]

I can't wait to hear from those who routinely accuse those questioning trans ideology of creating "moral panics"

 

[kabbes]

No wait, please explain - you haven't done a typo, the idea mooted was seriously for some of the board members to just pretend that they identify as women to satisfy the quota requirement ? Not even to dress as one / feel like they have the soul of one etc?

I’m sure (at least I hope) that if the idea had been entertained for longer than a few seconds, research would have revealed that more was necessary. But yes, the idea seriously mooted (by, it must be said, those with no in-depth knowledge of how the law works in practice) was that some of the board members could claim on the day of the board meeting and only in the relevant country that they self-identify as a woman.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I'm confused and I'm genuinely wondering if I've missed something here. Miranda Yardley I believe you prefer gender neutral pronouns for yourself- and you are opposed to using feminine pronouns for trans women (and presumably masculine pronouns for trans men). I think I've got all that right.


Why don't you use gender neutral pronouns for other transsexual people? Or for that matter, why don't you prefer masculine pronouns for yourself?

Forgive me if you already responded to this and I have missed it Miranda Yardley ... It's something I have been wanting to ask you as well.

 

[MochaSoul]

No wait, please explain - you haven't done a typo, the idea mooted was seriously for some of the board members to just pretend that they identify as women to satisfy the quota requirement ? Not even to dress as one / feel like they have the soul of one etc?

No one would need to dress up as a woman to identify as one under the new GRA. It follows from the same reasoning Pickman employed yesterday to object to my argument. Wearing pink dresses does not "feminine" make. Indeed wearing dresses or putting make-up on is neither here nor there really. Last time I wore make-up was two or three years ago and that was only for an afternoon photo session for a photographer's portfolio.

Correction: "new GRA" should read "proposed GRA"

 

[bimble]

No one would need to dress up as a woman to identify as one under the new GRA. It follows from the same reasoning Pickman employed yesterday to object to my argument. Wearing pink dresses does not "feminine" make. Indeed wearing dresses or putting make-up on is neither here nor there either. Last time I wore make-up was two or three years ago and that was only for an afternoon photo session for a photographer's portfolio.

Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.

 

[kabbes]

Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.

Yeah, I think under the current GRA they would have found that the idea was not workable in practice. But under the proposed GRA, I’m not so sure.

 

[MochaSoul]

Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.

The main proposal of the new GRA is to do away with doctors. Self-identification.
Frankly, I'm not sure which is dodgier

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can't wait to hear from those who routinely accuse those questioning trans ideology of creating "moral panics"

Ok, I'll mount a partial defence of the Labour policy. It strikes me as a clumsy attempt at a form of trans inclusion that would not require the trans person to have completed all the requirements for legal gender reassignment to be considered for gender-specific roles. It doesn't work, for the reasons given in the tweets, but its intentions are not necessarily sinister, imo.

Lily Madigan's interpretation of what it means is quite mad, but she is a 19-year-old student politician, irrc. Such people very often have badly thought out, very firmly held opinions, no? We've had many instances of confused student politics discussed on here, such as when Goldsmith's LGBT group sided with a bunch of vile misogynist men against Maryam Namazie: exclusion resulting from an ill-thought-out attempt at inclusion. Wasn't it ever thus?

 

[bimble]

The main proposal of the new GRA is to do away with doctors. Self-identification.
Frankly, I'm not sure which is dodgier

Exactly. The current system which requires trans people to jump through hoops convincing various people that they are 'living as a woman' must heavily enforce the rules of what women are supposed to look and act like.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Yes, but this is where it gets tricky (in my head anyway) - the current situation requires you to convince a panel and doctors that you are 'living as a woman', which basically does mean pink dresses.

It doesn't matter when, it seems, large political parties and companies are already ignoring the current law as if the new law has already passed.

Under the proposed law (now it seems the law needs to catch up with people's denands.. Not sure that's how legislation should work) a panel of doctors would not be required or recognition as living as a woman (whatever the fuck that is).

The problem in and of itself is that people can only see "living as a woman" as either a pink box, female essences or both.

Not simply just going about yer business having female reproductive potential.

Because people are sexist.

"Surely, when the curtain closes, that can't be all there is to it right? There *must* be something more!"

 

[MochaSoul]

Ok, I'll mount a partial defence of the Labour policy.

You would.

It doesn't work, for the reasons given in the tweets, but its intentions are not necessarily sinister, imo.

No. It became sinister when gender went from being regarded one of the most dangerous and effective tools of oppression to just being regarded as an identity

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You would.

I'll duck back out now, then. This debate remains toxic.

 

[Pickman's model]

No one would need to dress up as a woman to identify as one under the new GRA. It follows from the same reasoning Pickman employed yesterday to object to my argument. Wearing pink dresses does not "feminine" make. Indeed wearing dresses or putting make-up on is neither here nor there really. Last time I wore make-up was two or three years ago and that was only for an afternoon photo session for a photographer's portfolio.

yeh. pls could you link to your source for the rationale behind the proposals, which as i understand it are not a new gra in that they haven't as yet passed through parliament.

 

[MochaSoul]

yeh. pls could you link to your source for the rationale behind the proposals, which as i understand it are not a new gra in that they haven't as yet passed through parliament.

Corrected. I wrote "new GRA" I'd meant "proposed GRA".

 

[MochaSoul]

I'll duck back out now, then. This debate remains toxic.

What exactly do you expect after you decide to "defend" a policy that, in effect, would erase a younger me from a political party on the grounds of it being "ill-thought out"?

 

[MochaSoul]

And why not? You weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of all the options. If you already have difficulty getting the right person for a role and something presents you with the opportunity to expand your list of potential options, it has to at least be considered. My company is unusually good at least wanting to comply with things in good faith and show themselves as being aboveboard (in many ways, they are liberal in the soul), so this meant the option was quickly dismissed. Other companies are rather more cynical and sneaky and I have no doubt they will test the idea more thoroughly.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

All government statistics are a bodge, the fact that it might skew crime statistics by a fraction of a percent, or even a couple of percent, has always struck me as a pretty desperate reason for denying trans people the right to be legally seen as their acquired gender.

I have never advocated for trans people as a group to be denied the ability to been 'seen as their acquired gender'. That said, I do not believe sexual offenders should be allowed to undertake this process. And you're missing the point: if you look at 2015 and 2016, male prisoners for sexual offences are 12,117 and 13,114 respectively, a vastly greater population. All other things remaining equal, some of these are likely on average to seek to change legal gender and this will have a material effect on the statistics. Look also at situations this has created, with double rapist Martin Ponting housed with female prisoners, who he then (SURPRISE) harassed. Rapists do bad shit and they shouldn't be in women's facilities, Ponting's needs were put before the safety of women.

And whilst you say trans prisoners have very specific needs, I'm willing to bet you've never been to prison. What trans prisoners seem to want is to be treated according to their acquired gender. Who are you to go round telling them what they really want and need?

Coming from someone who is apparently not even trans who is lecturing someone who has been out almost three decades, I find that rather rich.

Are trans people psychologically vulnerable or not? This is the claim made by activists all the time. We can also see live on social media the effect of mental health problems. Why are these not taken seriously? Why is our treatment protocol all about facilitating reassignment surgery than helping trans people deal with their co-morbid mental health issues? Why are trans people given such little support before and after surgery?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

What is absurd about defining sex by reproductive system (regardless of whether or not it functions)? That's the single most obvious material difference, the one that the vast majority of people subscribe to, and one which reflects arguably the most important basis for the subjugation of women. It's fine to recognise that there can be other other arguments for alternative bases of gender, and recognise that the decision about which to adopt is ideological, but to claim that it's absurd to define sex by reproductive system is, itself, absurd.

The whole point about the definition of sex is that it is based on reproductive class. If we change it to be defined by something else, then whatever it ends up defining isn't sex.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

It does feel like feminism and what certainly used to be called “women’s studies” increasingly starts with and is focussed as a primary concern on transsexual views and issues. At the best, it’s the tail wagging the dog. At worst, such as in the example posted there, it’s a way of writing women out of their own equality activism.

What was 'women's studies' which was about women, has now been usurped by 'gender studies' which is decidedly penis-centric.