"Regressive and sexist"

My state laws:

NO
Does state law protect employees in the private sector from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

NO
Does state law protect employees in the private sector from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and/or gender expression?

YES
Does state law expressly protect employees of state and local governments from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

YES
Does state law expressly protect employees of state and local governments from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and/or gender expression?

NO
Public accommodations protections on the basis of sexual orientation?

NO
Public accommodations protections on the basis of gender identity?

And it's one of 3 states that do not change birth certificates for transgender individuals -

trisher

I haven't said anything like that. I keep saying I have no objection to Transwomen. or them using toilets.......
I AM objecting to women's spaces being altered in a dangerous way

I am giving up now with responding to you because you are simply not understanding what I am writing. I
have sympathy and understanding but not at the expense of women in general.
I see the TRA attitude as patriarchy in fact I see a lot of it as
being like a man. In fact some of them sound as though they don't even like women

I am sorry that you cannot see anyone else's POV.
I am open minded but i have been raped and attacked and I have four young granddaughter and I know men cannot be trusted.......Yes some can but you have to learn to use your gut feelings, and be careful. Be careful.

You have to grow up to know how badly some men behave.

pinkquartz No-one is objecting to transwomen something you keep ignoring.
You just keep insisting that women are anti trans where is your proof
I suggest you read through this thread and read how many assumptions or suggestions are made about trans women and how they all behave-like why can't they use the gents? It may not in your opinion show objection but it certainly shows a lack of sympathy and understanding.
There is agression from trans women but why should we reply to that with more aggression? That's the philosophy of patriachy. We can and should simply ignore or reply with sympathy and understanding.

Yes, quite, Elegran. I believe figures show that trans-women commit crime at the same rate as men. Leopards and spots comes to mind.

Putting on a dress etc in a serious and committed act so as to become a woman should mean that she (as they feel themselves) is not a threat. Doing so as a passing fancy, for variety in his sex life, as a disguise, or "for a laff" could mean that he and his urges are still masculine or male.

Not every male who appears to be female is sincere in his role. How can the motives be distinguished when the appearance is all that can be perceived?

That POV, though, Elegran is saying that men as a sector of society are a threat. How does a man putting on a dress and high heels make him any less of a threat than any other men to women?

Those signs on the M&S changing rooms show what a minefield it is. A trans woman trying on women's clothes cannot go into the men's changing room, because the attendants will see a woman and bar the way - and under proposed legislation, can't ask whether they are male or female. If they go into a communal women's changing room, they will be outed as men when they take off their clothes, and the women in there could take offence.

Perhaps we will see a return to cubicles, and the communal rooms will vanish = good riddance too - they are horrible.

I can understand trans women being reluctant to enter the gents wearing a dress, high heels and make-up. It could be dangerous (well, would most of us grans be brave enough to march in? particularly late at night in a bar? You could be mistaken for a "working girl" looking for customers)

Using the ladies for a wee or to fix make-up is fine by me, and I daresay is done far more often than we are aware of, but what could be off-putting to some ladies using the loos is if someone in a dress but with a masculine appearance seems to be "loitering with intent" beside the hand-dryers. I accept that almost all (still whole) men who put on a dress are doing it en route to their total transition, but in the real world there are some with ulterior motives - getting a look at bits of women that are not often on display, for instance, or getting a cheap thrill from hearing the tinkle of female weeing. It doesn't take rape or overt sexual advances to make a lone woman feel uncomfortable! I hope that trans women have enough experience themselves of that uncomfortable feeling, or the sensitivity to imagine it, that they minimise the amount of it they cause.

As many organisations adopt inclusive and diverse policies, we can expect to see more issues of women falling foul of trans activists. By this I mean these recent examples

The company who make Always sanitary wear having to capitulate to a complaint from one trans activist who objected to the female symbol on the wrapping paper

Marks and Spencers coming under fire for allowing anyone who merely says they are female to enter the female changing rooms.

Doulas speaking of women giving birth.

The unintended consequences of these policies are springing up all the time. This doula also committed a horrendous crime, quoting the definition of woman-adult human female. This to the trans activist is like a red rag. We are not even allowed to use facts and truths now in case someone is offended.

I think my point here is that trans activists seem to be searching for snippets of behaviour, word or thought to take offence at and organisations have made this easy.

Do you think this post will get me banned from gransnet?

As far as I can see, having followed the trans issue for a while now, the aggression is coming from trans-activists. It's typical of the way women are regarded by society that when they then defend themselves against TRA's they are then accused of aggression, just like men are regarded as assertive but women are called bossy. It's misogyny writ large.

A friend in the north of England has just told me that her M&S has a sign up outside the men's fitting rooms requesting women not to enter. There is no companion sign outside the women's fitting rooms, requesting men not to enter. What on earth is that all about?

Which also brings me onto male-bodied trans-women using women's toilets. Why can't they use the gents? Wearing a frock and make up doesn't make you a woman.

Yet when I keep mentioning discussion needed I am ignored

As Rosecarmel says if we have been attacked we might well have strong feelings on this issue.

trisher

funny I see the aggression coming from the transwomen and women needing to be assertive. Look at how they have laid into icons like Germaine Greer. She did a lot for the feminist movement.

No-one is objecting to transwomen something you keep ignoring.
You just keep insisting that women are anti trans where is your proof?
Don't just say attacks we all get attacked !!! all of us.
And why don't transwomen want to have the discussion to find a solution?
There could easily be a document to show that the person is undergoing transition and not a man in the wrong place. What is wrong with that?

One thing, out of many, that the MeToo movement proves is numbers, the astounding amount of women with a history of sexual abuse/harassment/assault-

Legislators need to deeply consider this since past trauma can be used to explain/argue their responses to others behaviors -

Yes, discussion and compromise are far better than battle lines for all concerned.

When (if?) God designed human beings, he (she? it?) didn't do it very accurately. There are too many fuzzy boundary lines and ambiguities for a simple life. Black/white polarities don't work where there are so many shades of grey and so many who feel that they and people like them are being sidelined - from both/all sexes and genders.

It is partly the legal spect that worries me elegran there is no point in passing legislation if there is no way to enforce it.
I am also concerned that what is emerging from some women now is an agressive attitude that doesn't seem to have within it any sense of concern for people in general. I know there are people of every gender and sexuality who are agressive and confrontational. I don't think most people are like this. And I don't think it is useful to draw battle lines and withdraw behind them. I think solutions are only reached by discussion and compromise and I would like to see this adopted and promoted far more.

grannyactivist

no the problem was the word woman being used to identify the doula's market. She (the doula) claimed only women have babies.

which is true but now we are not allowed to say this truth. Like 1984 we must alter language, to make something true that is not true.
All pronouns aside, only people with a womb can have a baby.......see I did it ok there.....but really to say the word womanis now a reason to be attacked?

This is stupid and does not enable people to respect Tra with sympathy because it is annoying and stupid.

I don't intend to say anymore in this discussion . I am open and tolerant to anyone changing their gender. And always have been, but I will support what I believe in and I believe that women are under threat in a new way and we need the discussion about this now.

elegran

thank you for putting those points across in a more eloquent way......you are saying what I would want to say

" . . one of the problems is that self ID is the only way to change gender. You have to live as a woman for two years, effectively then self IDing. Is there anther way to do it?"

I don't think anyone is objecting to those who are living out their two years as a woman before taking the final step to surgery or hormone treatment. These are people who are committed to transitioning and will soon completely do so (though the two years of being in-between may not seem like "soon" to them. )

It is the self-IDing of people who are not as committed, or who may intend to be men part-time and women part-time, that raises doubts in many minds about just how sincere they might be. There are hedonists around who would like to experience all the highs they can grab - people wonder could some of the "casual" self-IDers be examples of them ?

There is also the legal aspect, that anyone who doubts the sex/gender of a transgender person, however mildly and without malice, is open to arrest and a charge of verbal abuse - but without getting them to drop their trousers they would have to ask for paper proof.

Saying that abuses are possible of the freedom to legally change gender is not the same as saying that all who change are somehow evil rapists and exploiters, but the possibilities must be minimised. I hope that before legislation is passed here on this, all the fine details and implications are discussed thoroughly and without either being mimsy about it or flinging wild accusations around.

I was female at birth and still am- My experience as a female is gender specific physically and socially- The same cannot be said of a man who has been medically altered to become as close as he could go being a woman- Her experience as a woman would be considerably different than mine- We'd be equal as human beings, each with our own collection of preferences- But we would be two different types of females, each fighting for specific rights by type- The men who identify as women but do not seek physical alterations are physically male- And men are not women in the same way that the earth isn't flat- I can respect that they identify as women but refuse to be forced to believe that they are and treat them as such completely- I'd support their efforts to carve out their own space and tackle their specific issues but not without healthy boundaries in place for each-

The quote that caused the furore on Doula UK is below:

Cancer Research UK dropped the word ‘women’ from its smear test campaign, instead saying screening was ‘relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix’.

In response Mrs McCarthy-Calvert wrote: ‘I am not a “cervix owner” I am not a “menstruator” I am not a “feeling”. I am not defined by wearing a dress and lipstick. I am a woman: an adult human female.’

This is what was objected to by transgender rights activists.

I don't have flicky hair. I don't dress in a feminine way and I don't wear make up.....
does this mean I am not a woman?
It has to be more than clothes

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3733895-GC-Doula-hounded-out-of-Doula-UK-Charity

This is a new thread on mumsnet...I don't know yet how to make it a hyperlink.

It says a lot of what I feel and Suziewoozie.
Why do men want to take over birth and tell women what language to use?

I am really bothered that TRA activists have energy to attack women but not to feel and work along with us. It is scary.

If I was pregnant now and wanted a doula I would want a woman who knows about how things feel. Not a man no matter what gender he thinks he is. He doesn't know what a period feels like let alone labour and birth.

If TRA want in on this birthing busines, and tra being doulas, then put your energy into meeting with and working with women.
Changing our language is not important.

and now I must go , its late

It's just the language we use is important. No one is able to define what living as a woman means. It obviously can't be clothes because the clothes you wear are nothing to do with what sex you are. This is why the terms regressive and sexist are used because when we start to ask questions about this the answers we receive are always sexist in nature.

I've no idea Galaxy that is the legal position. I could speculate- dressing as a woman I suppose, but I'm no legal expert.