Pride

[Cod Eye]

@Keith HouchenIt's the same in many sports. Snooker, for example. Barring reach, there is nothing that means a woman should be able to complete with a man at the top level(and players like Jimmy White show that a shorter reach isn't that much of a hinderance). Darts is another, as is most motor racing(F1 is a bit of an outlier, as in it's current form a lot is down to physical strength to cope with the g-forces the drivers experience).

Maybe a mtf trans person breaking into the above sports is the catalyst needed to break the glass ceiling and inspire other trans and born women to pursue professional careers...

 

[Keith Houchen]

9 minutes ago, Cod Eye said:

@Keith HouchenIt's the same in many sports. Snooker, for example. Barring reach, there is nothing that means a woman should be able to complete with a man at the top level(and players like Jimmy White show that a shorter reach isn't that much of a hinderance). Darts is another, as is most motor racing(F1 is a bit of an outlier, as in it's current form a lot is down to physical strength to cope with the g-forces the drivers experience).

Maybe a mtf trans person breaking into the above sports is the catalyst needed to break the glass ceiling and inspire other trans and born women to pursue professional careers...

 

I think it's down to opportunity.  Darts has Fallon Sharrock doing well but darts is still stuck in the 70s and the culture surrounding it (a pub game for blokes) is the main hindrance.  You're absolutely right though, I believe in a totally holistic approach which would go beyond sports and to society in general.  Look at MMA's Fallon Fox.  In one fight she inflicted an injury on her opponent which, while not common, was hardly one seldom seen.  But media presented it as  "TRANS MMA STAR FRACTURES WOMAN OPPONENTS SKULL"

As pat points out, the chances of a mtf athlete breaking the ceiling are zip.  Not only down to opportunity but as she said earlier, the whole documentation needed and the stringent rules.

[deathrey]

11 hours ago, patiirc said:

Talking to someone who is going through periods whilst knowing they are a man, is perhaps one of the most harrowing things you could do and does schism and fracture people regularly. 

I spent two years working with a young person in the position and it was honestly heartbreaking. Dad was a bigot and refused for them to undergo any type of medical procedure related to transitioning. Having to sit and slowly watch someone hate there body so much and have them feel as though it was turning against them every month was awful (I can't imagine what it was like in his position). The impact this has on his long term mental health is likely to be life altering.

[courageous]

The problem I see is labels without definition

 

I am a man who predominantly (but not exclusively) is attracted to other people who have a penis, but I think it is fairer to say that I am into people who are sexually confident (which because of societal norms means mostly men)

my sex history is probably 90% so am I "gay" or "bi"?

 

How do you define a "man" or "woman" without reference to stereotypical gender roles that I thought we were all supposed to be against?

 

Does "asexual" mean no never, or rarely?

 

Everything is a spectrum, everyone is an individual & people are complex so why do we continue trying to put ourselves into boxes?

 

FWIW, regardless of above - I accept what anyone says about themselves, but I would really like to abandon this "I am XYZ" unless there are some clear parameters

[Monkee]

Over the last 6 months I’ve had my eyes opened to LGBTQ+ issues around death and end of life care - just things that never crossed my mind.

I work for Hospice UK (at least for one more week!) and we just published a report on ‘Equality in End of Life Care’. Some of the stats are staggering. In a survey of 108,000 people, 16% of survey respondents who accessed or tried to access public health services had a negative experience because of their sexual orientation, and at least
38% had a negative experience because of their gender identity.

Hospices (and the NHS) are focussing more on this stuff now but what really threw me was something as simple, I thought, as arranging a funeral. I read reports of someone who was trans and was estranged from their family. But, when they died they hadn’t shared their wishes with anyone or had anything in writing and so their next of kin was the family members. This meant that the service was in their dead name, they were dressed according to a gender they didn’t identify as, the death certificate was in their dead name, and none of those whom were closest to the deceased were allowed to the funeral. I was floored by this. It just never crossed my mind.

The report covers a lot of topics which I - as a cis white female with no major medical problems - just didn’t think about. How race affects access to health and end of life care, people who are homeless or with learning disabilities, people in remote and rural areas, and even people in prison. If you’re interested, I’d recommend having a look at the report - http://bit.ly/hukequalityreport

Also, thanks to @patiirc for some advice around making my job more LGBTQ+ aware. Really appreciated it and something that I’ll continue to work on.

[Jazzy G]

@Chris BIt's weird because Asexuality is a spectrum. There are those who don't want anything to do with sex and romance and just want to lead a solitary life. Some are grey or Demisexual, where they'd have to make a strong emotional connection in order to feel a true sexual attraction to somebody, some people the exact opposite where they'll have sex with people, but that sexual attraction attraction diminishes as they form an emotional connection to people. There are some people will have a ridiculously high sex drive, but just no desire to have sex with somebody else so they just deal with it themselves(Aegosexual or autochorisexual).

The spectrum is further thrown into disarray when we throw in that romance and sex aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Not all Asexuals are Aromantic. I'm a hopeless romantic and spoil Mrs Jazzy rotten. We go on dates, we have cuddles and watch movies etc. I'm just not as into the bedroom stuff. I rarely have been. I've done the stuff with her and exes (Sorry for the mental images), but never enjoyed it. Acephobics or people who refuse to accept that Asexuality is a thing will just retort with "You just haven't had sex with the right person", but it isn't that. I literally have never enjoyed the physical sensations relating to the act of having sex with people. I love the idea of sex, I'm just not a fan of the practical aspect, so am on the Asexual spectrum.

If you're Bi, or you're Ace .(heck you could be both as a Bi-romantic Asexual) you can come in for a fair bit of abuse. Here are some links to articles with a bit more information, probably explained better than I've tried it here: 

This one is your GLAAD:https://www.glaad.org/amp/ace-guide-finding-your-community

The preferred resource tends to be AVEN (Asexuality Visibility & Education Network.: https://www.asexuality.org/

[patiirc]

7 hours ago, Monkee said:

Over the last 6 months I’ve had my eyes opened to LGBTQ+ issues around death and end of life care - just things that never crossed my mind.

I work for Hospice UK (at least for one more week!) and we just published a report on ‘Equality in End of Life Care’. Some of the stats are staggering. In a survey of 108,000 people, 16% of survey respondents who accessed or tried to access public health services had a negative experience because of their sexual orientation, and at least
38% had a negative experience because of their gender identity.

Hospices (and the NHS) are focussing more on this stuff now but what really threw me was something as simple, I thought, as arranging a funeral. I read reports of someone who was trans and was estranged from their family. But, when they died they hadn’t shared their wishes with anyone or had anything in writing and so their next of kin was the family members. This meant that the service was in their dead name, they were dressed according to a gender they didn’t identify as, the death certificate was in their dead name, and none of those whom were closest to the deceased were allowed to the funeral. I was floored by this. It just never crossed my mind.

The report covers a lot of topics which I - as a cis white female with no major medical problems - just didn’t think about. How race affects access to health and end of life care, people who are homeless or with learning disabilities, people in remote and rural areas, and even people in prison. If you’re interested, I’d recommend having a look at the report - http://bit.ly/hukequalityreport

Also, thanks to @patiirc for some advice around making my job more LGBTQ+ aware. Really appreciated it and something that I’ll continue to work on.

 

It's no problem at all.  and If I have read right above, congrats on the new role???

The funeral stuff is more common than people think, one of my friends died last summer unexpectedly and her family were utterly awful about it, she was buried as her, but in a different name than everyone knew her as  amongst other jarring things.  

 

I'm all for people doing free or living wills to make sure where they can they are treated with dignity in death. Legally because of GRA as mentioned way back if you pass and havent got one you will legally be recorded as gender of birth, however there are some great resources out to help including this https://www.thegoodgrieftrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Standard-PDF-queer-funeral-guide.pdf

 

I've spoken to Ash a few times and hopefully will be getting him to do a talk for my current LGBTQ venture and thanks for putting me in touch with Poppie's Funerals which lead to the meetings in the first place

[patiirc]

19 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

Indeed they do, but whilst I'm not affected either way, I'm all for total inclusion and solidarity across every fabric in society.  But despite the inclusivity, "Mother" and "Motherhood" are a protected category and some women see this inclusion as their erasion to pander to a tiny minority.  Being a mother is often a womans defining characteristic and is integral to their existence.  Removing that to benefit a tiny percentage of people who give birth understandably seems like a continued assault on women because the same things aren't applied when it comes to men.  But as you say, that's not the fault of trans people, it's the fault of a heavily stacked patriarchal capitalist society.

Although can you imagine how the toxic, fragile masculinity bros would be if the same was applied?  I'm sure they'll be "The Best A Man Can Be"

To tie in with the sport theme, have you read Those Feet by David Winner?  It highlights how English football was formed by Victorian churches and how a Victorian fear of masturbation still hangs over the way England play and why England can produce a Bobby Moore, but will never produce a Maradona! That and post empire declinism, he argues, are the reasons why England won't ever win a major tournament until they get rid of them.  It's brilliant stuff!

 

Are you sure you want to go down the BIB part of that? Reducing women to being only a mother and sole role is really not the greatest thing to be pigeonholing people into and many, many women, will definitely argue strongly that it is not integral to who they are or why they exist.   It's a stigma that should be challenged and there's a Vogue (of all places) explainer here https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/why-are-fewer-women-having-children

Whilst indeed some women do want to be mum, it is not and will never be all women are and should definitely never be defined or have self worth and value placed on that they dont want kids. 

Toxic masculinity is very different subject as well and one does not beget the other and trying to separate internet from the real and a collective sense of cis white suppression is a minefield not to cover here. 

There are toxic parts of LGBT communities too, from an alarming rise in far right supporting Gay Men, to Predatory 'Gold Star' Lesbians, to LGB Alliance as well as the massive self destructive and insular practices that damage the health and wellbeing of LGBTQ people. If you are a lesbian and have always been a lesbian, get a smear test for the love of all that is holy. You can still get Cervical Cancer despite not having had penis.

There's also  'true transexuals' crap who want to throw everyone who has transitioned after them under the bus and make their lives miseries because they are not trans enough, which is utterly crazy, yet people by into things like this spread by rumour, hearsay and a wedge of misinformation out there. I should probably write a book, but no one would bloody read it anyway such is the way at the moment

Hope all goes well with your hospital results and that this post makes some sense. 

 

 

[Keith Houchen]

55 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Are you sure you want to go down the BIB part of that? Reducing women to being only a mother and sole role is really not the greatest thing to be pigeonholing people into and many, many women, will definitely argue strongly that it is not integral to who they are or why they exist. 

Yeah I totally agree, it’s also very painful for people and couples who have fertility issues or can’t conceive, I’m sure we both know people who have self loathing issues because they can’t have children and it’s heartbreaking. The point it some woman are proud to be a mother (Donna PROUDMUMMYSmith on Facebook!!) and want to be known as a mother. They don’t want to be a parent who gave birth, they want to be a mother. And again, there isn’t a great deal of lobbying for a father to be called “Parent who ejaculated” or “Non birthing parent”, because the male stuff doesn’t get eroded like female terms do. 

[patiirc]

5 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Yeah I totally agree, it’s also very painful for people and couples who have fertility issues or can’t conceive, I’m sure we both know people who have self loathing issues because they can’t have children and it’s heartbreaking. The point it some woman are proud to be a mother (Donna PROUDMUMMYSmith on Facebook!!) and want to be known as a mother. They don’t want to be a parent who gave birth, they want to be a mother. And again, there isn’t a great deal of lobbying for a father to be called “Parent who ejaculated” or “Non birthing parent”, because the male stuff doesn’t get eroded like female terms do. 

'Sperm Donor', 'Turkey Baster' and the rest. There's pejorative and erosion of male terms too, it's not an exclusive club and with gender parity, things like this will happen. If people want to be not equal then old habits wont change, if people do want that parity or equality then things will change. I couldnt have kids, before but that never made me any less of a man, I cant have kids now and it doesnt make me any less of a person either.

There's a whole issue around men being seen as baby providers and a whole other conversation to be had elsewhere on that subject, suffice to say it's there too, just like everything else here though ill researched,  hidden and not openly talked about Here's one article on the men who dont want to be parents for example https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-modern-heart/201910/5-reasons-some-men-decide-remain-childfree

Traditional gender roles as well as traditional Man vs Woman, Patriarchy vs Matriarchy is being changed, there's loads of reasons for this including societal changes through the internet and myriad of other things. Research and academia are miles behind as per and by the time things have caught up expect people to be humans and probably more androgyne than anything else. Digging in heels for tradition's sake helps no one, causes hate and reaffirms that the old ways cause more problems. 

Brave new world out there, things will change, it's how society progresses that will see what happens. 

 

[Chest Rockwell]

5 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Sperm Donor', 'Turkey Baster' and the rest. There's pejorative and erosion of male terms too, it's not an exclusive club and with gender parity, things like this will happen. If people want to be not equal then old habits wont change, if people do want that parity or equality then things will change.

I don't know how many times you two can go back and forth on the same point phrased differently without understanding. 

The people who don't want to change are those with the most to lose, who also have the most power to resist change. That's exactly why it's not balanced now and isn't being eroded in the same way.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Chest Rockwell

[Keith Houchen]

14 minutes ago, patiirc said:

Sperm Donor', 'Turkey Baster' and the rest.

Those terms aren’t being lobbied for inclusion, or already are included, in official literature or policies and procedures. Nor are they being used to erode and replace “Father”  Until Stonewall are calling for fathers to be called these terms, like they are with mother and parent who gave birth, it’s a totally false equivalence. 

[BomberPat]

50 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Those terms aren’t being lobbied for inclusion, or already are included, in official literature or policies and procedures. Nor are they being used to erode and replace “Father”  Until Stonewall are calling for fathers to be called these terms, like they are with mother and parent who gave birth, it’s a totally false equivalence. 

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this thing, because I keep seeing the "Stonewall are trying to erase female identities and redefine homosexuality" used by TERFs and the like on Twitter, but a simple Google of "Stonewall mother" chiefly brings up results from the Mail, the Express, the Spectator and the Telegraph, which makes me extremely wary of the legitimacy of the complaint. 

However, this LBC article - https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/replace-term-mother-with-parent-who-has-given-birth-stonewall-tells-employers/ - has buried in the mix "the word 'father' is also to be avoided, as part of the push towards gender-neutral language". But that doesn't make the headline, obviously.

I can't find anything either way on Stonewall's own website, or their strategy document. It seems to be a Telegraph article that kicked it all off, and that's behind a paywall, so sod paying for that. Thing is, I imagine a large proportion of the people complaining about it probably haven't paid for it either, so it's all a game of Chinese whispers.

 

While "parent who has given birth" is a clumsy phrase, I would prefer to see the full wording and context before passing any more judgement - and I fully accept that there will be a lot of awkward stumbling towards inclusivity before the language is right anyway. But a lot of things that get pulled up as a "pandering to the trans lobby" is often something entirely different; I work in education, and have encountered a couple of complaints about avoiding words like mother or father when addressing a student's next of kin - but in that instance, it's because we don't know a student's family situation, and gender-neutral language is simply more appropriate. Flip side of the coin, when I worked in a call centre I used to get screaming complaints from people had been sent Mother's Day adverts because their Mother had died and we should be more considerate of this sort of thing. There are plenty of reasons to be a little more cautious and careful of language, and trans inclusivity is just one of them - similarly, a lot of my colleagues have started putting pronouns in their email signatures. That might have come about because of recognition of trans issues, but actually it's helpful in a lot of other ways too - I work from home, and haven't met most of these people in person, some of them have names that I wouldn't instantly recognise as being "ordinarily" male or female, or in at least one case would have guessed wrong, so it's a really handy tool.

 

I understand that a lot of women will identify very strongly with the word "mother", and see this guidance as somehow trying to erase that lived experience and sense of identification. But I also question the logic of self-styled feminists defining womanhood by the experience of being or the ability to be a mother, which seems to be a recurring argument, and completely at odds with the feminism of previous generations, not to mention excluding countless cisgender women, never mind trans women. 

I think it's important to recognise that while a common anti-trans talking point is that "trans rights activists" "can't define the word woman", it's cis women as well as trans women who will suffer as a result of archaic attempts to define womanhood by biological means. You only have to look at Caster Semenya being told to reduce her natural levels of testosterone, and subsequent IAAF regulations governing the "maximum" acceptable testosterone level for female athletes, which falls within the average, so would needlessly exclude other cis women from competing. Wasn't the whole scare around trans athletes supposed to be that they were the ones that would be preventing girls from being able to compete fairly? 
And if the argument is that women with naturally high testosterone have an unfair advantage, where does that end? Does a swimmer with a higher lung capacity get banned because of a natural advantage outside of their control? Michael Phelps produces less than the average amount of lactic acid, and has double-jointed ankles, both of which gave him huge natural physical advantages over other swimmers, but there's been no suggestion that the sport be regulated to exclude those natural advantages. We don't legislate against basketball players being taller than average. We only care about "physical advantages" when it comes to policing gender, and always with such a sledgehammer approach that it would be inevitable that it will hurt more than it helps. 

 

Quote

The bathroom one is odd isn’t it? I mean they have stalls so unless you’re stood at a urinal I’d be worried about the state of the place if you’re seeing other peoples genitalia. Without meaning to sound flippant or dismissive, I love the idea that a predator is going to be stopped in their tracks by bathroom signage and a respect of the law. And as has been pointed out, your toilet at home is gender neutral and you’re far more likely to be attacked at home by someone you know. 

This is a point I've found myself making time and time again - sadly, I know at least two women who have been attacked by men in female toilets, and at least one more who was assaulted by a man waiting outside for her to come out. Not one of those men saw the sign on the door and thought, "ah, best not". Not one of them felt the need to disguise themselves as a woman to "get away with it". Because if you're going to commit as major a transgression as sexual assault, you're not going to be put off by the taboo or the risk of a lesser transgression. It's like expecting a burglar to be thwarted by a "No Entry" sign. 

I don't have any stats to end, but I'm sure trans women in either gender toilet are currently at far greater risk of being assaulted or abused than women in gender neutral toilets. And plenty of places already have gender neutral toilets and it hasn't let to widespread assault by either gender on either gender.

Plenty of workplaces and cafés have gender neutral toilets, I've been to plenty of venues that have them, and no one gives it a single thought because they're not branded as such. But you don't bat an eyelid at a café having two toilets, neither of them gendered, both just single lockable rooms containing a toilet and a sink. I think any campaigning for a gender-neutral model should focus on that, because people have scare stories in their head of some communal space being invaded, rather than treating each toilet as a single space. 

 

Ultimately, I think there's a lot of good in inclusive language, even if - as it has been in other cases - it's often a clumsy, awkward journey to get there. I don't know how we square the circle of more inclusivity for transgender and gender-neutral or non-binary people with the feeling of a loss of women's safe spaces, and a huge part of that problem is learning how to separate the genuine concerns (and, with that, the genuine desire for dialogue) from the bad actors and trolls who have jumped on this as a "culture war" issue and a way to kick back against inclusivity of all kinds. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by BomberPat

[Chest Rockwell]

9 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

similarly, a lot of my colleagues have started putting pronouns in their email signatures. That might have come about because of recognition of trans issues, but actually it's helpful in a lot of other ways too - I work from home, and haven't met most of these people in person, some of them have names that I wouldn't instantly recognise as being "ordinarily" male or female, or in at least one case would have guessed wrong, so it's a really handy tool.

I've had that exact same experience. Particularly when working with colleagues in different countries whose names are less familiar.

[Keith Houchen]

2 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Ultimately, I think there's a lot of good in inclusive language,

Yeah I completely agree. As I said pages ago, it’s all well meaning but it’s clumsy. It’s better than nothing though. 
 

I’m going to leave it here but just to reiterate my initial point, I completely understand why women feel they’re being eroded because time and again “Their” terms are the one being replaced on a much larger scale than male terms. That’s not the fault or responsibility of all trans people, it’s the fault of a patriarchal capitalist society. 
 

Im also old enough to remember the demonisation of gay people in the 80s and I think there is a very scary parallel to the way our press is treating trans people. As previously discussed, our press is predominantly right wing, and this helps fuel their culture war bollocks. I’m worried that the decades long harm they did to gays in the 80s could be happening again for trans people.