360 posts
|
Post by thebroadwayboy on Apr 4, 2021 23:50:37 GMT
I always thought my dad's 'home' country was. Russia. So that is why I am not planning to go there. I hope we are being more progressive in 2021 and beyond. No room for bigotry
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2021 13:58:40 GMT
Compared with Russia, absolutely. In the U.K. we have seen many positive changes in legislation to improve equality for most queer people. Sexual orientation and gender identity are protected characteristics under the equality act, which means that a person cannot be discriminated against on those basis. Does that mean it doesn’t still happen? Of course not, but I am living as a gay man in the U.K. and on the whole feel extremely safe and supported. Bi erasure and heteronormativity runs rampant but that’s not exclusive to just here.
I think we still have a long way to come for some sections of society to recognise and understand gender dysphoria, and gender identity but hopefully that will come soon enough too. It’s such a broad question and there’s a lot to unpack there, but ultimately for all of the country’s faults, we are more progressive than some. For every Piers Morgan there’s a Munroe Bergdorf (and thank goodness!)
|
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Apr 5, 2021 18:41:13 GMT
Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, gender reassignment is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2021 18:54:03 GMT
Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, gender reassignment is. Stand corrected, sorry. Does it still use the term “reassignment”? That in itself is a very outdated term now. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Apr 5, 2021 20:25:29 GMT
I think in terms of sexuality, yes it is quite liberal and it's very unusual to meet a person in the UK who is "anti" gay or lesbian. Even religious people nowadays are quite forward-thinking generally, with some exceptions.
Gender isn't quite there yet and there are still many heated debates going on around the subject.
But I think we will gradually make progress, that has always been the overriding pattern.
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Apr 10, 2021 14:06:56 GMT
It depends a bit which circles you move in. My friend's husband has just quit a job where there was a lot of sexist and homophobic 'banter', along with a disregard for COVID regulations.
But overall, I'd say most people you are likely to come into contact with are accepting of differences, even if they don't necessarily understand it. There are so many high profile gay people in the media or sport (not so much men's football) and characters in drama that the casual bigots have got used to the fact that not everyone is straight.
Gender identity is trickier. I'd still say there's a general 'live and let live' sentiment amongst the wider public, but compared with sexuality, more people struggle to make sense of the issues or are confused as to why it's not enough to be non-conforming.
|
|
4,596 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Apr 11, 2021 8:06:16 GMT
It's only a start but many colleagues and I now have our preferred pronouns on our email signature. I work in a social work team and I suspect it is very different to the workplace jojo talks about. Generally the UK has come far but it still needs to advance. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 8:25:17 GMT
Generally the UK has come far but it still needs to advance. I’m curious how far you think we need to advance on gender identity issues? Is it until the rights and safeguarding of women and girls have been completely removed? Is it until the ability of adult human females to describe themselves as ‘women’ has been completely erased? Because that’s what a lot of people are arguing for these days, and I struggle to see this as an ‘advance’ for society (particularly not for women). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 9:17:24 GMT
Generally the UK has come far but it still needs to advance. I’m curious how far you think we need to advance on gender identity issues? Is it until the rights and safeguarding of women and girls have been completely removed? Is it until the ability of adult human females to describe themselves as ‘women’ has been completely erased? Because that’s what a lot of people are arguing for these days, and I struggle to see this as an ‘advance’ for society (particularly not for women). Case in point. Until cis people stop making these issues about themselves, there's still progress to be made. |
|
4,596 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Apr 11, 2021 9:39:09 GMT
@jeanhunt as a cis male I'm not sure if I can truly answer your question or if I am the best person to. We and all nations need to keep advancing and developing. One of today's issues is trans rights but who knows what is round the corner.
|
|
3,062 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Apr 11, 2021 12:01:08 GMT
There's no such thing as a single viewpoint that covers the whole country. Attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ people and issues will depend a lot based on who you associate with, the area you live in, the type of job you do etc. And how people respond will also depend on the view of others around them, regardless of whether it's their true feeling or not (with all of this being completely independent of the legal side of things).
If you live in London and work in a professional role, chances are people around you will be accepting and supportive. There will always be exceptions. I grew up in a working class environment in an industrial town and people there would be more likely to make offensive remarks. Thankfully attitudes have changed a bit.
As others have said, things are not perfect yet, particularly as this relates to gender and trans issues. I see this at all the time, even with a computer system at work that doesn't have the capability for people to provide their preferred gender neutral title. Nothing intentional, just something that was never considered when the system was developed. There is still some distance to go, but others are better qualified to talk about all this than I am.
|
|
2,266 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Apr 11, 2021 12:39:09 GMT
I had to look cis up. Have never heard it before. I must admit as a gay male I can't stand all these abbreviations and terms. Putting labels on people usually causes more problems than it was meant to solve. |
|
56 posts
|
Post by mhumphries on Apr 11, 2021 12:48:40 GMT
Generally I think we are heading in the right direction, from a cis male perspective I think the problem more lies with people getting a bit overwhelmed with pronouns and gender identity debates that it’s causing a few to close themselves up a bit while in the past they were more comfortable with discussing gay, straight, bisexual and trans issues. I think people are just trying to avoid confrontation as much as possible at the moment, your almost certain to offend someone no matter how open you are. I personally fell LGBTQIA+ needs to be dropped as an umbrella title, not very markable, how’s about Rainbow Warriors? That’s something you can bang on a t-shirt and make a few quid off!  |
|
4,596 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Apr 11, 2021 13:18:54 GMT
Generally I think we are heading in the right direction, from a cis male perspective I think the problem more lies with people getting a bit overwhelmed with pronouns and gender identity debates that it’s causing a few to close themselves up a bit while in the past they were more comfortable with discussing gay, straight, bisexual and trans issues. I think people are just trying to avoid confrontation as much as possible at the moment, your almost certain to offend someone no matter how open you are. I personally fell LGBTQIA+ needs to be dropped as an umbrella title, not very markable, how’s about Rainbow Warriors? That’s something you can bang on a t-shirt and make a few quid off! I totally agree with you on dropping the LGBTQIA... "alphabet soup" I've heard it branded as. Avoiding confrontation: Sure people can offend but as with as anything look at the intent (if any) that was behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 13:31:59 GMT
I had to look cis up. Have never heard it before. I must admit as a gay male I can't stand all these abbreviations and terms. Putting labels on people usually causes more problems than it was meant to solve. I get you. Can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I feel that for many a label may be the first opportunity at finding a true identity. To be recognized is part of the struggle many go through so categorization can really help with psychological progression. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Apr 11, 2021 13:40:08 GMT
Generally the UK has come far but it still needs to advance. I’m curious how far you think we need to advance on gender identity issues? Is it until the rights and safeguarding of women and girls have been completely removed? Is it until the ability of adult human females to describe themselves as ‘women’ has been completely erased? Because that’s what a lot of people are arguing for these days, and I struggle to see this as an ‘advance’ for society (particularly not for women). I didn't know Posie Parker had such an active interest in theatre. |
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 11, 2021 19:20:13 GMT
For those who don’t know, Posie Parker is the woman who was investigated by the police for comments she made on Twitter about Susie Green of Mermaids taking her minor child to Thailand for sex reassignment surgery, because said child was too young to receive the surgery in the U.K.
This was referred to the CPS as a hate crime.
In the end, no charges were brought, but the process of the investigation dragged on for months.
For some it seems ‘trans rights’ means restricting freedom of speech, so as to avoid uncomfortable criticism being directed their way. ‘No Debate!’ is the demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Apr 11, 2021 20:33:15 GMT
She's made quite a name for herself over the last few years protesting against the rights and recognition of trans people. That incident was just one of many.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 12, 2021 6:54:20 GMT
This is her campaign website: www.standingforwomen.com/he-said-she-saidIt is interesting that campaigning to retain the dictionary definition of the word ‘woman’ to mean ‘adult human female’ and for terms that refer to female biology to continue to be ascribed to women is considered by some to be ‘campaigning against trans rights and recognition’. There is no reason why recognition and rights for trans people should lead to the changes of terminology for biological women. Trans people are trans - that is the entire point, that they are not the biological sex that matches their gender identity. I really hate that it is difficult to state this basic fact of material reality without being considered ‘transphobic’. It’s miserable to experience, for women caught in the crosshairs and for trans people who know full well that being trans is a distinct experience from being biologically male or female and just want to get on with their lives in peace, without being dragged into a culture war. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2021 8:08:37 GMT
I'd be interested to see some actual, credible examples of campaigns for the recognition of trans rights leading to the infringement of rights for cis women as described here. Because it feels more like fear-mongering to me.
There's the competitive sport argument, I recognise that. A transexual female, could be seen to have an advantage over a cis woman in a race due to skeletal form, but no less than any other person taller or more athletically built regardless of sex. Do we exclude all trans people from competitive sport? Or do we lump them in the disability category, giving them their own separate events, telling them to compete with just their other sort, with lesser coverage? Somehow belittling them because of a chemical imbalance they were born with?
In a very monochromatic way of looking at this, cis women using their privilege to tell post-trans women 'no you can't be one of us' is comparable to white people telling black people they're not equal to them. It feels very much like gender supremacy.
We're all human beings at the end of the day, why do we need to constantly exclude?
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Apr 12, 2021 11:52:47 GMT
This is her campaign website: www.standingforwomen.com/he-said-she-saidIt is interesting that campaigning to retain the dictionary definition of the word ‘woman’ to mean ‘adult human female’ and for terms that refer to female biology to continue to be ascribed to women is considered by some to be ‘campaigning against trans rights and recognition’. There is no reason why recognition and rights for trans people should lead to the changes of terminology for biological women. Trans people are trans - that is the entire point, that they are not the biological sex that matches their gender identity. I really hate that it is difficult to state this basic fact of material reality without being considered ‘transphobic’. It’s miserable to experience, for women caught in the crosshairs and for trans people who know full well that being trans is a distinct experience from being biologically male or female and just want to get on with their lives in peace, without being dragged into a culture war. I think the point is that she tends to always approach the argument from an anti-trans perspective, and is vocally anti-trans in her interviews and appearances. No one is denying that an adult female is a woman, but she pretends that they do in order to "other" a group of people. She's basically a woman with a chip on her shoulder about being a woman, and wishes to gatekeep those experiences rather than accepting that everyone's experience of life is different. The existence of transgender people hasn't erased anyone. And I don't know any women who feel that they can no longer call themselves women because of them. Is that something people say? "I'm a woman but I'm not really allowed to call myself that now!" It is a fear-mongering, hypothetical argument made up of extreme absurdities in order to maintain "ownership" of something that does not belong to an individual exclusively. |
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Apr 12, 2021 16:34:03 GMT
Is it until the ability of adult human females to describe themselves as ‘women’ has been completely erased? As an adult human* straight female, it never occurred to me that a trans person describing themselves as a woman somehow prevents me from describing myself that way (or devalues that description). Just like gay/lesbian couples marrying doesn't prevent me from describing myself as married. *And what kind of person thinks that trans people aren't human? You might be able to quibble about whether or not they're female, but honestly, using "human" as a weapon is beyond the pale. What's the phrase, "to those with privilege, equality feels like oppression"? By the way, to address the original question, one thing I look at when traveling is what tv commercials tell me about a culture. UK advertisements show a LOT of acceptance for all types of differences... men included in makeup ads, people with prosthetic legs dancing, lesbian couples cooking together. Ordinary people doing ordinary things. Coming from the US, we're just starting to get to that point. |
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 13, 2021 8:10:54 GMT
This is not true. I suggest you look up the case of Maya Forstater and Gregor Murray, for starters. Or the Rowling 'wimpund' Tweet. Or read BBC, NHS, charity etc. articles and tweets and visit lots of public venues in the UK and even look at menstrual product packaging and supermarket aisles for women's healthcare products where 'woman' and 'girl' have been replaced by words like 'people', thus Amnesty's absurdly phrased tweet about the women demonstrating about their rights in Poland, or the cancer charity using 'people with a cervix', a term which will actually prevent their message reaching many of the young women it is supposed to help because yes, many young women don't know the word cervix. Prostate cancer charities - and the BBC reporting of the issue - never play around with messaging in this way and always use the word 'men'. Elsewhere, there's reporting on period products that desperately avoids using the word 'girls' and 'women', there's 'chest feeding' in the NHS, uterus-havers, menstruators, or 'cubicles' if you're using what were previously the women's toilets. I'm in the arts, and I've really noticed the way the word 'woman' (for a biological woman) is now widely replaced with 'cis woman', 'identify as a woman' or 'womxn'. There's also the controversy around the word 'actress' - the Guardian, which elsewhere respects preferred pronouns and names, does not respect actresses' preferred use of that term, changing it to 'actor' even in direct quotes.
We are not seeing the same being done to the word 'man', this fear and hedging around about the word or definition, or redefining biological men as a subset of men.
|
|
290 posts
|
Post by southstreet on Apr 13, 2021 8:38:26 GMT
I generally think that is because women are still seen as "the weaker sex" and for a lot of more close-minded people, trans men (which in their eyes are women dressed as men) are a lot less 'dangerous' than trans women, which for them are men dressed as women and in their minds they think they could use that to actually assault and harass women in toilets and changing rooms. Which is absolutely ridiculous, but this is why I am convinced that there is always a lot less fuss made about trans men than trans women. It's the same when it comes to people's prejudices when it comes to homosexuality, lesbians were never as big an affront to society as gay men were.
And I also completely agree with sfsusan, I do not feel like my rights are infringed or it has any impact on my life whatsoever when trans women call themselves women, I generally don't understand the issue. If anything, it makes me happy when people get to be who they really are.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 13, 2021 9:28:50 GMT
It wasn't an issue until the 'trans umbrella' was expanded to include anyone who simply said they were.
Start with a definition of 'trans'. For me, and for many people, we used to think this meant transsexual, and (for people born male), someone who had grown up effeminate, was probably sexually attracted to men, and at some point in life underwent medical treatment to present a more female appearance. Most women do not view that type of 'old school' transsexual as a sexual threat, and have for years accepted them as users of women's toilets, dress shops, used their preferred pronouns and names etc. (and in my case, sharing clothes with one of my housemates).
However, in recent years, rather than using the distinct terms 'transsexual' and 'transvestite', the latter usually thought of as a fully male-bodied man, who is sexually attracted to women, enjoys dressing in uber-feminine clothing, and and does not intend to undergo a physical medical transition, the terms have been conflated and expanded to 'trans' or 'transgender' which is incredibly vague and allows anyone in.
And let's look at who is now coming in: fully male bodied heterosexuals, often with beards, who pose in selfies wielding pink and blue painted baseball bats or tweet death threats and rape threats to women on Twitter, using pictures of anime schoolgirls firing guns. Some call themselves 'lesbians' and talk of the 'cotton ceiling'. These are not old-school transexuals, and when people like this demand access to women's safe spaces accompanied by a tsunami of death threats then I hope you can understand why so many women are scared.
And the history of everything has shown that abusers will go to all sorts of lengths to gain access - they'll become priests, nuns, teachers, scout leaders, TV presenters, DJs, pop stars, theatre and film directors, university tutors, police - any career you can think of that will allow proximity. So when women hear people say, oh, of course people won't abuse self-ID, it's fine to have unisex changing rooms, what could possibly go wrong with putting a male-bodied offender in a woman's prison, we think, really?
I don't know what we can do from here. From the safe spaces point of view, toilets, changing rooms, dorms, the logical thing would be to campaign for a third unisex space for those who feel happy using that - and for lobby groups and celebs to come out and clearly and loudly condemn those people who call themselves 'trans' and under that pink and blue banner send death threats and rape threats to women. But I think the 'alphabet soup' is really backfiring at the moment, and clearer definitions should maybe be returned to, because a picture is emerging (I'm not mentioning names) that are making it look dubious by association.
|
|
290 posts
|
Post by southstreet on Apr 13, 2021 9:51:00 GMT
I think ANYONE that sends death or rape threats to anyone should be condemned, whatever gender they are and that should go without saying!!!
The same way that priest that abuse children should be prosecuted and thrown out of the church (rather than just quietly assigned to another parish), etc. Are we just going to get rid of all priests? Or only allow priests to interact with adults?
As a woman I personally have never come across anyone that called themselves trans and threatened to rape or kill me. I however come across many drunken people that threw abuse my way or think it is ok to touch me inappropriately. Are we going to ban alcohol for everyone now?
You will always have people abusing 'the system' in any society, so we have to find a way to live together and to make sure that everyone can be who they are as long as they don't hurt anyone else and to call out anyone who does or threatens harm to anyone else. But making trans men and women feel bad and othered because of a fairly irrational fear of the few who will abuse the system is not right, in my opinion!
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 13, 2021 10:32:57 GMT
People will always abuse the system, but why make it easier? If transwomen don't like sharing toilets with men, because men are potentially abusive towards them, how does making women's toilets unisex (which is what is increasingly being done in the UK, even in schools) solve that problem? Now we have to share the toilets with men too! Making toilets unisex or allowing male-bodied people into women's sports and changing rooms, for example, is obviously going to disadvantage women - the male version, allowing female-bodied people into men's toilets, or to compete in men's sports, is not going to disadvantage men. That needs to be talked about in a considerate and level-headed way, which is not what is happening in the western world right now. And the nature of the 'debate', or rather lack of it, has been conducted in the sort of language people are sadly not going to be able to forget in a hurry - and the silence from those who should have been condemning the language and behaviour of some 'activists' has been, for me, one of the most depressing things. Does that silence mean approval, or are they scared of these 'activists' too?
|
|
290 posts
|
Post by southstreet on Apr 13, 2021 11:14:49 GMT
So are you saying 'male bodied' people are the issue then? Because you're clearly saying that female bodied people going into male changing rooms aren't an issue and it's only one the other way round? So does that make someone that was born into a male body but has had an operation to remove his genitalia make them less dangerous to women? I am not having a go, I am just trying to understand the issue from your point of view.
In my opinion abusive men (which is what you seem to be concentrating on) will find ways to abuse if they want to and in most cases will not make the effort to pretend to be trans to do so. The same way that I doubt many athletes are going to be pretending to be trans to give themselves a competitive edge, an athlete wants to compete and win against the best in their field. Some will do whatever they can to get there and try and cheat but most don't.
Some humans will always try and cheat in some way or another, that's just what happens, but should we make it harder to access healthcare or benefits because of the few who will cheat the system at the detriment of the many that need it and won't be able to access it that way? Or should we try to make sure everyone can be who they are and deal with the few people that abuse the system when they do?
As for extreme activists or extremists in general, again, those exist for every single cause, we can't disadvantage and tar the whole trans community because of a few loud extremists just as we can't tar every single religious person because of some pedophile priests.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Apr 13, 2021 11:49:24 GMT
We've received complaints that some parts of this discussion have been offensive. We're going to leave the discussion open because of the importance of the topic, but this is a sensitive subject so please be aware that words and intent can be misconstrued and think carefully about how you phrase things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 19:23:26 GMT
Well, I must admit I’m completely baffled by some of the responses here. (Though sadly, not remotely surprised to be dismissed as Posie Parker - though I had to look her up to see who she was - any woman raising the risk to women from radical trans ideology is instantly dismissed as a bigot or fantasist. It saves time on actually considering the issues, I guess. Because if you consider the issues, you might end up realising who’s the bully in this debate (clue: it’s not usually gender critical women)...
Crowblack makes excellent points above - some other examples of how this ideology harms women (and by extension trans people/detransitioners who find the radicals equally harmful to their ability to lead a happy and fulfilling life, without needing to claim the same rights as women):
Amnesty International saying women (ostensibly in Ireland, but a complaints letter revealed it’s their position in general) who argue for biological sex as a reason for safeguarding should be ‘denied legitimate representation’ in the media and government.
We have the SNP coming up with a definition of transphobia that doesn’t allow women to refer to natal sex when arguing for safeguarding rights (so how will they argue for safeguarding rights? That’s right - they won’t be able to).
Lesbian women dismissed as ‘transphobic’ and booted off dating sites for expressing a preference for natal female partners, rather than lesbians with male genitals.
We recently had England rugby defining women as ‘not men’ (that’s good to know! Because clearly the only thing that makes me a woman is that I ‘don’t produce the same amount of testosterone as a man’).
We apparently have people here who agree with sports organisations who completely ignore the research done so far, and think it’s fine for trans women to compete in contact sports with natal women, because hey, sometimes some female competitors are bigger than others. Sure they are, but they’re in the same sex class, so they don’t have the added advantage of all the muscular strength, weight, speed, lung capacity etc that comes with going through male puberty and which recent studies show are retained advantages, even if the person takes testosterone-suppressing hormones as an adult. If a 9-stone, 5ft5 woman is tackled by a 6ft, 18-stone trans woman on the opposing rugby team and has her neck broken, is she really just collateral damage to you? Does it have to actually happen before you agree there’s a risk that should be explored further before allowing trans women on women’s teams so that their feelings aren’t hurt?
Data shows women are at increased risk of attack in gender neutral changing rooms. Are you really saying you think we should have more of these, or that we should now let natal males self-identify into the spaces currently kept for women? Don’t you see the potential for any trans offender (sadly, some do exist and it’s not up to women to guess who’s a risk) - or any cis male predator taking advantage of a change in the law - to attack a woman?
Is it right that a male-bodied stranger should be able to strip naked next to a teenage girl in the gym changing room? (She wouldn’t be able to challenge him, even if he appears to be a fully intact bearded bloke in jeans, if the ‘any man who says he’s a woman, is a woman’ brigade get their way. She’d be a ‘bigot’ if she did. And nobody wants to be a bigot, do they?)
Is it right that the Muslim women who use my women-only gym might have to stop going if it’s opened up to natal males?
We have women losing jobs and livelihoods, or being sent abuse, death threats and pictures of trans women’s erections, just for asserting women’s rights - the rights they are granted by law, that these same abusive people wish to claim from them (because apparently we must believe they are also women, despite their tactics appearing to be very male indeed).
How many women have to get hurt before you realise those raising these issues aren’t bigots? How many women have to lose places on sports podiums, or book-writing prizes, or places on ‘Top Women in Business’ lists, before you accept there’s a cost to natal females’ chances to achieve? How much of life would women have to stop taking part in if we weren’t comfortable with male-bodied people in our toilets, changing rooms, hospitals, domestic violence shelters?
How many times do women have to move up, shut up and make space, before you realise a lot of this could be avoided if men were more welcoming of gender non-conformity? Let’s push for that to change so society becomes even more welcoming of LGBT+ communities. You’ll find no greater support than from gender-critical feminists, I assure you!
|
|
