Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People

[rockershovel]

To pursue a matter, are you saying that no-one, anywhere, has the right to criticise anyone for anything, however trivial?

 

Since hipsters have been mentioned, I find them risible. Goths too, for that matter. I know of no basis upon which they may be regarded as "ethnic minorities" but Greater Msnchester Police apparently do; they have deemed it a sufficient use of public money to set up a "hate crimes" unit to investigate the situation (which I would not have regarded as any great mystery) that on Saturday nights in Northern towns, the combination of large numbers of young people, drugs and alcohol tend to have unfortunate consequences, and those who make themselves prominent tend to come in for undue share of the unwanted benefits.

 

There is no logical end to it. God Almighty appears to have regarded two genders as sufficient, the Viennese academics of the late 19th century got up to about six; but Facebook is up to 56 and still counting.

 

So, if you wish to insist upon your legal right to dress as a woman, go ahead; there was never any prohibition on doing so in law. If you wish to assert that police constables indulging in deliberate entrapment in public lavatories is undesirable and a misuse of the law, I'd agree. But if you seek to invoke the law to suppress the rights of others on the basis of your self-defined position, then be careful what you wish for, lest you get it

[Andy Y]

So, why bother replying to the thread then? I just counted 12 posts from you (without taking into account the ones that have been deleted) that’s 10% of the entire thread.

 

Best, Pete.

 

It should get quieter now. 

[rockershovel]

So, why bother replying to the thread then? I just counted 12 posts from you (without taking into account the ones that have been deleted) that’s 10% of the entire thread.

 

Best, Pete.

You are misquoting me, out if context. The rest of that paragraph applies Edited September 25, 2015 by rockershovel

[GarrettTheThief]

But I fear for the country when such things are advanced as justification for the changes wrought upon our legal system.

 

Well, I want to legal system to abolish the idea of "trans panic" and stop treating it as a valid defense for beating the crap out of a trans/gender noncomforming person. I want the legal system to allow these people to use the toilets corresponding to the gender they are comfortable with. I want the legal system to acknowledge that gender dysphoria is an issue and thus increase funding to help people seeking treatment and make it more readily available (currently, the NHS doesn't spend enough on transpeople, but a discussion on where that money can come from is another one entirely). I want the legal system to treat abuse of LGBT people with the same gravity as abuse of those who don't fall under the umbrella.

 

Because currently, despite slow progress, we've yet to reach the stage where we have a same rights as people who don't fall under the LGBT umbrella. We still have to fight for this.

 

EDIT: just to clarify, we want EQUAL rights and privileges (which we have still yet to have). NOT supremacy. NOT entitlement.

Edited September 25, 2015 by GarrettTheThief

[bbishop]

 

 

So, I have no interest at all in whether a small group of men like to dress as women; I really don't care.

..... and how many electrons have been re-arranged to reach this statement?

 

Bill

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

I've deleted mine since it included the quote, and made no sense out of context

 

Re the above, the last paragraph sums up the special pleading, sophistry and sense of entitlement that lies at the heart of the whole issue of identity politics. As you rightly say, few transvestites genuinely pass as females to the disinterested observer. Quite a few transsexuals don't, either.

 

The key issue of political correctness is that the white, nominally Christian, straight, western male is always, always wrong and any contortion or contradiction is permissible to uphold this. Diane Abbot was lately quoted in the press, criticising "white hipsters encroaching on a black neighbourhood". Jack Straw has said openly that "the English race is not worth saving". I see no logical basis on which both statements are not "racist" within the meaning if the law, and hence that the law is either fundamentally flawed or administered without impartiality or justice.

 

There is an unfortunate fact which is routinely denied or suppressed, but stubbornly remains, that a large cohort of the population find such matters unacceptable, but take no serious interest on the basis that it is someone else's business.

 

However once you embark upon the course of resorting to the law to dictate things which do not bear scrutiny, you arrive at the situation where the law brings itself into disrepute. You arrive in a situation where a Dutch judge can say in open court, that "the truth is no defence". You arrive in a situation such as in Swden, where dissent is now a criminal act - in the name of freedom (note that the EU have more than once indicated that they favour such laws, and our own government AND opposition have indicated likewise).

 

So, I have no interest at all in whether a small group of men like to dress as women; I really don't care. But I fear for the country when such things are advanced as justification for the changes wrought upon our legal system. This is the substance if my reply to Feman; do I agree that such things are devoutly to be wished? No, absolutely not.

 

You are defending a viewpoint quite admirably but you are missing the point.

 

The alternative to the Equality Act is what was happening before. I will concentrate on incidents that I know about or have witnessed at first hand.

 

Wigs snatched off heads and thrown into the road.

 

Being spat at.

 

Being made redundant because you are dressing/transitioning

 

Being shouted at in the street with less than complimentary remarks using extreme bad language

 

Being punched

 

Apart from being punched ( common assault ) none of these were criminal offences.

 

What you are saying in effect is that because I dress in women's clothes I more or less deserve whatever I get.

 

Is that a fair society?

[edcayton]

My late and much-lamented aunt did b&b for most of her life. Not in a guest-house but her private house. She was a committed Christian.

 

The biggest bedroom was a "triple" with a double bed and a single. She was always happy to let that room to two or even three people of the same sex. However, a non-married opposite-sex couple would be one in the front single and one in the back single.

 

Not sure whose sexual preferences she offended!

 

Ed

[BoD]

Re the above, the last paragraph sums up the special pleading, sophistry and sense of entitlement that lies at the heart of the whole issue of identity politics.

You may call it special pleading, sophistry and sense of entitlement but I (and I hope most others) would simply see it as a desire to be treated in the same way as everybody else and in this specific instance to exist without fear of abuse, verbal or physical.

 

I think it is shameful on us all that a law was needed to start to bring this about.

Edited September 25, 2015 by BoD

[PhilH]

 

EDIT: just to clarify, we want EQUAL rights and privileges (which we have still yet to have). NOT supremacy. NOT entitlement.

 

But surely your 'group' is not alone in wanting this. Disability, mental illness, race, unemployment, anything which marks someone different from this bloody 'norm' often means discrimination, ridicule or persecution.

 

It's about time we celebrated and valued our differences, whatever they may be.

Edited September 25, 2015 by PhilH

[MJI]

I feel that as a straight white overweight middleaged male I deserve the same rights as everyone else not to picked on, insulted, hit and so on.

 

No one group should have more rights to not be attacked than any other.

 

Grabbing at people is assult, no need for special arrangements, just that assult is assault regardless of reason when not provoked (and not fiting societal norms is NOT provocation).

 

Yes I have been abused when not much overweight, by two very thick morons dressed like skinheads.

 

I actually thought it was funny as they were struggling to string words together.

Edited September 25, 2015 by MJI

['CHARD]

Since hipsters have been mentioned, I find them risible. Goths too, for that matter. I know of no basis upon which they may be regarded as "ethnic minorities" but Greater Msnchester Police apparently do; they have deemed it a sufficient use of public money to set up a "hate crimes" unit to investigate the situation (which I would not have regarded as any great mystery) that on Saturday nights in Northern towns, the combination of large numbers of young people, drugs and alcohol tend to have unfortunate consequences, and those who make themselves prominent tend to come in for undue share of the unwanted benefits.

 

Not usually one to fly the goth flag, but i feel compelled to put you straight on your scarcely concealed bigotry here:

 

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bury-hate-attack-thug-called-9357761

 

A thirteen year old girl punched for dressing a certain way, with horrible echoes of a teen murdered in Bury eight years ago, for dressing a certain way.  We're not talking about old school youth cult violence here - a good ruck between mods and greasers.  These are unprovoked assaults.

 

Your invocation of the Daily mail's usual list noir, of what despicable young people constitute British youth, is lazy, lame and frankly odious.

[The Lurker]

I was about to quote the Sophie Lancaster case but I see that 'Chard has beaten me to it.

 

They're not ethnic minorities but no-one has the right to beat someone up or otherwise discriminate against them simply because of the way they look (whether skin, clothing, hair, wigs etc) - and yes that includes white males (some of whom are goths).

[JohnR]

I cant believe we're having a conversation where some people think it is their right to discriminate against people for wanting the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. 

 

As a white (brought up Christian) male, I dont feel threatened or marginalised by others wanting the same freedoms I (and my ancestors) have enjoyed for centuries - whether that is freedom to Marry whoever they like, dress how they like, or just BE whoever they like. In years to come, I'm sure people will look back on those attitudes with the same revulsion as we look back on those of the 18th century, when perfectly rational and "civilised" people thought it was their God-given right to own another human being, and treat him/her like a piece of disposable property. It will simply be unthinkable.

[skipepsi]

Don't dream that has ended either, slavery is still alive in Britain

[Nearholmer]

Rockershovel

 

We have equality legislation because, in its absence, some people seemed to have it in their heads that it was acceptable to be unfair, or downright cruel, to some other people, for no other reason than their religion, race, gender etc. Simple as that.

 

I would readily agree that some of the detail and application of some parts of equality law strains at the edges of practicality, but that isn't anything like saying that the entire kit and caboodle of equality legislation is unnecessary, or bad.

 

Two questions:

 

Do you think that equality law is unnecessary, in that everyone would behave decently to one another in its absence?

 

Do you think that equality law is a bad thing, because it actually is perfectly acceptable to be unfair, or downright cruel, to people, for no their reason that their religion, race, gender etc?

 

Kevin

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

But surely your 'group' is not alone in wanting this. Disability, mental illness, race, unemployment, anything which marks someone different from this bloody 'norm' often means discrimination, ridicule or persecution.

 

It's about time we celebrated and valued our differences, whatever they may be.

Indeed Phil but one must embrace the idea that I CHOOSE to dress as I do. I am still the able bodied (only just these days) male underneath the clothes although I act differently when I am wearing them and think differently all the time I am reliably informed.

 

Most of the ones you list above didn't CHOOSE to be like that and are therefore immediately UNequal before they even start. The Equality Act was not designed for them and I think the record in the UK of trying to acheive a fulfilling life with any form of disability, acquired or from birth is actually quite good but could always be better.

 

Race is very definitely included and they have the Race Relations Act as well to assist them. The Equality Act is very much the child of the race act as it quickly became obvious that race alone was not the only problem.

 

Unemployment, although depressing and demeaning does not affect equality in any way and again, is covered to a degree by the benefits system. To get it all back on topic, if you are unemployed because you dress in women's clothes then the remedy is quite simple......don't.

 

If, as many transsexuals will attest, you have little choice but to put yourself forward for Gender Reassignment Surgery ( I am not one of those at this time ) then you should be supported in that and again the Equality Act is designed to make this a legal matter if you are discriminated against. Large employers are targetted for the numbers of 'different' employees that they have and take on and, as long as it doesn't affect your ability to do the work you signed up for, even smaller employers will accept trans people. The problem starts when you ask for three months off for the op and/or you are constantly off sick because of your transgender issues. As I have said, I have little understanding of these issues apart from counting one or two post op transexuals among my friends.

 

Without doubt there is a distinct divison between trannies like me and transsexuals. I think it important to note that the TV element of the population probably outnumbers the transsexual element by about 100 to 1 in real terms but most trannies are very firmly in the closet and are never seen in public. The addiction is just the same but it is handled differently depending on circumstances. Transsexuals actually have to live as women as part of their multi year approach to GRS so you will see more of them ( or not. Some of my friends are extremely passable so you might not notice them ). If I was not married I suspect that I would go full time as a woman but I doubt that I would have surgery. I am actually very very happy being a full on TV and I see no reason to either give it up or do something that permanent without any real just cause or enhancement to my life.

[GarrettTheThief]

I didn't know that "tranny" was used to refer to transvestites. I know some people in the TG community have reclaimed that word despite a history of being used in a derogatory fashion.

 

DW, do your friends in the community use "tranny" for the same purpose as you?

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

I didn't know that "tranny" was used to refer to transvestites. I know some people in the TG community have reclaimed that word despite a history of being used in a derogatory fashion.

 

DW, do your friends in the community use "tranny" for the same purpose as you?

 

I think we were supposed to have adopted the overall term 'transgender' but I think that just confuses people. I am also of the opinion that there is a huge chasm between transvestite ( or trannie for short ) and transsexual where GRS is the goal.

 

If you call me a trannie with a smile on your face I will accept that without a moment's problem. My whole ethos has been to say to other trannies, come on in the water is lovely. Yes we do use the word trannie amongst ourselves but if somebody asks me I will give them or they already know and use my femme name. Most members of the public identify with my ebullience and we then start laughing about it. Hopefully they enjoy my company and go away refreshed and thinking differently. I did notice a distinct mellowing in people in and around the venue where I did my stand up routines and after a few attendances at other venues you get noticed and some people come up to say how wonderful you look and how brave you are and, of course, you just melt when they do that.

 

Most of the time when I am out in daylight, people just go along with you and a smile and eye contact goes a very long way. When I am dressed I smile a lot and my emotions are very close to the surface and people pick up on that and treat you differently than if you are hard faced and trying to hide away. It doesn't matter what they call you really and I have learnt that when someone laughs within your earshot they are not necessarily laughing at you. If they are it is too bad as they miss the best of me.

[GarrettTheThief]

I like your viewpoint and I pretty much agree. It depends on source/situation for me, but I don't consider myself a TV since I actually identify as female on some days. So I'm not sure how I'd react to the word.

 

As for this:

 

 

Indeed Phil but one must embrace the idea that I CHOOSE to dress as I do. I am still the able bodied (only just these days) male underneath the clothes although I act differently when I am wearing them and think differently all the time I am reliably informed.

 

Most of the ones you list above didn't CHOOSE to be like that and are therefore immediately UNequal before they even start. The Equality Act was not designed for them and I think the record in the UK of trying to acheive a fulfilling life with any form of disability, acquired or from birth is actually quite good but could always be better.

 

That is absolutely poignant and 100% true. Not to mention, being part of a group that's less privileged, I only have the energy to fight for my own issues but that doesn't mean I don't support the rights of other demographics.

[PhilH]

Indeed Phil but one must embrace the idea that I CHOOSE to dress as I do. I am still the able bodied (only just these days) male underneath the clothes although I act differently when I am wearing them and think differently all the time I am reliably informed.

 

Most of the ones you list above didn't CHOOSE to be like that and are therefore immediately UNequal before they even start. The Equality Act was not designed for them and I think the record in the UK of trying to acheive a fulfilling life with any form of disability, acquired or from birth is actually quite good but could always be better.

 

Race is very definitely included and they have the Race Relations Act as well to assist them. The Equality Act is very much the child of the race act as it quickly became obvious that race alone was not the only problem.

 

Unemployment, although depressing and demeaning does not affect equality in any way and again, is covered to a degree by the benefits system. To get it all back on topic, if you are unemployed because you dress in women's clothes then the remedy is quite simple......don't.

 

If, as many transsexuals will attest, you have little choice but to put yourself forward for Gender Reassignment Surgery ( I am not one of those at this time ) then you should be supported in that and again the Equality Act is designed to make this a legal matter if you are discriminated against. Large employers are targetted for the numbers of 'different' employees that they have and take on and, as long as it doesn't affect your ability to do the work you signed up for, even smaller employers will accept trans people. The problem starts when you ask for three months off for the op and/or you are constantly off sick because of your transgender issues. As I have said, I have little understanding of these issues apart from counting one or two post op transexuals among my friends.

 

Without doubt there is a distinct divison between trannies like me and transsexuals. I think it important to note that the TV element of the population probably outnumbers the transsexual element by about 100 to 1 in real terms but most trannies are very firmly in the closet and are never seen in public. The addiction is just the same but it is handled differently depending on circumstances. Transsexuals actually have to live as women as part of their multi year approach to GRS so you will see more of them ( or not. Some of my friends are extremely passable so you might not notice them ). If I was not married I suspect that I would go full time as a woman but I doubt that I would have surgery. I am actually very very happy being a full on TV and I see no reason to either give it up or do something that permanent without any real just cause or enhancement to my life.

I didn't really mean from a legal perspective....more an acceptance by society that everyone, through choice or circumstance, is different and has the same right to live their lives as everybody else.

 

BTW Ford used to make Trannies at their plant here in Southampton....

[BlackRat]

I've been spat at, called abusive names, been both threatened and assaulted for what I was wearing and my appearance.

 

I have had stones, bottles and numerous other things thrown at me.

 

I have had fireworks hurled at me, and placed under my works vehicle, I have been threatened with knives and on a number of occasions a firearm.

 

My family has been abused, and I have had to endure pure bile and venom.

 

Who'd be a copper eh?

[trisonic]

I thought you might be referring to your famous shirts? Yes. News does reach New York...

 

Well, you did miss off obscene gestures...

 

Best, Pete.

Edited September 25, 2015 by trisonic

[Torper]

I didn't really mean from a legal perspective....more an acceptance by society that everyone, through choice or circumstance, is different and has the same right to live their lives as everybody else.

 

Bit of a generalisation that......  Take the topical case of the Naked Rambler - should naturists be allowed to wander round in public naked if they so choose?  Or do there have to be limits somewhere?

 

DT

[Ozexpatriate]

Take the topical case of the Naked Rambler - should naturists be allowed to wander round in public naked if they so choose?  Or do there have to be limits somewhere?

"Freedom" in an ordered society has limits. The trick is figuring out what they are as a collective democratic entity. There's no easy prescription and some things are self evident and rational (like don't kill each other) and others less rational yet necessary for harmony amongst the 'tribe'.

 

Arguably a naturist doesn't harm anyone. Clearly there are some that no one would object to seeing rambling down a path and others where one might quickly look away. And of course there are the arguments that, by so doing, some naturists make targets of themselves.

[BlackRat]

It's all about common sense and balance, otherwise you end up with a game of 'It's my right' Top Trumps, and that's a real pain to deal with, trust me.

 

Sometimes however, these two things get forgotten, in the rush to demonstrate the ability to do what ever, where ever, even if it is inappropriate.