Transgender help.

VJsmum

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If I were "narrow-minded" I wouldn't have had a transsexual or a lesbian for a friend, despite being heterosexual female myself.

I wouldn't book a male friend into a shared room with myself - just in case he started getting "tempted", so I treated the lesbian friend exactly the same way. Actually, too, I was pretty attractive when I was younger. Middle-aged "fade into the furniture" these days, but it wasn't always so.:) I did get quite a few unwanted "passes" made at me.

I would guess that, to most of us, we just "get on with it" and accept the sex of body we were born into?? I may be wrong there. I can certainly recall a point (must of been at some point whilst I was a teenager?) where it struck me quite clearly that I had got the body of one particular sex and what attitude was I going to take to that point. I decided I wasn't unduly bothered which sex body I had and that there were advantages and disadvantages to both (basically "I might get discriminated against for salary" v. "The Government is less likely to try and get me involved in any war they decide to fight") and decided it didn't really matter which sex body I had and I would just try and take advantage of the advantages of being a woman and minimise the disadvantages of being a woman iyswim. I presume its the hormones that accompany having a female body being all "very conventionally lined-up and fully working" that equals "Whew...that's okay then, its the opposite sex I'm attracted to". If it hadn't been the opposite sex, then I'd probably have thought "Darn it. Will ignore hormones and forget about the whole sex issue then. It aint that important" and got on with my life.

Maybe some other peoples hormones or something have a "stronger pull" on them?? That's a genuine thought there..as personally I've found it pretty easy to ensure I myself was the one that made my own decisions in life (ie rather than my body dictating them to me iyswim).

As stated above - unbelievable :mad:

It's not a choice

Person_one

OP, the WI have guest speakers come to talk at their meetings don't they?

I think it would be a really good idea to book a speaker from a transgender group. Somebody who can explain the difference between sex and gender and why that difference matters, who can describe what it feels like to have a mismatch between the two, who can talk about the difficulties that transgender people face, the progress that's been made and how the support and acceptance of loved ones, friends and groups like the WI can make so much difference to a transgender person's life.

Some of the comments on this thread show how little some people understand about the experience of transmen and women. I would hope that as they have met and got to know your partner, that with a little help in understanding and empathising this could just be a blip and you'll both have many happy years socialising with these women.

onomatopoeia99

HPoirot wrote: »

It would vitiate their constitution which more likely than not offers membership to women only - not men, not girls, not boys.

Their constitution offers membership to women who have reached voting age. Section 58 includes definitions of various words and phrases, but the key one that isn't defined is "woman".

There certainly are post-operative trans women that have not sought a gender recognition certificate, because until recently it would have required them to divorce their wives first.

p.s. "vitiate" is a good word that doesn't get used enough.

Carmina-Piranha_2

Do they think that your partner changes from male to female frequently? I wonder if they actually know that the funeral was a one-off, and whether that might make a difference.

purpleshoes_2

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

If I were "narrow-minded" I wouldn't have had a transsexual or a lesbian for a friend, despite being heterosexual female myself.

I wouldn't book a male friend into a shared room with myself - just in case he started getting "tempted", so I treated the lesbian friend exactly the same way. Actually, too, I was pretty attractive when I was younger. Middle-aged "fade into the furniture" these days, but it wasn't always so.:) I did get quite a few unwanted "passes" made at me.

I would guess that, to most of us, we just "get on with it" and accept the sex of body we were born into?? I may be wrong there. I can certainly recall a point (must of been at some point whilst I was a teenager?) where it struck me quite clearly that I had got the body of one particular sex and what attitude was I going to take to that point. I decided I wasn't unduly bothered which sex body I had and that there were advantages and disadvantages to both (basically "I might get discriminated against for salary" v. "The Government is less likely to try and get me involved in any war they decide to fight") and decided it didn't really matter which sex body I had and I would just try and take advantage of the advantages of being a woman and minimise the disadvantages of being a woman iyswim. I presume its the hormones that accompany having a female body being all "very conventionally lined-up and fully working" that equals "Whew...that's okay then, its the opposite sex I'm attracted to". If it hadn't been the opposite sex, then I'd probably have thought "Darn it. Will ignore hormones and forget about the whole sex issue then. It aint that important" and got on with my life.

Maybe some other peoples hormones or something have a "stronger pull" on them?? That's a genuine thought there..as personally I've found it pretty easy to ensure I myself was the one that made my own decisions in life (ie rather than my body dictating them to me iyswim).

Im not sure why you think friends would be tempted, attractive or not. Its like assuming that just because people are attractive, other people will be attracted to them and its not like that. Ive been told Im attractive, but I certainly don't fancy my male or female friends or them me.

I think many people get unwanted passes, but if I were going away for a weekend with a mate I would hope by the time we were booking that Id know whether there might ever be anything there, even after a few vodkas, beer goggles or whatever and Id have to say it would probably be a no, if someone doesn't make a pass at you day to day, very unlikely they are going to do it when you are in a hotel.

HPoirot

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Their constitution offers membership to women who have reached voting age. Section 58 includes definitions of various words and phrases, but the key one that isn't defined is "woman".

There certainly are post-operative trans women that have not sought a gender recognition certificate, because until recently it would have required them to divorce their wives first.

Which might explain why they are using the "if it quacks like a duck" test on the OP's OH.

To the OP: I would take this matter in a sympathetic way at local level. If you go straight to HQ, it may well refer you back to local as local organisations usually have more say in membership matters than HQs. By which time local might not be as sympathetic to you for having flagged them to HQ!

But by all means explain that this is a one-off etc. It may well be that they would want you to wait till the dust settles a bit before accepting your OH back. Good luck.

Takeaway_Addict

Personally I would be explaining to the group that your partner felt comfortable enough to be their true self in front of them but unfortunately bigoted family members would not allow that choice. As such she felt it best to pretend on that occasion for your benefit.

And then tell them to get a grip.

As a side, I though the WI allowed men in now? It's no different to men only golf clubs, Rotary etc that on the whole now allow female members?

Errata

A legal opinion gleaned from the web.

Charities will be looking at how the legislation affects discrimination in providing services to a selected beneficiary group: does refusing services on the grounds of the nine protected characteristics break the law? Can the Women's Institute, for example, continue to provide educational opportunities for women only, and therefore discriminate against men on the grounds of gender?

In the Women's Institute case, the answer is yes, it can. An exception in the legislation means charities can restrict the provision of benefits to people of a protected characteristic if the charity is acting in pursuance of a charitable instrument and if the provision of benefits is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

Person_one

Errata wrote: »

A legal opinion gleaned from the web.

The OPs partner is not asking for an exception on the grounds of gender, their gender is female, the right one for the group.

You do understand the difference between sex and gender, surely?

Errata

Person_one wrote: »

The OPs partner is not asking for an exception on the grounds of gender, their gender is female, the right one for the group.

You do understand the difference between sex and gender, surely?

Of course, but as the OP hasn't said her OH has had gender re-assignment...................