I present to you, the first woman to fight on the frontline.

[Vicky.]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/17/transgender-soldier-is-first-female-to-serve-on-the-front-line

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1799205/sex-change-soldier-is-britains-first-female-to-fight-on-front-line-after-being-born-a-boy/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/17/british-army-gets-first-woman-on-frontline-as-transgender-soldie/

Sorry for the sun link but it seems the only rag willing to put the full story.

Basically 'Chloe' joined the army 4 years ago. Completed training and such as a man. Changed her name last month. Recently started taking hormones. Came 'out' as transgender when caught crossdressing. And is now celebrated as the first female on the front line.

Now, I know this is a touchy subject on here, but is this really right? What I mean by this is that the actual first woman on the frontline will have overcome huge obstacles to do so and is not expected until 2018 due to training and physicals required to do so. Chloe completed all of the training and such whilst male, whilst benefiting from testosterone levels and the strength of a man, and without having to deal with the discrimination women in the army face based on their sex.

This reporting, to me, is absurd. It is taking away REAL achievements by women before they have even happened? What will the news say now? 'More' women join Chloe on the frontline? Or will it just blow over quietly as we have already had a 'woman' in the role?

In the rush to fall over ourselves to be seen as 'progressive' we seem to be going backwards in another area...women rights and womens achievements.

Honestly, does anyone actually see someone who trained for 4 years as a man, passed physicals as a man, and now decides to be a woman..stays in the same frontline position as before and still benefits from everything being a male offers (ie. physical strength required for such a role) as an achievement for women?

I could get behind this being lauded as the 'first transwoman' on the front line. But its not even that as transwomen have fought on the front line for years now? So where exactly is the news here? I find the entire thing so ****ing wrong. Good on Chloe and good on the army for allowing her to identify as the gender she decides without discrimination. But this is NOT a step forward for women in the military as it is being hailed as. The law changed to allow women to be able to do this, but...Women are not expected to complete training and examinations required to be on the frontline until 2018. A transwoman who was a man until recently remaining in the same post he trained for and passed examinations for..is in no way 'the first female on the front line'.

The news and such is taking the piss here.

Fantastic way to take away womens achievements, eh...


Chloe makes history as the first female infantry soldier since the Army began in 1660

History...made.

[Niamh.]

This is a touchy kind of a subject but yeah I agree that it's kind of unfair to women who were born women and wouldn't have the advantage of the male biology when doing their training

[Northern Monkey]

I don't even know where to start.I think i'll just not bother.This is infraction territory for me:laugh:

[Vicky.]

I don't even know where to start.I think i'll just not bother.This is infraction territory for me:laugh:

Yes it is rather difficult to talk about anywhere as such conversations tend to end in bans. Personally I feel if we can talk about it all respectfully and without purposely insulting anyone then it should be fine. Not totally sure what the 'official' forum definition of transphobia is though (/bad mod) so I may have broken rules by pointing out biology tbh :S

[Niamh.]

Yes it is rather difficult to talk about anywhere as such conversations tend to end in bans. Personally I feel if we can talk about it all respectfully and without purposely insulting anyone then it should be fine. Not totally sure what the 'official' forum definition of transphobia is though (/bad mod) so I may have broken rules by pointing out biology tbh :S

Honestly I'm not sure where the line is drawn either :worry: I think in the debates forum we should be allowed speak about things like this, whilst trying to be respectful at the same time?

[Vicky.]

Honestly I'm not sure where the line is drawn either :worry: I think in the debates forum we should be allowed speak about things like this, whilst trying to be respectful at the same time?

Pretty much yeah, might need to clarify with James though. All I know if deliberate misgendering is classed as transphobia..but we have only ever had to define the rule for BB previously.

[the truth]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/17/transgender-soldier-is-first-female-to-serve-on-the-front-line

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1799205/sex-change-soldier-is-britains-first-female-to-fight-on-front-line-after-being-born-a-boy/

Sorry for the sun link but it seems the only rag willing to put the full story.

Basically 'Chloe' joined the army 4 years ago. Completed training and such as a man. Changed her name last month. Recently started taking hormones. Came 'out' as transgender when caught crossdressing. And is now celebrated as the first female on the front line.

Now, I know this is a touchy subject on here, but is this really right? What I mean by this is that the actual first woman on the frontline will have overcome huge obstacles to do so and is not expected until 2018 due to training and physicals required to do so. Chloe completed all of the training and such whilst male, whilst benefiting from testosterone levels and the strength of a man, and without having to deal with the discrimination women in the army face based on their sex.

This reporting, to me, is absurd. It is taking away REAL achievements by women before they have even happened? What will the news say now? 'More' women join Chloe on the frontline? Or will it just blow over quietly as we have already had a 'woman' in the role?

In the rush to fall over ourselves to be seen as 'progressive' we seem to be going backwards in another area...women rights and womens achievements.

Honestly, does anyone actually see someone who trained for 4 years as a man, passed physicals as a man, and now decides to be a woman..stays in the same frontline position as before and still benefits from everything being a male offers (ie. physical strength required for such a role) as an achievement for women?

I could get behind this being lauded as the 'first transwoman' on the front line. But its not even that as transwomen have fought on the front line for years now? So where exactly is the news here? I find the entire thing so ****ing wrong. Good on Chloe and good on the army for allowing her to identify as the gender she decides without discrimination. But this is NOT a step forward for women in the military as it is being hailed as. The law changed to allow women to be able to do this, but...Women are not expected to complete training and examinations required to be on the frontline until 2018. A transwoman who was a man until recently remaining in the same post he trained for and passed examinations for..is in no way 'the first female on the front line'.

The news and such is taking the piss here.

Fantastic way to take away womens achievements, eh...




History...made.


its all about pendering to womens rights, absolute joke

[Niamh.]

Pretty much yeah, might need to clarify with James though. All I know if deliberate misgendering is classed as transphobia..but we have only ever had to define the rule for BB previously.

Yeah but that was people being disrespectful cos they didn't like the HM or whatever so that's understandably classed as transphobia I think

[Vicky.]

What on earth is pandering to womens rights about this article truth? Its the total opposite?

[Niamh.]

its all about pendering to womens rights, absolute joke

What do you mean?

[jaxie]

Oh I must have missed where she wasn't born a woman. I thought you were posting about about a woman, woman going into a male employment/danger field at first. Then I read comments and went back to reread.

I struggle with the gender reassignment issues because I think it's extremely confusing. If you have had your penis removed but still have the internals of a man and physiology and strength I struggle to see how you can be a woman. If you have had a penis built but still have a womb I struggle to see how you are a man. It's complicated.

I don't think it's entirely fair for anyone/press to nail this as the achievement of a woman or the first woman to do the job.

However it's a great stride for the transexual community.

[Northern Monkey]

Ok.With respect.Imo.A man can never and will never be a woman no matter how much estrogen they inject or how much chopping and tucking they get.
This title should have been given to a woman who has earned it doing the same training as all her male peers.Just as the ridiculous idea of putting post op transsexuals competing against women in the olympics is unfair.So is this.
I'm thinking that this maybe just The Suns spin on it though to make a story.In 2018 they'll now have to have the headline 'First real woman on the frontline'.
Imo.

[smudgie]

Good for her, and really good for the forces.
About time we have real equality in this country. Equality for all.

[Vicky.]

Ok.With respect.Imo.A man can never and will never be a woman no matter how much estrogen they inject or how much chopping and tucking they get.
This title should have been given to a woman who has earned it doing the same training as all her male peers.Just as the ridiculous idea of putting post op transsexuals competing against women in the olympics is unfair.So is this.
I'm thinking that this maybe just The Suns spin on it though to make a story.In 2018 they'll now have to have the headline 'First real woman on the frontline'.
Imo.

Its not just the sun. BBC and a few others reporting the same. Its apparently some major breakthrough :umm2:

Very bad reporting :S

[the truth]

What do you mean?

im not allowed to expand the mods keep taking it down

[the truth]

Good for her, and really good for the forces.
About time we have real equality in this country. Equality for all.

what does equality mean in reality? some people are more equal than others and get special treatment, starting with mothers. as for real equal opportunities , the disabled the sick the elderly the vulnerable have been pushed to the back of the queue because womens rights and gay rights have taken a disproportionate share of the public money and media attention

[Vicky.]

im not allowed to expand the mods keep taking it down

I took down your offtopic post that seemed very much like spam. You can expand on why you think this is 'pandering to womens rights' given the person in receipt of this title is a trans woman (biologically male) though? Do you believe a man who changed his name a month ago is a woman and as such this is pandering to 'women'? Otherwise I can make no sense of your opinion?

I am guessing you saw woman/womens rights and saw red? The story is actually about womens achievements and such being taken away by men :S

[Northern Monkey]

Its not just the sun. BBC and a few others reporting the same. Its apparently some major breakthrough :umm2:

Very bad reporting :S

Yes.Very bad 'media' spin.There is a definate clash in this country and the world infact between womens rights and trans rights.Two worlds(causes) have collided.

[the truth]

I took down your offtopic post that seemed very much like spam. You can expand on why you think this is 'pandering to womens rights' given the person in receipt of this title is a trans woman (biologically male) though? Do you believe a man who changed his name a month ago is a woman and as such this is pandering to 'women'? Otherwise I can make no sense of your opinion?

I am guessing you saw woman/womens rights and saw red? The story is actually about womens achievements and such being taken away by men :S

Thats your interpretation not mine, youre trying to control everything I say so theres no point me expanding

[Vicky.]

Thats your interpretation not mine, youre trying to control everything I say so theres no point me expanding

Im not trying to control anything you say. I deleted a post that had NOTHING to do with the OP. You then reposted acknowledging the OP which was fine.

But if you don't want to reply, thats up to you. I find it odd that you class a man being the first 'female' front line soldier as a 'pandering to women' thing though...very weird.

[VanessaFeltz.]

what does equality mean in reality? some people are more equal than others and get special treatment, starting with mothers. as for real equal opportunities , the disabled the sick the elderly the vulnerable have been pushed to the back of the queue because womens rights and gay rights have taken a disproportionate share of the public money and media attention

how is some group getting media attention they need is a problem?

I think elder people should get the attention as well just because we are talking about an issue it doesnt mean other topic doesnt get anything

[the truth]

how is some group getting media attention they need is a problem?

I think elder people should get the attention as well just because we are talking about an issue it doesnt mean other topic doesnt get anything

theres only so much public money and public and media attention to go around, womens issues and gay issues get an absurdly disproportionate share

[VanessaFeltz.]

theres only so much public money and public and media attention to go around, womens issues and gay issues get an absurdly disproportionate share

not really.

Media gets TONS of money so they can cover up every single topic, the reason they dont get much attention is that people are not speaking about this issue much.

I am supporting to give more attention to elder care because they have worked their entire life, they deserve to have their last years happy but that doesnt mean we have to take away from other movements that still need attention

[arista]

Not being Rude
but she looks like a Fella

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/nintchdbpict0002670088681.jpg?w=960

[the truth]

not really.

Media gets TONS of money so they can cover up every single topic, the reason they dont get much attention is that people are not speaking about this issue much.

I am supporting to give more attention to elder care because they have worked their entire life, they deserve to have their last years happy but that doesnt mean we have to take away from other movements that still need attention

people are talking but it isnt salacious enough for the media to spend as much time talking about the neglect of the disabled the sick the elderly the oaps in care homes ...as Ive stated here before 25000 people a year die in nhs hospitals from undiagnosed blood clots, but you wont see people marching over that because its simply not sexy enough. oh but the ban trump from the uk campaign gets half a million. what an idiocracy

[MB.]

250,000 people a year dying from undiagnosed blood clots won't be solved by complaining about how much media attention the gays get, either

[Vicky.]

Not being Rude
but she looks like a Fella

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/nintchdbpict0002670088681.jpg?w=960

Arista have you read the story or the OP? :p

[arista]

Yes I am aware of the story.
I hope the next one is a Fit Women.

[the truth]

250,000 people a year dying from undiagnosed blood clots won't be solved by complaining about how much media attention the gays get, either

25000 and its not a laughing matter:nono:

[Jessica.]

I don't think the army should be segregated by male or female in the first place, I think the person who is most able to handle it should be on the frontlines, I'm sure there are lots of buff women who could outshine a scrawny dude in the army.

I don't get why people are so outraged and saying that she has an advantage, obviously they're not letting women out there so it's not as if she's holding other women back. She worked as hard as all of the men around her to get where she is so she deserves to be there no matter what her gender is.

[Vicky.]

I don't think the army should be segregated by male or female in the first place, I think the person who is most able to handle it should be on the frontlines, I'm sure there are lots of buff women who could outshine a scrawny dude in the army.

I don't get why people are so outraged and saying that she has an advantage, obviously they're not letting women out there so it's not as if she's holding other women back. She worked as hard as all of the men around her to get where she is so she deserves to be there no matter what her gender is.

Yes, it has changed to allow this BUT females have to be trained up more and pass physicals, something that is not going to happen for a year or so.

Therefor, with this 'Chloe' apparently being the first woman, when the real first woman makes it through the extensive training, its not a 'first' for actual women as its been claimed already by someone who 'was' a bloke until a few months ago.

The issue is they are allowing women out there (which should always have been allowed) but the whole thing has been turned into a bit of a joke by a guy who completed his training and such as a guy, who has physical advantages that women have to overcome to get this title..being lauded the first female. Its just wrong...

And yes, I agree she has worked as hard as the men around her. That does not make her the first female soldier though, far from it.

[Jessica.]

Yes, it has changed to allow this BUT females have to be trained up more and pass physicals, something that is not going to happen for a year or so.

Therefor, with this 'Chloe' apparently being the first woman, when the real first woman makes it through the extensive training, its not a 'first' for actual women as its been claimed already by someone who 'was' a bloke until a few months ago.

The issue is they are allowing women out there (which should always have been allowed) but the whole thing has been turned into a bit of a joke by a guy who completed his training and such as a guy, who has physical advantages that women have to overcome to get this title..being lauded the first female. Its just wrong...

And yes, I agree she has worked as hard as the men around her. That does not make her the first female soldier though, far from it.

I am 100% certain that the next woman who is allowed in will get well deserved recognition as the first woman to complete the rigorous training etc.. This isn't diminishing anyone's achievements at all, it's just telling the story of one person, not even praising her, but they wanted to make it into news, so they are going to use flashy titles. I still don't see why anyone cares in the first place, she's just doing the same job she always did, the only thing that changed is her personal life. :shrug:

[Vicky.]

I am 100% certain that the next woman who is allowed in will get well deserved recognition as the first woman to complete the rigorous training etc.. This isn't diminishing anyone's achievements at all, it's just telling the story of one person, not even praising her, but they wanted to make it into news, so they are going to use flashy titles. I still don't see why anyone cares in the first place, she's just doing the same job she always did, the only thing that changed is her personal life. :shrug:

It is though really when you claim that this makes history and such?

Chloe is not even the first transwoman on the front line either, so this reporting is ****ing horrific.

[Jessica.]

It is though really when you claim that this makes history and such?

Chloe is not even the first transwoman on the front line either, so this reporting is ****ing horrific.

:joker: If that's the case then this isn't even a debate. It's just the media distorting things so they can get more people reading.

[Vicky.]

:joker: If that's the case then this isn't even a debate. It's just the media distorting things so they can get more people reading.
So all of the media outlets just randomly decide to distort this at the same time...to get people reading? A bit odd, don't you think?

Britain’s first female infantry soldier to serve in the Army has told how she was born a boy and described how honoured she is “to be able to make history”.

[Jamie89]

I get what your saying, and it's true that having trained as a man, her experience of it and ability etc will have been very different for someone born as a female going through it, and I can see the argument for it being more impressive and deserving of acknowledgement for someone born as a female. However, none of that is hidden from the story so what is the alternative to the way it has been put across? You suggest that perhaps she should be lauded as a trans-woman (and not be referred to as a woman?), but if she is a woman, then there is nothing incorrect in how it's been reported. Should transgender women have to be prefixed with 'trans' every time they are mentioned? Personally I don't think they should have to be. She is technically the first woman on the front line, and nothing in the story is hiding her past or that she was a man when she went through training, so even though they refer to her as a woman, they also refer to her as a transsexual, and everything about her past has been made clear, so I don't see the story as being irresponsible in any way. It's mentioned numerous times as well as being in the headline that this story is about a transsexual. So what is being distorted, the story is correct?
If the issue is that celebrating this woman is taking away from women's rights and achievements, I don't see that either to be honest. When the first woman who was born as a female biologically makes it to the front line, it will be just as much of an achievement for her. The story that gets published about her might be slightly different had this not happened, but that's just a reflection of the fact society recognises trans-women as women, it's not taking anything away from anyone and both stories and successes will be able to coexist. This just happens to be something that has come before that, and should this story not be reported because it's potentially stealing someone else's thunder? Would that not be diminishing to the rights and achievements of transgender people?
(I'm just going off the guardian link and the OP, I'm not sure and don't care how The Sun are reporting it lol :p)

[Vicky.]

Britain’s first female infantry soldier to serve in the Army has told how she was born a boy and described how honoured she is “to be able to make history”.

Just gunna leave this here...Chloe is playing along with this 'first woman' bollocks. Its not just how its reported. (that quote is not from the sun article btw :p )

She is not even the first transwoman on the front line. Just the first to run to the press stating she is the first female...its pathetic

[Vicky.]

And no, in the senses of 'first achievement' for women in any scneario, I do not think 'trans' women should be classed as women. Or else, whats the point in having firsts? When the first 'woman' can be a man?! :laugh:

I don't mean that to be sneery or anything, but the self-identification rubbish kind of does mean any guy can claim to be the first 'woman' anything.

[Firewire]

She's a woman so whether she trained as a man or not is totally irrelevant

She's a woman and fighting as a woman

Her journey as a trans woman is an incredible story but she should be referred to as a woman and applauded for that whether she is trans or not

[Vicky.]

She's a woman so whether she trained as a man or not is totally irrelevant

She's a woman and fighting as a woman

Her journey as a trans woman is an incredible story but she should be referred to as a woman and applauded for that whether she is trans or not

It really is relevant when she is trying to claim she is the first female frontline soldier though. Given female frontline soldiers do not exist due to training issues and the first lot will only be qualified to do so in a year or so. Really, to be a woman, Chloe should be retaking her training along with the others, to make it official.

Yes the whole trans thing is incredible and such...and good on the army for not trying to block her dressing as she wishes... but that does not mean that this person is the first woman on the frontline.

Also should maybe point out again, there have been transwomen fighting on the front line for years and years...this is nothing new. So quite why this person thinks they are any different to those before them..I don't get.

[Jamie89]

And no, in the senses of 'first achievement' for women in any scneario, I do not think 'trans' women should be classed as women. Or else, whats the point in having firsts? When the first 'woman' can be a man?! :laugh:

I don't mean that to be sneery or anything, but the self-identification rubbish kind of does mean any guy can claim to be the first 'woman' anything.

Either they can be called women or they can't though, regardless of what the situation is. Otherwise a rather long list would need drafting of when they can't be referred to as women, and must be prefixed with 'trans' instead... so as to not offend 'real' women. It's not self identification rubbish, she is legally a woman (and is recognised as one by the army) and I don't see why she should be stripped of her right to be referred to as such just because it might steal someone else's thunder slightly in the future.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Not being Rude
but she looks like a Fella

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/nintchdbpict0002670088681.jpg?w=960

Are you kidding me, she looks like a bloke. Not being funny but is she a lesbian?

[Vicky.]

Either they can be called women or they can't though, regardless of what the situation is. Otherwise a rather long list would need drafting of when they can't be referred to as women, and must be prefixed with 'trans' instead... so as to not offend 'real' women. It's not self identification rubbish, she is legally a woman (and is recognised as one by the army) and I don't see why she should be stripped of her right to be referred to as such just because it might steal someone else's thunder slightly in the future.

It is still self-identification rubbish, even if the law is going along with the rubbish right now. I don't always agree with the law, though I know I have to follow it. It wasn't too long ago the law told me being gay was illegal so...meh. The whole self identification thing seems to be widely accepted, but not many people realise that you no longer have to do anything to actually be a 'woman' or a 'man'. Somewhere along the line, sex and gender has got muddled, and people are playing along with this. Gender is not sex. Transsexual to me will always mean someone trapped in the wrong body (though this is transphobic apparently, as not all 'trans' believe they are in the wrong body?! :conf: ) who takes steps to resolve this issue. A crossdresser, or just a person who decides they are sick of being their biological sex, or is gender non-binary...is not trans. Though at the moment they come under the same umbrella...

Depending what you mean by 'they' really. A transwoman who has undergone the full transition progress is a woman to me, no less than I am. A person who simply says they are a woman as they like to wear dresses...not so much.

[Crimson Dynamo]

sadly over the last years our soldiers have been agents of death for incompetent politicians and not much more

[Ammi]

...it's not really looking at her huge disadvantages though and one of the fundamental things that most people have, which is being born into the right body...I would say that she's been hugely disadvantaged in life and always will be because there are things that she won't ever be able to achieve in the same way as a 'born female'...(I feel) that it's a huge achievement for women in general in that she's been able to be who she is and in a job that she seems to love and one where it must have been many struggles to be who she is...well done Chloe..:love:..

[Vicky.]

Ammi, with respect I don't think you have understood my point :p Of course it is fantastic that Chloe is allowed to be who she feels she is, especially in such a male dominated area such as the army. But to claim she is making history as the first female on the front line is entirely false and quite insulting also to the other transwomen who were on the frontline before Chloe decided to take the thunder, along with insulting towards women who are actively trying to get in that position now and have been disadvantaged because of their sex alone.

[Vicky.]

I guess what I am trying to say is this story would have been better received if it was along the lines of 'I came out as trans and the army accepted me as a woman and I kept my job that I love doing' or something. Rather than the attempt to make out this is a first, or that its a step forward for the army regarding biological women who are currently still fighting hard to get into the same position that Chloe is in due to her male privilege she had before coming out.

[Niamh.]

I guess what I am trying to say is this story would have been better received if it was along the lines of 'I came out as trans and the army accepted me as a woman and I kept my job that I love doing' or something. Rather than the attempt to make out this is a first, or that its a step forward for the army regarding biological women who are currently still fighting hard to get into the same position that Chloe is in due to her male privilege she had before coming out.

I knew what you meant :hee:

[Dollface]

I guess what I am trying to say is this story would have been better received if it was along the lines of 'I came out as trans and the army accepted me as a woman and I kept my job that I love doing' or something. Rather than the attempt to make out this is a first, or that its a step forward for the army regarding biological women who are currently still fighting hard to get into the same position that Chloe is in due to her male privilege she had before coming out.

:clap1:

[MTVN]

When else has there been a transwoman on the front line? If it has happened before then surely it makes all the headlines about 'first woman to do it' factually incorrect (sorry if it talked about that in the articles, only skimmed this story)

[Vicky.]

When else has there been a transwoman on the front line? If it has happened before then surely it makes all the headlines about 'first woman to do it' factually incorrect (sorry if it talked about that in the articles, only skimmed this story)

I remembered reading about these women and assumed they were British :S

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/the-feed-gains-unprecedented-access-inside-world-of-transgender-military-women/news-story/29b7da728c298de251cf259bbf297ef8

Besides this I have only personal anecdotes from current army personnel. As said transpeople did not go running to the press, just got on with it :laugh:

[user104658]

I do sort of agree that it takes something away from the first born-female on the front line, when that happens... as has been said the training to be front line ready is no small thing and (biological fact, not sexism!) men have higher physical potential / physical peak than women. She hadn't even started taking female hormones at the time of training so, no matter how you look at it, the achievement in that training is no different to any of her peers.

On the flipside, I also agree that there has been a massive missed opportunity to celebrate the fact that the army, and her colleagues, have been so accepting of this, when some might imagine that it would be strongly rejected or cause harassment or other issues. That should be the focus of the story :shrug:. Understanding and acceptance. Instead I personally feel like the gutterpress is probably trying to make some sort of point... pretending to think it's all great whilst actually covertly trying to irk their readers (because an angry reader is an enthusiastic reader, when it comes to the rags).

[Vicky.]

I do sort of agree that it takes something away from the first born-female on the front line, when that happens... as has been said the training to be front line ready is no small thing and (biological fact, not sexism!) men have higher physical potential / physical peak than women. She hadn't even started taking female hormones at the time of training so, no matter how you look at it, the achievement in that training is no different to any of her peers.

On the flipside, I also agree that there has been a massive missed opportunity to celebrate the fact that the army, and her colleagues, have been so accepting of this, when some might imagine that it would be strongly rejected or cause harassment or other issues. That should be the focus of the story :shrug:. Understanding and acceptance. Instead I personally feel like the gutterpress is probably trying to make some sort of point... pretending to think it's all great whilst actually covertly trying to irk their readers (because an angry reader is an enthusiastic reader, when it comes to the rags).

It seems to be Chloe herself who is trying to make some sort of point though given she is quoted as stating she has made history and such? The reporting has played a role, but it is up to the individual if they wish to go down the 'acceptance for who I am' route, or chose to make out this is an achievement/progress for actual women and it seems she has chosen the second option unfortunately :/

Its progress in terms of equality for trans people and acceptance in general. I totally agree with that. But I cannot agree that this is progress in terms of 'women on the front line'

[Ammi]

Ammi, with respect I don't think you have understood my point :p Of course it is fantastic that Chloe is allowed to be who she feels she is, especially in such a male dominated area such as the army. But to claim she is making history as the first female on the front line is entirely false and quite insulting also to the other transwomen who were on the frontline before Chloe decided to take the thunder, along with insulting towards women who are actively trying to get in that position now and have been disadvantaged because of their sex alone.

I guess what I am trying to say is this story would have been better received if it was along the lines of 'I came out as trans and the army accepted me as a woman and I kept my job that I love doing' or something. Rather than the attempt to make out this is a first, or that its a step forward for the army regarding biological women who are currently still fighting hard to get into the same position that Chloe is in due to her male privilege she had before coming out.


..I do totally get what you're saying, Vicky...I just don't see it in quite the same way ...I probably shouldn't have posted last night because I was tired so didn't really expand that much but my thoughts were trying to associate if I were a colleague of hers and whether I personally would feel that she had taken something away from me as a 'born female' and her being the 'first female'..?....and I don't see that I would feel any differently to if she had been naturally born a female...if I were the first born female to fight at the frontline then my achievements would be the same regardless of this because although I do celebrate female achievements..(as I do male ones..)...when all's said and done, it's just really 'titles', isn't it...I mean it doesn't take away those personal achievements, which to me are the most important thing...not to be 'first'....and I do see her advantages in terms of the physical in doing her training as a male but that's not something that she could do anything about, in which body she was born...?...that was beyond her control and to me again, I guess my thoughts are that the disadvantages she has had in her life/personal and professional, must far outweigh any advantages in her career choice....she has had to overcome less in some ways but much more in others, type thing so it's the balancing of that as well..?....and people will always have advantages/disadvantages that they're born with or environmentally given that may make a difference in their careers and their lives, that's just the way of it....


..anyways, I think the sticky bit seems to be whether she is the first trans female as well because like Matt has said..(and I think Jess as well..)...if she isn't, then the whole story and achievement is mis-information....I have googled and quite a few sites have the story but they all seem to link to the Daily Mirror...and yes, the Daily Mirror for goodness sake..:laugh:....so I really don't know of any other trans females who are already serving at the front-line...so that is awful reporting if true and some are....

[Ammi]

I do sort of agree that it takes something away from the first born-female on the front line, when that happens... as has been said the training to be front line ready is no small thing and (biological fact, not sexism!) men have higher physical potential / physical peak than women. She hadn't even started taking female hormones at the time of training so, no matter how you look at it, the achievement in that training is no different to any of her peers.

On the flipside, I also agree that there has been a massive missed opportunity to celebrate the fact that the army, and her colleagues, have been so accepting of this, when some might imagine that it would be strongly rejected or cause harassment or other issues. That should be the focus of the story :shrug:. Understanding and acceptance. Instead I personally feel like the gutterpress is probably trying to make some sort of point... pretending to think it's all great whilst actually covertly trying to irk their readers (because an angry reader is an enthusiastic reader, when it comes to the rags).


..yeah, that was the story I read anyway even though it wasn't there..:laugh:...but that's really were my thoughts are in yes, it could be seen as taking away an achievement, I understand that.... but there is also a huge achievement in itself given as well, which is really quite something... I know that the physical differences in males and females are not to be dismissed with such a job especially but the prejudices against some things are also equally not to be dismissed...people are advantaged in many ways/people are disadvantaged in many ways, that's just the way of it but there are some things that we would never have to face and overcome either....

[Livia]

She isn't a "woman". She's a transsexual. I know that's going to be contraversial but it's true. Until they can give her an 'x' chromosome, she's a transsexual.

I also agree with Toy Soldier (WHAT???) that the focus of the story should be the fact that the Army and her colleagues have been accepting of this.

[Jamie89]

She isn't a "woman". She's a transsexual. I know that's going to be contraversial but it's true. Until they can give her an 'x' chromosome, she's a transsexual.

I also agree with Toy Soldier (WHAT???) that the focus of the story should be the fact that the Army and her colleagues have been accepting of this.

It's not true though Livia, 'woman' is just a label and yes in the past it will have been meant solely for people who were biologically female but times have changed, the law has changed, and society's attitudes have changed. It's not just about what chromosomes someone has anymore. Someone doesn't even need to have undergone sex reassignment surgery for their legal status of male/female to be changed (depending on their circumstances). There's a lot more to it than just biology, and that's recognised by law, so I don't understand how it can be stated as fact that 'she isn't a woman'.

[Vicky.]

It's not true though Livia, 'woman' is just a label and yes in the past it will have been meant solely for people who were biologically female but times have changed, the law has changed, and society's attitudes have changed. It's not just about what chromosomes someone has anymore. Someone doesn't even need to have undergone sex reassignment surgery for their legal status of male/female to be changed (depending on their circumstances). There's a lot more to it than just biology, and that's recognised by law, so I don't understand how it can be stated as fact that 'she isn't a woman'.

To some yes.

But many still class gender and actual sex as two different things. I am one of those people.

Society's attitudes may have changed, or most of society may not know about what exactly is a 'woman' these days according to the current narrative. I didn't until recently. I suspect its a large amount of the latter rather than the former.

Edited to add. I still think trans people should have equal rights and such. I simply do not agree with the notion of anyone can be anyone they want simply by thinking it.

[Jamie89]

To some yes.

But many still class gender and actual sex as two different things. I am one of those people.

Society's attitudes may have changed, or most of society may not know about what exactly is a 'woman' these days according to the current narrative. I didn't until recently. I suspect its a large amount of the latter rather than the former.

Edited to add. I still think trans people should have equal rights and such. I simply do not agree with the notion of anyone can be anyone they want simply by thinking it.

And people are entitled to their opinions on it and how they view it personally, my point was just about how 'woman' is termed legally. If somebody chooses to not refer to someone as a 'woman' because of their biology than that's up to them, but to state as fact that they aren't a woman, is incorrect.

[Vicky.]

And people are entitled to their opinions on it and how they view it personally, my point was just about how 'woman' is termed legally. If somebody chooses to not refer to someone as a 'woman' because of their biology than that's up to them, but to state as fact that they aren't a woman, is incorrect.

I am actually searching for legal definition of woman and all I can find is 'WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty.'

Scientifically this is the case also.

Dictionaries need to be updated also (1 a : a female person : a woman or a girl b : an individual that bears young or produces large usually immobile gametes (as eggs) that are fertilized by small usually motile gametes of a male.= apparently...), and surely the word woman should be done away with entirely if there is not actually a clear definition of what a woman (or man) is anymore?

[bots]

And people are entitled to their opinions on it and how they view it personally, my point was just about how 'woman' is termed legally. If somebody chooses to not refer to someone as a 'woman' because of their biology than that's up to them, but to state as fact that they aren't a woman, is incorrect.

its a sensationalised claim that was being made though really. Quite rightly, someone who changes sex shouldn't be re-evaluated for a role purely on that basis, but equally, its a bit of a stretch to suggest that its a major breakthrough for women, when it really isn't.

[Alf]

Imaging if all of us were allowed to have the fantasies in our heads forced to be accepted by everyone.

[Jamie89]

I am actually searching for legal definition of woman and all I can find is 'WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty.'

Scientifically this is the case also.

Dictionaries need to be updated also (1 a : a female person : a woman or a girl b : an individual that bears young or produces large usually immobile gametes (as eggs) that are fertilized by small usually motile gametes of a male.= apparently...), and surely the word woman should be done away with entirely if there is not actually a clear definition of what a woman (or man) is anymore?

I don't think the word needs to be done away with, or that the definition has even changed that much. Everyone who has always been considered a woman still is ie. people who were born biologically as female, it's just that it now also includes people who have transitioned. (In terms of 'definition' I'm basing this new inclusion on the Gender Recognition Act)

its a sensationalised claim that was being made though really. Quite rightly, someone who changes sex shouldn't be re-evaluated for a role purely on that basis, but equally, its a bit of a stretch to suggest that its a major breakthrough for women, when it really isn't.

I agree with that, but reading the articles I don't think it really is being. I know there's excerpts that are saying as much, and maybe it's sensationalised more than it needs to be (but then doesn't the media do that with everything?) but they all seem to be making it perfectly clear in the headlines and throughout the articles that the person being referred to is transsexual.

[Vicky.]

I don't think the word needs to be done away with, or that the definition has even changed that much. Everyone who has always been considered a woman still is ie. people who were born biologically as female, it's just that it now also includes people who have transitioned. (In terms of 'definition' I'm basing this new inclusion on the Gender Recognition Act)



Oh if we are talking of those who have actually transitioned I agree that they should be classed as women. Thought we were talking about the self identifiers who reckon shoving on a dress and liking makeup makes you a woman rather than a non-gender conforming male.

[Jamie89]

Oh if we are talking of those who have actually transitioned I agree that they should be classed as women. Thought we were talking about the self identifiers who reckon shoving on a dress and liking makeup makes you a woman rather than a non-gender conforming male.

To complicate it though :laugh: 'transitioned' doesn't necessarily mean they've undergone sex reassignment surgery. But then it also doesn't mean that people who don't have the surgery are just non-gender conforming males who like to dress/act like a woman. There's loads of reasons why someone might not want/be able to/be allowed to have the surgeries, but still consider themselves, and be considered to be a woman, and have their legal status changed.

[Vicky.]

To complicate it though :laugh: 'transitioned' doesn't necessarily mean they've undergone sex reassignment surgery. But then it also doesn't mean that people who don't have the surgery are just non-gender conforming males who like to dress/act like a woman. There's loads of reasons why someone might not want/be able to/be allowed to have the surgeries, but still consider themselves, and be considered to be a woman, and have their legal status changed.

Legal status is only changed though once you have 'lived as woman' (whatever than means :S) for 2 years right? Just from looking at the government website. So technically, Livia was right in saying Chloe is not a woman, and fact. As Chloe has only just begun 'living as a woman' after being caught crossdressing. And its only 'fact' (though some would still dispute this) legally after she has been doing this for 2 years or more and intends to forever. Also..apparently you need to be diagnosed with 'gender dysphoria'

[Jamie89]

Legal status is only changed though once you have 'lived as woman' (whatever than means :S) for 2 years right? Just from looking at the government website. So technically, Livia was right in saying Chloe is not a woman, and fact. As Chloe has only just begun 'living as a woman' after being caught crossdressing. And its only 'fact' (though some would still dispute this) legally after she has been doing this for 2 years or more and intends to forever. Also..apparently you need to be diagnosed with 'gender dysphoria'

I'm not sure I'd need to look over all the details again, but just on Livia's comment, it was being directed at all transsexuals and saying they aren't women based on chromosomes, which is what I was picking up on.