[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...cf259bbf297ef8

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

[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 . 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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 . 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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Ammi, with respect I don't think you have understood my point 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

..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......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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 . 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.....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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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)

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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 '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.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

To complicate it though '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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.