In the UK recently there was a ruling about the definition of “woman” as it relates to trans women. But no definition of “man”. Why!
I think that’s also largely because it’s women who feel vulnerable with men in their ‘intimate’/‘private’ places like bathrooms or sleeping spaces - not so much for men. So questions like, “will the prison rules make this person share a room with me on the basis of their self-identification as a woman” are more of a concern for women than for men.
And of course efforts aimed at elevating women in e.g. STEM. If you have a women’s tech group, or a women’s gaming group, giving special help to women because their gender puts them at a disadvantage, do you, should you, must you, include trans women? That’s going to come up about women not about men. Men’s groups of these days tend to be much less relevant.
I agree the ruling should have considered both genders equally though. Actually, does it not? Or was it just the discussion, not the actual ruling, that was all women-focused not men?
I think that’s also largely because it’s women who feel vulnerable with men in their ‘intimate’/‘private’ places like bathrooms or sleeping spaces - not so much for men. So questions like, “will the prison rules make this person share a room with me on the basis of their self-identification as a woman” are more of a concern for women than for men.
And of course efforts aimed at elevating women in e.g. STEM. If you have a women’s tech group, or a women’s gaming group, giving special help to women because their gender puts them at a disadvantage, do you, should you, must you, include trans women? That’s going to come up about women not about men. Men’s groups of these days tend to be much less relevant.
I agree the ruling should have considered both genders equally though. Actually, does it not? Or was it just the discussion, not the actual ruling, that was all women-focused not men?