All this said hearing "NB and transmasc people are by definition not women and as such not included in women's right[s]" made my skin crawl.

Ugh. What gross take.

Also wait until these people, in this case a European afaik, learn about 2spirit natives and then decide to dig themselves into a fun little racism hole while they're at it.

Yes. I am Native American. I immigrated to Europe. Plus 2spirit isn't even limited to US indigenous groups.

If we are not careful when it comes to the conversation surrounding these laws we open the door for people to say "you are not a woman because you are NB or transmasc" and as such you receive no protections or say in the decisions surrounding these laws even if they directly affect you. That's bad.

There's a reason I wrote "women's rights" in quotations too. Legal definitions of these rights include things that shouldn't only be considered for women, but nonetheless are. That's the part of this proposal I'm actually most worried about.

Saying that "NB and transmasc people are by definition not women and as such not included in women's right[s]" is dangerous and it's exactly what I'm worried about. We ARE included. That's my entire point. Some by choice and others not. As I said, gender is messier than man, woman, and other.

In order to be legally recognized as a transgender man in most countries you still have to jump through a lot of transmedicalist hoops. A lot (most) of the transmasc butch lesbians I know have been forced to ID as one in order to access gender affirming care. This could, as a result, exclude them.

And so do my intersex friends who identify as men. And so do my demisexual friends where their identity can fluctuate.

We have to break down what it would require to be seen as a transwoman in many places and what is defined as "women's rights" as well or we risk taking those two steps backwards.

I want to make it clear that I don't believe Reed is doing this herself. She's incredible.
I'm just trying to help explain why these things often still frustrate my Spouse and myself. I rely on women's rights whether I like it or not. (I personally don't) And so do butch lesbians who are transmasc.

But I also said if we're not careful when it comes to the ongoing conversation surrounding these topics then we could strip away the rights people, like me, rely on and the media can feed into that by only focusing on a largely binary, transmedicalist point of view.

I scrolled through and read the A10-0010/2026 proposal. It never really defines what "women's rights" are which is a major problem. It simply states that you cannot bar transwomen from them within an EU country. As I said this part is obviously fantastic and we should celebrate it.

You're operating under the assumption that gender functions as man, woman, and other and that you get to opt out of what affects you on a legal scale just because you select "other" or "man".
In reality, the wording of this law could allow people to do exactly what you're doing and that's dangerous.

My spouse is also NB. They use she/them pronouns. This complaint isn't without merit. It's made knowing that laws like this can affect how people like us report sexual assault or other crimes (violent or otherwise), how we access aid for domestic violence, etc.

We have a reason to complain...

Oh boy did they ever... :')

This doesn't mean you can't talk about transwomen and the wording of laws is a mess, but gender is a complex issue and as I said above the conversation surrounding these changes, though positive, should still be quick to point out its shortcomings as well. That is how we progress.

The hyperfocus on transwomen while ignoring transmascs and NB individuals hurts the community as a whole. I don't need to ID as a woman for these laws to affect me. I get this law specifically focuses on women's rights, but like I said... I rely on those too. Particularly reproductive rights.

I'm said husband. I'm NB. I don't always pass. My gender marker on all my paperwork (after 9 years of transition) is still AFAB. I legit worry that not carefully wording laws like this will result in my exclusion from "women's rights" which I technically still rely on. That is the focus of the law.

The law is obviously fantastic, but if we're not careful in the conversation surrounding this then we risk this being one step forward for some and two steps backward for everyone else. We have to acknowledge that both things are true without concerns being brushed off as overreacting or "sexism".

It's not the same. Transmascs and NB individuals are still part of the equation and need to be included in the wording of the law and its media presentation. Full stop.
We're trans folk, we do not always ID strictly as men, and our rights are also being eroded. We exist. This should be acknowledged.