You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well, I’d quite like it if nobody felt the need to shoot me for using the loo when I’m in Tennessee next month, too. Is that too much to ask, though??
how about we just ask trans people what they want, then do that?
Have you heard or read some of the shite coming from 'trans rights activists'? If you ask 10 different trans people what they want you could get 10 different answers ranging from nothing we are fine thanks right up to the jailling, raping and murdering of people who refuse to drink the kool-aid.
allthegear
Member
Cake. Cake and a new bike, please 👍☺
Rachel
Sounds reasonable, can’t argue with that. I’ve got half of a chocolate and coconut cake my g/f made, like a slice? 🙃
Aye, it’s almost as bad as the shite coming out of the mouths of paranoid parochial males
Instead of the rest of us getting all judgy, how about we just ask trans people what they want, then do that?
So if a sex offender with an escalating pattern of behaviour against women transitions while serving an indeterminate sentence and demands to be moved to a women's prison we should do that?
If self id was a threat to men's safety we'd be having a debate about it
Aye, it’s almost as bad as the shite coming out of the mouths of paranoid parochial males
So you're suggesting that what rene59 says is invalid?
Well, I’d quite like it if nobody felt the need to shoot me for using the loo when I’m in Tennessee next month, too. Is that too much to ask, though??
I'm pretty sure you'll be fine in a cubical, I'm not sure how they'll take to you trying to use a urinal in the gents though, maybe you should go for the half way house and piss in the sink? 😉
Aye, it’s almost as bad as the shite coming out of the mouths of paranoid parochial males
Overwhelmingly it's females asking questions or raising concerns, not males. Feel free to ignore them if you want. I'm sure they're used to it.
How about we treat 'them' just like we do everybody else?
Talk to people who are making a genuine difference, ignore the obvious cranks and just ask.
We do it all the time. It's how we progress. The sum of total human happiness versus what?
Have you heard or read some of the shite coming from ‘trans rights activists’?
Yes, some of it's bollocks isn't it?
But being an idiot isn't exclusive to any sector of humanity and when confronted by change, the media tends to justify itself by focusing on the negative and the extreme.
I like to see people being happy. No one has been hurt by the implementation of LGBT (you come up with something better) rights.
The sum total of human happiness has been increased.
How about we treat ‘them’ just like we do everybody else?
Talk to people who are making a genuine difference, ignore the obvious cranks and just ask.
We do it all the time. It’s how we progress. The sum of total human happiness versus what?
I like to see people being happy. No one has been hurt by the implementation of LGBT (you come up with something better) rights.
Sounds great. Now tell us how that's going to work when a woman (maybe your wife, mother, sister or daughter) goes to have an intimate medical examination, which she has requested be carried out by a female nurse (as is her right), and the nurse who enters the room is manifestly not a biological woman but a transwoman. Apparently the proposed new law would prevent a woman insisting that the nurse or doctor be a biological woman. As huckleberryfatt posted above:
The proposed changes will remove the very limited exemptions under the Equality Act allowing spaces, services, roles and activities for biological women eg domestic violence refuges, single-sex hospital wards, rape crisis centres, women’s prisons, sport and statistics.
Because it will be enshrined in law, it won't be possible to "ignore the obvious cranks" who demand admittance to those places. To refuse them would be a criminal offence.
Moreover, it seems there may be some even more serious issues involving young girls in schools etc. being required to accept boys who identify as girls in their shared changing rooms, showers and toilets etc. Instead of this ringing huge alarm bells, it seems that very often the official bodies overseeing the introduction of these changes are writing policies and guidance which teachers and others are required to implement, which require them to tell the girls that they must accept this. It seems that if the girls object, they are clearly transphobic and need to be re-educated.
Suggesting that people just need to get along and we will muddle through is naive. The implementation of LGB rights over the last 20+ years has generally involved a recognition that people have the right to live their lives and make their own choices about sexual preferences, without being discriminated against. No one suffered or lost out to make it possible for the members of the LGB community to have those rights. In contrast the rights being sought by trans activists now are at the expense of women and girls. Some of what is now being proposed involves women and girls being told they must accept the presence of biological males in places and circumstances where they may feel and be extremely vulnerable, and where historically woman and girls have always been able to expect and insist that there are no men for reasons of safety and privacy.
the nurse who enters the room is manifestly not a biological woman but a transwoman.
So, a woman, then?
Some of what is now being proposed involves women and girls being told they must accept the presence of biological males
I take the point in that Brian going "I'm Susan now" is insufficient in and of itself to classify as TG for practical purposes, any more than my friend who is a furry isn't actually a wolf despite owning the suit.
However. Biology isn't absolute. Sometimes there are complications. Sometimes people get assigned a gender because doctors aren't sure. Sometimes you get chromosome quirks like XXY. Etc etc. It's Not That Simple.
Moreover, it seems there may be some even more serious issues involving young girls in schools etc. being required to accept boys who identify as girls in their shared changing rooms, showers and toilets etc.
Allow me reframe this concern:
"Moreover, it seems there may be some even more serious issues involving young girls in schools etc. being required to accept girls who identify as lesbians in their shared changing rooms, showers and toilets etc."
Where are we now?
So, a woman, then?
No, not really. It's far too complex and variable to say that anyone who declares themselves as woman is a woman. Particularly when sex and gender is used as interchangealy as it is.
Where are we now?
Clutching at straws.
I take the point in that Brian going “I’m Susan now” is insufficient in and of itself to classify as TG for practical purposes
What you're describing would be sufficient for Brian legally to become a woman. Brian wouldn't need to change her name or her appearance or alter her body in any way. As a self-identifying woman, biologically-male Brian would be free to access women's refuges, changing rooms, bathrooms, hospital wards, rape crisis centres, healthcare provision (eg cervical screening) and to participate in sport as a woman. If Brian commits a crime statistically she'll do so as a woman (even if the crime is rape) and serve her sentence in a women's prison.
What could possibly go wrong?
Clutching at straws.
Indeed you are
Selected quote
Pithy ad hominem
However. Biology isn’t absolute.
The idea that a trans man or woman is that gender is a social and/or cultural thing. Biologically they are still either male or female.
Those born with aneuploidy still fit into a sex category.
people with Klinefelter syndrome are males.
people with Turner syndrome are female.
if you only have X chromosomes you are female, if you have a Y you are male (genotype). There is one XY syndrome where the male gonads do not develop property and do not make testosterone or anti-mullerian hormone. This results in no internal male parts developing thus the fetus develops a uterus, fallopean tubes, cervix, vagina. However, as there is no estrogen or progesterone so the person will not develop breasts or have menstrual cycles (without hormone therapy). They don't produce eggs either therefore cannot reproduce. There are a couple of others but these are specific genetic mutations not aneuploidy. This difference between genotype and phenotype is not restricted to sexual development though.
Allow me reframe this concern:
“Moreover, it seems there may be some even more serious issues involving young girls in schools etc. being required to accept girls who identify as lesbians in their shared changing rooms, showers and toilets etc.”
Where are we now?
The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults are committed by men against women. Sexual assaults committed by women against women are rare. You don't hear many men say they are scared to walk home alone in the dark because they are afraid they might be attacked by a woman.
The whole transgender/trans activist issue seems extremely one sided: overwhelmingly it seems to be men who want to identify as women, and about women being required by men to accept transwomen into their spaces without any objection, and similarly about young girls being required to accept boys who identify as girls into their spaces
Ask yourself and some of your male friends/colleagues how you/they would feel if a naked transman was in the changing room while you/they and your/their sons were getting changed at your local swimming pool.
Then ask some women you know how they would feel if a naked transwoman (with penis) was in the changing room while they and their daughters were getting changed.
[i]Cougar wrote:[/i]
I haven’t read the post in question. I believe I know why it was deleted though, and it’s nothing to do with “censorship” or any other conspiracy theory one might care to dream up. It was removed because as a user’s first post on a mountain biking forum it appeared suspicious. We get people all the time signing up for a bit of free self-promotion or to further their own agenda, and they get removed also.
It may well have been her first post on here, but it wasn't her only post and even evidence that she actually rides bikes:
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/manchester-where-to-live/page/3/#post-9908905 so not necessarily quite the same as what you're suggesting as she had also engaged with our community (yes, I did check at the time, I'm sure I'm not the only one who did - hence I was willing to lay off the pitchforks). Of course once upon a time you could check how long ago somebody had joined (I note there was a comment about that on the forum update thread - it seems fairly obvious who it was they wanted to check, I also went looking for that info!)
I find the idea that a trans woman would be flashing around her penis in a changing room bizarre - it’s pretty much the whole point that they find the existence of their penis as unwanted and devastatingly embarrassing. I’m not sure where you are getting this scenario from but it’s clearly not from experience!
The current Law does not require surgery or even hormones before somebody can legally change their gender; only that they can provide some documentation that they are receiving treatment from a gender specialist and have lived in role for two years. Oh - and that they can afford the fees, of course!
There is no legal requirement in the UK to have gender affirmative surgery, to take hormones, or to legally change your name, birth certificate or other documentation in order to work as or use the facilities of the gender you identify as, either. There are a couple of exceptions - for example, women’s refuges - though most of them have now clearly stated that they accept trans women.
So, in reality, nothing will change, other than someone doesn’t necessarily need to be receiving treatment (which is essentially an interview every six months or so) to get a new birth certificate. That’s all. Whether someone will be able to use the ladies changing room won’t change - they can do that already. I do every few days at the gym. I did at the pool in Morzine. Big deal.
Oh, and if it was going to cause such a nightmare, surely it would have already happened in the countries that have already enacted this? You know - like Ireland, Denmark and Malta. Damn - even Argentina!
Where are the thousands of issues in these countries? Show them to me.
Rachel
Thank you Rachel, that's a helpful post. In view of you saying that nothing will change, is this legislation really needed? Sorry, this topic hasn't been on my radar and realise I'm totally in the dark.
By getting the birth certificate updated, people can change their tax code. This means they are not “outed” at work. Pretty fundamental to many.
The problem with the current system is purely procedural - it’s a complete mess! Getting the paperwork necessary is complicated and expensive (even the NHS docs charge for the letters to be written). Then, they are assessed by a panel who never meet the individual in question, but still manage to charge another £140 for the privilege.
There’s no guarantee even perfect documentation will result in a successful application - for reasons no-one seems to fully understand.
I’d be perfectly happy for there to be a proper (online!) form to complete and a “minimum term” to be completed and demonstrated but the current system is failing people.
Rachel
Update - oops I forgot France!! Don’t need assessment before receiving agreement there, either - see https://rainbow-europe.org/#0/8701/0 column 5
Rachel
The problem with the proposed legislation has nothing to do with genuine trans people, but with those who will exploit a badly written piece of legislation for their own twisted pleasure or to enact violence on women.
The debate needs to be had to avoid such a scenario. And the legislation needs to be written so as to benefit genuine trans people without impacting women's rights.
Is France entirely free of twisted people? I wasn’t aware.
Denmark? Norway? No twisted people? At all? Surely Argentina?
Also - what on Earth defines a “genuine trans person”? I’d love to know. Especially as I’m sat here in jeans and a tshirt, with short hair and no make-up. Go on - what defines genuine?
Rachel
Simply: someone who doesn't want to use the legislation for a purpose other than it was written for.
How is the legislation written in those countries?
I'm not against the legislation, btw, it just needs to be thought through carefully.
I don't like the sound of Brian very much.
Have you suggested she gets a bike? It might take her mind of things.
Probably someone who is committed to transitioning rather than someone using it to gain an advantage or publicity they wouldn't otherwise have.
Heh - because outing yourself as trans is definitely gaining and advantage in life... 😂🤦♀️
Ask yourself and some of your male friends/colleagues how you/they would feel if a naked transman was in the changing room while you/they and your/their sons were getting changed at your local swimming pool.
Then ask some women you know how they would feel if a naked transwoman (with penis) was in the changing room while they and their daughters were getting changed.
And ask yourself why you’d care. Why do you think a trans man would be more of a paedophile than a non-trans man. Ditto trans women and non-trans women.
Sorry, your logic makes you come across as more than a little transphobic
Heh – because outing yourself as trans is definitely gaining and advantage in life…
Well the transwomen gaining places on womens only short lists and winning medals in female sports events certainly aren't the ones at the disadvantage.
the whole point that they find the existence of their penis as unwanted and devastatingly embarrassing. I’m not sure where you are getting this scenario from but it’s clearly not from experience!
My understanding is that a majority of men who identify as women do not have surgery to remove their penis.
There are a couple of exceptions – for example, women’s refuges – though most of them have now clearly stated that they accept trans women.
Currently the organisations managing those spaces and situations to which exemptions apply can make their own decisions about whether or not to accept transwomen. They can also change those decisions if they consider it appropriate or necessary. The proposed law will remove those exemptions.
Oh, and if it was going to cause such a nightmare, surely it would have already happened in the countries that have already enacted this? You know – like Ireland, Denmark and Malta. Damn – even Argentina!
I am not familiar with what is happening and has happened so far in other countries. Moreover, some changes in legislation can often take some time before the full impact takes effect and is apparent.
All I can say is that as a man I am extremely uncomfortable with the fact that some biological males are demanding the right to access the spaces of women and girls. Moreover, I am especially concerned about how those woman who voice any objections are being aggressively targeted online to silence them and also in real life, e.g.
I am also extremely concerned about how schools and other organsiations with responsibility for children are dealing with these issues, e.g.
Sorry, your logic makes you come across as more than a little transphobic
And yours a little misogynistic.
And yours a little misogynistic.
How so?
My understanding is that a majority of men who identify as women do not have surgery to remove their penis.
The rates differ depending upon the direction of travel. Basically, it’s easier to make a hole than a pole.
There is also the issue of the long waiting lists on the NHS - as much as two years after being referred for surgery until actually receiving it at the moment, mainly due the the retirement of a couple of surgeons and the marked increase in demand. In terms of those NOT ever wanting genital surgery - about 14% MTF and 72% FTM.
So, no, most trans women DO (eventually) have genital surgery.
Rachel
And ask yourself why you’d care.
zokes, I'm not sure I understand you. My point was that it's not about whether I or you, as men, would care about a transman using the men's changing room, but whether women - for example your relations, colleagues or friends - would care about or object to a transwoman using the women's changing room. Or whether they would object to a transwoman in other places/circumstances where they can currently insist upon only women, e.g. getting a smear test at the doctors.
A lot of women are expressing concern and objections about what is happening and what is being proposed, and they are being bullied, threatened, intimidated and shouted down. From what I can see, the trans activists are aggressive bullies whose abuse online and violence in real life is a pattern of behaviour that is more consistent with being an abusive male, than with being a woman.
Why do you think a trans man would be more of a paedophile than a non-trans man. Ditto trans women and non-trans women.
You are reading something into my post that is not there. Whether or not a transwoman is or is not more likely to be a sexual predator - or a paedophile - than the average man, is not necessarily the issue. The issue is that women should have the right to decide whom they admit into their spaces. Not men, nor men who identify as women. If women are not comfortable with it, their right to say no should be respected.
your logic makes you come across as more than a little transphobic
Using words like transphobic or TERF as perjoratives, rather than addressing the specific concerns raised by those women who are voicing objections and considering the consequences of what is being discussed and their impact on all the people concerned, is simply slinging insults. It does not 'win' the argument and it's not persuasive.
Your continued use of the phrase “men who identify as women” is starting to get a little upsetting now, especially as at least two members of this forum are trans women.
Frankly, I don’t particularly like coming here to be described as a man.
Rachel
Your continued use of the phrase “men who identify as women” is starting to get a little upsetting now, especially as at least two members of this forum are trans women.
Frankly, I don’t particularly like coming here to be described as a man.
I am very sorry and apologise for that. I should have used the word transwomen instead. I had no intention of hurting or upsetting you or anyone else. This is the first time I have ever discussed this subject either online or in real life, and I am not as familar with the terminology and how it is used as I would have liked to be before posting on such a contentious subject.
If the original thread had not been deleted, I very much doubt I would ever have posted. I normally prefer just to read threads on contentious subjects, since there are usually far more knowledgeable and better informed posters than me on both sides of such subjects, and I find it interesting, instructive and sometimes challenging to read what they say.
I only began to post on this thread because it raised the issues of censorship and suppression of free speech by STW (something which Cougar has since refuted), but/and those issues also appear to be almost inextricably entangled in how the GRA and trans rights are currently being debated.
I am not excusing my mistakes, but I note that many women similarly object to the use of the term 'cis', and I believe that the Green Party now refers to two groups: 'male' and 'not male', which many women similarly consider to be offensive.
The language and terminology on both sides seem in some respects central to the debate, and it often seems difficult even for someone not wanting to give offence to be able to find terminology that is sufficiently neutral to either side.
The issue is that women should have the right to decide whom they admit into their spaces. Not men, nor men who identify as women. If women are not comfortable with it, their right to say no should be respected.
It's not all that long ago that white American folk weren't comfortable with sharing their space with black American folk, should their right to say no be respected?
I am not as familar with the terminology
I suspect it's not the terminology that's the core problem. Rather, your stance appears to be "well yes, but they're not really women are they."
I note that many women similarly object to the use of the term ‘cis’
I twitch every time I see it too, perhaps unduly, but it can have pejorative connotations to my mind.
From what I can see, the trans activists are aggressive bullies
The key word here is "activists." As I've said time and again, with any demographic it's the vocal minority that give the rest a bad name. Have you never come across "feminazis"? Neither are representative, and here they're two sides of the same coin.
Your continued use of the phrase “men who identify as women” is starting to get a little upsetting now, especially as at least two members of this forum are trans women.
Frankly, I don’t particularly like coming here to be described as a man.
Rachel
Just because you think of yourself as a woman doesn't mean everyone else has to (this isn't ment to sound nasty). To me you are a man that identifies as a woman. It is your choice and I see nothing wrong with it or with the laws that protect you.
It’s not all that long ago that white American folk weren’t comfortable with sharing their space with black American folk, should their right to say no be respected?
So presumably you disagree with sex segregation entirely? The equality act allows for lawful discrimination on the basis of sex where it is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim. Do you disagree with the equality act?
[i]slowster wrote:[/i]
The language and terminology on both sides seem in some respects central to the debate, and it often seems difficult even for someone not wanting to give offence to be able to find terminology that is sufficiently neutral to either side.
It is indeed, and I'm not sure you're treading that line successfully even now (though neither do i think there's any intention of offending). For "just words" this is a remarkably big issue and I'm sure I'm not alone in it being an issue which puts me off taking part in such discussions - effectively debate is shut down because of it.
As an "outsider" (I've not taken part in the gender politics debate and trying not to now) it does seem to me that on the whole this thread has been remarkably good natured for such a sensitive topic.
I am very wary of stepping into this thread
a few thoughts - I know enough to know that I don't have enough information to be certain of anything but a few points can still be made
Trans people do need better legal protection than they have now
This legal definition tho does seem to me to have loopholes in it that could be abused
There is no consensus in the LBGT community over the issues and that makes me very wary
Maybe it'd be nice if we could differentiate between using a toilet and having sex.
A most pertinent point made by aracer, it is indeed the fear of causing offence as well as confusing terminology. Rachel gave a tax code as an example, it would never have occurred to me that it could be an issue so definitely having my eyes opened.
Maybe it’d be nice if we could differentiate between using a toilet and having sex.
Either I'm unduly confused or we should never go on a date. 😉
I don't think I can join this thread without upsetting people, so I won't other than to congratulate maccruiskeen on two of the best funnies I've read on here.
So presumably you disagree with sex segregation entirely?
No, I just think that as a society we're far too precious about it. ZOMG what if a woman sees another woman naked, and one or the other used to be man?! The answer, of course, being "so what, grow the **** up."
I'll give you an example. If you're a man taking a young daughter to the swimming pool, which changing rooms do you use? You'd take her into the men's, most likely? So it's inappropriate for a man to walk into the women's changing rooms in case he sees a woman naked, but perfectly fine to take a prepubescent girl into the middle of a sausage festival. And vice versa, my gran used to take me into the female changing rooms when I was little.* It happens a lot in public toilets too, dads solemnly walking their wide-eyed daughters past a row of hairy blokes at urinals. Maybe this is just my Aspie brain having a hiccup but I think that's kind of weird (and I've said this before on STW and got mauled for it but what the hey). I'd rather a grown woman accidentally caught a glimpse of Little Cougar than a six-year old girl did.
I was at Manchester University Student's Union a little while back and most of the toilets are now unisex (though unisex ones are available still), such a simple change which solves the "which toilet for trans people" argument at a stroke. Just because we can do something like segregate doesn't necessarily mean we should. (And yes, I know that there are times when you should, for safety reasons perhaps, it's just an example.)
How long ago was it that being gay was a massive problem? Nowadays our society on the whole doesn't care. If two lads had walked down the street holding hands thirty years ago everyone would've collectively lost their shit. In a decade or two we'll have sorted this whole 'trans' thing out and we'll be looking back wondering why it was ever a big deal. (At which point we'll probably have activist furries kicking off instead.)
* - interestingly, the womens' changing rooms were all individual cubicles, and the mens' was open-plan.
I would not use a unisex public loo.
I was at Manchester University Student’s Union a little while back and most of the toilets are now unisex (though unisex ones are available still), such a simple change which solves the “which toilet for trans people” argument at a stroke.
And opens up a lot of problems for females who, let's be honest, use toilets for a wider range of things than males.
Doesn't that depend on how much you need a poo? It's strange how one's opinions can change with one banging on your hatch.
In all seriousness, why not?
I've been in places where unisex loos were the only ones available.
university of Glasgow student union has these as well as male/female
females who, let’s be honest, use toilets for a wider range of things than males.
You mean they need hygiene disposal bins? I think it’s just about possible to put them in a unisex toilet facility. If you don’t want one in every cubicle, just put a sign on the door saying which ones have bins. Sorted.
Mind you, I must admit to preferring single sex toilets where available anyway - mainly because I feel more safe. (But also because gents loos kinda stink)
Rachel
I must admit to preferring single sex toilets where available anyway – mainly because I feel more safe. (But also because gents loos kinda stink)
Choice is good. (FWIW, I've never used a mixed-use toilet that wasn't spotless, though it's not that large a sample yet).
Any bloke who's ever been to an event such a rock concert will attest to how little some women give a toss about using the gents after a gallon of Blue WKD.
I just realised, I typoed this:
most of the toilets are now unisex (though unisex ones are available still)
What I meant to say was, single-sex ones are available still. They have "anyone" toilets as the main ones, but gents' and ladies' loos are also available. Which I think is a good approach as it normalises their use. I can see the "gender-neutral" sign on the door up there ^^ possibly being off-putting to cis (ugh) etc people - "I'm not using that, I'm not non-binary" - and thus still potentially singling out people who use them.
I can see the “gender-neutral” sign on the door up there ^^ possibly being off-putting to cis (ugh) etc people
prefer it. its closer than the male's and it doesn't stink of stale piss.
sobriety - I just wouldn't feel comfortable and, you know what, I'm not convinced that large numbers of men would be OK with it either. Not sure how they'd tolerate the overpowering stink of womens perfume, jeez that's something I struggle with.
You mean they need hygiene disposal bins?
I wasn't refering to additional equipment but to the additional activities/events that often take place within womens toilets, where I am fairly sure due to the sensitive nature and vulnerability they feel, they wouldn't be wanting to be sharing the same space with any males.
though it’s not that large a sample yet
It’s the large samples that are often the problem.
Except for the obvious issue that, unless you make the space bigger, you're replacing a bank of urinals or a trough that can accommodate six with, say, two shitters. I'm sure that's fine for Manchester, but at a [I]proper[/I] drinking university there'd be riots. It's tough enough being a bloke in 2018, the fact that we don't have to queue to take a piss is pretty much the only thing we've got going for us any more! 😀I was at Manchester University Student’s Union a little while back and most of the toilets are now unisex (though unisex ones are available still), such a simple change
My local pool has gone a long way to solving the changing room and shower issue by having four models of acceptable swimming costume, one of which must be worn at all times including in the showers. The only place you can get naked is in the individual or family changing cubicles. There are sometimes women in the men's showers when it's busy and Madame has seen three or four men in the women's showers in about five years of swimming three times a week. We've never seen anyone make an issue of it.
Our local pool has sets of private cubicles no sergregation, they are open showers and then private showers. The only segregated area is the toilets.
What Drac says.
You are reading something into my post that is not there.
No I’m not. Your post was very clear that we were to consider how uncomfortable we would feel in the presence of a transgender person whilst we, our children or they were in a state of undress:
Ask yourself and some of your male friends/colleagues how you/they would feel if a naked transman was in the changing room while you/they and your/their sons were getting changed at your local swimming pool.
Then ask some women you know how they would feel if a naked transwoman (with penis) was in the changing room while they and their daughters were getting changed.
You even highlghted the “with penis” bit for added graphic effect. It’s simple transphobia: fear of trans people. What other emotions were you trying to drum up with that post?
Just because you think of yourself as a woman doesn’t mean everyone else has to (this isn’t ment to sound nasty).
**** me, did you really just post that? Go and have a think about how that comes across. Talk about crass insensitivity.
[i]Edukator wrote:[/i]
My local pool has gone a long way to solving the changing room and shower issue by having four models of acceptable swimming costume, one of which must be worn at all times including in the showers.
I'd far prefer not to have to keep my cossie on in the shower given the option - though mixed showers and changing areas (with cubicles) do seem to be the more common than single sex changing now.
Not that I'm sure how much relevance it has to the gender debate, but I'll throw out this anecdote. When my kids were little I often took them to toddlers swimming sessions (parent and baby sessions). Naturally most of the parents at these sessions were mums and often I was the only dad in the session. Though I think when this particular incident happened his mum had mostly been taking him to that session before. Anyway, single sex changing rooms at this pool, with a communal changing area (in the men's, I've no idea about the other changing room), but a couple of smallish private cubicles and strangely private showers with locking doors. On coming out of the shower there is a group of schoolboys in the changing area - supervised by a couple of women.
I did feel awkward and ended up keeping my trunks on whilst I got my son changed - made it a bit of a pain trying to keep things dry with wet trunks on. Not that I'm at all bothered about whether some strange woman sees my bits, I often enough get changed in public without bothering to wrap a towel around me, but I was bothered about their reaction if I'd just stripped off as I normally would (that might have been the first time I'd been to that pool, but used it a lot after that and normally stripped off in the shower).
Not sure what that adds, apart from that it can be awkward and embarrassing, even for somebody like me who isn't actually bothered themselves about being naked.
It's fair enough to say that one 'Lives as a (insert gender here)' and the more modern amongst us can surely accept any individual based on their actions and not their willy, but it does sound a bit daft if the word 'Badger' is used instead. Let's keep things in proportion.
It’s not all that long ago that white American folk weren’t comfortable with sharing their space with black American folk, should their right to say no be respected?
It's even more recent that black Americans decided that they could not accept that Rachel Dolezal was black and forced her to step down from her position in the NAACP. That is a much closer analogy to the trans issue. So should black people's right to reject white people who identify as black be respected? (this is not a rhetorical question - would you please answer it)
I suspect it’s not the terminology that’s the core problem. Rather, your stance appears to be “well yes, but they’re not really women are they.”
You are attempting to put words into my mouth, and in doing so insinuate that I am prejudiced. This issue does not affect me, and I could not be more disinterested in what women/transwomen want. The best way I can think of explaining my position is that for me it's a bit like reading a news article about the black majority in Zimbabwe deciding to pass a law that says white settlers or their children cannot call themselves Zimbabweans or be Zimbabwean citizens. They can pass whatever laws they see fit: any view I held on the issue would be irrelevant, and I'm too far away and too uninformed and ignorant of all the issues to be able to form a judgement of my own.
If women are happy for a law to be passed in which the definition of women as far as that law is concerned includes transwomen, that is a matter entirely for them. However evidently a significant number of women are not happy about transwomen self defining themselves as women and that then being used to insist on access to women's spaces etc., and they are insisting on recognition of the scientific/biological definition of a women, i.e. an adult human female.
As I understand it, female biology is fundamental to feminism/feminist theory. In other words, the unfair treatment and disadvantages that women experience and have experienced throughout history are primarily the consequence of their being the sex that carries, gives birth to, and is predominantly responsible for nuturing babies and children and the various factors associated with that, e.g. the impact of the menstrual cycle and of their generally being physically weaker than men, and the fact that for violent and sexual assaults involving a man and a woman the perpetrator is overwhelmingly the man.
If a woman insists that the scientific definition of a woman is an adult human female, and that it is biology that makes her a woman, and she is attacked for maintaining that view, and attempts are made to silence her, then the issue has moved beyond trans rights to censorship and freedom of speech, and I am no longer disinterested.
For what little it's worth, it seems to me that the trans rights movement has badly misjudged and mishandled its campaign: instead of being a supplicant requesting more understanding and acceptance by women and itself considering the impacts of what it is seeking on everyone affected (rather than just its own constituency), it has sought to force the issue, and that and the behaviour of some of the extremists is prompting a push back.
The key word here is “activists.” ...Have you never come across “feminazis”? Neither are representative, and here they’re two sides of the same coin.
I don't think they are two sides of the same coin. The activists in question are aggressively seeking to intimidate, threaten and silence women who are voicing concerns and objecting. 'Feminazi' is not a term which refers to violent or aggressive women; it's a term usually used to dismiss the statements and opinions of feminists, i.e. also to silence women.
Feminists in my very limited experience are not violent or aggressive. As the 'weaker', more vulnerable sex they have had to rely on their intelligence and intellects instead. They have been discussing feminist theory and women's issues amongst themselves for years, and they are masters at analysing and dissecting the arguments of their oponents. The attempts to dismiss and silence them by those who call them transphobic and those who call them feminazis, are a testament to how much those people are incapable of - and fear - debating with them.
Incidentally I've read comments before by feminists that the behaviours towards them of trans activists and 'men's rights activists' are very similar, but they never made sense to me. Seeing your juxtaposition of '[trans] activists' with 'feminazi' was illuminating for me. (I am not insinuating that you yourself would use the term feminazi)
**** me, did you really just post that? Go and have a think about how that comes across. Talk about crass insensitivity.
it isn't - you cannot force people to believe in a view point.
That's a hell of a lot of words for something you're disinterested in.
The point I was making - badly, it would appear - is that there will always be shouty people and generally they aren't representative of the people they're shouting on "behalf" of. See also, preachy PETA vegans, explody Muslim terrorists and so forth.
You've latched on to the notion of aggressive and bullying trans people and I'll hold my hand up if I've misunderstood you but you seem to have extrapolated that this means this is what trans folk are like - essentially a bloke in a frock. I can't really be bothered but I'll go back and quote several sentences where you appear to be insinuating this if you need me to.
Similarly, you seem blind to the idea that aggressive feminists exist. There's plenty of them (but, again, I do not believe them to be representative of most feminists).
Oh, you asked a question.
So should black people’s right to reject white people who identify as black be respected? (this is not a rhetorical question – would you please answer it)
I have zero knowledge of the incident you're referring to (I just had to Google "NACCP"). I'd have to look into it in order to give you an informed answer, and I'm not sure as I can be arsed just for an analogy. Based purely on what you've said it seems to me to be inappropriate to make her stand down - an organisation who's mission statement is to "...eliminate race-based discrimination" is seemingly discriminating against her based on race. But there could be all manner of other factors at play here that I'm not aware of so I don't know I'm afraid.
I think it is most important to remember that there is no one ideal solution to the many problems under discussion.
Did the OP get banned? Surprised she's not dipped into the conversation.
it isn’t – you cannot force people to believe in a view point.
No, I suppose I can’t. But what I can do is call out your bigotry when I see it. If you like the cap, wear it. But expect to find yourself in quite a lot of arguments as thankfully more and more people call out bigots on their behaviour these days.
Oh, and if you don’t like being called a bigot, there’s a really easy way to avoid it: don’t be one.
Biology is not bigotry
I have zero knowledge of the incident you’re referring to (I just had to Google “NACCP”). I’d have to look into it in order to give you an informed answer, and I’m not sure as I can be arsed just for an analogy. Based purely on what you’ve said it seems to me to be inappropriate to make her stand down – an organisation who’s mission statement is to “…eliminate race-based discrimination” is seemingly discriminating against her based on race. But there could be all manner of other factors at play here that I’m not aware of so I don’t know I’m afraid.
You have answered a different question to the one I asked. I did not ask whether a white person should be able to join the NAACP and occupy a senior position in that organisation. I asked whether the right of a black person to say that Rachel Dolezal is not black, should be respected.
Oh, that's easy then. They have the right to say whatever they want, so long as they're not inciting hate. I respect their right to say she's a cheese sandwich if they so choose.
It's acting on it that's a bit more problematic. If they said she was a cheese sandwich and then stuffed her in a toaster oven, for instance.
Oh, and,
You have answered a different question to the one I asked.
I didn't, you've just changed the question.
No, I suppose I can’t. But what I can do is call out your bigotry when I see it. If you like the cap, wear it. But expect to find yourself in quite a lot of arguments as thankfully more and more people call out bigots on their behaviour these days.
Oh, and if you don’t like being called a bigot, there’s a really easy way to avoid it: don’t be one.
I think you need to look up what the word bigotry means.
No, I just think that as a society we’re far too precious about it. ZOMG what if a woman sees another woman naked, and one or the other used to be man?! The answer, of course, being “so what, grow the **** up.”
If I'd posted the first words that popped into my head when I read this, I'd probably be on the receiving end of a ban. Don't you dare tell me I should 'grow up'.
Does anyone know if Brian has a kite?
Biology is not bigotry
Just found a slogan to paint on my placard for the next Biological Rights Activism march.