India Willoughby argues for Transgenders right to be in womens refuges

[Niamh.]

Is this what you were talking about Vicky? Can't believe I side with Piers :laugh:

Can't post the video directly for some reason


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKBEpngVLz8&ab_channel=GoodMorningBritain

[Vicky.]

Yeah. I cannot believe this is even being considered. And yes, it feels very odd to be on Piers side..so very strange. Its just nonsensical really. Male and female are no longer actual things but are simply a feeling for one to 'self declare' and then the rest of the world has to buy into the 'brain sex/gender identity/soul' religion else be named bigoted. Its quite insulting tbh.

Since when has the right of some males to feel validated in their 'womanhood' been more important than the actual women who need to use these services as they are escaping (on the whole) abusive males. That its even being considered, seriously, is beyond belief.

I like that he brought up prisons (thats already happened and conitnues to happen) and sport also. Very important areas.

And for gods sake, I am so sick of the 'but lesbians' argument when it comes to male people. Its so ****ing homophobic. Lesbians are not men. Male lesbians do not exist, contrary to what the transcult would have you believe.

And of course transwomen require different services to actual women. 'I am a womaaaan' again from India :D

'You are impying transgender women are a threat'. Nah. Knowing that male people are a threat (on the whole, not all men and such) to female ones is not wrong. And this is about any man being able to declare himself a woman.

[Niamh.]

Its incredibly narcissistic aswell to fight for something that will make abuse victims uncomfortable and decide you're more important

[jaxie]

Its incredibly narcissistic aswell to fight for something that will make abuse victims uncomfortable and decide you're more important

Yeah this. I'm stunned that anyone would give her airtime for this even. It's totally unacceptable.

[Kazanne]

Yeah this. I'm stunned that anyone would give her airtime for this even. It's totally unacceptable.

This^

[Livia]

India has been a man for most of her life, she thinks like a man. She stated in that interview which was centred on the abuse of women, how sorry she feels for men. The other woman on the panel replied with statistics about how many women were murdered and raped last year but India talked right over the top of her.

And I agreed with Piers Morgan. Ladies, we are down the rabbit hole.

[Livia]

Its incredibly narcissistic aswell to fight for something that will make abuse victims uncomfortable and decide you're more important

Good point.

[Vicky.]

Its incredibly narcissistic aswell to fight for something that will make abuse victims uncomfortable and decide you're more important

Of course it is. And everyone will be able to see that surely..

The reason this all came about was because womens aid is talking about letting self identified women (note. No changes, just any male who says he is a woman) work in womens refuges. They already allow transgender women to use their services on a case by case basis.

[Niamh.]

God point.

Freudian slip? :fan:

[Livia]

Freudian slip? :fan:

Hahahaaaaaaaa.... I thought I'd edited that before anyone saw, should have known you'd be too quick for me.

[Niamh.]

Hahahaaaaaaaa.... I thought I'd edited that before anyone saw, should have known you'd be too quick for me.

:laugh:

[Niamh.]

Of course it is. And everyone will be able to see that surely..

The reason this all came about was because womens aid is talking about letting self identified women (note. No changes, just any male who says he is a woman) work in womens refuges. They already allow transgender women to use their services on a case by case basis.

Like how caring and empathetic would you be towards the victims if you're willing to take the job in the first place that may straight away make them feel scared and intimidated

[Vicky.]

Like how caring and empathetic would you be towards the victims if you're willing to take the job in the first place that may straight away make them feel scared and intimidated

Yup. Its just awful. And honestly, shame on womens aid for considering this. Unless they are considering it as they have already been threatened with being sued because they do not consider male people to be female of course. There was a case in canada where a trans identified male (post op transexual, which is slightly different, but still a male person) held a rape crisis centre up in litigation for 12 years and near bankrupted them, as they said they did not employ males.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

Wiki but has links.

Sorry, but anyone who would do this is an utter arsehole and clearly does not care about the people these places are meant to help.

[Niamh.]

Yup. Its just awful. And honestly, shame on womens aid for considering this. Unless they are considering it as they have already been threatened with being sued because they do not consider male people to be female of course. There was a case in canada where a trans identified male (post op transexual, which is slightly different, but still a male person) held a rape crisis centre up in litigation for 12 years and near bankrupted them, as they said they did not employ males.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

Wiki but has links.

Sorry, but anyone who would do this is an utter arsehole and clearly does not care about the people these places are meant to help.

For someone who shouts how they are a real woman all the time, she doesn't seem to have any understanding or camaraderie with us, she seems to take the side of men alot more. I mean she basically tried to down play abused womens needs for refuges there in that video by saying but men had a bad year too

[Vicky.]

For someone who shouts how they are a real woman all the time, she doesn't seem to have any understanding or camaraderie with us, she seems to take the side of men alot more. I mean she basically tried to down play abused womens needs for refuges there in that video by saying but men had a bad year too

Yup. This is usually the case tbh. Bring up the mass abuse of women by men and get a bunch of 'but women do it too' 'what about the men' 'but lesbians are just as bad' and so on. When its just not true (obviously women DO do it too, but not on such a scale), and shows a disturbing lack of empathy for the women in need of single sex spaces and utter disregard for women fullstop.

[Tom4784]

I don't think that, if you're pre-op, you should not be allowed into places that are restricted to the gender you haven't transitioned to yet.

I don't see a problem with post op trans people using women's shelters though.

[Saph]

I dont really see the problem either

[Greg!]

Post op I think it should be allowed as it's very likely a trans woman in a men's prison would be assaulted

[Vicky.]

I dont really see the problem either

Its about 'self identified women'. Not transsexual people. Self identified means simply, saying you are a woman while being a man. I am not sure India was the best person to be talking to about this, given she is actually transsexual and post-op. Muddies the waters a bit.

[Vicky.]

Post op I think it should be allowed as it's very likely a trans woman in a men's prison would be assaulted

And what about the women?

Prisons could surely be solved by a trans wing in a couple of them, given there are large numbers of people claiming they are trans in prison oddly enough. And sex offenders are massively over represented too among the trans prison population, much moreso than among the 'normal' male prison population actually.

Many kinds of men are at risk of assault in mens prisons. Disabled men, gay men, small men, feminine men. Should they all be put in with the women to make them safer?

[Niamh.]

Post op I think it should be allowed as it's very likely a trans woman in a men's prison would be assaulted

The main topic was having men who decide they're women (with no operation or even diagnosis) working in womens domestic abuse refuges

[Vicky.]

Here is the story that sparked the debate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/womens-refuges-may-get-transgender-staff-3txhcr8mb

(will copy text for those not a mamber as its paywalled but you do get 2 articles a week free)

Rape and abuse victims in women-only refuges face being looked after by biological men after England’s biggest group of women’s shelters decided to review its ban on transgender staff.

The move, which could overturn almost half a century of refuges being run by women for women, was described by some feminists last night as the most significant erosion of female spaces yet.

It comes after the government promised to consult on letting people change sex on demand. Activists insist that “self-declared” transgender women — most of whom retain male organs — should be allowed to enter and work in woman-only spaces.

Justine Greening, the former equalities minister who drove the sex-change reforms, admitted for the first time last night that the concerns of women’s groups must be taken more into account.

She told The Sunday Times she still supported change, but stressed that the government should be “absolutely listening to the voices of women’s groups in all this and their concerns”.

The review of women’s refuges, which is not dependent on any government reform, was agreed last week by the board of the charity Women’s Aid, a federation that oversees more than 300 shelters.

Mary Mason, the board’s interim co-chairwoman, said: “We have agreed to start a review of our whole transgender policy, including the possibility of employment for self-declared transgender women without a gender recognition certificate.”

Describing it as “an extraordinarily difficult discussion,” Mason said the review, by Women’s Aid’s director of services, Nicki Norman, would take three to four months. Another board member, Sarah Forster, confirmed the move.

Prominent feminists expressed concern at the development. “Recent victims of male violence need women-only spaces where they can feel safe from men,” said Stephanie Davies-Arai, of the campaign group Transgender Trend. “This risks retraumatising vulnerable and victimised women for the sake of ideology.”

Karen Ingala Smith, head of the women’s sexual and domestic violence charity NIA, said she was concerned.

“I hope refuge providers protect the ‘for women by women’ vision of the feminist survivors and activists who built the refuge movement.

“A women-only space is one of the ways we can create a sanctuary for women to begin their recovery from men’s violence. Women and children escaping violent men should at the very least be able to expect this of a refuge,” Smith added.

A rape victim who stayed in a Women’s Aid centre said: “I am terrified for other women if this happens. I went through a patch where I feared and could not bear the sight of any man. The wonderful support I got just could not have been provided by staff who, to all intents and purposes, are men.”

Women’s Aid stressed that local refuges would be fully consulted in the review and would still have a say over who they employed.

Refuges already allow trans women as clients, though they are permitted to exclude them on a case-by-case basis. Women’s Aid’s quality standards say its services must be “accessible to transgender women”.

Currently, staff who are on the premises all the time with access to all areas are not employed in refuges without a female birth certificate. All refuge job ads on the Women’s Aid website say the applicant must be a woman.

Only people born female — or who have gone through the Gender Recognition Act process to change sex — can get a woman’s birth certificate. The government promised to consult on making the process easier, but has delayed the consultation amid growing controversy over the issue.

Equalities legislation allows providers of single-sex services to discriminate where this is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Women’s groups also fear predatory men could use any change to access shelters. Such cases are rare but in Canada, a sex offender, Christopher Hambrook, posed as trans to obtain entry to shelters and commit attacks. This view was attacked by trans campaigner Sarah Brown, who said it “punishes vulnerable trans women for hypothetical acts of infiltration by men claiming to be trans women”.

[ethanjames]

I don't think that, if you're pre-op, you should not be allowed into places that are restricted to the gender you haven't transitioned to yet.

I don't see a problem with post op trans people using women's shelters though.

pretty much how I feel if they have a doctors diagnosis of gender dysphoria idk why not I mean they are women so

[Greg!]

The main topic was having men who decide they're women (with no operation or even diagnosis) working in womens domestic abuse refuges

Oh right okay, didn't really read it properly

[Vicky.]

pretty much how I feel if they have a doctors diagnosis of gender dysphoria idk why not I mean they are women so

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria actually makes you the opposite sex? :confused:

[ethanjames]

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria actually makes you the opposite sex? :confused:

a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a doctor shows that you mentally the opposite sex and not just a "man wearing a dress" if that makes sense? :)

[Vicky.]

a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a doctor shows that you mentally the opposite sex and not just a "man wearing a dress" if that makes sense? :)

I don't believe in brain sex tbh, but I understand where you are coming from.

I totally disagree that this makes them actually the opposite sex though. Sex is a real thing. Its physical, not mental. And we segregate certain areas of life by sex, not by feelings.

[Niamh.]

a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a doctor shows that you mentally the opposite sex and not just a "man wearing a dress" if that makes sense? :)

But you would still be physically a man and you think that you should be allowed go and work with women who have been abused by men and in a female only refuge? So therefore abused women's right to feel safe in a women only environment comes second to a man who mentally thinks he's a woman's right to work in that environment?

[bots]

The point is the safety and well being of the victims. If the victims are vulnerable then they should not need to be fearful of going to a safe place that could then be populated by people that traumatised them in the first place.

Take sex slaves as an example, a gang could just infiltrate a safe place easily by some of them saying they identify as being a woman. That's just not good enough.

[Niamh.]

The point is the safety and well being of the victims. If the victims are vulnerable then they should not need to be fearful of going to a safe place that could then be populated by people that traumatised them in the first place.

Take sex slaves as an example, a gang could just infiltrate a safe place easily by some of them saying they identify as being a woman. That's just not good enough.

No it isn't at all, but we're not allowed point any of this out because we're intolerant and transphobic if we do

[jaxie]

No it isn't at all, but we're not allowed point any of this out because we're intolerant and transphobic if we do

Because we are women and our rights come in second to a man who wants to be a woman. It's almost comical.

[Niamh.]

Because we are women and our rights come in second to a man who wants to be a woman. It's almost comical.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so serious

[Brillopad]

Yeah. I cannot believe this is even being considered. And yes, it feels very odd to be on Piers side..so very strange. Its just nonsensical really. Male and female are no longer actual things but are simply a feeling for one to 'self declare' and then the rest of the world has to buy into the 'brain sex/gender identity/soul' religion else be named bigoted. Its quite insulting tbh.

Since when has the right of some males to feel validated in their 'womanhood' been more important than the actual women who need to use these services as they are escaping (on the whole) abusive males. That its even being considered, seriously, is beyond belief.

I like that he brought up prisons (thats already happened and conitnues to happen) and sport also. Very important areas.

And for gods sake, I am so sick of the 'but lesbians' argument when it comes to male people. Its so ****ing homophobic. Lesbians are not men. Male lesbians do not exist, contrary to what the transcult would have you believe.

And of course transwomen require different services to actual women. 'I am a womaaaan' again from India :D

'You are impying transgender women are a threat'. Nah. Knowing that male people are a threat (on the whole, not all men and such) to female ones is not wrong. And this is about any man being able to declare himself a woman.

Give them enough rope I say - their demands get more ridiculous by the day and people are seeing that. The tide will turn against them soon enough if they don’t stop all the self-indulgent, controlling behaviour.

[Maru]

a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a doctor shows that you mentally the opposite sex and not just a "man wearing a dress" if that makes sense? :)

A doctor can diagnose you with fibromyalgia by touching specific points on your back and asking you if there is pain. That's so you can seek treatment and be approved by your insurance...

They can't do scans for chronic pain (yet) and they can't scan brains to see the gender mismatch, so they can only go based on how you feel... many doctors would still consider both to be psych disorders, and they may say very differently to make you and themselves feel better, but that's what effectively they are treating you for... I would know, because I was under the fibro category for many years and had to live with those contradictions. They are doing the moral and ethical thing to take the patient seriously and to still help them to seek care and hopefully feel better.


Also who here is surprised that India would be upset that she doesn't have access to women's shelters? Victimhood is like a career achievement for her, so of course she would need to up the ante... it's like she is seeking the fame of being the poster child of as many causes by the end of 2018 as she can possibly obtain.

[Maru]

Moving post

[GiRTh]

Piers Morgan is such a prick. Master of the 'What if/What about' scenarios. Why is he talking about athletes?

I agree more with him than India however if post op then the refuge cant really deny them..

[Vicky.]

https://www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201802/large-614143-fd58eff6-52e2-442e-99f2-5ce9961e586c.jpeg

Had to post this. Is in relation to the video obviously.

Is it normal to look at a webpage full of women who have been killed by men, and feel sorry for men? I know that would not be my reaction :umm2:

[Livia]

https://www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201802/large-614143-fd58eff6-52e2-442e-99f2-5ce9961e586c.jpeg

Had to post this. Is in relation to the video obviously.

Is it normal to look at a webpage full of women who have been killed by men, and feel sorry for men? I know that would not be my reaction :umm2:

What a disaster as a spokesperson she is. If I hear her sigh and shout "I'm a REAL WOMAN" again, I will throw something at my telly. She has no interest in women at all.

[jaxie]

https://www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201802/large-614143-fd58eff6-52e2-442e-99f2-5ce9961e586c.jpeg

Had to post this. Is in relation to the video obviously.

Is it normal to look at a webpage full of women who have been killed by men, and feel sorry for men? I know that would not be my reaction :umm2:

India Willoughby. Wants to be a woman, thinks like a man. Absolutely no clue whatsoever about women's issues and more interested in nail polish than the value of women's lives.

[Niamh.]

India Willoughby. Wants to be a woman, thinks like a man. Absolutely no clue whatsoever about women's issues and more interested in nail polish than the value of women's lives.

This is why I wonder about having been born with "a womans brain" in cases like India, to me her idea of what a woman is, is very much how a man would describe what a woman is, wears heels and dresses, like's nail polish and shopping etc

[Vicky.]

This is why I wonder about having been born with "a womans brain" in cases like India, to me her idea of what a woman is, is very much how a man would describe what a woman is, wears heels and dresses, like's nail polish and shopping etc

Thats all India has to go on though tbf :laugh: She can hardly grow up as an actual woman or anything..or ever actually know how a woman 'feels', so all she has is a mans idea of what a woman should be.

[Alf]

For all we know, Harvey Weinstein types could be transitioning into women to get closer to them.

[Jamie89]

I think trans women who are the victims of abuse should be allowed refuge, we should aim to protect all people in genuine need. And I think that's currently what happens. The problems seem to be with the potential new laws of self-identification and the process being made easier? I don't know a lot about them and need to look more into it tbh, but from what I've heard, I think there's a danger here to both women and transwomen. It seems like these laws could blur the lines in terms of public perception between transwomen and predatory men who claim to be trans, and in turn is likely to cause an even bigger divide between women and trans women as well as make certain situations more difficult for both, and so I'm wondering who these laws actually aim to benefit? Surely the current way of being able to asses a persons history of transexualism to determine genuine cases makes the most sense (and that would no longer factor into things with the new proposed way of self-id as far as I understand it but I could be wrong I'm not 100% sure on this), and with genuine cases of transwomen being allowed refuge I don't believe there is a danger to women in that.

This is why I wonder about having been born with "a womans brain" in cases like India, to me her idea of what a woman is, is very much how a man would describe what a woman is, wears heels and dresses, like's nail polish and shopping etc

To be fair most transpeople undergo SRS and dress a certain way, not because they feel it's necessary do that to be a woman, but because they feel it's necessary to do that in order to be treated as a woman by the rest of society, and often it's something almost subconscious/ingrained, from a young age and being aware of the different social constructs surrounding gender and seeing boys/girls men/women being treated differently and in their minds these facades can become a fixation almost, in that they are things that can be changed and in doing so they will be more likely to be treated as the sex that they feel their biology should be. I mean you're not really wrong about it being what someone else would describe as what a woman looks like, but it's much deeper than just thinking 'a girl wears heels so if I wear heels I'll be a girl', as they already believe they are the opposite gender, they just want to be recognised by others as such, and in their minds they're not going to be unless they do those things, so I think is understandable.

[Marches]

I kinda understand both sides but ehhh saying that I could imagine dealing with gender related issues for all ur life, you finally transition to be a woman and you’re not even allowed in a female refugee camp. I’d say just go to a male one but male abuse is trivialised and so many of them are getting refused funding now how fun

[Vicky.]

The proposed changes in law benefit neither transwomen nor women. They benefit only fetishists (who would not have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and as such, cannot get a GRC) and predatory males who would use this to...be predatory, basically. I have no idea why such changes are even being considered.

[Vicky.]

I kinda understand both sides but ehhh saying that I could imagine dealing with gender related issues for all ur life, you finally transition to be a woman and you’re not even allowed in a female refugee camp. I’d say just go to a male one but male abuse is trivialised and so many of them are getting refused funding now how fun

Its not this. Transwomen who have transitioned already can use womens refuges. This issue is about letting 'selfID' rule all, basically. So no transition required, just anyone who says they are a woman in their head. No way that could be abused, eh..

Also its not even about letting people use the refuges. Its about letting them work in them. Letting 'self identified' women (ie any male) work in a refuge for abused women is asking for disaster, IMO. I really really hope this consultation favours womens (and transwomens) right to be safe.Of course it should, given the nature of womens aid. But I am not sure given how crazy places have gone with this rubbish.

[Marches]

Its not this. Transwomen who have transitioned already can use womens refuges. This issue is about letting 'selfID' rule all, basically. So no transition required, just anyone who says they are a woman in their head. No way that could be abused, eh..

Also its not even about letting people use the refuges. Its about letting them work in them. Letting 'self identified' women (ie any male) work in a refuge for abused women is asking for disaster, IMO. I really really hope this consultation favours womens (and transwomens) right to be safe.Of course it should, given the nature of womens aid. But I am not sure given how crazy places have gone with this rubbish.

O I thought she said she wanted it to be trans women who could prove their transition. Well that was at the start then she rambled lmao. I agree it can be exploited for bad things but so can like everything really, tho self Id is the wrong way to go about society in some aspects

[Brillopad]

Sick of hearing about this stupid woman and her perceived rights. Her rights have no rights to trample over the rights of others. Attention-seeking bore.

[Jamie89]

I kinda understand both sides but ehhh saying that I could imagine dealing with gender related issues for all ur life, you finally transition to be a woman and you’re not even allowed in a female refugee camp. I’d say just go to a male one but male abuse is trivialised and so many of them are getting refused funding now how fun

There's also the reason that transwomen are likely to have been abused by men and so wouldn't want to be around men for the same reason women wouldn't want to be. This is why I worry so much about the potential divisiveness of these new laws between women and transwomen as the way it currently is seems to protect both.

(As a side note I didn't know they were being refused funding, don't know the details of that but it's quite shocking to hear)

[Vicky.]

There's also the reason that transwomen are likely to have been abused by men and so wouldn't want to be around men for the same reason women wouldn't want to be. This is why I worry so much about the potential divisiveness of these new laws between women and transwomen as the way it currently is seems to protect both.

(As a side note I didn't know they were being refused funding, don't know the details of that but it's quite shocking to hear)

The transsexual people I know IRL are all against selfID (all 3 of them :laugh: ) and on mumsnet there are many transexual posters (I know people can pretend to be anything, but they seem genuine, have discussed their surgeries and such too which would be pretty hard to fake) who are against it, as they feel 'self ID' makes a huge joke of a serious condition that they personally have. Which I agree with too.

Theres a thread on there thats just been picked up by the daily mail, about this kind of thing too

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5357509/Swim-England-guidance-trans-swimmers-slammed.html

Its a VERY balanced article for the mail, I am surprised. Its actually accurate.

Basically allowing 'self-ID' and telling businesses to 'educate' anyone who thinks male people are male. Also very interesting double standards in the guidance, as they accept men with penises are women, however the same guidance says to tell transmen that they have to cover up their tits. Surely if men who say they are women can get their dicks out in the womens changing room, then women who say they are men should be treat like men too? And as such, should be allowed to swim in trunks? And the swimmers must be 'educated' that some men have tits, get over it! (actually, some real men have tits bigger than mine :laugh: )

This is a post from a trans poster on the thread on there..I hope she doesn't mind me nicking it

I do actually think that women who can't cope with seeing a willy are a bit silly

Then you must have lived a lovely life. There are many, many reasons why that would be unacceptable to some women. I simply don't believe you can't imagine what any of those would be.

I would not enter any women's changing rooms before my op. I still wouldn't enter some of the ones described above (small, no cubicles) because I'm a considerate human being. I choose multisex changing rooms with many private cubicles.

Having been the victim of sexual assault myself I am also well aware of the panic and terror involved with being in proximity to a strange man, it matters not what his intentions are (because sadly for many it has been demonstrated that a fair many have very bad intentions)

No woman should be forced to share a changing room with a man (i.e. anyone with a penis is a man = it's ****ing insane that that needs clarification these days)

These aren't transsexuals that are being 'allowed' in (I think many are thinking of it like that in their head)

It is the AGP's, the sexual predators, the cross dressers who will be aroused by being in the women's changing rooms.

They will be the ones getting access to vulnerable women through this policy. And they are the ONLY ones this policy (and all the other ****ing madness) will benefit)
From
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3160791-adult-males-can-now-shower-with-girls-at-swimming-pools?msgid=75417453
Should jump direct to post. If anyone wants to check. Their other posts in there are interesting too. I have not fnished the thread yet but there are other trans posters who I imagine will say the same thing, as in other trans threads they are hugely against self ID.


None of this benefits transsexual people, its not about transsexual people. Its framed as being about transsexual people..and this is why it gets support, but its not. At all.

[Vicky.]

There also this in the swimming guidance

When offering single-sex sessions in your timetable, remember that you must enable trans swimmers to attend the sessions they would like to according to their gender identity, which may take some initial support and some education with other centre users.

HOWEVER, the guidance states that they should offer trans only swimming sessions also.

Its all contradictory nonsense. I am sick of having to post about stuff like this because honestly, to me saying a person with a penis is a man, is the same as saying water is wet or fire is hot.

Edit. I kind of want to make this into another thread now, as its important, again. But...too many trans threads?

[jaxie]

There also this in the swimming guidance



HOWEVER, the guidance states that they should offer trans only swimming sessions also.

Its all contradictory nonsense. I am sick of having to post about stuff like this because honestly, to me saying a person with a penis is a man, is the same as saying water is wet or fire is hot.

Edit. I kind of want to make this into another thread now, as its important, again. But...too many trans threads?

I don't think it's too !any threads if it's a fresh angle on an important discussion that needs to be had.

[Mystic Mock]

Post op I think it should be allowed as it's very likely a trans woman in a men's prison would be assaulted

This.

[Mystic Mock]

But no if they've got a penis they're still a man and therefore they should not be in women's clinics or prisons or whatever single sex thing that we're talking about. It's crazy that the Government sees this as more important than women's safety.

[Vicky.]

Interesting. India disagrees with female only spaces, but India supports 'trans only spaces'

https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/961218763378053120

So she accepts that at some points, certain groups may need space away from one another. But does not think female people should ever be able to be away from male ones, even when traumatized and escaping male violence

[Niamh.]

I don't think it's too !any threads if it's a fresh angle on an important discussion that needs to be had.

I think it's a very important issue to discuss right now aswell, specifically to make people aware of the differences between transgender and transsexual and changes they're trying to make. I wouldn't have known anything about all this only for Vicky

[Vicky.]

I will do this in a day or so, as I started a thread this morning about trans stuff too. Many people are about to wake up to it, if the Commonwealth games is quite as popular as Gavin says it is

[user104658]

Being totally honest here... I do understand people's issue with this but then I also think there's an element of hysteria surrounding it. Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces IS open to abuse and does make it POSSIBLE for devious individuals to gain access to commit a crime. However, the idea that suddenly there are going to be countless men swaggering into female toilets swinging their dicks and shouting "I'm a woman too!" is ... well ... just a tad over the top. Realistically, it's not going to happen very often. Also realistically, if a predator is determined enough to attack a woman that he would pose as a transgendered individual to get into a women's bathroom and attack someone... then I don't think NOT allowing trans people in women's bathrooms is exactly going to stop that individual? I mean... the bathrooms don't have invisible penis detecting forcefields around them... and an attack either way could only occur in a relatively quiet / isolated place. Where a man could just walk in anyway? They're not going to head towards a women's bathroom, see the sign that says "ladies" and say "Well darn, I'm not a lady so I can't go in! No sexual assault for me today I guess".

In short... I suppose... a predator looking to attack someone is probably going to attack someone. I really, genuinely, don't think many will be putting on dresses to descend on public toilets en masse.

Likewise the women's refuge thing, I feel like in that situation it shouldn't be particularly difficult to weed out the genuine victims from the potential predators. A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah. Again it's possible, but the likelihood of it is so low that any genuine fear of it happening can only be grossly exaggerated.

But basically my thoughts are that people these days are getting so caught up in legislation that no one knows how to use common sense any more :shrug:.

[Livia]

Being totally honest here... I do understand people's issue with this but then I also think there's an element of hysteria surrounding it. Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces IS open to abuse and does make it POSSIBLE for devious individuals to gain access to commit a crime. However, the idea that suddenly there are going to be countless men swaggering into female toilets swinging their dicks and shouting "I'm a woman too!" is ... well ... just a tad over the top. Realistically, it's not going to happen very often. Also realistically, if a predator is determined enough to attack a woman that he would pose as a transgendered individual to get into a women's bathroom and attack someone... then I don't think NOT allowing trans people in women's bathrooms is exactly going to stop that individual? I mean... the bathrooms don't have invisible penis detecting forcefields around them... and an attack either way could only occur in a relatively quiet / isolated place. Where a man could just walk in anyway? They're not going to head towards a women's bathroom, see the sign that says "ladies" and say "Well darn, I'm not a lady so I can't go in! No sexual assault for me today I guess".

In short... I suppose... a predator looking to attack someone is probably going to attack someone. I really, genuinely, don't think many will be putting on dresses to descend on public toilets en masse.

Likewise the women's refuge thing, I feel like in that situation it shouldn't be particularly difficult to weed out the genuine victims from the potential predators. A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah. Again it's possible, but the likelihood of it is so low that any genuine fear of it happening can only be grossly exaggerated.

But basically my thoughts are that people these days are getting so caught up in legislation that no one knows how to use common sense any more :shrug:.

This is true. And the request is so simple! No penises in a women only space.

[bots]

It's fundamentally wrong to make a group more vulnerable for the sake of (dare i say it) political correctness. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If these were not already vulnerable people, I could perhaps agree that it may not be a common place occurrence, but even 1 occurrence is too many when referring to the recovering and vulnerable.

[Niamh.]

It's fundamentally wrong to make a group more vulnerable for the sake of (dare i say it) political correctness. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If these were not already vulnerable people, I could perhaps agree that it may not be a common place occurrence, but even 1 occurrence is too many when referring to the recovering and vulnerable.

Exactly.

Just going back to TSs points though about that sexual abusers will find away regardless and why would they bother going to those lengths

Look at how many paedophiles seek out jobs involving easy access to children? priests for example, you would think no one would go so far as to join the priesthood but they did

[Vicky.]

Being totally honest here... I do understand people's issue with this but then I also think there's an element of hysteria surrounding it. Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces IS open to abuse and does make it POSSIBLE for devious individuals to gain access to commit a crime. However, the idea that suddenly there are going to be countless men swaggering into female toilets swinging their dicks and shouting "I'm a woman too!" is ... well ... just a tad over the top. Realistically, it's not going to happen very often. Also realistically, if a predator is determined enough to attack a woman that he would pose as a transgendered individual to get into a women's bathroom and attack someone... then I don't think NOT allowing trans people in women's bathrooms is exactly going to stop that individual? I mean... the bathrooms don't have invisible penis detecting forcefields around them... and an attack either way could only occur in a relatively quiet / isolated place. Where a man could just walk in anyway? They're not going to head towards a women's bathroom, see the sign that says "ladies" and say "Well darn, I'm not a lady so I can't go in! No sexual assault for me today I guess".

In short... I suppose... a predator looking to attack someone is probably going to attack someone. I really, genuinely, don't think many will be putting on dresses to descend on public toilets en masse.

Likewise the women's refuge thing, I feel like in that situation it shouldn't be particularly difficult to weed out the genuine victims from the potential predators. A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah. Again it's possible, but the likelihood of it is so low that any genuine fear of it happening can only be grossly exaggerated.

But basically my thoughts are that people these days are getting so caught up in legislation that no one knows how to use common sense any more :shrug:.

How many times does it need to happen to matter? How much collateral damage is acceptable here? And ignoring this, women want spaces where male people are not. I am sure some male people would not be thrilled changing clothes infront of female people either.

And yes, predators are going to be predators. So why on earth make things easier for them?

Basically this does sound like..women are just being hysterical about nothing.

Do you disagree with sex segregation fullstop?

Finally this is about 'self identified' people. No changes required at all. So a predator wouldn't even have to put on a dress...

Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces
Its nothing to do with transsexuals. It is literally about any man. Any one. Dysphoria or not.

[Vicky.]

A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah.

Its not about people who are transitioning/have transitioned. Who would already have a GRC. And are already allowed to use, and work in refuges.

Its about anyone 'self identifying' their sex. Which is clearly nonsense.

Common sense has indeed gone out of the window when someone can wake up one day, tick a box on a form and 'be' the opposite sex.

[user104658]

I don't know that any of it does make people literally more vulnerable, though, certainly there's no evidence beyond assumption that it does. Although it obviously hasn't been examined enough to know either way. On the issue of refuges, I find the scenario of a man posing as identifying as female in order to access and assault someone in a women's refuge, whilst technically possible, to be highly unrealistic. Likewise, I find it extremely unlikely that predators will take it as an invitation to walk into women's bathrooms with the intent of committing a crime.

So in terms of literal physical safety... no I don't think there's any real evidence that it would make women less safe. If a bathroom is isolated enough that a woman would be unsafe in this scenario, then it's isolated enough that a man could just walk in anyway "allowed" or otherwise.

HOWEVER if we are talking about the right to comfort and privacy, which of course everyone also is entitled to, then yes I can completely see where you're coming from. I suppose I just feel like it might be a better platform to work from overall; that women are STILL entitled to a private space regardless of any actual safety concern. Because there's a huge focus on the "all the men will pretend to be transgender so that they can go around raping everyone!" angle which, again, is actually not particularly realistic and therefore sort of easy to argue against.

[bots]

I don't know that any of it does make people literally more vulnerable, though, certainly there's no evidence beyond assumption that it does. Although it obviously hasn't been examined enough to know either way. On the issue of refuges, I find the scenario of a man posing as identifying as female in order to access and assault someone in a women's refuge, whilst technically possible, to be highly unrealistic. Likewise, I find it extremely unlikely that predators will take it as an invitation to walk into women's bathrooms with the intent of committing a crime.

So in terms of literal physical safety... no I don't think there's any real evidence that it would make women less safe. If a bathroom is isolated enough that a woman would be unsafe in this scenario, then it's isolated enough that a man could just walk in anyway "allowed" or otherwise.

HOWEVER if we are talking about the right to comfort and privacy, which of course everyone also is entitled to, then yes I can completely see where you're coming from. I suppose I just feel like it might be a better platform to work from overall; that women are STILL entitled to a private space regardless of any actual safety concern. Because there's a huge focus on the "all the men will pretend to be transgender so that they can go around raping everyone!" angle which, again, is actually not particularly realistic and therefore sort of easy to argue against.

TS, you are not looking at this from the position of the vulnerable but rather those that would infringe on them, and there in lies the issue.

[Livia]

It's an interesting fact that far more men seem to have a far more accepting and laissez faire attitude to this. That's not meant to be inflammatory... but I'm yet to meet a woman who isn't appalled by this when she hears the facts. And thankfully, more than a few men are just as appalled.

[Niamh.]

TS, you are not looking at this from the position of the vulnerable but rather those that would infringe on them, and there in lies the issue.

Exactly.

[user104658]

TS, you are not looking at this from the position of the vulnerable but rather those that would infringe on them, and there in lies the issue.

No I'm just looking from the perspective of realistic outcome, like I said in the last paragraph... if it's an issue of comfort, then I totally understand where people are coming from. With regards to the refuge issue, do I believe that a man could access a women's refuge and actually assault someone? No... nor do I believe that it's likely that anyone would try. A predator isn't going to construct an elaborate scheme to wriggle their way into a situation where they're highly likely to be caught. Literal physical safety, I don't believe would be affected. But like you say - from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked. "You're not at any risk!" isn't enough... in fact, I am totally on board with the idea that anxiety and fear can actually be far worse than physical injury in many ways.

Same goes for bathrooms. I don't believe assaults are the likely outcome, but women feeling uncomfortable (and potentially, even choosing NOT to use public restrooms at all) is a very possible outcome and that shouldn't be ignored, either.

When it comes right down to it though, on that front... my local shopping mall has a large toilets area, no mens, no womens, no disabled: Just a long row of individual locking rooms that have a toilet, sink, baby change and disabled facilities, in every one. IMO that is the way forward in terms of both safety and inclusion... and in fact just in terms of general privacy for everyone. It's MUCH better. Awesome for families, too.

[Livia]

No I'm just looking from the perspective of realistic outcome, like I said in the last paragraph... if it's an issue of comfort, then I totally understand where people are coming from. With regards to the refuge issue, do I believe that a man could access a women's refuge and actually assault someone? No... nor do I believe that it's likely that anyone would try. A predator isn't going to construct an elaborate scheme to wriggle their way into a situation where they're highly likely to be caught. Literal physical safety, I don't believe would be affected. But like you say - from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked. "You're not at any risk!" isn't enough... in fact, I am totally on board with the idea that anxiety and fear can actually be far worse than physical injury in many ways.

Same goes for bathrooms. I don't believe assaults are the likely outcome, but women feeling uncomfortable (and potentially, even choosing NOT to use public restrooms at all) is a very possible outcome and that shouldn't be ignored, either.

When it comes right down to it though, on that front... my local shopping mall has a large toilets area, no mens, no womens, no disabled: Just a long row of individual locking rooms that have a toilet, sink, baby change and disabled facilities, in every one. IMO that is the way forward in terms of both safety and inclusion... and in fact just in terms of general privacy for everyone. It's MUCH better. Awesome for families, too.

We're talking about women who have been raped and/or abused. Not someone who needs a wee.

[Niamh.]

It's an interesting fact that far more men seem to have a far more accepting and laissez faire attitude to this. That's not meant to be inflammatory... but I'm yet to meet a woman who isn't appalled by this when she hears the facts. And thankfully, more than a few men are just as appalled.

Yeah. Also, whenever we hear about a woman being attacked on a night out and maybe she was alone or had drank too much, there's always a fair few men saying how she should have been more careful, should have drank less etc etc so basically saying she should have been more aware that men may use this opportunity of vulnerability to take advantage so why does this not apply here? Women are trying to make themselves safer but they're being hysterical by trying now?

[user104658]

We're talking about women who have been raped and/or abused. Not someone who needs a wee.

from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked.

I genuinely wonder if you actually read my posts sometimes, Livia :think:.

[Niamh.]

No I'm just looking from the perspective of realistic outcome, like I said in the last paragraph... if it's an issue of comfort, then I totally understand where people are coming from. With regards to the refuge issue, do I believe that a man could access a women's refuge and actually assault someone? No... nor do I believe that it's likely that anyone would try. A predator isn't going to construct an elaborate scheme to wriggle their way into a situation where they're highly likely to be caught. Literal physical safety, I don't believe would be affected. But like you say - from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked. "You're not at any risk!" isn't enough... in fact, I am totally on board with the idea that anxiety and fear can actually be far worse than physical injury in many ways.

Same goes for bathrooms. I don't believe assaults are the likely outcome, but women feeling uncomfortable (and potentially, even choosing NOT to use public restrooms at all) is a very possible outcome and that shouldn't be ignored, either.

When it comes right down to it though, on that front... my local shopping mall has a large toilets area, no mens, no womens, no disabled: Just a long row of individual locking rooms that have a toilet, sink, baby change and disabled facilities, in every one. IMO that is the way forward in terms of both safety and inclusion... and in fact just in terms of general privacy for everyone. It's MUCH better. Awesome for families, too.

For public toilets, that's definitely the way forward, i agree

[Vicky.]

I don't know that any of it does make people literally more vulnerable, though, certainly there's no evidence beyond assumption that it does.

Well evidence is hard to come by, because crimes by male people are being recorded as being done by females. So expect to see a rise in female sexual offenders anyday now, except these women committing the offences, have penises. 'Women committing sexual crime rises by 200%, reasons totally unclear' coming to a news station near you soon (thats not alarmist either, there are something like 150 transwomen in prison, and half of them are there for sexual offences. There are I think it is 140 women in prison for sexual offences. Thats already a 50% increase. And if all these people are moved to female prisons, that means the ratio of female to male people in supposedly female prisons is like 2:1)

http://womanmeanssomething.com/1034-2/

Issues with voyeurism

https://translesbianpositivity.tumblr.com/post/170520246550/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-please-add-to-this-list

List compiled by an actual transperson of incidents where 'that will never happen' has happened.

Its hard to get stats, as no stats are given/collected so you have to go on news reports and such. I suspect that these collated ones are the tip of the iceberg..as stated on there.

But yeah, taking stats out of it and how it will obviously be a target for predators looking to hunt, its still a bad idea. Women do not have to actually get raped en masse to show that ending sex segregation in this way is a bad idea or that it removes aspects of safety. Or they shouldn't have to be, but I suspect this may be whats going to have to happen. And even then, it will be blamed on the women in some way I would wager...

[Livia]

I genuinely wonder if you actually read my posts sometimes, Livia :think:.

It's the fear and discomfort of the victims we're worried about. You can this should not be overlooked... but the rest of you posts is about how we should all muck in together.

[user104658]

It's the fear and discomfort of the victims we're worried about. You can this should not be overlooked... but the rest of you posts is about how we should all muck in together.

It isn't really, on balance I actually think things should be left segregated as they are "for the time being" specifically because I can understand the upset that could be caused by men in female spaces where privacy is expected, especially for those who have been victimised in the past.

But I also understand the desire for inclusion from those who ARE genuine, which is why I think the way forward is total privacy (not mucking in together). The ones at my local shopping center certainly aren't that... it's literally like a long row of disabled toilets, no one at all is in together.

[Livia]

It isn't really, on balance I actually think things should be left segregated as they are "for the time being" specifically because I can understand the upset that could be caused by men in female spaces where privacy is expected, especially for those who have been victimised in the past.

But I also understand the desire for inclusion from those who ARE genuine, which is why I think the way forward is total privacy (not mucking in together). The ones at my local shopping center certainly aren't that... it's literally like a long row of disabled toilets, no one at all is in together.

I'm sure most transsexuals are genuine and that they need to feel that inclusion. And I'm sure those who are genuine will understand that if they still have a penis they can't come in.

[Vicky.]

It isn't really, on balance I actually think things should be left segregated as they are "for the time being" specifically because I can understand the upset that could be caused by men in female spaces where privacy is expected, especially for those who have been victimised in the past.

But I also understand the desire for inclusion from those who ARE genuine, which is why I think the way forward is total privacy (not mucking in together). The ones at my local shopping center certainly aren't that... it's literally like a long row of disabled toilets, no one at all is in together.

Single stall totally contained spaces are fine IMO. Kind of like disabled loos are? Thats how its coming across to me.

Same with changing rooms, if it was changed to all cubicles and unisex, again fine (well, better than just chucking men in with women as things are, though there is still the issue of voyeurism that will inevitably occur) but whats happening here is that places with the old fashioned open plan changing rooms are just being made unisex, when there is only like one cubicle for the whole place, or none! My local Bannatynes has only two cubicles and a huge open space. Its always really busy (very large gym in there), to wait for a cubicle takes maybe 15 mins. If there were men in the open plan bit? Near every woman would be waiting for the cubicle, which would mean wait times were like 6 hours, which would in turn make swimming there pointless.

The issues do go so much deeper than this though.

Refuges - I would say fully transitioned post-op, fine. To use the services, not to work there.
Certain jobs, such as rape crisis support workers - Many (I would bet most) women will not wish to be speaking to a man about the trauma they suffered at the hands of men.
Other jobs/positions, such as 'womans officer' for the Labour party - Stated it must be held by a woman. It is currently held by a teenage boy. Labour are standing by this decision despite this boy being involved in doxxing members and sending vile threats (of which I received some, not off him personally, but from the group)
Prisons - my solution here is more complicated, and not a solution tbh as I am not finished, I cannot square the circle. Post op trans people are in danger in a male prison (mind, so are many other males...gay men, small men, disabled men, etc), but data shows that transpeople are no less likely to commit sexual crimes than other men are, maybe MORe likely to given current prison stats. Maybe a trans wing or two. One thing for sure though, NO PENISES IN WOMENS PRISONS. This should be painfully obvious, and for obvious reasons but in Scotland there are a few cases of intact male people being chucked in with the women..and in one case having to be moved (to another womens prison) for sexually assaulting women and having sex with others.
Single sex health care practitioners - the right to request one, not that everyone should always get same sex, has been a recent case of a male person actually arguing with the patient who requested a female that they are actually a female due to how they feel in their head :umm2:
Psychiatric wards - has already been a person who was convinced via mental health issues that blokes were trying to kill her, who was placed in a 'female only' ward with an obviously male person
Hospital wards - IIRC there was HUGE hell on not that long ago about hospital wards being mixed, may be misremembering that
Female only swim sessions - many religions would go mental if these were removed, as it looks like they now have been, just waiting for all this to be implemented
Sport - currently being eroded. That does not matter at all for men, as obviously women do not have an advantage over them biologically. But the other way around, of course females are going to lose out. And be in danger, in many cases too
Statistics - Male people are being recorded as female, and vice versa. This will massively skew data.

There are probably more too, this is just off the top of my head.

Loos are the easy solve.

So yeah, thin end of the wedge, but still an issue. And unless companies are willing to invest cash on these new gender neutral loos and such, then no solution still. I would bet my house that what will happen is existing setups will remain and the sex segregation is just ended.


I would say the very very basic rule for near all of these is...noone with a penis is a woman. This may upset some people and their ladypenises but so what. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Its a shame any of this is causing problems. Transsexual women have been using womens spaces since forever, with no issues..we had a kind of honour system going, where we knew they were male but turned a blind eye. Its this new breed of entitled shouty 'female penis' transactivists that are causing current tensions with their ridiculous demands, and expectation of law to be written in such a way that the words man, woman and male and female are useless.

[Northern Monkey]

This is one issue i’m with the Feminists on.

Also after her performance on CBB i’m surprised anyone takes anything India fecking Willoughby spouts seriously

[Maru]

https://i.imgur.com/OAWVRdL.png

In comments here (https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/despicable-katie-hopkins-forced-deny-11788456)...