JK Rowling likes transphobic tweet

[Kizzy]

It's a ham-fisted strawman attempt to use supposed misogyny to shut down an opposing argument. I'm not sexist in the slightest and accusing me of Mansplaining or being "a patronising sexist" is not a shortcut to getting me to shut up just because the person I am disagreeing with happens to be female :facepalm:. It's bull**** jaxie and I'm not playing. I wasn't playing when the "mansplainennnn" cries started up a few months ago, and I'm not playing now. It's not going to stop me from saying what I have to say, ever... It is a complete waste of time. Continue to try to do it if you feel like you must but it genuinely is only your own time that you're wasting.

But you did... that's exactly what you did in that games thread... I'm going to keep referring back to that until you acknowledge the relevance here and across the forum.

This might not be about me, and I'm not suggesting it is.. however I feel that example is comparable.

Your condemnation didn't stop me then either.

[Maru]

I think when people are upset on board, just don't fight with them so full on as it would seem to make things worse. Because it seems like folk here take things to heart... some just need a good vent.

TS, I can kind of understand his point of view where he may be taking some things personally with regards to feeling excluded. I was on his side in the feminism thread (as an individualist feminist), and I could see where he could've been made to feel that his thoughts need not apply because he feels this way as a man. That said, I can also understand the counter-argument. It does read though as someone as a pro-individualist, that because he was made male, his attempt to discuss was always going to be meant to be panned. I also question how much we really should be barring entry in discussions on SD, because it is a debate forum... we're not activists? We're just sharing our opinions... maybe 15 people will read it (and F5 the f*k out of those threads :laugh:).

I also think some here need to be very careful too how they word their posts... I'm very conscious of my use of the word "you". In fact, I sometimes have to go back and edit, because in casual conversation irl I use royal "you" in conversation... but the husband who is a skilled writer warned me of it's use. Ever since then, I'm very conscious of it as it is very easy to come off wrong in text this way, and I can see how it effects reactions when the most energized posts are littered with "yous". It makes it come off quite pointed.
I've debated making a small plugin that counts yous in posts in order to come up with aggression levels... :laugh:

Anyway, those are just some ideas... I don't think anyone is doing anything particularly wrong. But I do see where TS may have taken some of that discussion to heart... and I can't really blame him (as myself) to a degree, because feminism itself--at various points--quite an ugly beast.

[Vicky.]

The problem is though, is that if all people are interested in is either a) opinions that they agree with, and/or b) opinions from females...this isn't a debate at all. And if it's not a debate, what is the point of these discussions existing? Because all they read like these days is a bunch of people clapping and back-patting each other, and trying to exclude anyone else they think isn't fit to comment. It's like...you may as well just set up a private group so you can all agree with each other to your heart's content.


This is the opposite of what I want. Serious debates would cease to exist at all (which may or may not be a good thing..hmm) if only people who agreed with the OP were allowed to post in that topic :laugh:

I don't think only female opinions matter either. Its useful to get opinions from everyone, regardless of their sex.

What I disagree with completely, is people trying to shut down the conversation by crying bigot at anyone with the 'wrong' (in their opinion) view. Or, as it seems is happening in this thread, trying to police other peoples language. Of course slurs and such should not be tolerated, but to try and make out that saying a male person is male is so horrendously offensive, well, thats another way of just trying the 'bigot' yell isn't it.

I don't agree when other posters have said that only female opinions matter. Of course men should be able to post too. But what I totally disagree with is when (and this is usually the way it goes down on here) men come in, and try to dismiss womens valid concerns. Or say that women are transphobic. As has happened on many of these threads, and it always does seem to be a male poster doing it, maybe thats just an unfortunate coincidence. I think men should take a bit more time to actually think about WHY women are so concerned about this, why women are so scared of random men. And then try to work out if their concerns really are OTT or if for some reason or other they are trying to minimize the very real threat that most women face in every day of their lives.

I actually think in this debate, that male opinions will be what changes the direction of it all. Once more men start to stand up and say 'no', it will all end. Which is part of the reason behind the recent manfriday campaign stuff...where women are 'self identifying' as men and entering male only swimming sessions and such, in reaction to men doing this to women. Once men are inconvenienced, it will all change I reckon. Just most men are not interested as it will never really affect them. Even with women taking over THEIR spaces in the way that men are colonizing womens spaces (and especially lesbian spaces) there is not the safety element, men will not be unsafe by women being there, in the way women would be with a random man.

In all honesty, if selfID keeps steamrollering its way into businesses and law, I will start using the male areas I think. Because the kind of man who would force his way into female areas with no thought at all for how that makes the women feel, is exactly the kind of man I do not want near me in states of undress. I reckon the male areas would be safer for me, as most of the pervs and voyeurs will be in the womens. And I sure as hell feel safer around even 100 normal men than I would feel in an enclosed space with one predator. Attacks in the male areas would be uncommon also as...most men are not predators and a predator would definitely think twice about attacking in an area thats mainly populated by blokes. Most men are against sexual assault/rape/voyeurism etc.

This of course does not solve the issue of refuges and prisons though, which I do feel are the most important in this debate. Especially given we currently have male rapists in female prisons, and that 50% of those identifying as trans are actually there for sex offenses (way above the average among men). But thats not surprising at all given transvestites are now classed as trans. And as I said before, transvestism is one of the most common paraphilia among s ex offenders. So it stands to reason that if transvestites are classed as trans, there will be a hell of a lot of 'trans' sex offenders.

[Kizzy]

This is what I mean by people creating over-the-top strawmen arguments about this. It doesn't do you any favours? Like several posts of really well constructed arguments but then peppered with passive aggressive, pointed hyperbole. Why?

Because it's true! It's not strawman, passive aggressive or hyperbole.

When women are attacked it is clearly documented that this are raises as contributory.

If you can't acknowledge even a suggestion that this is a factor in sexual assault on women then I really don't see why you've entered the debate to be honest... really honest.

I'm not saying you can't comment either but your opinion really sets alarm bells off to me, it's relevant to the discussion... the fear of assualt and/or abuse is pivotal to the thread in relation to self ID... Why are you insisting on directing the discussion?

[Kizzy]

There are people who will blame the victim, always, that much is true. Far from the majority in my experience; more like a toxic few. However the way that it was stated is sarcastic and passive aggressive and over-riding the point. In my opinion.

I would also point out that in my experience, the types of comments you mention come from other women far more often than they do from men.

No they don't there you go again.... You don't even realise you're doing it! Where is this documented, I was referring to the line of questioning and it's leading content IN COURT not here or in public.

[Kizzy]

Right; but why not always state it like that, at least in this section Vicky? I really don't want to go back here again but... You yourself are the mod who has made now four (I think?) attempts to "clean up SD's", make it about posts like the one you just made and NOT about posts like your previous ones or the stream of belittling / jibes / opinions disregarded I've had in this thread for having a penis.

I feel like it's worth stating again, as I have in other threads but may be forgotten:

- I don't really agree with untransitioned males entering female toilets and changing areas (I am heavily in favour of self-contained unisex facilities wherever possible)

- I totally agree about the labour officer thing in principle, again its the "angry language" that tips it over into something else

- I also totally agree that male to female trans people should never be eligible to enter female sporting events, as it presents a clear and unfair advantage.



The real debate is getting lost under "something else" and you quite clearly know fine well that that is the major problem with every topic on this section... But again, it just feels like your ideas on that go straight out the window as soon as the topic being discussed is a personal bugbear.

That hasn't happened, as you stated last night you don't have an opinion you just belittle and jibe at those that do by inferring that there is some sinister ulterior motive for their opinion.
Whatever you have between your legs is irrelevant to me, if I see a double standard by Christ I'm going to call you out on it.

[smudgie]

When my kids were little, I would have hated the thought of hubby sending our little daughter into a public loo on her own if there was any possibility of anybody with a penis allowed in there.
On the other hand, I don’t like the thought of someone genuinely going through the stages of transition but not fully transitioned not having separate facilities.
Going into a male public loo dressed as a woman must be an absolute nightmare.
We have male toilets, we have female toilets, we have disabled toilets, in this day and age would it be so impossible to facilitate everybody, after all, everybody pays their taxes so should have equal rights to pee safely.

[Kizzy]

Again it's not about the opinions or about anyone being transphobic, it's about the straight up fact that certain "ways of speaking" about this topic are seen as OK that would not be on other topics. I've seen this denied endlessly... By the people making the comments. It's not going away for me; there are huge double standards around this and similar issues and now it's all being intermingled with this recent (and ridiculous) idea that "men can't comment on women stuff".

Can British comment on US stuff?

Can white people comment on race issues?

Can Brillo comment on Muslims? Because its hammered home constantly that that is her right, despite not being a Muslim, and here's a strange one: the people shouting that the loudest are Jaxie and Cherie... And yet here we have in this thread, lo and behold, Brillo, Jaxie and Cherie arguing that I *cannot* comment on this issue as a man. Hmmmmm.

Men can comment on women stuff. That is the nature of debate. And it's being totally overlooked that there's a now constant attempt to shut down this variety of debate.

Oh... here are the villains, can't say I'm surprised tbf ( jk)

so what REALLY is the issue here, that some comments are vitriolic?.. That people are saying one thing but meaning another?... that moderators are not consistent enough? OR that TS is feeling excluded from the discussion simply for being a man?

[Kizzy]

That doesn't mean that these isn't an element of Over-reaction, does it? Is it valid if a female says there's Over-reaction?

Patronising much?


If you want to see over reacting read the comments section of a Jordan Peterson vid.

[Kizzy]

No it isnt. Again, as I have said many times and keeps being overlooked (purposefully because it fits a narrative?) it's the language being used that is coming across as transphobic, not the various opinions, which I have even outright stated that I agree with.

And you have been asked many many times to defend your narrative...

Where is the transphobic language? What is it?

I see you 'see' dick, dick,cock, cock everywhere ... but I can't, show me!

(don't be cheap NIAMH)

[Niamh.]

And you have been asked many many times to defend your narrative...

Where is the transphobic language? What is it?

I see you 'see' dick, dick,cock, cock everywhere ... but I can't, show me!

(don't be cheap LT)

:smug:

[Kizzy]

:smug:

:hehe:

[jaxie]

Oh... here are the villains, can't say I'm surprised tbf ( jk)

so what REALLY is the issue here, that some comments are vitriolic?.. That people are saying one thing but meaning another?... that moderators are not consistent enough? OR that TS is feeling excluded from the discussion simply for being a man?

I blame Jeremy Corbyn if I'm considered a villain. Oh look an off topic Corbyn post. :hehe:

[user104658]

All I have left to add is that I have zero interest in engaging in debates where I'm expected to start "on the back foot" for arbitrary reasons, or am expected to accept having a "lesser opinion".

If others want to do that, that's up to them. It's not for me. So I'll bow out from that.

But you did... that's exactly what you did in that games thread... I'm going to keep referring back to that until you acknowledge the relevance here and across the forum.
.

Good luck with that Kizzy.

[Ashley.]

I haven't seen anybody here invalidate your opinion, but once you start telling everybody else how they should be feeling or how their opinions come across in your eyes, it's not entirely improbable that you're going to face a backlash.

[Jack_]

This is the opposite of what I want. Serious debates would cease to exist at all (which may or may not be a good thing..hmm) if only people who agreed with the OP were allowed to post in that topic :laugh:

I don't think only female opinions matter either. Its useful to get opinions from everyone, regardless of their sex.

What I disagree with completely, is people trying to shut down the conversation by crying bigot at anyone with the 'wrong' (in their opinion) view. Or, as it seems is happening in this thread, trying to police other peoples language. Of course slurs and such should not be tolerated, but to try and make out that saying a male person is male is so horrendously offensive, well, thats another way of just trying the 'bigot' yell isn't it.

I don't agree when other posters have said that only female opinions matter. Of course men should be able to post too. But what I totally disagree with is when (and this is usually the way it goes down on here) men come in, and try to dismiss womens valid concerns. Or say that women are transphobic. As has happened on many of these threads, and it always does seem to be a male poster doing it, maybe thats just an unfortunate coincidence. I think men should take a bit more time to actually think about WHY women are so concerned about this, why women are so scared of random men. And then try to work out if their concerns really are OTT or if for some reason or other they are trying to minimize the very real threat that most women face in every day of their lives.

I actually think in this debate, that male opinions will be what changes the direction of it all. Once more men start to stand up and say 'no', it will all end. Which is part of the reason behind the recent manfriday campaign stuff...where women are 'self identifying' as men and entering male only swimming sessions and such, in reaction to men doing this to women. Once men are inconvenienced, it will all change I reckon. Just most men are not interested as it will never really affect them. Even with women taking over THEIR spaces in the way that men are colonizing womens spaces (and especially lesbian spaces) there is not the safety element, men will not be unsafe by women being there, in the way women would be with a random man.

In all honesty, if selfID keeps steamrollering its way into businesses and law, I will start using the male areas I think. Because the kind of man who would force his way into female areas with no thought at all for how that makes the women feel, is exactly the kind of man I do not want near me in states of undress. I reckon the male areas would be safer for me, as most of the pervs and voyeurs will be in the womens. And I sure as hell feel safer around even 100 normal men than I would feel in an enclosed space with one predator. Attacks in the male areas would be uncommon also as...most men are not predators and a predator would definitely think twice about attacking in an area thats mainly populated by blokes. Most men are against sexual assault/rape/voyeurism etc.

This of course does not solve the issue of refuges and prisons though, which I do feel are the most important in this debate. Especially given we currently have male rapists in female prisons, and that 50% of those identifying as trans are actually there for sex offenses (way above the average among men). But thats not surprising at all given transvestites are now classed as trans. And as I said before, transvestism is one of the most common paraphilia among s ex offenders. So it stands to reason that if transvestites are classed as trans, there will be a hell of a lot of 'trans' sex offenders.

Of course it would! It just comes across that way in most of these threads. It's less engaging with WHAT people's disagreements are, and more questioning WHO are they and what position are they in to dare disagree. That is not conducive to a productive debate, it's overly hostile, off-putting and really exclusionary. Like I said, I completely understand that these are emotive discussions on all-sides and so in many respects it's understandable that they go the way they do. But I think it'd be a lot more helpful if we could all reign it in a little, and try to converse with each other respectfully? Less of the sniping, the sarcasm, the entitlement, etc. And this isn't even just a male thing either, there are quite clearly females on here who for whatever reason don't feel comfortable participating in these debates either - as we discovered last week. This isn't good for any of us - there's an opportunity here for us all to share our experiences and perspectives and have a fully fleshed out, academic discussion and try to understand each other's points of view - but that just isn't possible at the moment.

I totally get what you're saying re. the transphobia and bigotry accusations. Look, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that some of the language and arguments that have been made on here over the last year or so haven't made me uncomfortable because they have. But that's yours and other people's right to hold opinions that might make some feel uneasy, and in the context of a debate I can't legitimately expect people to not be able to express their genuine feelings . The problem I ACTUALLY have is with the language and tone of people's post that surround those opinions. So, it's less about the opinions and more the way they are put across. Like, 'you're a MAN who are YOU to tell ME how to feel' and 'WHAT would YOU know'. I guarantee that if I posted some of my genuine opinions on these topics, the people who dislike me would immediately circle around with some patronising, dismissive, baiting retorts. When you've invested a huge amount of time and passion in a topic, can you understand how annoying that would be? This is totally different to other debates, where I couldn't care less what people think - when you have a personal stake in it and you're effectively being asked 'well what would you know???' it's pretty damn inflammatory, and is likely to end up in me retaliating with more insults - which is not helpful to anyone. Hence why I refrain from partaking.

But I guess this is a matter for all sides, less of the transphobic/bigot accusations, and less of the exclusionary and patronising posts. More civilised, productive, fleshed out discussions...I don't know how we go about ensuring this happens though. Now...onto the rest...I hope I don't regret engaging with this.

You may have a point about men needing to be inconvenienced first before it becomes a national conversation...that's usually the way, after all. But from my perspective at least...I just...don't and won't care (about females coming into male areas, that is)? When I saw these campaigns you've referenced, my initial thought was 'great! they're more than welcome to come in, hopefully this goes the opposite way and proves we DON'T need segregation'. I think I've expressed this before, but I personally favour complete gender/sex desegregation in many areas of social life. I don't see any need for it (cue people stopping reading here and making 'you're a man' comments...), I actually think the obsession we have as a modern society with segregating and categorising people more and more (this applies to sexuality just as much) causes more problems than it solves. I want to break down gender/sex binary, not enrich it. I realise this is potentially going to be quite inflammatory...so let me explain what I'd actually prefer.

I favour unisex toilets/changing rooms because I don't feel comfortable changing in front of ANYONE, regardless of their sex. Communal changing areas are gross and need banning. Replace them all with individual cubicles that anyone can use. On the issue of toilets - I favour much of the same. At my university library, we had some new gender neutral toilets built (people misunderstand this a lot and think they're just for trans people or 'non binary weird people lul') and they were AMAZING. Basically, you went through a door, and behind it there were three separately locked individual toilets that each had a sink and drier in. They were the cleanest in the whole building. You had your own privacy, your own space and it was perfect. More of these need to build nationally.

As for yours and other's concerns, while I totally understand them (as I said before), I do echo what TS said in that a lot of it (at face value at least) seems to be futile. Put it this way, if a predator wants to enter a female-only space, he is going to do so regardless of whatever is on the sign above the door. No law is going to increase or decrease the likelihood of this happening, IMO. What's more is...you're far more likely to be attacked in a domestic setting by someone you know than a stranger in a public place. That's not to minimise the issue or to say that it doesn't happen, I know it does - I've seen the articles, but I don't think any law is going to prevent this from happening, or even make it less likely. Also - by desegregating these areas, you are statistically likely to have MORE people in them, which actually DOES decrease the chances of anything happening. Here's an interesting question for you as a woman - if you were in a public toilet alone, late at night and with no else around, and a man walked in, would you feel more or less scared than if you were in a public toilet, late at night with ten other men and two other women (presuming it were a unisex toilet)? While I'm not a woman and cannot understand your concerns from your perspective, certainly from mine I would much rather be in any public place with more people - men or women. I don't feel comfortable walking down the street with only one or two people about. There's safety in numbers. [I've just realised I've asked this when you already addressed it in that paragraph, but I've typed it now lol]

The prisons/refuges is a more difficult issue I'll concede, and so I won't address it here because this post will be far too long otherwise.

[Marsh.]

Again it's not about the opinions or about anyone being transphobic, it's about the straight up fact that certain "ways of speaking" about this topic are seen as OK that would not be on other topics. I've seen this denied endlessly... By the people making the comments. It's not going away for me; there are huge double standards around this and similar issues and now it's all being intermingled with this recent (and ridiculous) idea that "men can't comment on women stuff".

Can British comment on US stuff?

Can white people comment on race issues?

Can Brillo comment on Muslims? Because its hammered home constantly that that is her right, despite not being a Muslim, and here's a strange one: the people shouting that the loudest are Jaxie and Cherie... And yet here we have in this thread, lo and behold, Brillo, Jaxie and Cherie arguing that I *cannot* comment on this issue as a man. Hmmmmm.

Men can comment on women stuff. That is the nature of debate. And it's being totally overlooked that there's a now constant attempt to shut down this variety of debate.Completely agree. Well said. :clap1:

There is a double standard.

[Kizzy]

All I have left to add is that I have zero interest in engaging in debates where I'm expected to start "on the back foot" for arbitrary reasons, or am expected to accept having a "lesser opinion".

If others want to do that, that's up to them. It's not for me. So I'll bow out from that.



Nobody has expected you to have a lesser opinion... You yourself said last night you didn't HAVE an opinion.

You created this debate in relation to your feelings and presumptions about the posts of other members, how that starts you on the back foot for an arbitrary reason I don't know.

[jaxie]

I haven't seen anybody here invalidate your opinion, but once you start telling everybody else how they should be feeling or how their opinions come across in your eyes, it's not entirely improbable that you're going to face a backlash.

Great post, well put.

[Cherie]

Completely agree. Well said. :clap1:

There is a double standard.

Except no one told him he couldn't comment, as has been laboriously reiterated it's his stance that we are all closet transphobes that is the issue

Come on them Marsh put your money where your mouth is and quote the posts telling him he couldn't have an opinion

[Brillopad]

When have I told you how you think or feel or how you should think or feel? Is my thinking differently to you somehow being confused with me insisting that you should think the same as me? Am I not just stating my own thoughts? Or do we now circle back to "... Well yeah but your thoughts are irrelevant because you aren't female"

Or in other words; I can indeed comment, but if my comments are not in agreement with female commentators, my comments are not relevant.

Is that how this works?

Because again, it sure doesn't seem to be the case when Brillo comments on race issues :think:.

Without getting into this yet again - I will state again that ‘my Muslim issues’ are with the religion and the anti-female culture - not skin colour. If the majority of men that treat women this way happen to be non-white so be it - maybe you should be asking why - but skin colour is not the issue for me. Is that so hard to comprehend?

You are choosing to assume that my dislike of the religion and culture is directly connected to skin colour - why? - because it is more controversial and likely to offend and undermine. So your insinuations will not prevent me from expressing my opinions if and when the subject comes up again.

[Niamh.]

Completely agree. Well said. :clap1:

There is a double standard.

It actually isn't double standards at all though. Can white people comment on race issues? yes Can white people say they know how it feels to be discriminated against like a black person does? No. No one is telling men they can't have an opinion on this, what's being said is you can't tell women that what they feel isn't real and is masking something else (their inner transphobia) well you can tell us that if you want but don't be surprised when we disagree with you :shrug:

[Brillopad]

Completely agree. Well said. :clap1:

There is a double standard.

Bull. Sounds more like male ego to me. :hehe:

[Vicky.]

But I guess this is a matter for all sides, less of the transphobic/bigot accusations, and less of the exclusionary and patronising posts. More civilised, productive, fleshed out discussions...I don't know how we go about ensuring this happens though. Now...onto the rest...I hope I don't regret engaging with this. I would bloody love this tbh.

You may have a point about men needing to be inconvenienced first before it becomes a national conversation...that's usually the way, after all. But from my perspective at least...I just...don't and won't care (about females coming into male areas, that is)? When I saw these campaigns you've referenced, my initial thought was 'great! they're more than welcome to come in, hopefully this goes the opposite way and proves we DON'T need segregation'. I think I've expressed this before, but I personally favour complete gender/sex desegregation in many areas of social life. I don't see any need for it (cue people stopping reading here and making 'you're a man' comments...), I actually think the obsession we have as a modern society with segregating and categorising people more and more (this applies to sexuality just as much) causes more problems than it solves. I want to break down gender/sex binary, not enrich it. I realise this is potentially going to be quite inflammatory...so let me explain what I'd actually prefer.

Yeah I remember you are against sex segregation to start with

I would have no issue with single floor to ceiling contained loos. Just..thats not whats happening. Whats happening is that the usual flimsy (sometimes just shower curtainy type things) areas being deemed unisex. Which I am very very against, as is fairly obvious :p

If it was done properly, great. But its not.


I favour unisex toilets/changing rooms because I don't feel comfortable changing in front of ANYONE, regardless of their sex. Communal changing areas are gross and need banning. Replace them all with individual cubicles that anyone can use. On the issue of toilets - I favour much of the same. At my university library, we had some new gender neutral toilets built (people misunderstand this a lot and think they're just for trans people or 'non binary weird people lul') and they were AMAZING. Basically, you went through a door, and behind it there were three separately locked individual toilets that each had a sink and drier in. They were the cleanest in the whole building. You had your own privacy, your own space and it was perfect. More of these need to build nationally.

And it sounds like your Uni library have it right. Thats exactly how it should be done, if we are moving to unisex. But with setups the way they are now, I reckon the huge majority of people would want to keep things sex segregated.

I also hate communal changing tbh. But many are fine with it, and they always tend to have one cubicle there for people like me who don't like changing in front of anyone. I won't queue for it though, like if I am going to have to wait 30 mins I will just bite the bullet and use the communal bit. I would/could not do this with a random bloke there. regardless of what he was wearing.


As for yours and other's concerns, while I totally understand them (as I said before), I do echo what TS said in that a lot of it (at face value at least) seems to be futile. Put it this way, if a predator wants to enter a female-only space, he is going to do so regardless of whatever is on the sign above the door. No law is going to increase or decrease the likelihood of this happening, IMO. What's more is...you're far more likely to be attacked in a domestic setting by someone you know than a stranger in a public place. That's not to minimise the issue or to say that it doesn't happen, I know it does - I've seen the articles, but I don't think any law is going to prevent this from happening, or even make it less likely. Also - by desegregating these areas, you are statistically likely to have MORE people in them, which actually DOES decrease the chances of anything happening. Here's an interesting question for you as a woman - if you were in a public toilet alone, late at night and with no else around, and a man walked in, would you feel more or less scared than if you were in a public toilet, late at night with ten other men and two other women (presuming it were a unisex toilet)? While I'm not a woman and cannot understand your concerns from your perspective, certainly from mine I would much rather be in any public place with more people - men or women. I don't feel comfortable walking down the street with only one or two people about. There's safety in numbers. [I've just realised I've asked this when you already addressed it in that paragraph, but I've typed it now lol]

Haha yeah, already done :laugh:

I know you are more likely to be attacked by someone you know. I think the stat is that only 1/10 attacks are by strangers. Still a significant enough number for women to feel/be told that they have to modify their behavior to avoid those men though.



The prisons/refuges is a more difficult issue I'll concede, and so I won't address it here because this post will be far too long otherwise.

Not like you to make a long post Jack. Heh.

I don't think there is a way to address it at all besides, those places remain based on actual sex.

[Maru]

It actually isn't double standards at all though. Can white people comment on race issues? yes Can white people say they know how it feels to be discriminated against like a black person does? No. No one is telling men they can't have an opinion on this, what's being said is you can't tell women that what they feel isn't real and is masking something else (their inner transphobia) well you can tell us that if you want but don't be surprised when we disagree with you :shrug:

We have to be very careful though how we frame our premises though. "Like a black person"... that's loaded actually, because it assumes all black folk share the same experiences. If we lump all ___ folk together, then it's very easy to lump all folk that fit certain categories together and generalize... which leads to premises like this... (don't worry, it's super short)

LHX7UqHPDxI
I don't experience the same things as other women for example without going into detail into my background. Much less white folk, as I was raised in a 99% minority area despite being white. My family breaks a fook ton of stereotypes in other ways too... which is why I prefer to see folk as individuals, not as being representative of entire groups. It exacerbates and enables racism and other anti-isms when we enable these fallacies...

I think TS--(referring back to the what is feminism thread)--he kind of got roped into a discussion about everything that is wrong with men... as if all men as a group are acting as a whole... I think when we are talking about activism and how to change the status quo, we should be targeting the culture, which is the more likely culprit... folk are obviously only referencing their personal experiences when talking about their views, they can't speak for any group... but we can all talk about how the culture effects us, man or woman. And I'd argue TS/men in general have to have a say if the culture in the end generally impacts all of us... so to speak.

[Niamh.]

With all due respect Maru I never said all black people had the same experiences or women, of course they don't, no two people have the same experiences.

Also, I was in particular taking exception to TS telling the women in this thread that they don't really have worries about womens issues but are just trying to hide their transphobia

[jaxie]

I would bloody love this tbh.


Yeah I remember you are against sex segregation to start with

I would have no issue with single floor to ceiling contained loos. Just..thats not whats happening. Whats happening is that the usual flimsy (sometimes just shower curtainy type things) areas being deemed unisex. Which I am very very against, as is fairly obvious :p

If it was done properly, great. But its not.



And it sounds like your Uni library have it right. Thats exactly how it should be done, if we are moving to unisex. But with setups the way they are now, I reckon the huge majority of people would want to keep things sex segregated.

I also hate communal changing tbh. But many are fine with it, and they always tend to have one cubicle there for people like me who don't like changing in front of anyone. I won't queue for it though, like if I am going to have to wait 30 mins I will just bite the bullet and use the communal bit. I would/could not do this with a random bloke there. regardless of what he was wearing.



Haha yeah, already done :laugh:

I know you are more likely to be attacked by someone you know. I think the stat is that only 1/10 attacks are by strangers. Still a significant enough number for women to feel/be told that they have to modify their behavior to avoid those men though.



Not like you to make a long post Jack. Heh.

I don't think there is a way to address it at all besides, those places remain based on actual sex.

On the thing I posted earlier about sexual attacks being 5 times more likely on women, it said that it's about half by a partner or someone they know.

[Maru]

With all due respect Maru I never said all black people had the same experiences or women, of course they don't, no two people have the same experiences.

Also, I was in particular taking exception to TS telling the women in this thread that they don't really have worries about womens issues but are just trying to hide their transphobia

@Bold No, I don't think you intended that at all, and I wouldn't accuse you of such. I just think there's a little bit of loaded verbiage that's out there to the way we word things...

For example, when we're having a discussion about the experiences of entire groups... some of us can sound like we're speaking for entire groups (I too, am guilty of this, and am trying to reform my wording/thought forms away from it).

I think having discussion about how some things appear on the outside are just as useful to those who tend to be on the inside of an issue... but when we write something for example, and preface it "As a woman"... it doesn't have much meaning beyond... "well, I'm a woman and as so I think..."... but actually, the other side, it's open to interpretation... it can very easily be taken to mean "well, I'm not a woman, so am I being told where my place is...?"... it's the opposite of mansplaining... which is why I think that term actually is bollocks.

[Kizzy]

Of course it would! It just comes across that way in most of these threads. It's less engaging with WHAT people's disagreements are, and more questioning WHO are they and what position are they in to dare disagree. That is not conducive to a productive debate, it's overly hostile, off-putting and really exclusionary. Like I said, I completely understand that these are emotive discussions on all-sides and so in many respects it's understandable that they go the way they do. But I think it'd be a lot more helpful if we could all reign it in a little, and try to converse with each other respectfully? Less of the sniping, the sarcasm, the entitlement, etc. And this isn't even just a male thing either, there are quite clearly females on here who for whatever reason don't feel comfortable participating in these debates either - as we discovered last week. This isn't good for any of us - there's an opportunity here for us all to share our experiences and perspectives and have a fully fleshed out, academic discussion and try to understand each other's points of view - but that just isn't possible at the moment.

I totally get what you're saying re. the transphobia and bigotry accusations. Look, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that some of the language and arguments that have been made on here over the last year or so haven't made me uncomfortable because they have. But that's yours and other people's right to hold opinions that might make some feel uneasy, and in the context of a debate I can't legitimately expect people to not be able to express their genuine feelings . The problem I ACTUALLY have is with the language and tone of people's post that surround those opinions. So, it's less about the opinions and more the way they are put across. Like, 'you're a MAN who are YOU to tell ME how to feel' and 'WHAT would YOU know'. I guarantee that if I posted some of my genuine opinions on these topics, the people who dislike me would immediately circle around with some patronising, dismissive, baiting retorts. When you've invested a huge amount of time and passion in a topic, can you understand how annoying that would be? This is totally different to other debates, where I couldn't care less what people think - when you have a personal stake in it and you're effectively being asked 'well what would you know???' it's pretty damn inflammatory, and is likely to end up in me retaliating with more insults - which is not helpful to anyone. Hence why I refrain from partaking.

But I guess this is a matter for all sides, less of the transphobic/bigot accusations, and less of the exclusionary and patronising posts. More civilised, productive, fleshed out discussions...I don't know how we go about ensuring this happens though. Now...onto the rest...I hope I don't regret engaging with this.

You may have a point about men needing to be inconvenienced first before it becomes a national conversation...that's usually the way, after all. But from my perspective at least...I just...don't and won't care (about females coming into male areas, that is)? When I saw these campaigns you've referenced, my initial thought was 'great! they're more than welcome to come in, hopefully this goes the opposite way and proves we DON'T need segregation'. I think I've expressed this before, but I personally favour complete gender/sex desegregation in many areas of social life. I don't see any need for it (cue people stopping reading here and making 'you're a man' comments...), I actually think the obsession we have as a modern society with segregating and categorising people more and more (this applies to sexuality just as much) causes more problems than it solves. I want to break down gender/sex binary, not enrich it. I realise this is potentially going to be quite inflammatory...so let me explain what I'd actually prefer.

I favour unisex toilets/changing rooms because I don't feel comfortable changing in front of ANYONE, regardless of their sex. Communal changing areas are gross and need banning. Replace them all with individual cubicles that anyone can use. On the issue of toilets - I favour much of the same. At my university library, we had some new gender neutral toilets built (people misunderstand this a lot and think they're just for trans people or 'non binary weird people lul') and they were AMAZING. Basically, you went through a door, and behind it there were three separately locked individual toilets that each had a sink and drier in. They were the cleanest in the whole building. You had your own privacy, your own space and it was perfect. More of these need to build nationally.

As for yours and other's concerns, while I totally understand them (as I said before), I do echo what TS said in that a lot of it (at face value at least) seems to be futile. Put it this way, if a predator wants to enter a female-only space, he is going to do so regardless of whatever is on the sign above the door. No law is going to increase or decrease the likelihood of this happening, IMO. What's more is...you're far more likely to be attacked in a domestic setting by someone you know than a stranger in a public place. That's not to minimise the issue or to say that it doesn't happen, I know it does - I've seen the articles, but I don't think any law is going to prevent this from happening, or even make it less likely. Also - by desegregating these areas, you are statistically likely to have MORE people in them, which actually DOES decrease the chances of anything happening. Here's an interesting question for you as a woman - if you were in a public toilet alone, late at night and with no else around, and a man walked in, would you feel more or less scared than if you were in a public toilet, late at night with ten other men and two other women (presuming it were a unisex toilet)? While I'm not a woman and cannot understand your concerns from your perspective, certainly from mine I would much rather be in any public place with more people - men or women. I don't feel comfortable walking down the street with only one or two people about. There's safety in numbers. [I've just realised I've asked this when you already addressed it in that paragraph, but I've typed it now lol]

The prisons/refuges is a more difficult issue I'll concede, and so I won't address it here because this post will be far too long otherwise.

Jack I appreciate the time it took to form that post, I do have one issue with it however, the intimation that again on here the male view has been sidelined or criticised it hasn't...
What has been criticised is the presumption that that is what is happening based on genuine concern, together with an accusatory tone towards what has been said on the topic as disingenuous.

That to me is both offensive and derogatory, it is seriously lacking in respect or the spirit of debate.
In relation to the thread topic and similar discussions on the forum there is an 'assumed' entitlement, as far as I see there has been no 'you can't comment' personally I have invested my whole adulthood to this topic so imagine how galling it is for me to be told my thinking is flawed...(not that you have)

The reason debate isn't possible for me is based on these presumptions, as said most have been perfectly honest in their reaction to these proposals.

You yourself however have said your genuine opinions have not been expressed for fear of challenges from those who don't like you.... How conducive is that to civilised reasoned debate, if you are too afraid to speak your mind on any given topic? and yet suggest that the rest of the forum should.
I highlighted an area where I feel stats and scenarios are unhelpful, to some these would not be useful and a women only space preferred for whatever reason, but lets go with abuse. The fear of attack from a stranger may be irrational but it doesn't make that fear any less real.

I agree that unisex toilets/changing areas are the answer, a perfect solution that's not to say a don't think toilets as is should ever be phased out.

[Kizzy]

I think TS--(referring back to the what is feminism thread)--he kind of got roped into a discussion about everything that is wrong with men... as if all men as a group are acting as a whole... I think when we are talking about activism and how to change the status quo, we should be targeting the culture, which is the more likely culprit... folk are obviously only referencing their personal experiences when talking about their views, they can't speak for any group... but we can all talk about how the culture effects us, man or woman. And I'd argue TS/men in general have to have a say if the culture in the end generally impacts all of us... so to speak.

No he didn't get roped into anything... He began the discussion, and the discussion never was 'what is wrong with men' ...it never was :/

Nobody anywhere has said he can't have a say!

[Niamh.]

@Bold No, I don't think you intended that at all, and I wouldn't accuse you of such. I just think there's a little bit of loaded verbiage that's out there to the way we word things...

For example, when we're having a discussion about the experiences of entire groups... some of us can sound like we're speaking for entire groups (I too, am guilty of this, and am trying to reform my wording/thought forms away from it).

I think having discussion about how some things appear on the outside are just as useful to those who tend to be on the inside of an issue... but when we write something for example, and preface it "As a woman"... it doesn't have much meaning beyond... "well, I'm a woman and as so I think..."... but actually, the other side, it's open to interpretation... it can very easily be taken to mean "well, I'm not a woman, so am I being told where my place is...?"... it's the opposite of mansplaining... which is why I think that term actually is bollocks.

On this particular topic though it's entirely relevant to say "as a woman" because it will effect women more than men, that's a fact.

And you did ignore the second part of my previous post about why I took exception to what TS said originally

[Maru]

A good example, I don't tend to agree with every conservative out there. In fact, I tend to dislike how some conservatives are labeled "cucks" for not being "conservative enough" on some issues within that group and thus having their opinions sidelined... but then I'm lumped in with those folk when I agree with them on something, that I must somehow agree with other things... and when we are pointing out TS is a man in a woman's territory, it's like saying he brings in the baggage of his entire group to the discussion... I think TS makes good & bad points... just like some women here, I think make good & bad points... but I see their points, not their stewardship in the group.

Same with feminists, I think I almost would be guaranteed to be tossed out of the group for agreeing too much with men. And that's why I think when we start acting out as a group towards individuals, this is counterproductive towards achieving cultural/social change... which requires all groups to adhere to the new terms of engagement so to speak...

[Maru]

On this particular topic though it's entirely relevant to say "as a woman" because it will effect women more than men, that's a fact.

And you did ignore the second part of my previous post about why I took exception to what TS said originally

Right, but as I mentioned before, I think TS is bringing up stuff from that other thread and I can see some of his personal issue there on why he feels so strongly... but from that level, we are talking about two different things. (edit)

[Niamh.]

Right, but as I mentioned before, I think TS is bringing up stuff from that other thread and I can see some of his personal issue there on why he feels so strongly... but from that level, we are talking about two different things. (edit)

Well I'd have to find and reread that because I don't remember the thread or what was said in there

[Maru]

Well I'd have to find and reread that because I don't remember the thread or what was said in there

I don't think you have to agree with me though :laugh: I just can see where he has taken offense is all... and I think it comes down to a difference in perspective. Though is he acting out in this thread (and others) and taking it too far and making it into a personal thing ever since his ban... oh yeah. But I guess if he feels marginalized during discussion on very particular topics... it makes some sense as to why he would take that so personally (edit) and maybe also why he may find some of the moderation suspect. (Anyway, don't want to speak for him here, just my take on the whole thing...)

[Marsh.]

Except no one told him he couldn't comment, as has been laboriously reiterated it's his stance that we are all closet transphobes that is the issue

Come on them Marsh put your money where your mouth is and quote the posts telling him he couldn't have an opinionThere is a double standard.

I've had it thrown at me numerous times.

It's not just here and not just with TS.

You've probably seen me mention it several times in this section lately.

[Marsh.]

It actually isn't double standards at all though. Can white people comment on race issues? yes Can white people say they know how it feels to be discriminated against like a black person does? No. No one is telling men they can't have an opinion on this, what's being said is you can't tell women that what they feel isn't real and is masking something else (their inner transphobia) well you can tell us that if you want but don't be surprised when we disagree with you :shrug:Oh well that's separate then If his issue is with being told he can't speak for someone else and know their feelings.

I do think this double standard exists and is rife on the forum.

But as TS himself says, it's not so much the intention (no. Men can't know what it's like to be a woman anymore than women know what it's like to be male) but the way in which it's used as though to shut down an opinion. :shrug:

[Marsh.]

Bull. Sounds more like male ego to me. :hehe:Sounds like PMS to me. :hehe:

[JoshBB]

Has she responded to it yet or..

I hope its an accident, honestly.

[Kizzy]

Oh well that's separate then If his issue is with being told he can't speak for someone else and know their feelings.

I do think this double standard exists and is rife on the forum.

But as TS himself says, it's not so much the intention (no. Men can't know what it's like to be a woman anymore than women know what it's like to be male) but the way in which it's used as though to shut down an opinion. :shrug:

In this context where was that?...

[jaxie]

I don't think you have to agree with me though :laugh: I just can see where he has taken offense is all... and I think it comes down to a difference in perspective. Though is he acting out in this thread (and others) and taking it too far and making it into a personal thing ever since his ban... oh yeah.But I guess if he feels marginalized during discussion on very particular topics... it makes some sense as to why he would take that so personally (edit) and maybe also why he may find some of the moderation suspect. (Anyway, don't want to speak for him here, just my take on the whole thing...)

I don't really know what thread you are referring to or about his ban bit this statement makes the most sense to me as I just can't see where he is coming from. None of us have said he can't have an opinion we just don't like it when he tells ours is hiding some kind of nefarious motives etc.

I did think TS was a reasonably intelligent grown up but this twice now he's started acting up over an infraction or ban. It's childish.

[Vicky.]

Has she responded to it yet or..

I hope its an accident, honestly.

Her 'people' have said she said it was a 'middle aged moment'. Damage limitation I reckon after the hoards of threats of violence and such from transactivists in reply to her daring to like a tweet.

However the tweet remains liked.

[Maru]

Her 'people' have said she said it was a 'middle aged moment'. Damage limitation I reckon after the hoards of threats of violence and such from transactivists in reply to her daring to like a tweet.

However the tweet remains liked.

:laugh:

[Maru]

Will repost from comedy thread here because it's very relevant here to the OP

UL67FQ_uGBg

[Brillopad]

Her 'people' have said she said it was a 'middle aged moment'. Damage limitation I reckon after the hoards of threats of violence and such from transactivists in reply to her daring to like a tweet.

However the tweet remains liked.

Why aren’t Those trans activists making threats being charged and apologising. Who do they think they are!

[Cherie]

There is a double standard.

I've had it thrown at me numerous times.

It's not just here and not just with TS.

You've probably seen me mention it several times in this section lately.

You were clapping a post that distinctly singled out members of this forum of having told men they can't have an opinion, you can't provide quotes to back this up from the same thread, you need to be a bit clearer about what you are clapping about. I have never once told you you can't have an opinion

[Cherie]

Will repost from comedy thread here because it's very relevant here to the OP

UL67FQ_uGBg

No we don't need this in here at all, in fact gifs are banned from SD threads so just stop please, you have your comedy thread

[Jack_]

Yeah I remember you are against sex segregation to start with

I would have no issue with single floor to ceiling contained loos. Just..thats not whats happening. Whats happening is that the usual flimsy (sometimes just shower curtainy type things) areas being deemed unisex. Which I am very very against, as is fairly obvious :p

If it was done properly, great. But its not.

And it sounds like your Uni library have it right. Thats exactly how it should be done, if we are moving to unisex. But with setups the way they are now, I reckon the huge majority of people would want to keep things sex segregated.

You're right, there's a hell of a long way to go in that respect - but thus would it not make more sense for this to be the campaign (on this issue at least)? A compromise of sorts if you will. If females opposed to the proposed changes in the law would be satisfied with this, and if trans people are too (gender neutral toilets are often created to alleviate their awkwardness after all - even if they're not exclusively for them) - would it not make way more sense to collaborate and push for this nationwide? I totally agree that many people would be against it and not see the point, but that's why the argument has to be made!

I know you are more likely to be attacked by someone you know. I think the stat is that only 1/10 attacks are by strangers. Still a significant enough number for women to feel/be told that they have to modify their behavior to avoid those men though.

Of course! And let me be absolutely clear that I in no way support any kind of 'she was asking for it/wearing too little' arguments.

Not like you to make a long post Jack. Heh.

I don't think there is a way to address it at all besides, those places remain based on actual sex.

:hehe: I thought I'd try not to make it *too* long

There's a couple of things I want to address though re. the bold so I can understand your argument more.

1) How would this be policed? Short of having genital inspections (and that is only one marker of sex after all, it's just the most visible and tangible) before being allowed entry, how do you go about enforcing this?

2) Isn't the logical conclusion of this though, that any transexual (I'll use this term because I know it's the one you prefer) who wishes to live their life as the gender they feel comfortable as MUST have irreversible and intrusive corrective surgery in order to do so? There are many transexuals who have no desire to modify their body and start messing around with their biological and physiological makeup, and I'm sure you've (quite righty, IMO) said before that as a society we shouldn't be almost coercing and forcing people down this path. It is my opinion that if a trans person wishes to have sex reassignment surgery to alleviate their discomfort then all power to them and they should of course be entitled to. But equally, if they don't wish to spend years transforming their own body in what can be a very psychologically damaging process, that's fine too. Unfortunately, our framing of gender in terms of genitalia inevitably makes surgery a prerequisite for any transexual person to be taken seriously, and that is really problematic for me.

So to bring that back to my initial question slightly, if that is the requirement to have access to sex-segregated areas, then aren't trans people who have for years been living and identifying as women - but have no desire to have surgery - in a pretty awkward position? Again, I'll qualify this by saying I completely understand the concerns of many females here...I'm just trying to highlight the flip side of this. These trans people would then be in the position of having to enter the toilet/changing room that does not correlate with their gender presentation (which is how people perceive one another), and face abuse, confusion and even assault there too? If it's the case that anyone who passes can carry on as normal because no one would know, then this comes full circle and the question really would be - what is the opposition to the proposed changes in the law? If transwomen are currently entering female-only spaces without having had surgery, and would still be allowed to so long as they pass after the fact, what changes?

Jack I appreciate the time it took to form that post, I do have one issue with it however, the intimation that again on here the male view has been sidelined or criticised it hasn't...
What has been criticised is the presumption that that is what is happening based on genuine concern, together with an accusatory tone towards what has been said on the topic as disingenuous.

That to me is both offensive and derogatory, it is seriously lacking in respect or the spirit of debate.

I'm sorry Kizzy but I respectfully disagree. I can see that you're criticising the 'people aren't being honest' argument and that's fine...but that's Toy Soldier's ballgame and not mine. From my experience and/or (more often) observation, there have been on occasions (not necessarily in this thread or in recent ones since people have started airing their concerns) in the last year or so, many instances of male voices having their opinions denigrated and validity called into question based on their sex. Often in a snide, indirect and baiting manner too. It's not helpful and is not conducive to a productive debate, or a debate at all for that matter.

In relation to the thread topic and similar discussions on the forum there is an 'assumed' entitlement, as far as I see there has been no 'you can't comment' personally I have invested my whole adulthood to this topic so imagine how galling it is for me to be told my thinking is flawed...(not that you have)

No, I get that totally. Hence why on several occasions I've qualified my point by saying that my personal stake in this topic is obviously COMPLETELY different to that of a female's lived experience. But it's still a personal stake, just from a different angle - that's all my point was.

You yourself however have said your genuine opinions have not been expressed for fear of challenges from those who don't like you.... How conducive is that to civilised reasoned debate, if you are too afraid to speak your mind on any given topic? and yet suggest that the rest of the forum should.
I highlighted an area where I feel stats and scenarios are unhelpful, to some these would not be useful and a women only space preferred for whatever reason, but lets go with abuse. The fear of attack from a stranger may be irrational but it doesn't make that fear any less real.

I'm not sure I understand this bit. I completely agree that feeling afraid to be honest about my genuine opinions is not conducive to civilised and reasoned debate! But I don't think I've suggested that the rest of the forum should? I think you're getting mine and TS' line of arguments mixed up here, I didn't make the point that people aren't being honest...he did. I was coming at it from a different angle.

I agree that unisex toilets/changing areas are the answer, a perfect solution that's not to say a don't think toilets as is should ever be phased out.

I'm glad we agree on this however!

[Niamh.]

Unisex is definitely the way forward when it comes to toilets and changing areas but proper stalls etc I think prisons need to be separated by sex (obviously post op transsexuals would go with their "new" sex) and in regards to sport I just don't think they should be able to compete against women if they were born a man as it's completely unfair

[Twosugars]

2) Isn't the logical conclusion of this though, that any transexual (I'll use this term because I know it's the one you prefer) who wishes to live their life as the gender they feel comfortable as MUST have irreversible and intrusive corrective surgery in order to do so? There are many transexuals who have no desire to modify their body and start messing around with their biological and physiological makeup, and I'm sure you've (quite righty, IMO) said before that as a society we shouldn't be almost coercing and forcing people down this path. It is my opinion that if a trans person wishes to have sex reassignment surgery to alleviate their discomfort then all power to them and they should of course be entitled to. But equally, if they don't wish to spend years transforming their own body in what can be a very psychologically damaging process, that's fine too. Unfortunately, our framing of gender in terms of genitalia inevitably makes surgery a prerequisite for any transexual person to be taken seriously, and that is really problematic for me.


I'm asking because my knowledge of the topic is rather superficial: isn't one major issue for trans people the fact that their body doesn't match their psychological gender? Wouldn't they all aim at rectifying that? I've always thought sex reassignment procedures were desired by them, not imposed by society.
And why you say it is psychologically damaging? I'd have thought it would be liberating.
[Disclaimer: I knew one f2m person and he couldn't wait for his surgeries and now lives as a happily married man. So it may colour my view of things a bit.]

[Vicky.]

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time :p

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched :umm2: And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.

There's a couple of things I want to address though re. the bold so I can understand your argument more.

1) How would this be policed? Short of having genital inspections (and that is only one marker of sex after all, it's just the most visible and tangible) before being allowed entry, how do you go about enforcing this?

Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX :shrug:

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.



2) Isn't the logical conclusion of this though, that any transexual (I'll use this term because I know it's the one you prefer) who wishes to live their life as the gender they feel comfortable as MUST have irreversible and intrusive corrective surgery in order to do so? There are many transexuals who have no desire to modify their body and start messing around with their biological and physiological makeup, and I'm sure you've (quite righty, IMO) said before that as a society we shouldn't be almost coercing and forcing people down this path. It is my opinion that if a trans person wishes to have sex reassignment surgery to alleviate their discomfort then all power to them and they should of course be entitled to. But equally, if they don't wish to spend years transforming their own body in what can be a very psychologically damaging process, that's fine too. Unfortunately, our framing of gender in terms of genitalia inevitably makes surgery a prerequisite for any transexual person to be taken seriously, and that is really problematic for me.

The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery? :suspect:

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'
So to bring that back to my initial question slightly, if that is the requirement to have access to sex-segregated areas, then aren't trans people who have for years been living and identifying as women - but have no desire to have surgery - in a pretty awkward position? Again, I'll qualify this by saying I completely understand the concerns of many females here...I'm just trying to highlight the flip side of this. These trans people would then be in the position of having to enter the toilet/changing room that does not correlate with their gender presentation (which is how people perceive one another), and face abuse, confusion and even assault there too? Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?


And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

If it's the case that anyone who passes can carry on as normal because no one would know, then this comes full circle and the question really would be - what is the opposition to the proposed changes in the law?
Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.



If transwomen are currently entering female-only spaces without having had surgery, and would still be allowed to so long as they pass after the fact, what changes?

The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

[Marsh.]

In this context where was that?...What? Are you requesting more "mansplaining" or are you actually asking for a conversation this time?

[Maru]

One of the main arguments though I thought for having separate areas was to create safe areas though. Against things like sexual assault and invasion of privacy that would otherwise be encouraged if both sexes mingled. I mean they could create individualized rooms in a hallway, sure, but then we'd have to have a sink in each one, a blow dryer, a changing station for babies, etc... so costly.

The other thing too, if we're in a store, it encourages shrink to have a bathroom where one person can simply go in and can't be checked on by staff. They could be taking product in there for example and removing it from cases, etc... that's why in large shops we don't tend to see a unisex bathroom and if there is it often controlled with a key. (but in a doctor's office or other small offices they would have unisex or employee unisex bathrooms)

[Marsh.]

You were clapping a post that distinctly singled out members of this forum of having told men they can't have an opinion, you can't provide quotes to back this up from the same thread, you need to be a bit clearer about what you are clapping about. I have never once told you you can't have an opinionI didn't intend to single you out personally so i cant point you to where you have done this but there is the other trans based thread where I put this across the other day.

There is a double standard across the forum.

[Jack_]

Unisex is definitely the way forward when it comes to toilets and changing areas but proper stalls etc I think prisons need to be separated by sex (obviously post op transsexuals would go with their "new" sex) and in regards to sport I just don't think they should be able to compete against women if they were born a man as it's completely unfair

The thing is, the sport issue is quite a complex one - especially when it concerns intersex athletes - unfortunately they never get much attention in these kind of discussions. I wrote a case study last year on Caster Semenya, she's been the pariah of much controversy in track and field for almost a decade but the issue really isn't a clearcut as most people perceive it to be. And what's more is, in our obsession with policing the sex binary, we miss the numerous other genetic advantages that exist in sport that we don't account for.

This is a really great piece that I referenced and discussed in my work, it's thought-provoking IMO

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/cooky-and-dworkin-2013.pdf

Sport studies scholars have noted the ways in which sport is not a level playing field; rather, it is a site wherein broader forms of social inequality are accepted, tolerated, and ignored. The historic and contemporary structure and culture of sport institutions often reproduces hegemonic masculinity, racism, classism, gender inequalities, and nationalism (Messner, 2002; Sage, 1998). In Western societies, sporting institutions have been organizationally structured to benefit the interests of dominant groups (i.e., White, male, economically affluent; see Burstyn, 1999; Sage, 1998).

...


If monitoring genetically conferred advantage to ensure a level playing field was the primary basis for ensuring fair play, as the IOC and the IAAF claim, athletes would not simply be tested for sex; sport organizations would also test for ‘‘performance enhancing genes that predispose them to be athletically superior’’ by improving muscle growth and efficiency as well as blood flow to skeletal muscles (Vilain & Sánchez, 2012). Sport governing bodies would also test for other conditions that may predispose athletes to be athletically superior. For example, several basketball players have acromegaly, which is a condition responsible for excessive tallness, a clear advantage in basketball (Zaccone, 2010). Female volleyball players have been found to have Marfan syndrome, a disorder that contributes to their unusually tall height, an advantage in that sport. Endurance skier, Eero Ma ̈ntyranta, has primary familial and congenital polycythemia (PFCO), which causes high hemoglobin and increased oxygen capacity due to an inherited mutation in the erythropoietin receptor gene (EPOR) (Genel, 2010).

(p. 107)

Genetically or biologically conferred physical advantages are ‘‘unfair’’ to the same degree that various intersex conditions may be, yet sport organizations do not implement policies to test athletes for these variations, while they do so for those who do not fit into the dichotomous sex binary. At the same time, sport organizations do not view athletes with other types of genetic advantages as a threat to the so-called level playing field, even though researchers have found that athletes with these conditions benefit from clear physical advantages, which by the IOC/IAAF’s standards would be construed as unfair. Thus, as we have illustrated, the second key assumption which justifies the use of sex testing—it levels the playing field by eliminating unfair advantages—has not been consistently upheld when it comes to other naturally occurring genetic variations that predispose athletes to be ‘‘athletically superior.’’ Furthermore, we have shown that sport is not a level playing field, and we argued the claims that current policies are necessary to maintain ‘‘fairness’’ are contradictory (and later, we argue that these are discriminatory). Indeed, sport celebrates those individuals who exist on the extreme end of the biological, physical, and genetic spectrum of human diversity. Here we echo Vilain and Sánchez (2012) who argued that ‘‘attempting to create a ‘level playing field’ among people with unique biological profiles may be a futile endeavor’’ (pp. 198–199).

(pp. 107-108)

[Marsh.]

Has she responded to it yet or..

I hope its an accident, honestly.She responded to it instantly but you know the internet, it doesn't like to go "ooh misunderstood sorry" they prefer "OMFG I got absolutely bloody outraged instantly and I'm not backing down now. You can't click the wrong thing get me riled up and then make me look silly you're transphobic and trying to hide it!!! TELL US YOU'RE TRANSPHOBIC OR ELSE!!!"

[Vicky.]

She responded to it instantly but you know the internet, it doesn't like to go "ooh misunderstood sorry" they prefer "OMFG I got absolutely bloody outraged instantly and I'm not backing down now. You can't click the wrong thing get me riled up and then make me look silly you're transphobic and trying to hide it!!! TELL US YOU'RE TRANSPHOBIC OR ELSE!!!"

Not quite. Her 'reps' responded to it. Her reps claimed she was holding her phone incorrectly.

[Marsh.]

Not quite. Her 'reps' responded to it. Her reps claimed she was holding her phone incorrectly.But people would rather believe such a famous woman with so much control over her public image would deliberately air some rather extreme and offensive view about a minority? Expose herself and her whole brand as transphobic.

I think it's a half truth. She agrees with the sentiment of the tweet before the transphobic insult. But, possibly just like on here, didn't see or intend "man in a dress" to be taken quite the way it has.

Then again the woman's probably had enough. They had the pitchforks out for her when she said Dumbledore wouldn't reference his sexuality in the next FB movie. She must make him all about being gay now. [emoji23]

[Maru]

But people would rather believe such a famous woman with so much control over her public image would deliberately air some rather extreme and offensive view about a minority? Expose herself and her whole brand as transphobic.

I think it's a half truth. She agrees with the sentiment of the tweet before the transphobic insult. But, possibly just like on here, didn't see or intend "man in a dress" to be taken quite the way it has.

Then again the woman's probably had enough. They had the pitchforks out for her when she said Dumbledore wouldn't reference his sexuality in the next FB movie. She must make him all about being gay now. [emoji23]

I think it's fairer to say that some folk aren't begging to jump on a particular bandwagon. I thought as writers, we write about the things we know... to expect all those writers to then include certain minorities and trans-folk in all their stories, is a bit silly... because then the next thing that will be said is "Well, what do you know about X issues/contexts, so how could you write about this authentically?..." It's not a battle any creator of things can win I think.

There is a huge following of LGBT fanfolk who have rewritten or redrawn Harry Potter characters in those different contexts, and I think they do a far better job than the original creator in translating those characters to those romantic contexts... so I think that this is area of fanfolk, to reimagine these role models in those specific contexts... that doesn't dismiss that other writers or creators may create something totally new tomorrow (or even Rowling herself)... but then that again--she may very well be accused for only jumping on the bandwagon to "save herself" or some inauthentic nod.

[Maru]

Anyway I would not be surprised if a lot of the people who are upset about the Dumbledore controversy are maybe fanfic/fanpic enthusiasts... and they may think the alternative/spin off storylines are so authentic/well-made, then feel obviously it should be considered making it into the canon. That happens with Star Wars, etc too... OBVIOUSLY XYZ storyline is the most realistic outcome, but you're catering to ZYX pushback, and you HINTED TO IT so god damn obviously so make it canon already gawd...

[Vicky.]

But, possibly just like on here, didn't see or intend "man in a dress" to be taken quite the way it has.

Well quite. Man in a dress, was not meaning to reference transsexuals. It was about quite literal men in dresses.


Then again the woman's probably had enough. They had the pitchforks out for her when she said Dumbledore wouldn't reference his sexuality in the next FB movie. She must make him all about being gay now. [emoji23]

Haha did she really get **** for that...

I have read theories that snape is apparently trans before. The tells are all there they say..

[Jack_]

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time :p

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched :umm2: And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.

Where do you see all this stuff, Vicky? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I can't say it's generally something I ever see or have experienced. Maybe we just frequent different sites and that's what it is, but from my perspective at least it seems a little blown out of proportion?

I disagree with screaming transphobic at people, that's not helpful...but equally I do see transwomen as women. The thing is though, perhaps this forum mirrors the wider debate, in that there has to be a little give and take on both sides? To put it another way, if some transactivists feel as though their very existence is being minimised (in the same way some females feel the same) - is it not easy to to see why they'd retaliate in the same way? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it could just be a retaliation, and then it becomes a vicious circle where everyone hates each other and there's no productive and respectful discussions amongst either side to reach some kind of conclusion.

Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX :shrug:

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.

I meant more policing it in terms of entry into toilets/changing rooms, but I see what you mean.

The prisons/refuges one is a difficult issue as I mentioned earlier, and I would probably lean towards the trans wing suggestion you made. I think the overarching concern that needs to be addressed though is how prisons are actually sites of enormous violence (be it directly or indirectly, from other inmates or corrupt staff) against marginalised people, and yes that includes women. The prison industrial complex is so problematic on so many levels that it needs a full and frank reassessment, and really it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery? :suspect:

Yes! If correctly corresponding genitalia is the prerequisite of entering a sex-segregated area, then is the logical conclusion not that any and ALL trans people MUST have sex reassignment surgery in order to enter them?

I'll expand on this more below for clarification:

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'
Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?

I genuinely mean transexuals. I realise there's a bit of conflation in that the term assumes people who are or will have be having SRS, but there are genuinely trans people who have no desire to modify their body in any way. Not people who are just making it up to be ~cool~ or whatever (as I think you're referring to), but people who've lived for years or decades as the gender of their choice without having surgery. I chose not to use 'trans' or 'transgender' because I thought you'd make the point that you don't believe in them anyway.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but I could've sworn you've made the point or at least agreed before that encouraging people to have surgery is actually quite problematic? And that really, people should be allowed to live however they like without feeling like they HAVE to modify their body (unless they really want to)? Which is what my point is - if the rule is that segregated areas are separated anatomically, that basically means trans people who have for years never had any desire to have surgery, and have been using female areas, must now do so in order to continue?

Here's another interesting question for you - if you don't believe that anyone can truly change sex, and don't wish to have penises in female-only spaces, why would someone having sex reassignment surgery be almost a cast iron guarantee that they wouldn't attack someone? If they're biologically still the same person, and are predisposed to do that - what difference does not having a penis make (other than the obvious legal implications)?

I completely agree with the latter part however! We need to completely break down gender and toxic masculinity.

And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.

The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

But they can do that now though? Why would the law put off a predator entering a female-only space? Criminals aren't interested in the law or signs above toilet doors, they'll do whatever they like. And any trans person that passes but hasn't had surgery is already doing so?

To be fair, I don't completely understand the proposed changes to the law so maybe I've misunderstood the implications - but that's just what it seems like to me.

[Maru]

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Look up skeletal/anatomy studies for portraiture/figure drawing. There are courses dedicated to (edit) dealing with proportional differences between a man and woman. Here's one such summary...

Drawing the Human Body: 5 Tips for Drawing the Torso
https://www.craftsy.com/art/article/drawing-the-human-body-torso/

1. Know the differences between male and female torsos

Even though every individual has a uniquely shaped torso, there are some differences between male and female that apply in general:


Males usually have longer torsos than females.
Females have a bit more subcutaneous body fat. Accordingly, their shape is a rounder, and the muscles are a less defined.
Female hips are wider, and their waist is usually a touch higher than in males.
Shoulders are typically wider in males.
Usually, the length of the spine is a bit shorter in a female than in a male.
Male nipples are further apart than female nipples, which are more centered.



Human Anatomy Fundamentals: Advanced Body Proportions
https://design.tutsplus.com/articles/human-anatomy-fundamentals-advanced-body-proportions--vector-19869

Male vs. Female Proportions

Male and female proportions are so different that even a skeleton (or certain parts of it) betrays its sex. Bear in mind, however, that on a vertical axis there is no real difference: the joints don't move up or down. The variations are almost entirely on the horizontal axis, i.e. in the width of certain parts of the body. So how do we feminize or masculinize our basic figure? On the structural level we're still working on, there's actually just one big difference to master, and the rest are small helpful details.

The Shoulders/Hips Ratio

The primary difference is the relationship of shoulder width to hips. Women have a much broader pelvic bone than men, since they need to be able to bear and give birth to a child. This one, central fact has consequences throughout the body. It means that in women the hip line is the broadest part of the body, and a narrower waist appears by contrast, while in men the broadest part is the shoulder line, and the waist is hardly different from the hips. The overall female silhouette, then, is an hourglass as opposed to the male trapeze shown below.

Waist Line and Elbows

A woman's waist line is level with the belly button but a man's appears much lower. This makes the torso on a male look longer. This is worth remembering, as in my early years I drew equal-length torsos and same-level trouser lines for both sexes and wondered for a long time why the men didn't look right. Also, be careful not to align the elbows with this apparently lower waist! The reference for the elbow joint remains the belly button, so that unlike the female figure, if the impression we have of a man's waist is where his trousers start, the elbows will look much higher.

[Marsh.]

I think it's fairer to say that some folk aren't begging to jump on a particular bandwagon. I thought as writers, we write about the things we know... to expect all those writers to then include certain minorities and trans-folk in all their stories, is a bit silly... because then the next thing that will be said is "Well, what do you know about X issues/contexts, so how could you write about this authentically?..." It's not a battle any creator of things can win I think.

There is a huge following of LGBT fanfolk who have rewritten or redrawn Harry Potter characters in those different contexts, and I think they do a far better job than the original creator in translating those characters to those romantic contexts... so I think that this is area of fanfolk, to reimagine these role models in those specific contexts... that doesn't dismiss that other writers or creators may create something totally new tomorrow (or even Rowling herself)... but then that again--she may very well be accused for only jumping on the bandwagon to "save herself" or some inauthentic nod.Oh no. I mean Dumbledore is gay . They're not asking her to just include a gay character or make one gay. Dumbledore is. [emoji23]

But he doesn't reference it because it's not really relevant.

I'd say that's much more progressive than making a song and dance out of it. We're passed the stage where any and all gay characters must make the story all about being gay, so it makes me think some people are their own worst enemies. They want to be accepted and then at that crucial stage they fear being nothing special and just one of the kind. [emoji23]

My take on it anyway.

[Marsh.]

Well quite. Man in a dress, was not meaning to reference transsexuals. It was about quite literal men in dresses.



Haha did she really get **** for that...

I have read theories that snape is apparently trans before. The tells are all there they say..Snape was a doppelganger for the mum of an old friend of mine so I would buy that deffo.

[kirklancaster]

Oh no. I mean Dumbledore is gay . They're not asking her to just include a gay character or make one gay. Dumbledore is. [emoji23]

But he doesn't reference it because it's not really relevant.

I'd say that's much more progressive than making a song and dance out of it. We're passed the stage where any and all gay characters must make the story all about being gay, so it makes me think some people are their own worst enemies. They want to be accepted and then at that crucial stage they fear being nothing special and just one of the kind. [emoji23]

My take on it anyway.


Mine too Marsh - Exactly so.

[Maru]

Oh no. I mean Dumbledore is gay . They're not asking her to just include a gay character or make one gay. Dumbledore is. [emoji23]

But he doesn't reference it because it's not really relevant.

I'd say that's much more progressive than making a song and dance out of it. We're passed the stage where any and all gay characters must make the story all about being gay, so it makes me think some people are their own worst enemies. They want to be accepted and then at that crucial stage they fear being nothing special and just one of the kind. [emoji23]

My take on it anyway.

Right, but that's what I mean. It's not her bread and butter and so she prefers to keep the story around the main plotline. Though I think some people relate so well with some of the smaller aspects of the story, that they can't really understand why it doesn't get fleshed out in canon...

In Japanese manga/anime, it's the complete opposite. Gay characters are brought into main storylines all the time and they're not afraid to put in a blaringly over the top crossdressing/over the top macho male gay character for comedic relief either. But that could be perceived here as being anti-LGBT as it's considered a "sensitive" area... whereas LGBT characters have been quite prevalent for some time in manga. For example, Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune's storyline in Sailor Moon which was heavily censored here (they're cousins in that version) in the syndicated for TV American version... but left as is in the English manga iirc.

Sailor Neptune and Uranus Come Out of the Fictional Closet
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-ronceromenendez/kissing-cousins-viz-wont-_b_5353859.html

[Vicky.]

Where do you see all this stuff, Vicky? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I can't say it's generally something I ever see or have experienced. Maybe we just frequent different sites and that's what it is, but from my perspective at least it seems a little blown out of proportion?

Twitter, facebook, mumsnet..and fairly recently on various labour forums. Along with direct threats recieved in real life. And friends of mine being abused by transactivists in real life for daring to attend meetings that discuss quite what the upcoming changes will mean for women..such meetings have to be held in private now, because of the viciousness of transactivists. There has been actual physical violence, and everty venue can only be disclosed literally an hour before the meeting starts, because otherwise transactivists will spam the **** out of the business in phone and email to get them to cancel. Recently though, there was a spectacular own goal, they had harassed Milwall (****ing millwall!) into cancelling, so the organiser had to find somewhere else to host, and the meeting was held in the houses of parliament :D Oddly enough, there was no gaggle of shouty angry people ready to commit assault when it was hosted there...maybe the threat of armed guards is too much for them.

I disagree with screaming transphobic at people, that's not helpful...but equally I do see transwomen as women. The thing is though, perhaps this forum mirrors the wider debate, in that there has to be a little give and take on both sides? To put it another way, if some transactivists feel as though their very existence is being minimised (in the same way some females feel the same) - is it not easy to to see why they'd retaliate in the same way? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it could just be a retaliation, and then it becomes a vicious circle where everyone hates each other and there's no productive and respectful discussions amongst either side to reach some kind of conclusion.

Transactivists brought this fight to us. To be quite blunt. before they started their ****, women politely looked the other way whilst obvious male people were using womens areas for years and years. Because, well transsexual people have a hard enough life to start with. Then, Stonewall lumped in transvestites and just any gender non conforming person under the mass label of transgender and transactivists started campaigning for all under the umbrella, and literally anyone who just said 'I am a woman' to have access..and it all went to ****. Women just are not going to accept transvestites or ordinary male people just who like to have long hair or whatever in their areas the same way they accepted transsexuals. Its a hugely different thing and a distinction must be made.

It is actually the behaviour of transactivists thats opening up this whole topic for debate now. There was a steady trickle of people waking up to the implications of all of this, and then transactivists decided to jump on a 60 year old woman and attack her, for having an opposing opinion (and in speakers corner none the less...) and thats when the floodgates opened tbh. Its been lesbians bearing the brunt of this for a very long time now..and finally the public appear to be waking up to it all a little more and realising that this is NOT about transsexual people at all.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3146166-Transactivism-and-the-lesbian-community

Here is a heartbreaking thread about quite what this transactivists narrative is doing to the lesbian community (I had to hunt that down as its something I read a while back, but its worth hunting down as I know you will actually read it :p )


I meant more policing it in terms of entry into toilets/changing rooms, but I see what you mean.

Ah. My reply was actually about refuges and prisons, given thats the part you said was harder :laugh:


The prisons/refuges one is a difficult issue as I mentioned earlier, and I would probably lean towards the trans wing suggestion you made. I think the overarching concern that needs to be addressed though is how prisons are actually sites of enormous violence (be it directly or indirectly, from other inmates or corrupt staff) against marginalised people, and yes that includes women. The prison industrial complex is so problematic on so many levels that it needs a full and frank reassessment, and really it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

And sex segregation absolutely MUST remain in the general population. Not just because of the risk of violence, but also the risk of pregnancy.

Which is actually part of my issue with the likes of girl guides going stealth gender neutral after training with 'gendered intelligence'. Nothing against them opening up to both sexes, but they have done this without actually telling parents that currently, people with penises could be sharing rooms with their teen daughters. Can't see where that could go wrong...we seem to be throwing everything we know about safeguarding out of the window when it comes to trans matters. Quite why, is anyones guess.



Yes! If correctly corresponding genitalia is the prerequisite of entering a sex-segregated area, then is the logical conclusion not that any and ALL trans people MUST have sex reassignment surgery in order to enter them?

Well, they could also use the male areas. Maybe we could relabel these areas as 'people with penises' and 'people without penises' for clarification here? There could be more cash and effort put into preventing male violence, towards those who are gender non conforming and everyone else too tbh. Honestly, what I do not understand about this 'trans people are scared of violence from male people' argument is that...womens concerns are about this very same violence, but women are expected to ignore this risk.





I genuinely mean transexuals. I realise there's a bit of conflation in that the term assumes people who are or will have be having SRS, but there are genuinely trans people who have no desire to modify their body in any way. Not people who are just making it up to be ~cool~ or whatever (as I think you're referring to), but people who've lived for years or decades as the gender of their choice without having surgery. I chose not to use 'trans' or 'transgender' because I thought you'd make the point that you don't believe in them anyway.

A trans person who did not modify themselves in any way, would surely just be a person who does not conform to stereotypes?(or even a crossdresser) I don't see how a person who just does not follow stereotypes needs to be in the areas associated with the opposite sex.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but I could've sworn you've made the point or at least agreed before that encouraging people to have surgery is actually quite problematic? Yes.

And that really, people should be allowed to live however they like without feeling like they HAVE to modify their body (unless they really want to)?

Also yes, People should be able to dress and such however they wish to without feeling that they have to be the opposite sex in order to do those things.

Which is what my point is - if the rule is that segregated areas are separated anatomically, that basically means trans people who have for years never had any desire to have surgery, and have been using female areas, must now do so in order to continue?

A trans person who has never had any desire to physically transition and thus is male in every way bar clothing and such..should use the male areas tbh. I don't think saying that male people with no desire to ever transition, but who chose to follow a different set of stereotypes ('gender expression', if you will) should use areas designated for males is especially controversial? May be wrong there though.

Here's another interesting question for you - if you don't believe that anyone can truly change sex, and don't wish to have penises in female-only spaces, why would someone having sex reassignment surgery be almost a cast iron guarantee that they wouldn't attack someone? If they're biologically still the same person, and are predisposed to do that - what difference does not having a penis make (other than the obvious legal implications)?

Its not a cast iron guarantee at all. However I reckon if you hate yourself to the degree that you will go through such surgeries to feel at ease with yourself, then you should be given a break every now and again tbh :shrug: There are a lot of women who think even post operative transwomen should not be allowed to use female areas. I am not one of them.


I completely agree with the latter part however! We need to completely break down gender and toxic masculinity.

A world without 'gender' would be bloody amazing tbh. We seemed to be getting there in the 80s, with men being more feminine and such and it being fine and even applauded. This then seemed to disappear. Then we seemed to be getting somewhere in regards to children, with more and more people willing to let their boys play with dolls and their girls play in the mud. Then from nowhere, this seems to have turned into 'if your boy is feminine he must be trans!'. Its quite infuriating tbh.




I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Are you being serious? You cannot tell what sex someone is unless you see cleavage?



But they can do that now though? Why would the law put off a predator entering a female-only space? Criminals aren't interested in the law or signs above toilet doors, they'll do whatever they like. And any trans person that passes but hasn't had surgery is already doing so?
A lock would not put off a burglar, why have locks?

Honestly, each time this gets said, I read it as 'women are going to be attacked no matter what, why bother trying to reduce that chance somewhat?' I know that sounds really depressing, but thats how it comes over.

This may interest you, or not

http://womanmeanssomething.com/targetstudy/

Seems from the limited data thats there, some sexual predators ARE put off by a sign on the door...

[Marsh.]

Right, but that's what I mean. It's not her bread and butter and so she prefers to keep the story around the main plotline. Though I think some people relate so well with some of the smaller aspects of the story, that they can't really understand why it doesn't get fleshed out in canon...

In Japanese manga/anime, it's the complete opposite. Gay characters are brought into main storylines all the time and they're not afraid to put in a blaringly over the top crossdressing/over the top macho male gay character for comedic relief either. But that could be perceived here as being anti-LGBT as it's considered a "sensitive" area... whereas LGBT characters have been quite prevalent for some time in manga. For example, Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune's storyline in Sailor Moon which was heavily censored here (they're cousins in that version) in the syndicated for TV American version... but left as is in the English manga iirc.

Sailor Neptune and Uranus Come Out of the Fictional Closet
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-ronceromenendez/kissing-cousins-viz-wont-_b_5353859.html

Well romances are part of the bread and butter of her stories. If she wanted, I don't doubt she could've successfully included one in the story. I don't think gay romances are all that different to straight ones fundamentally.

It just didn't happen and they decided to take it as a slight against them.

Even though him being gay, but it not being a big deal is such a huge thing imo.

[Vicky.]

Dumbledore getting it on with Voldemort could have made deathly hallows part 1 a little more interesting, I must say.

[Maru]

Dumbledore getting it on with Voldemort could have made deathly hallows part 1 a little more interesting, I must say.

Yeah, well, don't ever search characters you like in image search without safe search on, as you will be in for a big shock. :laugh: Unless you're into that... I'm not that big of a Potter fan as I've only watched the movies, but when I search fantasy art references and end up at DeviantArt, there's always some way Snape porn ends up in the mix...

[Vicky.]

Yeah, well, don't ever search characters you like in image search without safe search on, as you will be in for a big shock. :laugh: Unless you're into that... I'm not that big of a Potter fan as I've only watched the movies, but when I search fantasy art references and end up at DeviantArt, there's always some way Snape porn ends up in the mix...

I have seen Harry Potter fanfic before.

Infact I freaked the **** out of my sister once years back by sending her a picture of the Harry/Draco slash stuff :D

I once read one of the fanfic things too. It was disturbing

[Maru]

I have seen Harry Potter fanfic before.

Infact I freaked the **** out of my sister once years back by sending her a picture of the Harry/Draco slash stuff :D

I once read one of the fanfic things too. It was disturbing

:laugh: OMG this is taking up way too much space in my mind right now...

It does seem like if fanfic folk had their way, every single character in a plotline I think would be used to create/hinder/release sexual tension in some way... and this is fine if you're Nora Roberts or into writing smut, but I think that action/adventure/fantasy should focus more on the hero versus the world genre... put in too many romantic references and it's like watching someone play click adventure porn.

https://media.giphy.com/media/UgVPXYfJt1Xhe/giphy.gif

[kirklancaster]

:laugh: OMG this is taking up way too much space in my mind right now...

It does seem like if fanfic folk had their way, every single character in a plotline I think would be used to create/hinder/release sexual tension in some way... and this is fine if you're Nora Roberts or into writing smut, but I think that action/adventure/fantasy should focus more on the hero versus the world genre... put in too many romantic references and it's like watching someone play click adventure porn.

https://media.giphy.com/media/UgVPXYfJt1Xhe/giphy.gif

Lord help me - NOW I am lost in this thread. I did not know that ANY of this 'Frantic' stuff existed. :laugh::shrug:

[Beso]

Lord help me - NOW I am lost in this thread. I did not know that ANY of this 'Frantic' stuff existed. :laugh::shrug:

I made one for you and marsh.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJOMqZrdHQ

[Kizzy]

I'm sorry Kizzy but I respectfully disagree. I can see that you're criticising the 'people aren't being honest' argument and that's fine...but that's Toy Soldier's ballgame and not mine. From my experience and/or (more often) observation, there have been on occasions (not necessarily in this thread or in recent ones since people have started airing their concerns) in the last year or so, many instances of male voices having their opinions denigrated and validity called into question based on their sex. Often in a snide, indirect and baiting manner too. It's not helpful and is not conducive to a productive debate, or a debate at all for that matter.



No, I get that totally. Hence why on several occasions I've qualified my point by saying that my personal stake in this topic is obviously COMPLETELY different to that of a female's lived experience. But it's still a personal stake, just from a different angle - that's all my point was.



I'm not sure I understand this bit. I completely agree that feeling afraid to be honest about my genuine opinions is not conducive to civilised and reasoned debate! But I don't think I've suggested that the rest of the forum should? I think you're getting mine and TS' line of arguments mixed up here, I didn't make the point that people aren't being honest...he did. I was coming at it from a different angle.



I'm glad we agree on this however!

With respect I can't help but get your views tangled as you highlighted his views as relevant and they do seem to chime with your own on this, they aren't a million miles apart.
That's not to say I agree however, I can't think of one thread where a male opinion has been denigrated or deemed irrelevant. I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't work both ways even should you feel that, in all seriousness feminism isn't exactly the forte of some of the male regular members of this forum... That's not a snipe by the way that's an observation.

I'm not saying your angle is lesser ( I know you didn't say this, but I don't want my wording misconstrued) than mine as you say just different, my angle is different again from someone who has felt that fear, it's not specific to my gender to empathise with the abused. We have to appreciate that there has to be some rights afforded to them too. Which is why I felt the unisex option alongside the existing facilities had to be the most inclusive option.

You understood me well enough that's more or less what I was trying to say, aside from I meant the rest of the forum should remain civilised while speaking their minds. You remain civilised while not speaking your mind which is easy to do... some are being accused of speaking their mind whilst not being honest and still managing to come over as offensive. I appreciate that is not your view.

[Maru]

I made one for you and marsh.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJOMqZrdHQ

https://i.imgur.com/8uZk2xS.jpg

https://media.giphy.com/media/gmg7s5bBQzlN6/giphy.gif

[Marsh.]

Dumbledore getting it on with Voldemort could have made deathly hallows part 1 a little more interesting, I must say.I love that one!

DON'T COME TO HER!!!

[Marsh.]

i will never buy another one of Harry Potters books in protest of this outrageBut if you already bought them why would you buy them again. :smug:

Unless you're still on book 1. Catch up slow coach. :oh:

[Ammi]

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time :p

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched :umm2: And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.



Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX :shrug:

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.



The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery? :suspect:

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'
Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?


And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.




The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

..it’s funny because (..some ..)..trans activists..the ones who would oppose and not be open to a compromise, as you say Vicky....They’re dismissing the vulnerabilities of ‘woman’...that ‘woman’ exists as an entirety of their vulnerabilities also through their gender...which seems to be the ‘sticky point’ as it were atm...I’m not sure we’ve ever had proposed legislation concerning two vulnerables in society before...maybe there has been, I can’t think...


...anyways I don’t think there has been any double standards in this topic...I think standards have been flexible because that’s been necessary to be so with ‘one size never fits all’....and labelling of terminology would be so restrictive in gaining understanding of something which is so recent in its recognition in society...

[kirklancaster]

I made one for you and marsh.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJOMqZrdHQ

:joker: I'm learning all the time.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i will never buy another one of Harry Potters books in protest of this outrage

But if you already bought them why would you buy them again. :smug:

Unless you're still on book 1. Catch up slow coach. :oh:

Sorry, I meant the Hairy Bikers

I will never buy another of their transphoblic cookbooks eva again

:hmph:

[GoldHeart]

I doubt JK meant any offense . I wish people would calm down ,there's far worse that gets liked and retweeted :bored: .

[Vicky.]

For jack, when he comes back on...as I doubt anyone else will read it and my conversation was actually with him :laugh: I also know jack will not just disregard it as its from a feminist site like some would.

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/03/23/leftist-women-uk-refuse-accept-labours-attempts-silence-critiques-gender-identity/

Its long, but explains quite how women who speak up about any of this are treat by transactivists. Its not a comprehensive list (nor does it mention the actual physical violence), but should explain a lot..especially if you have never seen such behaviour. Its a very large issue in the Labour party right now, which the article touches upon.

*I should maybe say that its not ALL transactivists who behave like this, but it seems to be a very significant amount and it is every single one I have ever came across (not that I come across them as such, they come to me, threatening my life and my children)

[user104658]

It's an issue that's clearly infused with a lot of anger and emotion on both sides and I think what you're experiencing is "severe backlash", which of course doesn't make it excusable but I personally believe that it always helps to remember that it's usually borne of frustration. Strangely though, the article insists that the threats are received because of "wanting debate" on this issue but then, does anyone actually "want debate"? My experience of it, including this thread, is that people are not really "open to debate" on the issue at all and what they are infact asking for is not a debate, but a platform, and debate is actively discouraged or shot down with arbitrary "gotchas".

Frustration / anger / violence is the inevitable outcome of excluding free, open and emotionally stable academic discussion of any issue.

[Niamh.]

It's an issue that's clearly infused with a lot of anger and emotion on both sides and I think what you're experiencing is "severe backlash", which of course doesn't make it excusable but I personally believe that it always helps to remember that it's usually borne of frustration. Strangely though, the article insists that the threats are received because of "wanting debate" on this issue but then, does anyone actually "want debate"? My experience of it, including this thread, is that people are not really "open to debate" on the issue at all and what they are infact asking for is not a debate, but a platform, and debate is actively discouraged or shot down with arbitrary "gotchas".

Frustration / anger / violence is the inevitable outcome of excluding free, open and emotionally stable academic discussion of any issue.

Really? I honestly thought of any of the subjects discussed in SDs, this one has gone pretty well in general. People have for the most part listened to eachothers POVs and posted very well thought out and researched arguments

[Kizzy]

It's an issue that's clearly infused with a lot of anger and emotion on both sides and I think what you're experiencing is "severe backlash", which of course doesn't make it excusable but I personally believe that it always helps to remember that it's usually borne of frustration. Strangely though, the article insists that the threats are received because of "wanting debate" on this issue but then, does anyone actually "want debate"? My experience of it, including this thread, is that people are not really "open to debate" on the issue at all and what they are infact asking for is not a debate, but a platform, and debate is actively discouraged or shot down with arbitrary "gotchas".

Frustration / anger / violence is the inevitable outcome of excluding free, open and emotionally stable academic discussion of any issue.

Odd because I had a very interesting amiable debate with Jack yesterday, it seems we are in agreement as to the best outcome for the trans community on one of the main issues, have you ever thought it might not be everyone else but yourself with the problem?

If you wren't so hostile and accusatory you wouldn't be feeling so misunderstood.

[jaxie]

Odd because I had a very interesting amiable debate with Jack yesterday, it seems we are in agreement as to the best outcome for the trans community on one of the main issues, have you ever thought it might not be everyone else but yourself with the problem?

If you wren't so hostile and accusatory you wouldn't be feeling so misunderstood.

I think you make a fair point here Kizzy.

Really? I honestly thought of any of the subjects discussed in SDs, this one has gone pretty well in general. People have for the most part listened to eachothers POVs and posted very well thought out and researched arguments

I would agree with this, I feel like TS and I are reading a different thread.

Then again he demonised me in it without showing me where I said he couldn't comment so IDK. :shrug:

[Twosugars]

I doubt JK meant any offense . I wish people would calm down ,there's far worse that gets liked and retweeted :bored: .

well said

[user104658]

Really? I honestly thought of any of the subjects discussed in SDs, this one has gone pretty well in general. People have for the most part listened to eachothers POVs and posted very well thought out and researched arguments

Of course discussions go well when people more or less all agree with each other and stick to the supposed hierarchy of opinion validity... as far as I'm aware, there are no male to female transexuals on this forum to become frustrated with the fairly one-sided rhetoric? So we have absolutely no idea how "the other people" actually affected by this would feel about this (ahem) "debate"... and those are the people who are being described in the link that Vicky has given. Yes, there will be an extreme element, but for the mostpart, those are the people I am talking about. People who are marginalised act out of fear and anger. You only need to read this thread to see why they might feel marginalised.

[user104658]

I would agree with this, I feel like TS and I are reading a different thread.


Or we're reading exactly the same thread but from different perspectives, and you're making the error of assuming that your perspective is the only one that's valid. Or I suppose I should clarify; "more valid", since I'm being lambasted for saying that I'm "not allowed an opinion" or that my "opinion isn't valid" - which is in fact not what I have said at any point - I have commented and complained on the idea that there is a hierarchy where some opinions apparently carry more weight than others for arbitrary reasons, and that I completely disagree with that notion. I'm sure this objection will be ignored again, however, and the convenient line that I "mistakenly think I'm not allowed any opinion" will continue to be used.

[jaxie]

Or we're reading exactly the same thread but from different perspectives, and you're making the error of assuming that your perspective is the only one that's valid. Or I suppose I should clarify; "more valid", since I'm being lambasted for saying that I'm "not allowed an opinion" or that my "opinion isn't valid" - which is in fact not what I have said at any point - I have commented and complained on the idea that there is a hierarchy where some opinions apparently carry more weight than others for arbitrary reasons, and that I completely disagree with that notion. I'm sure this objection will be ignored again, however, and the convenient line that I "mistakenly think I'm not allowed any opinion" will continue to be used.

Fair enough you feel you are being moderated unfairly. So now can you explain why you picked out me, Cherie and Brillo as some sort of villains?

[Vicky.]

Really? I honestly thought of any of the subjects discussed in SDs, this one has gone pretty well in general. People have for the most part listened to eachothers POVs and posted very well thought out and researched arguments

Indeed.

Again, like kizzy yesterday I had a pretty decent discussion on the topic with jack

And yes, threats are recieved because of wanting debate. But apparently the topic is #nodebate. So trying to talk about the issue, beyond parroting the cultlike chant of 'transwomen are women' results in abuse, threats and actual violence.

Of course people are free to hold the belief that transwomen are women. But thats very different to transactivists way of 'debating'. Every single thing is shouted down as bigoted. Even asking questions results in threats and cries of bigot. Their approach is so wrong its laughable really. They are alienating people who would otherwise be allies. I mean, I have absolutely nothing at all against people being transsexual, nor people being 'gender noncomforning' (hell I think everyone is gender nonconforming as noone is a walking stereotype) and would fight alongside transpeople for their own spaces and for the right to live free of violence and such. I think many of the issue transpeople face are similar to the issues faced by women. However I just will not say that transwomen and women are the same thing, they clearly are not.

I came properly to this topic in a rather odd way. I had heard a story about a transactivist who was causing issues. I like others assumed this was just a random nutter. If you look back over my past posts on this topic (except for the past year or so, since my eyes were opened to the dark side of all of this) I was 100% supportive of 'trans rights'. I asked why transvestites felt the need to use womens spaces. And I got in return and absolute barrage of abuse, calling me transphobic, ****, bitch, along with pretty much every sex specific insult known to man. This is when I realised that trans and transsexual were not classed as one and the same. I then read up a lot more on everything and it did disturb me. Then came the selfID thing, and I realised that the only people selfID would actually help are the likes of the transvestites and pisstaking predators. I read a lot about how selfID first came to be a serious suggestion, and it turned out that Maria Miller had basically, ignored all other groups and only taken into account the views of trans pressure groups. I realised that there were proposals to remove the existing exemptions in the GRA (the likes of prisons and such), oddly enough though, the primogeniture exemption was likely to remain.

The primogeniture clause is the only way transmen could benefit from self ID. However, an older sister becoming 'legally a man' cannot inherit instead of her younger brother. As apparently women would abuse it. But, we are expected to believe that no man would abuse selfID for his own purposes. So yet again, women would abuse something but men would not,

Thats when the penny started dropping that the movement was inherently sexist. I had suspicions due to the behaviour of transactivists (who are usually male, and pretty young) but the fact that noone seemed to be fighting to get rid of this 'transphobic' exemption along with the ones that would benefit men...well... if we are expected to believe that you can just change sex by ticking a box, then surely the same should go for FtM people?

The movement is entirely about male people. I suspect this is how it has come so far in such a short space of time. That along with attaching itself to LBG rights. However, so many on the trans side are so ****ing homophobic its unbelievable. I have mentioned the cotton ceiling before. When I had my eyes opened on this topic I actually spoke to a few lesbian friends about it all and it turned out each of them had had abuse, sometimes physical, because of this whole 'lesbians must be attracted to male bodied people who say they are women' rubbish. So its really really not just a fringe group online, its affecting the lives of actual real lesbians as we speak.

Have posted one of these links before, but they are well worth a read (I know I post a lot of mumsnet links, but mumsnet is pretty much the only place where actual honest debate on the topic is allowed. Any actual transphobia is deleted swiftly though, as it should be)

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3146166-Transactivism-and-the-lesbian-community

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3199220-Lesbians-and-the-Trans-debate

The second links to a video by a lesbian woman who was kicked out of her uni support group for saying that she was not attracted to male people.

Lesbians are also under intense pressure from transactivists to just 'come out' as transmen. Record numbers of young girls are somehow being convinced they are trans, and turning up at gender clinics. Thousands now. But it turns out only a few of them (I believe its 100 or so) actually have sex dysphoria. Something is going massively wrong here, and its really not being helped by pressure groups such as mermaids going into primary schools to tell children that they can change sex and that stereotypes are basically more important than your sexed body.

https://twitter.com/LilyLilyMaynard/status/952325968458321920

This is the kind of rubbish Mermaids spout. Barbie to GI Joe indeed.


I may have gone into total waffle by now but I could literally type on this subject for hours and hours the amount I have read on it all.

But yes, I want a bloody debate on it all. I like hearing different views, you cannot debate without them afterall. I want actual women and feminist groups to be consulted on this law change, rather than just trans groups, given it will affect women more than anyone else. Hell I want mens groups involved in teh debate too. Everyone, not just trans groups...it does not just affect trans people, it will effect everyone to varying degrees, but primarily women

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

This^ Is what I want. Yet thats considered transphobic too, to think anyone else besides trans groups should be consulted ffs.

[Niamh.]

Of course discussions go well when people more or less all agree with each other and stick to the supposed hierarchy of opinion validity... as far as I'm aware, there are no male to female transexuals on this forum to become frustrated with the fairly one-sided rhetoric? So we have absolutely no idea how "the other people" actually affected by this would feel about this (ahem) "debate"... and those are the people who are being described in the link that Vicky has given. Yes, there will be an extreme element, but for the mostpart, those are the people I am talking about. People who are marginalised act out of fear and anger. You only need to read this thread to see why they might feel marginalised.

So they are going well or they're not? My post was in response to you saying that they weren't but now you're saying the total opposite.

[Cherie]

I didn't intend to single you out personally so i cant point you to where you have done this but there is the other trans based thread where I put this across the other day.

There is a double standard across the forum.

and I didn't say your opinion was unwelcome on there either, it really isn't my style. TS has a very sly habit of lumping certain posters together so as to dilute their opinions, I didn't agree with Jaxie or Brillo or quote any of their posts in this thread, the only post I interacted with Brillo was when I thanked her for acknowledging a post that was ignored, every single female on this thread has more or less the same view on this topic it's quite strange that he has managed to read something into just our posts that no one else on the thread has seen

[user104658]

So they are going well or they're not? My post was in response to you saying that they weren't but now you're saying the total opposite.

The discussion went well because it was a discussion amongst like-minded people, and at the very most one person (Jack) who was taking a more or less neutral stance. Why would that discussion not go well? It wasn't a debate and any significant diversion from the status quo was made very quickly unwelcome. Again, it was NOT a debate, and debate on this subject is NOT welcome.

Vis a vis; I can only imagine how this thread would have gone if, say, 5 male to female transexuals had appeared and gotten involved. I'm going to hazard a guess at "lol, not well."

[Vicky.]

Ontop of that (rather large post) of course I realize that there are many transsexual people just wanting to live out their lives in peace. I think its a massive shame that it seems they may be collateral damage in a fight brought by the very people who claim to fight FOR them (who actually call transsexual people truscum) and again, I feel I should state that these people are not a problem, at all. Its transactivists and 'transgender' types who are all mememememe and seemingly just want to trample over the things women have managed to carve out for themselves. See as an example, Lily Madigan. Check out lilys twitter feed for their attitude towards women (or even try asking Lily a question such as 'what are you planning on doing for women in your post', you will be blocked immediately), whilst taking the position of womens officer as a 19 year old male (now 20) after bullying another woman out of her post. I think the fact that the entire board quit in protest shows that the woman was not in the wrong too.

The behaviour of many transactivists is bringing hostility on the entire movement. Yet they continue. I suspect the reason for this is that many transactivists do not actually give a **** about transsexual people, or women, they are mens rights activists. Maybe the incel type, given the narcisism and misogyny they spout and the way they only attack women for speaking out. men are free to speak out without abuse, but god forbid a woman speaks her mind or even asks questions that they deem inappropriate.

[Niamh.]

The discussion went well because it was a discussion amongst like-minded people, and at the very most one person (Jack) who was taking a more or less neutral stance. Why would that discussion not go well? It wasn't a debate and any significant diversion from the status quo was made very quickly unwelcome. Again, it was NOT a debate, and debate on this subject is NOT welcome.

Vis a vis; I can only imagine how this thread would have gone if, say, 5 male to female transexuals had appeared and gotten involved. I'm going to hazard a guess at "lol, not well."

Well tbf the main "diversion from the status quo" was you accusing people of not really caring about womens rights and only pretending to, to hide the inner transphobe, did you just expect people to nod and agree with that or....?

[user104658]

The behaviour of many transactivists is bringing hostility on the entire movement. Yet they continue. I suspect the reason for this is that many transactivists do not actually give a **** about transsexual people, or women, they are mens rights activists. Maybe the incel type, given the narcisism and misogyny they spout and the way they only attack women for speaking out. men are free to speak out without abuse, but god forbid a woman speaks her mind or even asks questions that they deem inappropriate.

I'm not going to deny that this is clearly true; but it baffles me that you can clearly see this and not acknowledge that the flipside (largely, female and active feminists) is equally true. Trying to paint a picture where all reasonable, rational women's rights activists are attacked "out of the blue" by activists on the flipside is a complete (deliberate?) misrepresentation. And whilst yes, I'm sure there ARE many reasonable, rational women's rights activists who get caught in the angry crossfire (just as you point out transpeople who just want to get on with it are)... this completely overlooks the fact that it "takes two to tango", so to speak, and there isn't "entirely unprompted" lashing out on either side.

[Vicky.]

I'm not going to deny that this is clearly true; but it baffles me that you can clearly see this and not acknowledge that the flipside (largely, female and active feminists) is equally true. Trying to paint a picture where all reasonable, rational women's rights activists are attacked "out of the blue" by activists on the flipside is a complete (deliberate?) misrepresentation. And whilst yes, I'm sure there ARE many reasonable, rational women's rights activists who get caught in the angry crossfire (just as you point out transpeople who just want to get on with it are)... this completely overlooks the fact that it "takes two to tango", so to speak, and there isn't "entirely unprompted" lashing out on either side.

But there is.

And womens rights activists ARE being attacked for simply attending meetings to speak about the changes and such.

I know you wouldn't want to believe that though.

Its not a misrepresentation. The most womens rights activists have done in this fight is argue their POV, attend meetings and identify as men on fridays to show selfID up for the rubbish it is.

[user104658]

Well tbf the main "diversion from the status quo" was you accusing people of not really caring about womens rights and only pretending to, to hide the inner transphobe, did you just expect people to nod and agree with that or....?

I believe that some people blow certain aspects of it being about women's rights / women's safety out of proportion because they are generally threatened by the very concept of M2F transgenderism, yes. I find many of the objections to be extreme and not particularly level-headed, and when that is the case, the reason is usually "fear". In this case, not rational fear of attack, but the same "fear of the unknown other" that has affected ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and (somewhat ironically) women themselves when campaigning for acceptance. Rewind the women's rights movement 100 years, to when women were first gaining access to what were traditionally "male spaces", and a lot of the rhetoric from "men scared of change" is very familiar.

Could I have entered this thread better? Yes, and no. Yes because I jumped in angry. No because I don't think doing it any differently will make a difference - as I'll be told that as a penis-bearer I can't possibly have a concept of the issue that is fully informed, or that while I'm entitled to my opinion, it's inferior to the opinion of any female who has given it 30 seconds thought or more. I know it won't go down well. I know it'll be paraphrased and misrepresented. I know this while this topic is fine for DISCUSSION, it is off the table for DEBATE on here, from experience, and yes, that makes me ... "angry and frustrated".

[Niamh.]

I believe that some people blow certain aspects of it being about women's rights / women's safety out of proportion because they are generally threatened by the very concept of M2F transgenderism, yes. I find many of the objections to be extreme and not particularly level-headed, and when that is the case, the reason is usually "fear". In this case, not rational fear of attack, but the same "fear of the unknown other" that has affected ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and (somewhat ironically) women themselves when campaigning for acceptance. Rewind the women's rights movement 100 years, to when women were first gaining access to what were traditionally "male spaces", and a lot of the rhetoric from "men scared of change" is very familiar.

Could I have entered this thread better? Yes, and no. Yes because I jumped in angry. No because I don't think doing it any differently will make a difference - as I'll be told that as a penis-bearer I can't possibly have a concept of the issue that is fully informed, or that while I'm entitled to my opinion, it's inferior to the opinion of any female who has given it 30 seconds thought or more. I know it won't go down well. I know it'll be paraphrased and misrepresented. I know this while this topic is fine for DISCUSSION, it is off the table for DEBATE on here, from experience, and yes, that makes me ... "angry and frustrated".


Well I don't know what kind of a reaction you were expecting tbf when you accuse people of what you did.

Anyway Withano, Jamie and Jack were perfectly able to have an opposing view without falling out with anyone or accusing them of basically lying about what they're concerned about.

Anyway, I'll leave it there with you.

[Marsh.]

And me Niamh. :nono: :oh: :(

[Niamh.]

And me Niamh. :nono: :oh: :(

Of course :love:

[user104658]

But there is.

And womens rights activists ARE being attacked for simply attending meetings to speak about the changes and such.

I know you wouldn't want to believe that though.


There are NO women's rights activists who are behaving in deliberately inflamatory and passive aggressive ways? None? Not... not even one? I'm sure you have to see that this claim is utterly ludicrous... it's practically a statistical impossibility. Of course there are thivk, angry people aggressively arguing stupid points. That is true of both sides of every debate there has ever been, so how you can be claiming that there is ZERO inflamatory feminist rhetoric caught up in this one, I really have no idea.

And yes... that's what "crossfire" means isn't it? Reasonable/rational Women's rights activists are being attacked because of boiling over anger; because of being lumped in with the angry, shouty, unreasonable ones. Just as transpeople are becoming increasingly angry about being lumped in with perverts and potential sex offenders. And so on, and so forth...


Its not a misrepresentation. The most womens rights activists have done in this fight is argue their POV, attend meetings and identify as men on fridays to show selfID up for the rubbish it is.

And you don't find that to be petty, or deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?

[user104658]

Well I don't know what kind of a reaction you were expecting tbf when you accuse people of what you did.

Exactly the reaction I got? :shrug:

[jaxie]

And me Niamh. :nono: :oh: :(

That's not true though is it but your calling me names was removed. :nono:

[Kizzy]

I believe that some people blow certain aspects of it being about women's rights / women's safety out of proportion because they are generally threatened by the very concept of M2F transgenderism, yes. I find many of the objections to be extreme and not particularly level-headed, and when that is the case, the reason is usually "fear". In this case, not rational fear of attack, but the same "fear of the unknown other" that has affected ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and (somewhat ironically) women themselves when campaigning for acceptance. Rewind the women's rights movement 100 years, to when women were first gaining access to what were traditionally "male spaces", and a lot of the rhetoric from "men scared of change" is very familiar.

Could I have entered this thread better? Yes, and no. Yes because I jumped in angry. No because I don't think doing it any differently will make a difference - as I'll be told that as a penis-bearer I can't possibly have a concept of the issue that is fully informed, or that while I'm entitled to my opinion, it's inferior to the opinion of any female who has given it 30 seconds thought or more. I know it won't go down well. I know it'll be paraphrased and misrepresented. I know this while this topic is fine for DISCUSSION, it is off the table for DEBATE on here, from experience, and yes, that makes me ... "angry and frustrated".

You jumped in ignorant! You had no definitive opinion of your own ( by your own admission) you have no clue as to the issues or reasoning of other forum members and neither have you any personal insight as to the issues facing the transgender community.

If you think that entitles you stomp into a thread and demand that others amend or review their views you are very very wrong!

The reason why you are so worried about being paraphrased is you are terrified because you know that no matter how you word it you are going to come across as someone who is wholly prejudiced.

You have nothing to feel angry and frustrated for, there were no challenges to your opinion you didn't have one you simply failed to understand the concerns as debated and threw in your unnecessarily offensive remarks.

[Marsh.]

That's not true though is it but your calling me names was removed. :nono:

And this name was?

Easy to accuse someone of something when it's apparently been "removed".

[jaxie]

And this name was?

Easy to accuse someone of something when it's apparently been "removed".

It's fine to deflect if you can't own it, I know the truth of what I saw in black and white.

[Vicky.]

And you don't find that to be petty, or deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?

Not at all. Do you have any other suggestions? It may some across as petty, but the reasons behind it are sound and it seems the men its affecting agree that its needed and they understand the issues now.

Also this is a result of being ignored for years and years. I was there when they decided to do this (I will not join in with it because...well I am not confident enough and I also have been sexually assaulted way too many times to want to be in a male area tbh) and it was decided (on which I agreed) that the only way that people will be listened to on this topic, is when it starts to affect men. Women are just written off as hysterical bigots, where men are allowed to have an opinion. Some things never change I guess :shrug:'

Also, swim england have oddly enough now decided that a consultation is actually needed, rather than just deciding that anyone can self identify into either changing room (or women only/men only sessions) and that anyone who objects should be 'reeducated by staff'. Its very good timing, I have to say, that this revision came after women started self identifying as men. I don't think anyone thought women would do it in the way men do.

So I see how it could come across as petty yes. But it has been effective, which was the point. writing en masse got us ignored. Affecting men, got it changed immediately.



Also on the rest of your post, of course I cannot say that no womens rights activists anywhere in the country behave in inappropriate ways. Thats ridiculous. But the women attending the meetings who were attacked, were not doing anything wrong. And were attacked for simply wanting to talk about a change that will affect them in a very negative way. The amount of transactivists who are behaving in this way vastly outnumber the one or two womens rights activists who may possibly be behaving in that way (though none I have seen/know). I did nothing wrong besides talk, and attracted death threats, rape threats, and threats against my children...and I have never ever issued a death threat, rape threat, or threatened anyones kids, obviously.

[Marsh.]

It's fine to deflect if you can't own it, I know the truth of what I saw in black and white.

Deflect it? I haven't called you anything.

The very fact you're not very forthcoming with what was actually said speaks volumes.

[jaxie]

Deflect it? I haven't called you anything.

The very fact you're not very forthcoming with what was actually said speaks volumes.

I am stunned that you would lie about it.

[Marsh.]

So, Jaxie has come back onto the thread to bait another argument about something she doesn't wish to actually say?

:joker:

[Vicky.]

Just as transpeople are becoming increasingly angry about being lumped in with perverts and potential sex offenders.

Also on this point, its not women who have done this either. Its stonewall who lumped transsexual people in with fetishists and such.

And a hell of a lot of transsexual people are trying to distance themselves from the 'transgender' label.

Also 'old school transsexuals' tend to be against selfID too. As it effectively makes the GRC utterly meaningless if anyone can get one.

[jaxie]

So, Jaxie has come back onto the thread to bait another argument about something she doesn't wish to actually say?

:joker:

I'm not rising to the baiting Marsh, we both know what you said and that the thread was closed 3 times for cleaning. I will completely own calling you a misogynist in return though. But don't make yourself out to be innocent, you aren't.

[Marsh.]

I'm not rising to the baiting Marsh, we both know what you said and that the thread was closed 3 times for cleaning. I will completely own calling you a misogynist in return though.

I'm baiting? You came in here to address me. I have no interest in you.

You called me a misogynist after I called you, what? It's much easier to either admit or deny when I know what I'm admitting or denying.

[user104658]

You jumped in ignorant!

More personal slurs, Kizzy?

You had no definitive opinion of your own ( by your own admission)

The purpose of debate is to develop and inform an opinion. I know that some people believe that it's about butting their heads against a wall until the wall breaks, but it's not, and it's perfectly acceptable to have views on aspects of a discussion - or in this place (accurately) believe that the subject isn't really up for discussion - without a pre-formed "definitive opinion".

you have no clue as to the issues or reasoning of other forum members

Questioning and criticising other people's reasoning is a valid and important part of debate. Again, I understand why that would be a problem in a thread that is not up for debate.

neither have you any personal insight as to the issues facing the transgender community.

As far as I'm aware, no one on this thread does?

If you think that entitles you stomp into a thread and demand that others amend or review their views you are very very wrong!

I explicitly did not "demand that others amend or review their views". I requested that they cut the BS and be a bit more honest about the root of their views because, in my opinion, 2 + 2 is equalling 5 a lot of the time.


The reason why you are so worried about being paraphrased is you are terrified because you know that no matter how you word it you are going to come across as someone who is wholly prejudiced.

I'm not "worried" about anything; I dislike being paraphrased (which I'm going to take on board, because I'm guilty of doing it to others) and I especially dislike being paraphrased "so what you're saying is..." style with the suggestion being something that I haven't said at all. I'm especially opposed to this when there isn't even a quote to clarify.

You have nothing to feel angry and frustrated for, there were no challenges to your opinion you didn't have one you simply failed to understand the concerns as debated and threw in your unnecessarily offensive remarks.

Don't be a hypocrite Kizzy; who are you to tell anyone that they are or are not allowed to feel? I suspect you'd take issue with it if someone did that to you?

[Marsh.]

I'm not going to just say "yes, I've said that" when you're not actually telling me what I am admitting to.

[jaxie]

I'm baiting? You came in here to address me. I have no interest in you.

You called me a misogynist after I called you, what? It's much easier to either admit or deny when I know what I'm admitting or denying.

It was while you were mocking me for not liking the cis add on if that helps.

Likewise apart from when you decide to call me names and polish your halo that you haven't been attacking in a thread.

Just for the record I've said all I'm saying to you.

[Niamh.]

I explicitly did not "demand that others amend or review their views". I requested that they cut the BS and be a bit more honest about the root of their views because, in my opinion, 2 + 2 is equalling 5 a lot of the time.

How ****ing patronising seriously.

[Marsh.]

It was while you were mocking me for not liking the cis add on if that helps.

Likewise apart from when you decide to call me names and polish your halo that you haven't been attacking in a thread.

Just for the record I've said all I'm saying to you.

This conversation would be a hell of a lot shorter if you'd just come out and say it?

Why all the baiting and mystery around something I've supposedly said to you? Just come out with it or shut up altogether. :shrug:

[jaxie]

How ****ing patronising seriously.

He is thinking for us now? Just wow.

How is that people think they know how others minds work and all their motives for any given subject after sharing a few opinions on a forum. It's ridiculous.

[user104658]

So now can you explain why you picked out me, Cherie and Brillo as some sort of villains?

As succinctly as I can;

My issue is that Brillo feels very strongly that she has the right to comment on Muslim-issues despite being a non-Muslim, and you and Cherie are invariably the first people to jump in to back her up on that right...

...and then on this thread Brillo felt that I did not have the right to comment on female-issues as I am a non-female... and you and Cherie were the first to back her up.


Brillo having contradictory stances isn't really the issue though; people often have contradictory opinions. The back-up though, just confirms to me that Brillo is "someone that you two will back up" regardless of what is actually being said. I'm not painting you as villains, just making an observation, but it does I think render it fairly meaningless when you jump in on other threads to adamantly state that "Brillo is entitled to her opinion!".

[Vicky.]

Jaxie/Marsh.

None of Marshs posts have been removed in here. In another similar thread that was closed for cleaning a few times, yes, but not in here.

Not sure if you are talking about this thread specifically, or the topic in general. So just wanted to clear that up.

[Marsh.]

Jaxie/Marsh.

None of Marshs posts have been removed in here. In another similar thread that was closed for cleaning a few times, yes, but not in here.

Not sure if you are talking about this thread specifically, or the topic in general. So just wanted to clear that up.

:clap1:

[Kizzy]

More personal slurs, Kizzy?



The purpose of debate is to develop and inform an opinion. I know that some people believe that it's about butting their heads against a wall until the wall breaks, but it's not, and it's perfectly acceptable to have views on aspects of a discussion - or in this place (accurately) believe that the subject isn't really up for discussion - without a pre-formed "definitive opinion".



Questioning and criticising other people's reasoning is a valid and important part of debate. Again, I understand why that would be a problem in a thread that is not up for debate.



As far as I'm aware, no one on this thread does?



I explicitly did not "demand that others amend or review their views". I requested that they cut the BS and be a bit more honest about the root of their views because, in my opinion, 2 + 2 is equalling 5 a lot of the time.




I'm not "worried" about anything; I dislike being paraphrased (which I'm going to take on board, because I'm guilty of doing it to others) and I especially dislike being paraphrased "so what you're saying is..." style with the suggestion being something that I haven't said at all. I'm especially opposed to this when there isn't even a quote to clarify.



Don't be a hypocrite Kizzy; who are you to tell anyone that they are or are not allowed to feel? I suspect you'd take issue with it if someone did that to you?

See... you're determined to take offence from the off! If you don't have an opinion of your own, you don't know anyone elses then by definition you're ignorant TS.

Again all I see here is presumption and hypocrisy ... you dislike 'so what your saying is'... but apparently you LOVE 'what you're NOT saying is'?....

I haven't told anyone how to feel, I imagine being told how to think?!

[jaxie]

Jaxie/Marsh.

None of Marshs posts have been removed in here. In another similar thread that was closed for cleaning a few times, yes, but not in here.

Not sure if you are talking about this thread specifically, or the topic in general. So just wanted to clear that up.

Oh thank you Vicky, for clarifying. I might be mistaking this for that thread then.

[user104658]

How ****ing patronising seriously.

Why is it patronising? Do we have to take everything that everyone says at face value without question in order to "not be patronising"?


He is thinking for us now? Just wow.

How is that people think they know how others minds work and all their motives for any given subject after sharing a few opinions on a forum. It's ridiculous.

I'm not thinking for anyone, I'm questioning people's thoughts and what the root of those thoughts might be. Which is again an absolutely bog standard part of any debate. If I believed that I "knew" what everyone was thinking, why would I be asking what the root of the thought is?

[jaxie]

:clap1:

I'll look and see if I can find the comment on this thread, if not then I apologise for posting a very valid point in the wrong thread.

[Marsh.]

I'll look and see if I can find the comment on this thread, if not then I apologise for posting a very valid point in the wrong thread.

So you've basically come in here "Oh, I need to respond to Marsh with something against him, now I'll go find something after I've already said something".

Happy hunting, I guess.

[Niamh.]

Why is it patronising? Do we have to take everything that everyone says at face value without question in order to "not be patronising"?




I'm not thinking for anyone, I'm questioning people's thoughts and what the root of those thoughts might be. Which is again an absolutely bog standard part of any debate. If I believed that I "knew" what everyone was thinking, why would I be asking what the root of the thought is?

Are you for real? Seriously? you want me to tell you why I think that it's patronising to tell a person that you think their arguments in a debate/discussion are a bunch of lies and are hiding their underlying transphobia?

Also, speaking for myself, I've always been into womens rights and a bit of a feminist, you can check back to when i joined this forum to see that but all of a sudden I don't really care about womens rights and am just pretending to to hide my transphobia? mm right.

[user104658]

See... you're determined to take offence from the off! If you don't have an opinion of your own, you don't know anyone elses then by definition you're ignorant TS.


I'm not taking offense Kizzy, I'm noting that (as with every other post directed at me recently) you're attempting (and failing) to cause offense.

Again all I see here is presumption and hypocrisy ... you dislike 'so what your saying is'... but apparently you LOVE 'what you're NOT saying is'?....



"I think you might have more to say that you're holding back" is not putting words in someone's mouth. There might be an implication of what "those things" are, I suppose, but then that would be easily cleared up with "No, what I'm holding back on saying is...". Someone could also say "Nope I'm not holding anything back" but again - in what world does that mean you MUST believe that? Is it debate? Really? If you think someone is holding back you should say so :shrug:.


And no, I don't accept that not having a full-and-set-in-stone opinion on any subject equates to ignorance. In fact, some of the most ignorant people I've ever encountered are those who DO have such concrete belief sets.

[jaxie]

As succinctly as I can;

My issue is that Brillo feels very strongly that she has the right to comment on Muslim-issues despite being a non-Muslim, and you and Cherie are invariably the first people to jump in to back her up on that right...

...and then on this thread Brillo felt that I did not have the right to comment on female-issues as I am a non-female... and you and Cherie were the first to back her up.


Brillo having contradictory stances isn't really the issue though; people often have contradictory opinions. The back-up though, just confirms to me that Brillo is "someone that you two will back up" regardless of what is actually being said. I'm not painting you as villains, just making an observation, but it does I think render it fairly meaningless when you jump in on other threads to adamantly state that "Brillo is entitled to her opinion!".

If you are going to lump me in as Brillo's defender, perhaps you should go through and see how many of her posts I quote. You might find the result a surprise. I will support Brillo the same as anyone else when I agree with her, but I'm not her cheer team. Get your facts straight before bring me into it please.

I do actually support everyone being allowed to have their opinion though and Brillo is probably the most shouted down person on the forum. But if you are telling me I am the first to back her up, you need to back that up with multiple examples or back off.

In bold. Show me.

[Marsh.]

Yeah, not having his own opinion simply means he doesn't know which side of the debate his feelings lie. That doesn't automatically mean he doesn't hold an opinion because he knows nothing of the topic. It simply means he's undecided, not ignorant.

[user104658]

Are you for real? Seriously? you want me to tell you why I think that it's patronising to tell a person that you think their arguments in a debate/discussion are a bunch of lies and are hiding their underlying transphobia?

I haven't said that anyone's opinions are "a bunch of lies", I've said that it seems to me - very strongly - that there's something more behind those opinions than what is being offered. A perfectly valid part of any debate, and frankly, the incredulity in the responses doesn't really make me think otherwise?

Also, speaking for myself, I've always been into womens rights and a bit of a feminist, you can check back to when i joined this forum to see that but all of a sudden I don't really care about womens rights and am just pretending to to hide my transphobia? mm right.

Again, I have never said that anyone is only "pretending" to support women's rights. I do however believe that there is currently a strong anti-trans sentiment that is being attached to the pursuit or defense of women's rights that could debatably be questioned as transphobic in nature - but that can't be confirmed or denied, apparently, as it is not open to debate but only a flat "NO. DENY. DO NOT QUESTION AGAIN!". Serious debates. It should be OK to question someone's thinking! Or maybe we should rename the forum "Serious Soapboxing And Accepting Other People's Views Without Question". Wordsy, but more accurate.

[jaxie]

So you've basically come in here "Oh, I need to respond to Marsh with something against him, now I'll go find something after I've already said something".

Happy hunting, I guess.

Don't be ridiculous, my world doesn't revolve around you.

[Marsh.]

Don't be ridiculous, my world doesn't revolve around you.

Clearly, everything you're posting in this thread supports that.

Goodbye.

[Niamh.]

I haven't said that anyone's opinions are "a bunch of lies", I've said that it seems to me - very strongly - that there's something more behind those opinions than what is being offered. A perfectly valid part of any debate, and frankly, the incredulity in the responses doesn't really make me think otherwise?



Again, I have never said that anyone is only "pretending" to support women's rights. I do however believe that there is currently a strong anti-trans sentiment that is being attached to the pursuit or defense of women's rights that could debatably be questioned as transphobic in nature - but that can't be confirmed or denied, apparently, as it is not open to debate but only a flat "NO. DENY. DO NOT QUESTION AGAIN!". Serious debates. It should be OK to question someone's thinking! Or maybe we should rename the forum "Serious Soapboxing And Accepting Other People's Views Without Question". Wordsy, but more accurate.

Sorry you didn't say a bunch of lies, you said BS, silly me.

In a debate I expect people to listen to my reasons for where I stand on an issue yes without calling me a liar. But anyway I'm tired of this particular discussion and I'm tired of being called a liar (sorry bull****ter) by you so this really is my last response to you on the subject.

[user104658]

Sorry you didn't say a bunch of lies, you said BS, silly me.

In a debate I expect people to listen to my reasons for where I stand on an issue yes without calling me a liar. But anyway I'm tired of this particular discussion and I'm tired of being called a liar (sorry bull****ter) by you so this really is my last response to you on the subject.

Fair enough. Apparently we're not moving past the personal offense issues, so it probably is best to not go round in circles.

[Cherie]

As succinctly as I can;

My issue is that Brillo feels very strongly that she has the right to comment on Muslim-issues despite being a non-Muslim, and you and Cherie are invariably the first people to jump in to back her up on that right...

...and then on this thread Brillo felt that I did not have the right to comment on female-issues as I am a non-female... and you and Cherie were the first to back her up.


Brillo having contradictory stances isn't really the issue though; people often have contradictory opinions. The back-up though, just confirms to me that Brillo is "someone that you two will back up" regardless of what is actually being said. I'm not painting you as villains, just making an observation, but it does I think render it fairly meaningless when you jump in on other threads to adamantly state that "Brillo is entitled to her opinion!".


I very rarely back Brillo up as she is quite capable of doing that herself, and even if I do agree with her on occasion, what does that mean exactly? that I agree with her on everything, that her views are my views, honestly give it a rest if you lump me in with other forum members again I will report you as this is not the first time you have done it . I post my own views, if I agree with someone today, I might disagree with them tomorrow, stop being so petty

[Maru]

Does anyone else find it odd that so many folk people are in the business of mind reading now?

I don't have that kind of patience at all. If I feel someone is reading to me my thoughts and trying to play hangman with my responses, then I logon to another website.

That's also problem #999 I have with Twitter-created faux controversy like the OP... "Oh they MUST'VE meant/thought/agreed with/supported/stoked <insert controversial thing>"...

[user104658]

I very rarely back Brillo up as she is quite capable of doing that herself, and even if I do agree with her on occasion, what does that mean exactly? that I agree with her on everything, that her views are my views, honestly give it a rest if you lump me in with other forum members again I will report you as this is not the first time you have done it . I post my own views, if I agree with someone today, I might disagree with them tomorrow, stop being so petty

My issue is purely that the views are directly contradictory Cherie; that Brillo is to be respected in her opinion on Muslim issues, but I'm not to be taken seriously in my opinion on feminist issues. And in my experience, you do frequently jump into those threads... often with your reasoning being that you hate to see people going up against several people alone. I see you have no such issue if that poor, outnumbered person is me? :joker:.

[Ashley.]

Does anyone else find it odd that so many folk people are in the business of mind reading now?

I don't have that kind of patience at all. If I feel someone is reading to me my thoughts and trying to play hangman with my responses, then I logon to another website.

That's also problem #999 I have with Twitter-created faux controversy like the OP... "Oh they MUST'VE meant/thought/agreed with/supported/stoked <insert controversial thing>"...

Quite right Maru

[user104658]

Does anyone else find it odd that so many folk people are in the business of mind reading now?

I don't have that kind of patience at all. If I feel someone is reading to me my thoughts and trying to play hangman with my responses, then I logon to another website.

That's also problem #999 I have with Twitter-created faux controversy like the OP... "Oh they MUST'VE meant/thought/agreed with/supported/stoked <insert controversial thing>"...

Does that extend to "I don't know that this reasoning necessarily makes sense so can I ask where it really does come from?"

Not that I'm saying that this is how I stated it yesterday, obviously, but still. Surely it's OK to question the origins of a thought process without people being grossly offended or accusing people of "telling them what they think" or "reading minds".

[Maru]

Does that extend to "I don't know that this reasoning necessarily makes sense so can I ask where it really does come from?"

Not that I'm saying that this is how I stated it yesterday, obviously, but still. Surely it's OK to question the origins of a thought process without people being grossly offended or accusing people of "telling them what they think" or "reading minds".

Except it's not just I need some more information on their thoughts... folk are being told what their real thoughts actually are...

[Cherie]

My issue is purely that the views are directly contradictory Cherie; that Brillo is to be respected in her opinion on Muslim issues, but I'm not to be taken seriously in my opinion on feminist issues. And in my experience, you do frequently jump into those threads... often with your reasoning being that you hate to see people going up against several people alone. I see you have no such issue if that poor, outnumbered person is me? :joker:.

I would back you if I could see your point, but I can’t :shrug:

[user104658]

Except it's not just I need some more information on their thoughts... folk are being told what their real thoughts actually are...


Does that extend to "I don't know that this reasoning necessarily makes sense so can I ask where it really does come from?"

Not that I'm saying that this is how I stated it yesterday, obviously, but still.

Surely it's OK to question the origins of a thought process without people being grossly offended or accusing people of "telling them what they think" or "reading minds".


That's why I included the part in bold? It's OK if you don't want to commit to an answer, though.

[jaxie]

My issue is purely that the views are directly contradictory Cherie; that Brillo is to be respected in her opinion on Muslim issues, but I'm not to be taken seriously in my opinion on feminist issues. And in my experience, you do frequently jump into those threads... often with your reasoning being that you hate to see people going up against several people alone. I see you have no such issue if that poor, outnumbered person is me? :joker:.

I'm sorry but that's BS in regard both Cherie and myself. I don't agree with one particular other form member all the time on any issues. I think you have a presumed bias here based on what you think and are imagining the rest. I agree with most people on occasion including you.

You are implying we are some sort of gang and it's simply not true.

I'd happily stick up for you or anyone else if I thought you were being picked on TS but in this case you came with the accusations and agression no one else.

[Cherie]

My issue is with self identification for both genders as I think it’s going to be abused and will create problems, I don’t have particular issue with toilets and changing areas or any issues around safety, as if a male wants to commit a crime they can just walk into any ladies toilet anyway, it’s not like anyone would be there to stop them

[Tozzie]

she has a right to her opinion but a lot of people these days condemn people for having an opinion if they see something as wrong. Who says everyone has to like something, if they don't agree with it then they don't agree with it, it's the individuals prerogative. Does everyone have to agree on everything?? I don't agree with lots of things but it seems a lot of the younger generation agree with everything that is happening in life these days, even choosing ones own gender which I personally find absolutely ridiculous but some would condemn me for having that view? Its a mad world and gets madder by the day

[user104658]

I'm sorry but that's BS in regard both Cherie and myself. I don't agree with one particular other form member all the time on any issues. I think you have a presumed bias here based on what you think and are imagining the rest. I agree with most people on occasion including you.

You are implying we are some sort of gang and it's simply not true.

I'd happily stick up for you or anyone else if I thought you were being picked on TS but in this case you came with the accusations and agression no one else.OK jaxie. I accept what you're saying but will exercise my right to reserve judgement.

[jaxie]

OK jaxie. I accept what you're saying but will exercise my right to reserve judgement.

Aren't you already judging though and yet you've not linked one example. It's hardly fair to be accusing us of 'something' without showing us where we are doing this thing and even one example doesn't really make a gang. I'm sure if you try you can find examples of me agreeing with Brillo, and Bitontheslide, and Livia, and Naimh, and Vicky, and Jet, and Northern Monkey, and Maru and countless others. There are even some examples of me agreeing with Kizzy! And we are often on opposing sides of a discussion. Which is funny because she thinks I'm a Tory and I think it's because I'm more optimistic than she is. :shrug:

[Maru]

That's why I included the part in bold? It's OK if you don't want to commit to an answer, though.

I misunderstood that part as I thought that meant that you meant you paraphrasing your own quote. Call me stupid. :laugh:

@Bold And this is what I mean... this statement makes some sort of assumption here, that I don't commit to my answers?... wtaf? Where did that come from???...

[Marsh.]

you've not linked one example. It's hardly fair to be accusing us of 'something' without showing us where we are doing this thing

Isn't that literally what you just did on the previous page? :joker:

[Withano]

Aren't you already judging though and yet you've not linked one example. It's hardly fair to be accusing us of 'something' without showing us where we are doing this thing and one example doesn't really make a gang.

Didnt you do precisely this to Marsh like 20 minutes ago

[Withano]

Isn't that literally what you just did on the previous page? :joker:

Oop twinny

[Maru]

she has a right to her opinion but a lot of people these days condemn people for having an opinion if they see something as wrong. Who says everyone has to like something, if they don't agree with it then they don't agree with it, it's the individuals prerogative. Does everyone have to agree on everything?? I don't agree with lots of things but it seems a lot of the younger generation agree with everything that is happening in life these days, even choosing ones own gender which I personally find absolutely ridiculous but some would condemn me for having that view? Its a mad world and gets madder by the day

Yes...? :laugh: That's pretty much the counter argument... "Who are you to tell others what they are???"... etc

[Marsh.]

It's not though? He's saying he doesn't find the reasons/argument behind an opinion very convincing?

[Kizzy]

I'm not taking offense Kizzy, I'm noting that (as with every other post directed at me recently) you're attempting (and failing) to cause offense.

So you make presumptuous accusatory comments about the motives of others, but you want me to see YOU as the victim?...No.


"I think you might have more to say that you're holding back" is not putting words in someone's mouth. There might be an implication of what "those things" are, I suppose, but then that would be easily cleared up with "No, what I'm holding back on saying is...". Someone could also say "Nope I'm not holding anything back" but again - in what world does that mean you MUST believe that? Is it debate? Really? If you think someone is holding back you should say so :shrug:.

You accused people of vitriol, that posts were being mocked and disregarded, you accused moderators of not remaining impartial in certain topics. Your presumption was unwarranted and incendiary.




And no, I don't accept that not having a full-and-set-in-stone opinion on any subject equates to ignorance. In fact, some of the most ignorant people I've ever encountered are those who DO have such concrete belief sets.

Whoever said you had to have a set in stone opinion? Your whole argument hinges on the need for respectful, civilised debate ...just how is that to be realised if you stomp into a thread and accuse those who have given a reasoned opinion that that are effectively chatting ****?!

[Marsh.]

Like you do with the "mansplaining" sh*t you mean?

[Kizzy]

Aren't you already judging though and yet you've not linked one example. It's hardly fair to be accusing us of 'something' without showing us where we are doing this thing and even one example doesn't really make a gang. I'm sure if you try you can find examples of me agreeing with Brillo, and Bitontheslide, and Livia, and Naimh, and Vicky, and Jet, and Northern Monkey, and Maru and countless others. There are even some examples of me agreeing with Kizzy! And we are often on opposing sides of a discussion. Which is funny because she thinks I'm a Tory and I think it's because I'm more optimistic than she is. :shrug:

Yeah...Even Me!!

Wait, ....What?

:joker:

[Maru]

xfO1veFs6Ho
This is the future and is the present depending on what part of the US you would live in. I know someone who works in an in-patient therapy program, and while I understand the thought process for it being more "humane", when taken to this extreme (which it does there) it has no end other goal except to create false sense of comfort... and that to me, I question if that is humane. We are allowing folk to believe in a lie on the basis that to tell them otherwise would create some sort of harm... except aren't we doing harm when we lie to them... when they inevitably find out that broad swaths of their friends aren't brave enough to tell them the truth, I can see that opening the doors to a lot of issues with dealing with the truth and self-esteem problems actually.

[Kizzy]

Like you do with the "mansplaining" sh*t you mean?

No nothing like that... That is real, this is a prime example.

Woman says something ...

Man comes in, 'what a load of vitriol!!'

Woman says, 'what vitriol, where?'

Man says, Well... 'nothing here, but I know you're thinking something vitriolic!!

:/

[Marsh.]

No nothing like that... That is real, this is a prime example.

Woman says something ...

Man comes in, 'what a load of vitriol!!'

Woman says, 'what vitriol, where?'

Man says, Well... 'nothing here, but I know you're thinking something vitriolic!!

:/

That's not what he said though.

Let's not pretend you wouldn't have responded to any counter argument he gave with sexist sh*t. You always do.
It's always in the name of "fighting misogyny" but it's double standard sexism all the same.

[Kizzy]

That's not what he said though.

Let's not pretend you wouldn't have responded to any counter argument he gave with sexist sh*t. You always do.
It's always in the name of "fighting misogyny" but it's double standard sexism all the same.

I'm sexist now? ....

Conversation over.

[Marsh.]

I'm sexist now? ....

Not just now. All the time and I've brought it up many times that you've done it.


Conversation over.

Always is when you're called out on double standards.

[jaxie]

Yeah...Even Me!!

Wait, ....What?

:joker:

Meh you called me a villain the other day, payback! :joker:

[user104658]

@Bold And this is what I mean... this statement makes some sort of assumption here, that I don't commit to my answers?... wtaf? Where did that come from???...

But it's not... It's genuinely asking for an answer, but saying that I'm not going to think negatively if you don't want to answer it, since I don't want to be accused of making demands. I don't see how it in any way infers that you don't commit to answers at other times... And somewhat ironically... Is deciding that it implies that not exactly the "mind reading" you're talking about?

[Maru]

But it's not... It's genuinely asking for an answer, but saying that I'm not going to think negatively if you don't want to answer it, since I don't want to be accused of making demands. I don't see how it in any was infers that you don't commit to answers at other times... And somewhat ironically... Is deciding that it implies that not exactly the "mind reading" you're talking about?

Ok, thanks for that TS. I'll just leave this here then.

[Kizzy]

Not just now. All the time and I've brought it up many times that you've done it.



Always is when you're called out on double standards.

Not so fast, I'm not accepting you making an accusation like that and your pathetic double standards comments.

Explain to me if you can where and when I have been sexist, because right now I'm calling you out as a liar.

[Kizzy]

Meh you called me a villain the other day, payback! :joker:

I don't remember this either.

[jaxie]

I don't remember this either. It was jokingly when you were responding to TS and he had singled us out. You said you were joking it was fine!

[Marsh.]

Not so fast, I'm not accepting you making an accusation like that and your pathetic double standards comments.

Explain to me if you can where and when I have been sexist, because right now I'm calling you out as a liar.

Telling men they aren't permitted to comment on women's issues, or what they do say is irrelevant or invalid.

Responding to any response by a male poster with "Are you mansplaining to me?" or "Do you actually think I care what you think of my posts?" etc etc. It's all over the forum and you know it.

Misandry at its worst.

[Kizzy]

Telling men they aren't permitted to comment on women's issues, or what they do say is irrelevant or invalid.

Responding to any response by a male poster with "Are you mansplaining to me?" or "Do you actually think I care what you think of my posts?" etc etc. It's all over the forum and you know it.

Misandry at its worst.

I've never said that!.... Seriously Marsh I don't know what your reading into my comments but I don't appreciate these accusations.

It was only a couple of weeks ago you were posting how much you like me, and as we've disagreed on one or two issues now I'm some man hating monster? :/

[Beso]

I laughed at a joke once.

[Marsh.]

It was only a couple of weeks ago you were posting how much you like me

:joker::joker::joker::joker::joker: What?


To address the point itself, I can like/dislike anyone and still agree/disagree with their opinions or pull them up on whatever they're doing that I think is wrong.
That would be blindly supporting those I like and blindly disagreeing with the ones I don't.

But in answer to your question about your posts, maybe you don't realise you're doing it? Fair enough, but it's there a lot.

[Livia]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/23/23/4A7E779800000578-0-image-a-56_1521848103267.jpg

Yes, aggressively ordering someone to do what you want is definitely the way to go about it.

A journalist? Seriously? And she wrote that?

JK Rowling is entitled to her own opinion, whatever it is. The world doesn't actually revolve around transsexual women, although you would think it kind of does. We rarely hear about women who have transitioned to men... oh no... that is not where the drama lies.

Do what you need to do to make yourself happy, but don't round on born women if their opinion isn't exactly the same as yours.

[user104658]

A journalist? Seriously?

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... :think:... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

[Maru]

A journalist? Seriously? And she wrote that?

JK Rowling is entitled to her own opinion, whatever it is. The world doesn't actually revolve around transsexual women, although you would think it kind of does. We rarely hear about women who have transitioned to men... oh no... that is not where the drama lies.

Do what you need to do to make yourself happy, but don't round on born women if their opinion isn't exactly the same as yours.

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... :think:... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

[Marsh.]

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

I don't think the blue tick means you're necessarily a celebrity, it just means that the identity of the user has been officially verified so it's definitely who they say they are.

Anybody can pay to have that done, you won't always be approved though. I think they take into account how many followers and the amount of "public interest". So "celebs" are more likely due to their high profiles.

[user104658]

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

As far as I know, it's just a confirmation of identity? Like they have supplied evidence to Twitter that they really are the person in their pic / bio, and not a "fake account". I guess back in it's earlier days it would mostly be celebrities that needed verified / official accounts because they would be the most likely to have their account cloned, but these days I guess anyone who "uses their name professionally" might need to protect themselves from cloned accounts and imposters. Especially people who get into "heated subjects" and are likely to be targetted by someone with an axe to grind.

I think it should be offered to everyone as standard really... a "certification" mark if you supply proof of identity. My wife had her facebook account cloned by a malicious little **** half way around the world a few years ago, who she had argued with on a random page, and he had taken her pictures and name and started posting slanderous crap everywhere. It took facebook FOREVER to sort it out and have the account removed.

[kirklancaster]

As far as I know, it's just a confirmation of identity? Like they have supplied evidence to Twitter that they really are the person in their pic / bio, and not a "fake account". I guess back in it's earlier days it would mostly be celebrities that needed verified / official accounts because they would be the most likely to have their account cloned, but these days I guess anyone who "uses their name professionally" might need to protect themselves from cloned accounts and imposters. Especially people who get into "heated subjects" and are likely to be targetted by someone with an axe to grind.

I think it should be offered to everyone as standard really... a "certification" mark if you supply proof of identity. My wife had her facebook account cloned by a malicious little **** half way around the world a few years ago, who she had argued with on a random page, and he had taken her pictures and name and started posting slanderous crap everywhere. It took facebook FOREVER to sort it out and have the account removed.

This is exactly why I do not participate in 'Social Media'. I think it's a 'scary' thing. :sad:

[Maru]

As far as I know, it's just a confirmation of identity? Like they have supplied evidence to Twitter that they really are the person in their pic / bio, and not a "fake account". I guess back in it's earlier days it would mostly be celebrities that needed verified / official accounts because they would be the most likely to have their account cloned, but these days I guess anyone who "uses their name professionally" might need to protect themselves from cloned accounts and imposters. Especially people who get into "heated subjects" and are likely to be targetted by someone with an axe to grind.

I think it should be offered to everyone as standard really... a "certification" mark if you supply proof of identity. My wife had her facebook account cloned by a malicious little **** half way around the world a few years ago, who she had argued with on a random page, and he had taken her pictures and name and started posting slanderous crap everywhere. It took facebook FOREVER to sort it out and have the account removed.

It's not offered to everyone. It never used to even be something we could request I don't think? I remember first seeing it and looking it up to see how to get them and there wasn't an article. Sometimes a celebrity would have an account, we would know it, but they never received a checkmark for the longest time until they had more activity... enough to get noticed anyway.

Now they take requests, but they don't generally give it to them unless they meet some unknown criteria, and it's cherry picked. They decide who gets them.

[Maru]

This is exactly why I do not participate in 'Social Media'. I think it's a 'scary' thing. :sad:

Smart man :clap1:

[Maru]

Twitter verification circa 2013 sounds like a BB audition

7 Ways To Get Verified on Twitter -- Including the Story of How I Did
https://www.xojane.com/tech/how-to-get-verified-on-twitter

Option 1: Have a good agent, and ask him or her to do the dirty work. Trust me, a good agent will be able to hook you up.

That's how Guy Raz, host of NPR's All Things Considered did it. He's not a celebrity, per se, but he does have an agent with a connection to Twitter to make it happen. His agency: UTA.

It's also how any new celebrities joining Twitter -- like the site's newest addition this week of Drew Barrymore -- get it done. They have people.

Option 3: See if you can angle (but don't beg) to get noticed by Twitter's @Verified account, and in a sense, "dress for the job you want" by following the best practices Twitter recommends to its newly verified users.

Anil Dash has a great post explaining what the new Twitter verification process entails, including the randomness of selection -- and how, literally, you might wake up one day to find that you have a direct message from @Verified. The message reads: "We at Twitter would like to verify your account. Please click this account and follow the instructions."

There are then three steps that essentially test you on your Twitter knowledge of how to get more followers and tweet effectively. Right before you get to the verification page you are told to "increase your trustworthiness by following other verified users."

Well, at least we don't have to sext with @Verified

Option 8: Photoshop it -- but risk getting suspended on Twitter.

Thanks to the header design of Twitter there's a hack that lets you embed the checkmark, although if you have fairly discerning vision you can tell it's not the real thing because the layers throw the shading off. Also, if you do this: Twitter might just suspend your account so, yeah, there's that.

:laugh::laugh:

[Kizzy]

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... :think:... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.
You sound quite prejudiced here, which paper would you have to work for to be considered a professional journalist in your opinion?

[Kizzy]

Has anyone else seen this?

Trans filmmaker Jake Graf and Hannah Winterbourne, the highest ranking trans officer in the British army, have called out The Sun’s headline about their wedding day.

The couple’s exclusive interview appeared on the front page of the paper. The headline read: "Tran and wife. Jake who used to be a woman weds Hannah who was a man."

On Twitter, Hannah called the headline "offensive" while Jake said the article, which he praised, had been "cheapened by such a sensationalised and misleading headline".

I have a theory, that is that men from all socioeconomic backgrounds are coming round to the fact that some men would rather be women...Which of course is great :) I applaud this 100%

What I don't think is being embraced quite as readily are women wanting to become men, I don't feel there is equal support... In fact I'd say they are victims of hostility, mockery and abuse as seen here.

https://www.indy100.com/article/trans-couple-call-out-the-sun-for-offensive-headline-jake-graf-and-hannah-winterbourne-8276411?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

[Marsh.]

So now we're calling out those not accepting female to male transitions after some rather offensive comments concerning male to female transitions?

Diversionary tactic?

[Livia]

You sound quite prejudiced here, which paper would you have to work for to be considered a professional journalist in your opinion?

I'm not answering for TS, but as I originally questioned her credentials.... I would expect someone describing themselves as a journalist would know not to use "here" when they meant "hear", wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition and would understand how to use a full stop in a sentence that contains parenthesis.

It's actually interesting what your other post said about male to female and female to male, and the difference in the way they are treated. I have a theory about that... I think it's as simple as men expecting to be heard, they are used to it, to having their opinions heard and getting their way (generally). So when they transition to women they have no idea what it's like to grow up as a woman and continue to stamp their Y chromosome, insisting that everyone sees things their way. Conversely, women who become men are (again, generally) more used to being the peacemakers, the nurturers, and they get on with living as who they want to be without involving the opinions of the rest of the world.

I'm not sure how you feel about all that, but I have to say, I mostly agree with your stance on this.

[Brillopad]

I'm not answering for TS, but as I originally questioned her credentials.... I would expect someone describing themselves as a journalist would know not to use "here" when they meant "hear", wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition and would understand how to use a full stop in a sentence that contains parenthesis.

It's actually interesting what your other post said about male to female and female to male, and the difference in the way they are treated. I have a theory about that... I think it's as simple as men expecting to be heard, they are used to it, to having their opinions heard and getting their way (generally). So when they transition to women they have no idea what it's like to grow up as a woman and continue to stamp their Y chromosome, insisting that everyone sees things their way. Conversely, women who become men are (again, generally) more used to being the peacemakers, the nurturers, and they get on with living as who they want to be without involving the opinions of the rest of the world.

I'm not sure how you feel about all that, but I have to say, I mostly agree with your stance on this.

I think that is a very realistic and valid point. It makes total sense that the ‘previous gender’ that had been a huge part of their lives for most of their lives would continue to be so. You can’t just erase that to suit. It goes too deep.