As has always been the case, what SHOULD happen is that bathrooms etc should be gender neutral single self-contained rooms. That was always the solution to the "bathroom problem". It doesn't need to be a problem at all. I know it's more complicated than that - but only because communal bathrooms are already an established norm. They're an outdated concept. No one actually wants them.

I don't think this needs pointing out at all, there are bad actors on both sides, and women know they can only rely on themselves when it boils down to it, there may be allies on both sides of course, but if the past few years of being called bigot, Terf etc has taught us anything it is that we have to protect ourselves, men are not ging to step up for us ....look at Starmer wittering on about cervixs, a disgrace

Yeah, unfortunately at the moment it feels like a mess for women coming from both "sides" for different reasons

Yeah, this is certainly the way, for public toilets anyway, although it could be a big expense or space issue for a lot of places that already have those communal set ups in place like schools and shopping centres etc. In my work we have just two self contained rooms like that.

Most rape cases get nothing at all

A woman gets murdered by her cis male partner every 2 days in the UK but "feminists" are putting their energy into fighting to take away the rights of trans women instead, you couldn't make it up.

Murder is already illegal Jessica. But just fyi, feminists were the ones who set up all the domestic violence refuges for women

You say that but there is still people who are triggered by gender neutral toilets. Even though there are gender neutral toilets everywhere.

Well exactly, there are people who are concerned about the actual issues and then there are others who just "hate woke stuff" and bleat on about "mind viruses" and other memey/propaganda-stuff. That's half the issue all around, really.

Good
London Transport Male Officers can
Now search Tran men/women

When people say "it doesn't happen" they don't mean it's never happened in the whole of history - how would anyone know to make that claim? What they mean it's not happening with the frequency in which is it being made to look like it is.

People are called TERFS and transphobes when they weaponise a minute occurrence of a CIS MAN cosplaying as a trans woman as an example of a "trans issue" when literally no actual trans person was involved in the situation.

Let's flip things around instead. If a man pretended to be a straight woman and went into a gay club and attacked a trans person, and people said it was a "woman issue" it would justifiably be called sexist. Imagine then that straight women were no longer allowed in gay clubs because trans people were at risk from... erm... *checks notes* men.

True enough.

But even when there is a guilty verdict, the rapist might only get 4 years in Prison.

Which in my view is a disgrace.

A year back or so


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoqkwhBW...jpg&name=small

Finally. Thank ****ing god they're not pandering to this **** anymore

David Tennant
actor needs to say sorry to the Conservative leader.

He got it very wrong.

Pointed out Live on GMBHD itv
with the great newspaper panel,
Ian Dale (LBC) and Caroline Flint (Former Labour Minister)

Police have visited people citing "hate speech" for saying online that a man cannot change sex and become a woman, something that is scientifically true. Now I hope the terms cisgendered, cis woman and TERF are treated in the same way. I am not a cis woman, I am a woman. I hope transwomen are very happy in the lives they have chosen, I bear them no ill-will, but they are not the same as me. And instead of demanding access to women only spaces, maybe they can campaign to have their own sports, refuges and support groups, just like women did.

This ruling appears to be far more impactful on transwomen than on transmen because they're making a lot of noise about it. But then it's always transwomen making the noise and the threats, never transmen. It was a transwoman who called for people to "punch a TERF in the face". Even coming up with the term TERF in the first place is quite the provocation, while being quite radical themselves. I mean, threats of rape, violence and bombing, pouring all kinds of liquid on women they disagree with... I've never heard of a feminist doing this stuff to transwomen. I've never heard of transmen doing it either, who seem to just want to get on with their chosen lives. Why have we not heard from transmen? Why are transmen not demanding access to men-only spaces and to men's sports and changing rooms? Is it because transwomen are biologically men and have grown up expecting to be listened to in a way women haven't?

Your first point, one instance is one too many, it doesn't matter how many instances if you are the person it has happened to it has happened to you, nobody should turn around and say to that person, oh it doesn't matter it only happened to you so there is no issue here

As to your second point we were called TERFs and BIGOTS for daring to say that MEN would take advantage of self ID to access womans spaces at no point did I see anyone say transwomen would take advantage, of course people knew that but they just liked the idea they could throw around slurs with impunity

I dont get what you are saying with your third point sorry, imagine saying straight women were not allowed in gay clubs because?? of what

The issue here is MEN.....it has always been MEN....not transwomen, not transmen...but MEN

I completely agree the issue is men, so why are trans women the ones being forced to take the flack for something MEN are doing? That's been my disagreement with the rhetoric the whole time - we know it's men, we all agree it's men, but it's trans women who are being held responsible for those actions. People are called transphobes when they conflate the actions of men with the "trans issue". They're not trans, so why are trans women even being bought into the conversation.

My third point was playing on that logic - a man is the perpetrator, is using a pretending to be a woman to attack cis women and yet it's trans women who are being forced to take responsibility through removal of freedoms because of something men are doing. All I did in my example was swap the roles of trans and cis women around to highlight how ridiculous and unfair it is on the persons identity that's being hijacked.

The reason people refer to some of the conversations around this as transphobic is because trans women are being used as scapegoats ... some people use these situations to damage the reputation of trans people and refer to it as a "trans issue" when it's not.

It's great you agree it's nothing to do with trans people, but many don't see it that way. Many people see a cis man pretending to be a woman in the same way they see actual trans women and so for them, both of them are under that same umbrella. What we can't agree on, and that's fine, is that the remedy is to stop trans women being able to use the spaces that align with their identity.

:clap1:

Cis is a latin term, an adjective, that means "on this side of" or "on the same side as". It's the opposite of "trans-," which means "on the other side of". It was first used to refer to gender nonconformity in 1914. It's not an insult.

This might shed more light: Cis Is Not A Slur

Don’t bother mate. As they say themselves the easily offended cannot be appeased.

I have asked time and time and again why transwomen did not support women in their efforts to say self ID was a complete mess and a loophole by which MEN would try to access women and girls, they unfortunately like alot of people were paralysed by fear, I have heard transwomen interviewed on the radio who dared put their head above the parapet subjected to death threats etc, you really need to be looking at Stonewall who pushed for self ID, its not and never has been beneficial to transwoman or women for MEN to be able to self ID, unfortunately as well the male gay community have stayed silent while their lesbian sisters have been accused of being transphobic for not wanting to have a relationship with a transwoman and have remained largely silent and been part of the TERF /BIGOT brigade when it comes to women highlighting the issues around self ID, even when there was that very high profile case in Scotland where that MAN who RAPED TWO WOMEN and whilst in custody claimed transgender status for his own gain, ....where was the outrage from the LGBTQ community, you could see what was happening before your eyes but still remained silent, so unfortunately transwomen are collateral damage but you need to look at your community as to why that is.

And just to add to the above if women and transwomen had been allowed to work around the issue of self ID being forced on us, this would have had a totally different outcome, instead the trans activists got involved, most of whom are women hating men, transwomen saw them as allies when they were not allies at all, but saw the opportunity to invade womens safe spaces with impunity and turn up at rallies and assault women protected by the paralysis of the police on the issue

My thoyht on this: largely and long term, I agree with you in sentiment, that genuine trans people (transitioned) ultimately should, in a world where facilities are only binary, not have to use facilities purely based on sex. But this involves a few things - such as an acknowledgement that there are different and more troubling aspects of the "trans umbrella" (autogynephilia is rife if anyone would care to admit it, and a clear risky mindset) and completely discarding the concept of "full self - ID" I.e. All must accept that one is what they say they are regardless of presentation. It often slides close to gaslighting.

Over and above that... it needs to be accepted that from a safeguarding perspective, anythibg that's established has to be done with good planning, proper assessment, carefully and sensitively for all. In recent years it's been done with sweeping broad strokes, and an attitude of "just accept it no questions!"... And at the end of the day that has caused massive damage all round for an entire generation.

Why is our community specifically responsible for denouncing the actions of straight, cisgendered men who piggy back off our real existence?

A straight man who raped two women and then claimed transgendered status has nothing to do with us. It's horrific, but why are you holding an entire community responsible for being spokesperson in that case? Do you do the same with every Catholic person when a Priest is found to be a pedophile?

People react an on individual level, not as a monolithic group. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be outraged and disgusted by such a story, but why specifically do you look to the gay community for a press release? Why not everyone? Why not the straight community, seeing as he is was a straight man. We don't all get together and write a weekly newsletter. What a bizarre thing to say.

As for being transphobic for not dating a trans person, I actually completely agree with you on this and every gay person and trans person I personally know, of which is a fair chunk, would also disagree with the idea that not wanting to date a trans person is transphobic.

Of course not but you will find plenty people talking about it, denouncing it, writing about it....where was the denouncement? just taking TiBB as a snapshot I didn't see one gay member speak out about how MEN are piggybacking on self id for personal gain.....not one! Many TiBB female posters have raised the issue to be greeted by TERF, BIGOT responses, so forgive me if I feel the attitude of SOME of the gay community has not been helpful to the trans community at all but that is just my opinion of course

Maybe it’s best for you not to take an internet forum as a benchmark for the actions and thoughts of an entire community.

SOME of the gay community may not have been helpful. Best not to denounce an entire group of people off the actions of some though. Every community has its bad eggs, right?

I have friends who are gay, trans and all those closest to me are straight cis women and we speak about this issue and always have spoken about similar matters. I do wonder how many people on this thread have ever actually met a trans person let alone had an actual discussion with them.

I appreciate your thoughts.

What about the trans men, born women, who now should be using the women’s bathrooms as by definition they are women. What about cis men who want to attack women now cosplaying as trans men instead of trans women?

I feel like it’s not been thought through at all.

Thats a tangle.


Politicians in Parliament
After their bloody holiday,
will have to sort this

Maybe its best for you not to tell me how to interpret things? I also listen to a lot of political radio shows, and I read.... we have to have met a transwoman to have an opinion? as a woman I have a lot more skin in this game than you, and as I said above if transwomen and women had been allowed to sort this out it would have been done and dusted, instead as I previously posted WOMEN have lost their jobs, WOMEN's safety has been compromised by housing MEN in prisons, WOMEN have lost their places on podiums, WOMEN have lost job opportunities and all this for a small percentage of the population whose hard left activist supporters felt their rights trumped women, but they don't we should have equal rights as we have had since the 70s not this new version of erasing women. Btw I do know two transwomen one beautiful elegant lady and one who has slapped a wig and a bit of lipstick on

I also dont know why you are so focussed on bathrooms when that is the thin end of the wedge, transmen will find a way to go to toilet trust me.

I also find it interesting that you refer to cis women when you have been respectfully asked not to refer to us in this way on the forum, where is the two way street here?

Anyway I am done with this topic now, it will just go around in circles like it always does .

And now some women who may be a bit more traditionally masculine presenting - broader, taller, perhaps have facial hair due to medical issues, will now be forced to prove they are women in order to gain access to women's spaces. That doesn't sound like a win for women to me, it sounds regressive.

I have also referred to cis men. As previously stated, cis is literally just a neutral adjective that is the antonym for 'trans' and has been used since the times of Ancient Greece where is derives from.

I'm using it to differentiate to avoid confusion and have never attached a positive or negative to its usage. It's the correct word being used in the correct way and isn't being used to insult or mock or disparage.

Strategy Director TransAcual
Keyne Walker.

Moaning on SkyNewsHD Live
That already British Tansport Police
have changed the policy.
So they should Fella/Madame

(Trans Women will now be searched by Men)



He demands Clarity
From the MP's



Protest in Parliament Square?

It is Saturday, Fella/Madame
no one there.......................

That's an excellent point, now they don't even need to make themselves look different, they can just say they're trans men. Once again the problem is CIS MEN being predators.

there is no such thing as cis men

Yes


Search gave this

[A cis man is an adult male whose gender
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned
at birth. In simpler terms, a cis man is a person
who identifies as a man and was also assigned
the male sex at birth.
This means that their gender identity (man) matches
their assigned sex at birth (male)]

or in even simpler terms... Man :laugh: there is no confusion, Man, Transman, Woman, Transwoman,

Good on SkyNewsHD
walking around the Noisy Protest
in London on the green at Parliament

No Fights
yet

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you. :)

Sadly people on this forum will read this well written explanation and still say they're not a subset of women even though that's not what it means at all. A lot of us gave up trying to explain a long time ago. It's very nice to see posts from someone who is not jaded.