Originally Posted by Cherie View Post
Isn't it the self identication that is the issue here? So here are two issues I have and maybe someone from the "no issues here guv" part of the forum can comment


I'm your man on this Cherie, because - to be quite honest - I had no idea what all this 'palaver' was about until reading through as the thread progressed, and now I think it is neo-Liberal PC gone UTTERLY and DANGEROUSLY 'La La'.


If the self identification law is passed....any male can access a women's refuge

Any male can convert to Islam and access female only areas

Any female can identify as male and access men only clubs

Any female can convert to Islam and attend male only gatherings

I don't really have an issue with changing rooms as cubicles are more the norm than communal changing areas, I don't think trans is wrong and I don't think anyone else thinks that either ...transitioning...post op no issue, but wake up and decide today's the day ...no as the above are concerning to me, I know these are extreme examples but people do go to extremes at times

True, but the real concern is; that it gives a 'Free Pass' to ANY pervert to indulge his voyeuristic inclinations or to any 'Flasher' who gets off on exhibiting himself to women.

Totally, totally BONKERS. :shrug:

Thanks both, I'm still waiting for a comment from those who feel women are making a big fuss over nothing and are in reality transphobic although apparently we don't know this yet and need it pointed out to us by males :laugh:

I've said this before too though less gently and been accused of transphobia and sexism. But it's basically men telling women what think and feel. :shrug:

I havent commented on the self-ID thing, cos I'm pretty sit-ty-on-the-fensey with it. As in I dont agree people can just claim their gender before entering an area not designed for them, nor do I think they have to wait until after the transistion to use them. (I think anybody actively planning on getting, or hoping to get, the op should get the option, that idea doesnt seem to float about much though?).

Regarding the list Cherie made, I, again, am pretty in the middle. There should be areas designed for gender, and areas designed for sex. I'd argue the ones on Cherie's list should be an issue of sex (their current physical sex, not birth sex), not gender.

Its actually pretty comfortable on the fense on this one.. why are we all fighting for one extreme or the other?

It is indeed - in part because they don’t and can’t understand, but some fail to understand that apparently - and in part because others don’t want to understand - and although will protest they support female equality - actions suggest that actually maybe they don’t. Maybe there is something in their sub-conscious that is still resisting as giving up that top-dog position has its drawbacks.

Thankyou Vicky. See, I find the entirety of this post to be totally fair and well-reasoned. It makes a lot of sense, and it's. Well reasoned. I personally feel like the scope of just how many men are going to suddenly declare themselves females just to perv and flash is, perhaps, blown a bit out of proportion... But I do understand the concern, and I do also think the change in law (if it is as extensive as this) is ridiculous.

Where my issue lies, for clarification, is that the posts on this topic are NOT always so well reasoned and the arguments not always so well set out, and they descend into mocking / "crying laughing face type" / posts that scream "dick dick dick cock cock" over and over pointedly.

There have also been threads where genuine transsexuals have been repeatedly refered to as he / him / man / boy.

AND the fact that you've stated quite clearly that you don't really believe in the concept of biological gender beyond the physical and have posted skeptically about "souls" etc.

And these sentiments get a lot of support from others, too.

Basically, there's quite a lot of "evidence" that suggests to me that this is not at all "just about the issue of self-id". That clearly is a big PART of what the issue is here, but it doesn't seem to be the whole issue, and that seems to be being tip-toed around and that frustrates me.

Its not at all a 'men telling women' issue. Tibb is a small bubble, and men being farrrr more fine with transrights than women on this one single website bares no resemblance to the real world.

Its not just this example of things that people/men can or could take advantage off...2 male paedos could get a civil partnership..

fool the appropriate departments..

Then most scarily, adopt a child...
But we have had that discussion.

As for the chorus of "It's just the man's telling the women's wot to fink!!"... Come on guys you can do better than this. Well most of you can anyway.

In denial.

Of course men are more supportive of it for all the reasons constantly pointed out by women. Isn’t that the point! The fact it needs pointing out is very telling.

I can't say I've seen any cock dick posts, can you link examples?

Just because you aren't aware of the controlling, patronising sexism doesn't mean it isn't there.

You can't have pre-op Trans people going into the opposite gender's Toilets as they've not had the surgery yet to be that gender, otherwise if I wanted to I could claim to want to be a woman go then go into the Toilets and harass the women in them (not that I actually would) but it definitely becomes a risk imo that shouldn't be experimented.

They are on this one single website, which was the point I was making. They're not, in general, in the grand scheme of things. They tend to be more resistant and less open to trans issues than women are.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...02.10.2017.pdf

A lot of people have jumped to the conclusion of 'huh lol well of course men are okay with it' because of the opinions of like 3? 4? Blokes on this is big brother dot com. Its ridiculous lol, and completely subtracts from any interesting discussion happening.


So this whole 'men telling women' thing is nonsense. It has more to do with age and education if you look at the results from that huge survey a bit closer.

By me?

Lily Madigan is not a genuine transsexual. Lily Madigan is a misogynistic knobjockey who has done nothing since gaining his post as 'womans officer' except for actively trying to get women kicked out of the party for acknowledging ****ing biology. If this is what thats about. Yes my thread about him was literred with boy and such, as thats what he is. I actually half think he is a Tory plant, there to destroy the Labour party from the inside.

The weightlifting cheat, I called he yes. I have no idea if he actually has sex dysphoria, however I kind of doubt it and even if he does, its clearly cheating to be competing against female people as a male. I have a lot of contempt for people like that, and its silly to deny he is male. I reckon the commonwelath games will wake a LOT of people up to the crazyness of this actually.

I called Lauren Harries male the other day yes, but the context is a bit important I reckon. I also used she and her for her...but it is undeniable that she is male. Male is a biological term and sex changes are not possible.

If I am being completely honest here, even post SRS transsexual people I still do not generally see as the sex they are trying to be. Because..they aren't. I acknowledge that their dysphoria made them wish to have hormones, or surgery to resemble the opposite sex more and I think it must be horrific tbh to be so at odds with your sexed body that you would need to go to such lengths to feel better about yourself but I feel that way about people with BDD, and to a lesser extent anorexia too.However, when it comes to single sex spaces, no issue with post SRS people using the areas they chose.

Self-ID is the main issue. But I also have issues with a lot of transactivists and their behaviour (and their threats towards me and my children) and much of trans ideology itself actually. I think the whole thing is homophobic and sexist (towards both men and women!). I have issues with certain people who claim they are trans. I have huge issues with giving puberty blockers to children, and the few doctors who prescribe hormones or do irreversible surgeries on under 18s. I have huge issues with trans pressure groups such as mermaids going into primary schools to tell children that you can change the sex you are and that if you follow the incorrect stereotypes you may be trans, and basically teaching antiscience nonsense. I have issues with stonewall lumping in transsexuals with fetishists and such, and feel that a lot of the problems today are coming from that decision (which they appear to stand by). I have issues with the whole disgusting concept of the 'cotton ceiling' and how prevalent it is in the trans community, I think its lesbophobic and just vile and rapey. I have issues with the many people who attempt to shame women into ignoring their concerns on this topic by yelling transphobe or bigot or 'terf' at them. I think thats a comprehensive list of all my problems with this, but I may have missed something out. But on the whole, I have no issue with actual transsexual people. But if having issues with the things I list above makes me transphobic, so be it tbh.

I really do not see what this has to do with anything at all. I DON'T believe in biological gender really. I mean few things like hormone levels making women tend to be more caring and such, yes. Thats tied into biological sex too though... But generally 'gender' is mainly socially imposed stereotypes. And to believe the 'a man can be born in a womans body' or whatever does require a belief in gendered souls really. Which I don't buy at all. But have always been open to actual proof to show the opposite.

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.

https://notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress...re-notadebate/

This is long, but it explains my views on this all exactly tbh.

Also this

https://fairplayforwomen.com/misogyny_hate_silencing/

And near every article on that site

So basically you are doing what you accuse others of - and dancing around what you really mean that you think people are being transphobic.

Welcome to TiBB, being on the other side is a revelation..yes? :laugh:

Which is exactly how women feel!

Of course, the only one not trying to shut down others opinions is you. :nono:

I don't want to shut you or anyone else down, certainly not after my own experiences of attempts to mock and shut me down on this forum. But I am prepared to point out the rife sexism on these threads. However it's not all about you, you could take a leaf there.

See I do understand this argument. In theory. Sort of. If you actually break it down logically it kind of falls apart but I do understand why people would be concerned about it becoming "easier" for women to be made victims

In actual practical terms though, here are the issues;

1) Some real women kinda look like men. So if a Predatory male was, currently, under no law change, to dress as a woman and enter a female toilet or changing area... How do you stop them? Do you ask them to show their genitals on entry? :think:. You simply can't know who is "really" female when they walk into a toilet in the first place. And you can't accuse just because you suspect. So...

2) What exactly do you think is currently stopping a full-on unambiguous bearded male from following a women into a public toilet currently? There isn't an invisible force field that stops them. They can just walk right on in. Is a sign that says "women only" going to stop them? "Oh I was going to sexually assault someone, but this sign says I'm not allowed in." Barmy.

3) You may suggest that it's because then other people can stop them from going in, but if it's a busy area with lots of people around then there's not really much risk of an assault anyway. It would happen when no one else is around and, as above, when no one else is around... A rapist doesn't need to pretend to be a woman to get into the ladies toilets. He can just walk right on in?


So yeah... I suppose I do understand the fear that people may have around this and I'm not trying to downplay that at all - but I also think in rational, practical terms the risk of increased assaults isn't anywhere near as high as is being suggested.

No u.

As less people are likely to challenge men with self-identification in place it is an increased risk and any increased risk is not acceptable. No-one knows for sure until there is a victim - which will be too late for her - but I suppose some would just shrug their shoulders and mumble something about collateral damage! Women would be more aware and more likely to notice a man who was not supposed to be there than one who was. They would be more likely to look out for each other.