Where has that been suggested on the thread?

If you consider transwomen are not women and you're basing that on the consideration that only biology determines a sex/gender.

But biology or the body you're born in or genitalia or physical characteristics are not the only components of defining sex/gender.

Look at how many countries that no longer require sex reassignment surgeries as a condition for a gender change on legal documents (out of those, some still require a person to be childless or unmarried; some require hormone therapy but not SRS).
Do you mean they're all wrong and put women at risk?
If I follow the logic to only consider biological characteristics, same transwomen who went through surgery must still be denied access to women's toilets?

I'm not trying to argue here, I just don't follow the logic because it's always the "transgender people have different biological characteristics" that is thrown at them as if they didn't know that already in an attempt to either not be accepting or not moving forward in the discussion, or both. Gender goes way beyond that.

For instance, The World Health Organization and other institutions issued a joint statement in 2014, noting that the requirement to undergo sterilization surgeries as a prerequisite to receiving gender-affirmative treatment and gender-marker changes "run counter to respect for bodily integrity, self-determination and human dignity, and can cause and perpetuate discrimination against transgender and intersex persons."

And so on the basis that transwomen are women and a vast majority of them is not meant to be harmful to say "natural born women" in same sex places, I'm pretty sure a common ground can be found and a war between womens rights and trans rights doesn't have to happen. Both have been allies for so long.

PS: I mention transwomen here because it seems to be a bigger issue than transmen whom are seen as less dangerous in the context of unisex toilets or same sex places for instance.

Only biology does decide sex though Remy. You're speaking like sex and gender are the same thing. The truth is women have always been discriminated against/at a disadvantage because of their sex because of their biology, thats an absolute fact, not a matter of opinion

I don't recall saying they are not being discriminated against? That's not what I meant.

I specifically say sex and gender in the same sentence because that's the feel I got from reading some comments here and out there that biology defines both...which it doesn't.

Sex is male or female, gender being man or woman. And also everything in between (intersex or people with a difference of sexual development for instance)
Some believe genitals determine sex, with males having penises and females having vaginas. However, this definition excludes many cases.
Trans people often have chromosomes that don’t “match” their sex. A transgender woman, for example, can be female but still have XY chromosomes.

So just basing sex and/or gender just on the biological aspect of it is risky and counter-productive. Sex may be far more complex than what the traditional male-female binary accounts for.

Again, not arguing or calling people names. I'm trying to understand some logic here (ie should transwomen who went through surgery must still be denied access to women's toilets? etc)

No, transwomen are male.

No. Biology determines sex. Gender is a separate issue.

Changing rooms/sports are separated by sex.

It’s a good idea as long as there is a system in place that qualifies as a procedure for identifying. It can’t be a snap of the fingers kinda thing. I wanna see a few years of medically invested interest first or something similar.

Transwomen would also be welcome to male facilities. This isn’t a woman vs man thing. This is just justice to those forced to be part of an area they feel as if they don’t belong in.

So to you a transwomen who went through sex reassignment surgery (if she decides to do so, because it's not even mandatory in the UK anylonger) still should not be able to go in womens toilets and locker rooms?
Meaning that she is fully legally a woman but still has to go into mens toilets because she was originally born into a man's body. Just wondering.

It's not really for me to make that decision as I am a man and it does not affect me in the slightest.

I would say someone who has undergone a full transition via surgery is a completely different idea to "self ID" which is becoming more and more prevalent. It's this "self ID" which opens itself up for easy manipulation and is a danger to both cis women and transwomen.

If I had to come up with the solution, the most common sense approach would be individual bathroom stalls so that everyone is catered for and has their safety and privacy prioritised. That actually takes into account all groups of people, rather than prioritising one over another.

Edit -
I don't think anyone has suggested that because women want to protect their own sex-based rights that it automatically means putting transwomen in men's locker rooms. That's just your assumption.

I wouldn't have an issue with a transwoman who has had the surgery using female changing rooms, I would have an issue with someone with male parts using female changing rooms. The biggest issue is self ID really which is wide open for abuse

Yes absolutely

And I haven't suggested that either. Just wondering and asking a question because there seems to be a difference to some people whether transgender people went through surgery or not, which in many countries is not required.

Well, that's exactly what has kickstarted the discussions over the last few years, including the JK Rowling controversy.

AFAIK, and correct me if I'm wrong, but transwomen ALREADY use women's facilities and there is (aside from your transphobic minority) no issue with that. The issue is now with men "self ID-ing" as transwomen. Which isn't about transwomen at all, but about how it's open to abuse by men.

It might be wide open for abuse indeed and your concerns are legit. And really having worked with transgender people in different LGBT+ charities for many years, nobody (or almost) would go through all the discrimination, all the stigma, the pain, the attacks etc "just to be abuse the system".

It's incredibly hard to be trans these days (and so is being a woman in so many cases unfortunately), and some feel more comfortable not going under surgery while some think it's acceptable to them.
Regulations around the world tend to follow the principle of not having surgery (but still having a medical check etc) to proceed to legal change.

That's just what I am saying, that a few cases of abuse should not just close the discussion completely in the eyes of officials whereas many solutions can be found. Unisex toilets with cubicles are a good example of that.

To be fair I'm not really on board when it comes to actual reassignment surgery being "a requirement", as it's a major body modification and not a simple procedure at all, I'd stop short of that in terms of what should be considered transition. I do think there should be a robust process otherwise, though. I know that's often not the most popular stance and it's often compared to things like, "what if people said that about homosexuality?" but it's really not directly comparable at all, specifically because of the things being discussed (such as access to sex-segregated spaces).

Do I imagine there are large numbers of people out there who would go through an entire transition process with abusing the system in mind, or to get at ex partners in refuges? No, that would be utterly insane, and if someone is that far gone then really there are bigger things to worry about with them.

But do I think if it's possible to simply declare one's gender and then be granted immediate access to women's spaces, a LOT of predatory men will do just that? Honestly, yes, I am utterly certain that they will.

I actually feel slightly envious of people who think that the sort of mindset that would be required for that is "vanishingly rare" ... I wish I still believed that about the world. It is not rare, at all, and you would be absolutely gobsmacked at the number of abusers out there who go to far greater lengths than that for access... everywhere, every day.

I think it's important to note that very few people are saying "Transpeople are dangerous pervs!!", and certainly no one here. It's more just pointing out the hard reality that individuals who are NOT trans will happily take advantage of trans rights if it is at all possible to do so, and so knowing that, caution becomes absolutely essential. And I have serious questions for anyone who is willing to ignore real-world risks or even refuse to consider them.

Unfortunately it's more than you can imagine, or even I imagined before working in LGBT+ shelters and charities. It's scary, the transphobia is real out there. People getting attacked or killed for living true to who they really are is always hearbreaking.
I'm not trans, I'm a happy cis man but I feel for them or for any minority out there that must face so much hatred on daily basis.

So do fat people...

What I mean by that is that there will be fat vulnerable women being physically and emotionally attacked by weasly little men ***** on an hourly basis.

...I hadn’t realised that any plans in the U.K. to allow Self ID have been dropped by the government... which hopefully will help to allay some of the safe guarding concerns, largely focused on Self IDing....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-b528630.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...r-trans-people

If she looks so cute in the dress, why hide it with her hair?

What does turf mean?

Intersexuality..

Mr Biden likes children and other things and has now covered his back.