[ChristmasNeeve]

So it's not about biological sex but also it's the "Patriarchy" when transwomen (biological men are exculded) seems like the opposite of Patriarchy to me

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So it's not about biological sex but also it's the "Patriarchy" when transwomen (biological men are exculded) seems like the opposite of Patriarchy to me

It's patriarchal because you're giving those living life as a man a pass on which spaces they can use depending on where they feel most safe, while limiting the spaces some people living as women get access to.

Who'd have thought living life as a man granted you extra privileges. A tale as old as time. Shame so many women in this thread are upholding it.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by BBXX

It's patriarchal because you're giving those living life as a man a pass on which spaces they can use depending on where they feel most safe, while limiting the spaces some people living as women get access to.



Who'd have thought living life as a man granted you extra privileges. A tale as old as time. Shame so many women in this thread are upholding it.

Unfortunately that's not how it works, we can't just opt in to male privilege. Odd how you think we're the only group that can opt in to privilege though,

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Unfortunately that's not how it works, we can't just opt in to male privilege. Odd how you think we're the only group that can opt in to privilege though,

Every group has their own set of privileges, of course. I'm just talking about this specific example with that specific opinion.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Every group has their own set of privileges, of course. I'm just talking about this specific example with that specific opinion.

Mmhhmm sure you are, you sound like the Patriarchy to me trying to take away women only spaces and then gaslight women who say no, a tale as old as time unfortunately

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Mmhhmm sure you are, you sound like the Patriarchy to me trying to take away women only spaces and then gaslight women who say no, a tale as old as time unfortunately

My opinion has nothing to do with women, it has everything to do with trans people.

You think my opinion is to do with women because you see trans women as men, and I don't.

I'm not gaslighting anyone, I'm disagreeing and pointing out flaws in the latest argument that trans men's identity is valid or not depending on how they look (they can use woman's facilities if they don't pass), but a trans woman's identity is never valid.

It seems completely hypocritical to talk about the importance of the law and what it states, and the importance of it being rooted in bioloigcal sex but then switching and saying "Hey, even though I view you as a woman, despite you identifying as a man, I'm going to have to ask you to use break the law and use the mens because...well you look too butch". I mean it's a win for the trans man because they get to use the facilities they want, but it's hypocritical and inconsistent.

It's a viewpoint that undermines both the law and the importance of biological sex that so many of you have been using as reasoning for trans women to be kept separate from cis women. So I ask, is it important or not?

I would say no, it's not important and everyone should have the same privilege as everyone else to use the facilities for the gender they are living life as. Vicky would say: it depends if they have facial hair. Huh.

Sorry but dictating someone's access to things based on how you perceive them based on how they look is plain wrong, and if pointing that out is gaslighting then so be it.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Beso

Reading between the lines.

Ugly men, can't get a woman, so turn into a woman, thinking it makes them more appealing.

Find out it doesn't. so take it out on women.

The kind of men that you're talking about tend to visit either r/NiceGuys or r/Inbreeding.

Search those two Subreddits up, they don't strike me as Transwomen from the way that they post over on them two places.

[Parmy]

Nobody wants to see a bearded woman bending her bare arse over a urinal to squeeze out a pee.

[Merry Mockmas]

And yes, I have heard about both places from other Social Media outlets... Unfortunately.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Yes, there are some extremists who think it's transphobic to not want to date a trans person - I have a problem with that and it feels gay-erasure-esque. However it's a tiny minority of a minority. It feels hyperbolic to say lesbians are "under attack".

It's so weird because whenever minorities are discussed, conversation always turns to the extremists within that group, the group that by far do not represent the majority of people within that demographic. It happens all the time.

This whole conversation has been hyperbolic in fact, this idea that trans women are some extreme threat to women because of a few isolated incidences where a trans woman existing has negatively effected a cis woman.

A recent study showed that a third of men would rape a woman if they thought there'd be no consequences/nobody would ever find out. A third of straight cis University students. A third. But instead the world seems to focus on trans women being this insane threat to every other woman out there. Give me a break.

A third of men are basically saying that they have considered raping women in the past?

That's a horrifying statistic.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Yes, there are some extremists who think it's transphobic to not want to date a trans person - I have a problem with that and it feels gay-erasure-esque. However it's a tiny minority of a minority. It feels hyperbolic to say lesbians are "under attack".

It's so weird because whenever minorities are discussed, conversation always turns to the extremists within that group, the group that by far do not represent the majority of people within that demographic. It happens all the time.

This whole conversation has been hyperbolic in fact, this idea that trans women are some extreme threat to women because of a few isolated incidences where a trans woman existing has negatively effected a cis woman.

A recent study showed that a third of men would rape a woman if they thought there'd be no consequences/nobody would ever find out. A third of straight cis University students. A third. But instead the world seems to focus on trans women being this insane threat to every other woman out there. Give me a break.

You are completely missing the point, transwomen are not the threat, self ID is because it gives opportunists an opportunity, dont know how many times this needs to be said to you

Also when has a transman taken away an opportunity from a man, can you point me to where a transman is a CEO or heads up an organisation that specifically supports men? Any transmen taking medals at sports events away from men? Any transmen in men only clubs..you just never hear it

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Beso

Nobody wants to see a bearded woman bending her bare arse over a urinal to squeeze out a pee.

You are in for a surprise.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by BBXX

My opinion has nothing to do with women, it has everything to do with trans people.



You think my opinion is to do with women because you see trans women as men, and I don't.



I'm not gaslighting anyone, I'm disagreeing and pointing out flaws in the latest argument that trans men's identity is valid or not depending on how they look (they can use woman's facilities if they don't pass), but a trans woman's identity is never valid.



It seems completely hypocritical to talk about the importance of the law and what it states, and the importance of it being rooted in bioloigcal sex but then switching and saying "Hey, even though I view you as a woman, despite you identifying as a man, I'm going to have to ask you to use break the law and use the mens because...well you look too butch". I mean it's a win for the trans man because they get to use the facilities they want, but it's hypocritical and inconsistent.



It's a viewpoint that undermines both the law and the importance of biological sex that so many of you have been using as reasoning for trans women to be kept separate from cis women. So I ask, is it important or not?



I would say no, it's not important and everyone should have the same privilege as everyone else to use the facilities for the gender they are living life as. Vicky would say: it depends if they have facial hair. Huh.



Sorry but dictating someone's access to things based on how you perceive them based on how they look is plain wrong, and if pointing that out is gaslighting then so be it.

It's important that biological women are safe from men in single sex spaces that they are vulnerable in or in a state of undress yes. Public toilets unfortunately are a difficult one as they can't be properly policed like rape centres or DV refuges or prisons can be. Thankfully, those ones can be though as those ones are more important. People arguing the case for biological men to be allowed access these spaces though tend to focus in on public toilets as it's easier to muddy the waters because of course no one is at door checking genitals or birth certs.

I wouldn't like to speak for Vicky but I suppose her point was biological women are not a danger to men the same way biological men are to women so that's probably why it's not as big an issue the other way round.

A solution to the toilet dilemma (as we seem stuck in the toilets) could be to have Women's and unisex or where possible all unisex fully closed cubicles

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's important that biological women are safe from men in single sex spaces that they are vulnerable in or in a state of undress yes. Public toilets unfortunately are a difficult one as they can't be properly policed like rape centres or DV refuges or prisons can be. Thankfully, those ones can be though as those ones are more important. People arguing the case for biological men to be allowed access these spaces though tend to focus in on public toilets as it's easier to muddy the waters because of course no one is at door checking genitals or birth certs.

I wouldn't like to speak for Vicky but I suppose her point was biological women are not a danger to men the same way biological men are to women so that's probably why it's not as big an issue the other way round.

A solution to the toilet dilemma (as we seem stuck in the toilets) could be to have Women's and unisex or where possible all unisex fully closed cubicles

I agree about having individuals cubicles but sadly if they are in a unisex complex the guy could wait right outside the door and attack someone or even just force them back into the cubicle


Scary problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's important that biological women are safe from men in single sex spaces that they are vulnerable in or in a state of undress yes. Public toilets unfortunately are a difficult one as they can't be properly policed like rape centres or DV refuges or prisons can be. Thankfully, those ones can be though as those ones are more important. People arguing the case for biological men to be allowed access these spaces though tend to focus in on public toilets as it's easier to muddy the waters because of course no one is at door checking genitals or birth certs.

I wouldn't like to speak for Vicky but I suppose her point was biological women are not a danger to men the same way biological men are to women so that's probably why it's not as big an issue the other way round.

A solution to the toilet dilemma (as we seem stuck in the toilets) could be to have Women's and unisex or where possible all unisex fully closed cubicles

That is what they had done at the coffee shop I visited in Cambridge, it amused me to seeing men have to queue, and one man came back shaking his head saying there was a queue as there was just one toilet and a disabled option next door

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Cherie

That is what they had done at the coffee shop I visited in Cambridge, it amused me to seeing men have to queue, and one man came back shaking his head saying there was a queue as there was just one toilet and a disabled option next door

Welcome to our world eh?

[Vicky.]

My opinion has nothing to do with women, it has everything to do with trans people.

This is the problem. The ruling wasn't about trans people it was about women. Trans people have their own set of rights which have been upheld. If you look at this from purely a trans perspective then of course women upholding boundaries looks transphobic. If you consider women are also an oppressed group then you would see their side too.

I do see why trans people would see the ruling as transphobic however that's the fault of stonewall who spent years misrepresenting the law and telling women to S T F U terf. The law has always been the same. If I was trans I would be pretty pissed off too. But not at women.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

A third of men are basically saying that they have considered raping women in the past?

That's a horrifying statistic.

It's vile but sadly not surprising

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Welcome to our world eh?

Right It was like a queue of 2 people and most people were using the disabled toilet next door as well, as a pefectly able man emerged while I was waiting so as I dont really think bathrooms are the big issue they are being made out to be when there are so many other issues, like males in female prisons

[Vicky.]

I wouldn't like to speak for Vicky but I suppose her point was biological women are not a danger to men the same way biological men are to women so that's probably why it's not as big an issue the other way round.

that's exactly what I meant.

[Vicky.]

Loos aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Prisons, refuges, sports, changing rooms etc. It's easy to dismiss concerns about loos. Which is probably why we keep going back to them..

[Cherry Christmas]

I mean look at this ridiculous decision by a judge back in 2019, the female was just dismissed

It is lawful for transgender women to be housed in female jails in England and Wales, the High Court has ruled.

A female prisoner, known as FDJ, had challenged the Ministry of Justice over aspects of the policy.

She claimed she had been sexually assaulted by a trans prisoner but the MoJ did not say whether it accepted this alleged incident had taken place.

The judge ruled barring all trans women from female prisons would ignore their right to live as their chosen gender.

Women's prisons can house inmates who were born male but identify as female, regardless of whether they have gone through any physical transformation or have obtained a gender recognition certificate.

The MoJ argued the policy pursued a legitimate aim, including "facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people's mental and physical health".

The claimant in the case, FDJ, had said she was sexually assaulted in prison in 2017 by a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), who had convictions for serious sexual offences.

The claimant's lawyers argued that placing transgender women in the female prisons exposed others to higher risk, citing a claim that transgender inmates were five times more likely than non-transgender prisoners to commit a sexual assault on a non-transgender prisoner.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57692993


Mad eh, and they told us this would never happen it was all in our heads, its easy to see why this case had to be taken to the Supreme Court because women were just not being listened to

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I mean look at this ridiculous decision by a judge back in 2019, the female was just dismissed

It is lawful for transgender women to be housed in female jails in England and Wales, the High Court has ruled.

A female prisoner, known as FDJ, had challenged the Ministry of Justice over aspects of the policy.

She claimed she had been sexually assaulted by a trans prisoner but the MoJ did not say whether it accepted this alleged incident had taken place.

The judge ruled barring all trans women from female prisons would ignore their right to live as their chosen gender.

Women's prisons can house inmates who were born male but identify as female, regardless of whether they have gone through any physical transformation or have obtained a gender recognition certificate.

The MoJ argued the policy pursued a legitimate aim, including "facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people's mental and physical health".

The claimant in the case, FDJ, had said she was sexually assaulted in prison in 2017 by a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), who had convictions for serious sexual offences.

The claimant's lawyers argued that placing transgender women in the female prisons exposed others to higher risk, citing a claim that transgender inmates were five times more likely than non-transgender prisoners to commit a sexual assault on a non-transgender prisoner.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57692993


Mad eh, and they told us this would never happen it was all in our heads, its easy to see why this case had to be taken to the Supreme Court because women were just not being listened to

Women aren't real people. They are only there to keep males safe and comfortable.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Women aren't real people. They are only there to keep males safe and comfortable.

Insane right, previously convicted of sexual assault, placed in a womens prison, yet the woman is told she is lying and we can't upset this transwoman and 'her' and I use her very loosely rights must be upheld for 'her' physical and mental well being, farcical, and we had all the high profile politicans yes looking at you Nicola nodding along and gas lighting us that this was the correct way to proceed

@BBXX what is your summation of this situation?

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Insane right, previously convicted of sexual assault, placed in a womens prison, yet the woman is told she is lying and we can't upset this transwoman and 'her' and I use her very loosely rights must be upheld for 'her' physical and mental well being, farcical, and we had all the high profile politicans yes looking at you Nicola nodding along and gas lighting us that this was the correct way to proceed

@BBXX what is your summation of this situation?

Look, that's obviously awful for the female officer and the process for investigation should be the same for whomever was the perpetrator and the punishment the same, but sorry I don't see why a trans woman should be put anywhere other than a women's prison... If a cis man was guilty of raping various men, he would still be put in a male prison, he wouldn't be put in a female prison to minimise risk of him assaulting other inmates.

But I have to ask, why are you linking the crime with their trans-ness? Why isn't it just the case they commit such a horrible crime because they were a criminal? Why are you linking it with their identity? Can't trans women be criminals just because, just like the cis women?

This always happens with minorities - a minority commits a crime and it's used as an illustration in an argument to try and justify something. Bad people are bad people.

What if it was a lesbian cis woman who sexually assaulted the prison officer? Would you ask for all lesbians to be put into another prison?