[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You've spent most of the thread calling other forum members various things rather than addressing the points of the discussion.



Good for you?

There's nothing to address, people just have to realise that [insert prescribed stock reasoning], and if they don't then they are [insert randomly generated ad hominem] until they change their thinking. Also JK Rowling is a hag.

[Marsh.]

[Elliot]

This thread has done a great job at proving Withano right

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Elliot

This thread has done a great job at proving Withano right

You're going to need to flesh that argument out a little before you start puffing your chest. In what way has it proven him right? Right about what?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Elliot

This thread has done a great job at proving Withano right

"You don't agree with me so therefore you're phobic and cruel and abusive" doesn't really work when all Withano has offered is to call people transphobic for not parroting the well-worn campaign phrases that ultimately mean nothing and help absolutely no one.

Like I said earlier, fake progress that, if anything, actually stalls progress further.

For change to happen, things NEED to be discussed, the nuances worked out and solved.

Change doesn't happen by telling other groups of people "We're changing things FOR you and you just have to accept it. ANY form of concern is transphobic".

That entire brand of activism is false and chaotic.

[Liam-]

And shutting people down because they’re concerned about the very visible patterns of discrimination that has plagued a community forever, as ‘ridiculous’ ‘radical’ ‘emotional’ is helpful how exactly?

It seems like people want free reign to discuss the ‘dangers’ of the trans community, without having their opinions challenged, they call those opposing them dumb or naive or emotional as I mentioned, yet don’t like being referred to as things themselves.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

And shutting people down because they’re concerned about the very visible patterns of discrimination that has plagued a community forever, as ‘ridiculous’ ‘radical’ ‘emotional’ is helpful how exactly?

It seems like people want free reign to discuss the ‘dangers’ of the trans community, without having their opinions challenged, they call those opposing them dumb or naive or emotional as I mentioned, yet don’t like being referred to as things themselves.

Nobody in here has spoken about the trans community as "dangers". Talking about the dangers of self ID, changing the rules of changing rooms that are separated by sex is not discrimination.

What is dangerous is shutting down opposing discussion as phobic. Dangerous for the trans community.
That is what is being labelled as ridiculous and extreme, not your support of the trans community. You consistently misrepresent what is being said and present it as something more extreme in order to close it down and stick it under the "transphobic" umbrella where it does not belong.

"You can't stop trans people from entering women's changing rooms as it's discrimination" is not challenging any opinion. It's validating one group's concerns and invalidating another. I have no idea what the solution can be in the end, but it's certainly not by dismissing women, their views, their feelings and their rights.

[Liam-]

Wanting to change the rules of public bathrooms or changing areas to exclude trans women is inherently discriminatory, seeing as they already have the right to use them, there is no solution to it, other than the the often suggested, 3rd area specifically for transpeople or bouncers on the door checking people, I understand a woman’s every day anxiety about safety and whatnot, but is the answer to even further marginalise a minority? I don’t think so

I’m not misrepresenting anything, I’m responding to what people are saying and if we really want to talk about shutting down people’s views and invalidating their opinions, TS straight up told me he has more of a right to an opinion on this subject than me because he’s a straight man with kids, I haven’t once told people what they can or can’t say, or how they should feel, I’ve only ever stated my opinion, so I’m not quite sure why this ‘stop dismissing women’ line keeps getting thrown at me

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Wanting to change the rules of public bathrooms or changing areas to exclude trans women is inherently discriminatory, seeing as they already have the right to use them, there is no solution to it, other than the the often suggested, 3rd area specifically for transpeople or bouncers on the door checking people, I understand a woman’s every day anxiety about safety and whatnot, but is the answer to even further marginalise a minority? I don’t think so

I’m not misrepresenting anything, I’m responding to what people are saying and if we really want to talk about shutting down people’s views and invalidating their opinions, TS straight up told me he has more of a right to an opinion on this subject than me because he’s a straight man with kids, I haven’t once told people what they can or can’t say, or how they should feel, I’ve only ever stated my opinion, so I’m not quite sure why this ‘stop dismissing women’ line keeps getting thrown at me

Well, calling anyone who has an issue with the changing boundaries of "woman" and what that means and any concern at any point of the process by women themselves transphobic is dismissing women. It just is. At every point of the journey it's validating any and all concerns by trans people and taking none on board from cis-women themselves. On social media, the cesspit that it is, it's resulted in sexism being seen as completely fine and rational/normal debate about trans issues being called "TERF" and "Transphobic".

If a club was to close its unisex bathrooms and split them into male and female, would that be "marginalising" men or women? No. So giving transpeople their very own safe space is really not marginalising them. It's literally making space for them and outright recognising and validating their existence.

Originally Posted by Liam-

TS straight up told me he has more of a right to an opinion on this subject than me because he’s a straight man with kids

It think it was more a facetious response to your "my demographic has hard-fought for rights" as though it meant your opinion was worth more. I didn't see it like that but that's what he was referring to. I've been in a sexual relationship with Cal for two years so my opinion is better anyway.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well, calling anyone who has an issue with the changing boundaries of "woman" and what that means and any concern at any point of the process by women themselves transphobic is dismissing women. It just is. At every point of the journey it's validating any and all concerns by trans people and taking none on board from cis-women themselves. On social media, the cesspit that it is, it's resulted in sexism being seen as completely fine and rational/normal debate about trans issues being called "TERF" and "Transphobic".

If a club was to close its unisex bathrooms and split them into male and female, would that be "marginalising" men or women? No. So giving transpeople their very own safe space is really not marginalising them. It's literally making space for them and outright recognising and validating their existence.

Well, I think that all depends on how people go about having these discussions, if someone goes out of their way to offend transpeople when they discuss it, then it’s fair game to call them transphobes imo, if people want to have a nuanced discussion about something, there’s a way to do it without being purposefully confrontational and demeaning and we all know Twitter and whatnot is a total dystopian nightmare, that goes without saying.

I wouldn’t see a separate area for transpeople as ‘validation’ at all, it would be an acknowledgement that they exist but keeping them away from general public areas, imo that would be seen as a sign that they weren’t accepted in society but instead tolerated.

It think it was more a facetious response to your "my demographic has hard-fought for rights" as though it meant your opinion was worth more. I didn't see it like that but that's what he was referring to.

That’s not what I meant or said at all, he said women have fought for their rights and I said so have LGBT communities and he went on a rant about having more chips on the table so therefore has more of a right to an opinion, if people really care about people’s voices being validated, they shouldn’t put a tier list on the importance of opinions

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

if someone goes out of their way to offend transpeople when they discuss it, then it’s fair game to call them transphobes imo

Nobody has done that in this thread so his comments are not warranted.

if people want to have a nuanced discussion about something, there’s a way to do it without being purposefully confrontational and demeaning

Responding to a woman in this thread who spoke her own opinion about her own rights as a woman and calling her "cruel" and "transphobic" was confrontational and demeaning when there was no need for him to be.

but keeping them away from general public areas, imo that would be seen as a sign that they weren’t accepted in society but instead tolerated.

This doesn't make any sense. Separated changing rooms/toilets are all in their own space. There being 3 doors instead of 2 doesn't change anything.

Women aren't "marginalised and kept away" by having separate facilities to men. Trans people wouldn't be either. In fact, in turn, it would probably make them feel safer and more comfortable too.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

That’s not what I meant or said at all, he said women have fought for their rights and I said so have LGBT communities and he went on a rant about having more chips on the table so therefore has more of a right to an opinion, if people really care about people’s voices being validated, they shouldn’t put a tier list on the importance of opinions

tbh I can see what TS means - it's easy to support acting as if transwomen are female in every sense, but TS and many others actually have skin in the game - a wife and female children. Most genuine transwomen will use the bathroom and then leave, but there's always the danger that when you start allowing male people to use female spaces, some predatory men will take advantage.

[Crimson Dynamo]

still wondering what numbers we are talking about here?

because lets face it, its an issue

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Nobody has done that in this thread so his comments are not warranted.



Responding to a woman in this thread who spoke her own opinion about her own rights as a woman and calling her "cruel" and "transphobic" was confrontational and demeaning when there was no need for him to be.

Wait, what? I’m confused, I wasn’t defending anything that’s been said on this thread

This doesn't make any sense. Separated changing rooms/toilets are all in their own space. There being 3 doors instead of 2 doesn't change anything.

Women aren't "marginalised and kept away" by having separate facilities to men. Trans people wouldn't be either. In fact, in turn, it would probably make them feel safer and more comfortable too.

I don’t agree with that, separate male and female areas are essential, but by having a separate space for transpeople I think would be a slap in the face for their journey to become their desired gender, I think it would come across as them being thought of as not allowed to integrate.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Wanting to change the rules of public bathrooms or changing areas to exclude trans women is inherently discriminatory, seeing as they already have the right to use them, there is no solution to it, other than the the often suggested, 3rd area specifically for transpeople or bouncers on the door checking people, I understand a woman’s every day anxiety about safety and whatnot, but is the answer to even further marginalise a minority? I don’t think so

I have no issue with people making a case for bathroom segregation being discriminatory (hopefully alongside an argument for making things work alongside safeguarding), I have no issue with anyone arguing passionately for ANY angle on a rights-based discussion. My issue - my entire issue - is the stance that having these arguments at all, or arguing any opinion other than the zeitgeist as defined by trans activists, is inherently transphobic, hateful or unacceptable. That any attempt to acknowledge that there blatantly ARE safeguarding concerns in certain women's spaces and complicated issues in areas like healthcare and sport is somehow bigotted and "cruel" because it triggers some members of a certain demographic. That expert opinion and academic/sociological/anthropological study of transgenderism that falls outwith pre-approved boundaries is so awful that it warrants ending careers. That concerned women voicing those concerns - often in the form of perfectly measured, reasonable questions even if you happen to disagree with their premise - are fair game for an outpouring of bile and (let's face it) misogynistic name-calling.

And that is where things are currently standing, very firmly. Sadly. This is a relatively new phenomenon - it of course goes very much hand in hand with general political discourse from the last 10 or so years - but it is (as Marsh has pointed out a few times) unhelpful and damaging.

Everyone has the right to be who they want to be as an individual, treated with respect and to not be attacked. "Hearing things you don't like hearing" is not an attack, and is not disrespect. Wanting conversations around the way forward that hears and considers transpeople AND women AND (most importantly in my opinion) fully considers safeguarding implications for vulnerable individuals is not "hateful". Seeking a robust evidence-based practice to pursue with children and adolescents who think they might be trans is imperative and not something for the "lived experience" mob to campaign against because they think it should be another way. People believe there is no safeguarding implication? Great! Allow the work to be done to generate a body of work that proves that, and then the next time it's brought up, you can argue that it doesn't with proper backup and citation. The suggestion and desire to be sure about these things isn't designed to "hurt anyone's feelings" and if it does, I can only really be blunt and say that safeguarding trumps feelings every single time. Sorry.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Wait, what? I’m confused, I wasn’t defending anything that’s been said on this thread

You literally responded to two posts discussing Withano's contribution to the thread that if they don't wish to be called those words of a, b, c they shouldn't be saying x, y, z .
Unless you thought my post was related to a hypothetical?

Originally Posted by Liam-

I don’t agree with that, separate male and female areas are essential, but by having a separate space for transpeople I think would be a slap in the face for their journey to become their desired gender, I think it would come across as them being thought of as not allowed to integrate.

I would agree with this if all we were talking about was fully transitioned adults.

But, this discussion involves children and self ID which muddies the waters considerably.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Wait, what? I’m confused, I wasn’t defending anything that’s been said on this thread





I don’t agree with that, separate male and female areas are essential, but by having a separate space for transpeople I think would be a slap in the face for their journey to become their desired gender, I think it would come across as them being thought of as not allowed to integrate.

I agree up to a a point, but take the 13 year old mentioned earlier in the thread would you expect a female of that age to go into a male changing area in school for instance?

[Ammi]

..I agree with Liam in that I don’t profess to know what the solution would be in terms of bathroom spaces etc...but as someone whose thoughts are strongly with human equality and considering the emotional and very difficult journey that is taken by ‘trans’...and how ‘separated’ they would have felt for so long, both before the journey and during it...it would just be awful for that ‘separation’ to continue in terms of those bathroom spaces and male to female finally reaching womanhood...Which is a place that they’d always felt they should have been from birth...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I agree with Liam in that I don’t profess to know what the solution would be in terms of bathroom spaces etc...but as someone whose thoughts are strongly with human equality and considering the emotional and very difficult journey that is taken by ‘trans’...and how ‘separated’ they would have felt for so long, both before the journey and during it...it would just be awful for that ‘separation’ to continue in terms of those bathroom spaces and male to female finally reaching womanhood...Which is a place that they’d always felt they should have been from birth...

Honestly I think people get a bit stuck on the bathrooms part, I don't think it's all that important and I don't think there are actual concerns surrounding safety in public bathrooms (any more than there are in general). The issue there is people's fears and comfort but even then, clearly, the way to tackle it should be compassionately and informative not militantly and aggressively. If a woman who may well have experienced violence from males is legitimately scared about this issue then the aim should be to reassure that person, not to brand them hateful and target them aggressively... That (obviously) does nothing but compound those fears. "UGH you don't have to be scared of transpeople, choke on my dick you stupid transphobe bitch!!". Twitter logic .

However, yeah... The public bathroom is really surface level stuff. Child safeguarding, protection of vulnerable women in refuge etc., women's sport, the ability to use frank terminology in healthcare... These are the issues that at the very least need in depth, level-headed examination and discussion without the people trying to do that being targeted with guilt-tripping, accusations and aggression.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Honestly I think people get a bit stuck on the bathrooms part, I don't think it's all that important and I don't think there are actual concerns surrounding safety in public bathrooms (any more than there are in general). The issue there is people's fears and comfort but even then, clearly, the way to tackle it should be compassionately and informative not militantly and aggressively. If a woman who may well have experienced violence from males is legitimately scared about this issue then the aim should be to reassure that person, not to brand them hateful and target them aggressively... That (obviously) does nothing but compound those fears. "UGH you don't have to be scared of transpeople, choke on my dick you stupid transphobe bitch!!". Twitter logic .

However, yeah... The public bathroom is really surface level stuff. Child safeguarding, protection of vulnerable women in refuge etc., women's sport, the ability to use frank terminology in healthcare... These are the issues that at the very least need in depth, level-headed examination and discussion without the people trying to do that being targeted with guilt-tripping, accusations and aggression.

...but I don’t know who these ‘people’ who got a bit stuck on the bathroom stuff are, TS...in terms of this original thread topic...it wasn’t Liam, I don’t think where the diversion began and it wasn’t me...with respect, actually ...it may even been you yourself being part of the bathroom space introduction with...

‘A) an unwillingness to allow the safeguarding reasearch to be done based on the premise that it's "offensive" to suggest that it needs to be.‘..I’m not sure, I’m just skim reading...anyways, no matter because it’s how threads get diverted anyway and encompass many things, is what we often see...any safeguarding concerns are obviously something that have to be a primary as well/...and that safeguarding has to gel with equality also..which is what I profess to not knowing the answer to that and Liam was never dismissing or disregarding that, from what I can see...

...you say ‘compassionately’ and not ‘aggressively‘ and I completely agree with that...but then that last sentence of the first paragraph...really..?...that’s quite a minority ‘Twitter logic’ on this particular news story form what I’ve looked at...or at least there is another quite substantial balance of a completely different mindset... if people do indeed ‘get stuck on stuff’...then by definition of ‘being stuck‘...it can never be considered ‘surface’ at all...

...anyways, I really don’t wish to get involved further in this particular forum discussion atm...(..I won’t say never though, I might dip in and out...)...I’m actually quite confused with your stance and thoughts as well, TS, because they’re quite inconsistent with past similar-ish thread topics ...unless I’m recalling it incorrectly, which is entirely possible as well...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...but I don’t know who these ‘people’ who got a bit stuck on the bathroom stuff are, TS...in terms of this original thread topic...it wasn’t Liam, I don’t think where the diversion began and it wasn’t me...with respect, actually ...it may even been you yourself being part of the bathroom space introduction with...

‘A) an unwillingness to allow the safeguarding reasearch to be done based on the premise that it's "offensive" to suggest that it needs to be.‘..I’m not sure, I’m just skim reading...anyways, no matter because it’s how threads get diverted anyway and encompass many things, is what we often see...any safeguarding concerns are obviously something that have to be a primary as well/...and that safeguarding has to gel with equality also..which is what I profess to not knowing the answer to that and Liam was never dismissing or disregarding that, from what I can see...

...you say ‘compassionately’ and not ‘aggressively‘ and I completely agree with that...but then that last sentence of the first paragraph...really..?...that’s quite a minority ‘Twitter logic’ on this particular news story form what I’ve looked at...or at least there is another quite substantial balance of a completely different mindset... if people do indeed ‘get stuck on stuff’...then by definition of ‘being stuck‘...it can never be considered ‘surface’ at all...

That sentence is a direct quote of something I have personally seen on Twitter, and it's far from isolated; it is constant and prolific on any Social Media discussion of the topic that gains any traction. If the topic is brought up by a woman and sparks debate, threats of sexual violence against that woman will follow. Like clockwork. It's a MASSIVE problem and trying to shoo it away as something minor that is very rare is part of the problem; you have people saying "umm that doesn't happen" to people who are actively watching it happening. Is it a minority? Almost certainly but that's not really the point, is it. Yes it's a minority that goes to those extremes. In my (anecdotal, admittedly) observation though, the less extreme examples (e.g. women being called TERFs, transphobes, harpies, hags, bitches, etc. etc.) for stating anything that questions the trans activist zeitgeist is absolutely not a minority... it's rife. I've seen it on here, multiple times.

...anyways, I really don’t wish to get involved further in this particular forum discussion atm...(..I won’t say never though, I might dip in and out...)...I’m actually quite confused with your stance and thoughts as well, TS, because they’re quite inconsistent with past similar-ish thread topics ...unless I’m recalling it incorrectly, which is entirely possible as well...

When this topic came up a few years ago I had an almost polar opposite opinion to the one I hold now. Since then... direct experience of seeing people quite viciously attacked (perfectly respectful academics), the attempts to shut down and destroy discuission of the issue, the problematic charitable organisations like Mermaids, direct experience of the complete lack of concern for robust evidence-based child safeguarding practices, and an increasingly extreme rhetoric coming from activist groups (not just an issue with trans rights, of course, it's default 2020) has forced me to completely reconsider my stance on this.

Interestingly though, I'd say my issue with this on the other side a few years ago, and my issue now, are actually more or less the same thing. I was getting frustrated at the time by people stating dangers "as fact" with absolutely no evidence. That still happens, but now I'm increasingly encountering people vehemently arguing that there are NO risks, additional considerations, child mental health or safeguarding concerns again with absolutely no evidence. In fact there IS evidence, that is being aggressively ignored, in the child mental health arena that the rhetoric being used by trans activists (not fringe ones, very mainstream groups) is directly damaging to the mental health of trans adolescents.

When it comes down to it, I just want people to be able to do the ****ing legwork and be allowed to do so without being threatened, harrassed or intimidated "because it's hurting people's feelings". It's ridiculous. Grown adults whining about "hurtful stuff" and "things being like a slap in the face" at the expense of actual mental health research and child safeguarding. I have absolutely no time for it.

[Niamh.]

It's so rare to see anyone do a u turn on any subject on TiBB TS but I'm glad you did actually take the time to listen and do some research for yourself. And I agree with that point of yours, research, proper research needs to be done on this, most especially for the sake of children and teenagers, I have read lately that puberty blockers being "fully reversible" is starting to be back tracked on now for one example. This is potential sterilisation of children, that has to be looked at properly

[Liam-]

Thank you Ammi

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That sentence is a direct quote of something I have personally seen on Twitter, and it's far from isolated; it is constant and prolific on any Social Media discussion of the topic that gains any traction. If the topic is brought up by a woman and sparks debate, threats of sexual violence against that woman will follow. Like clockwork. It's a MASSIVE problem and trying to shoo it away as something minor that is very rare is part of the problem; you have people saying "umm that doesn't happen" to people who are actively watching it happening. Is it a minority? Almost certainly but that's not really the point, is it. Yes it's a minority that goes to those extremes. In my (anecdotal, admittedly) observation though, the less extreme examples (e.g. women being called TERFs, transphobes, harpies, hags, bitches, etc. etc.) for stating anything that questions the trans activist zeitgeist is absolutely not a minority... it's rife. I've seen it on here, multiple times.



When this topic came up a few years ago I had an almost polar opposite opinion to the one I hold now. Since then... direct experience of seeing people quite viciously attacked (perfectly respectful academics), the attempts to shut down and destroy discuission of the issue, the problematic charitable organisations like Mermaids, direct experience of the complete lack of concern for robust evidence-based child safeguarding practices, and an increasingly extreme rhetoric coming from activist groups (not just an issue with trans rights, of course, it's default 2020) has forced me to completely reconsider my stance on this.

Interestingly though, I'd say my issue with this on the other side a few years ago, and my issue now, are actually more or less the same thing. I was getting frustrated at the time by people stating dangers "as fact" with absolutely no evidence. That still happens, but now I'm increasingly encountering people vehemently arguing that there are NO risks, additional considerations, child mental health or safeguarding concerns again with absolutely no evidence. In fact there IS evidence, that is being aggressively ignored, in the child mental health arena that the rhetoric being used by trans activists (not fringe ones, very mainstream groups) is directly damaging to the mental health of trans adolescents.

When it comes down to it, I just want people to be able to do the ****ing legwork and be allowed to do so without being threatened, harrassed or intimidated "because it's hurting people's feelings". It's ridiculous. Grown adults whining about "hurtful stuff" and "things being like a slap in the face" at the expense of actual mental health research and child safeguarding. I have absolutely no time for it.

...as I say, I don’t really want to be involved in this discussion in a ‘forum’ way atm...so if it’s okay, I’ll just skim over most in replying but also say that I’ve absorbed all in the reading of...yeah, you’ve been on ‘both sides’ as it were with your stance.....that was my recollection and I’m sure, often Vicky’s recollection as well and sometimes, Niamh’s even, maybe....I mean I wasn’t criticising your opposite stance, just more confused by it ...and particularly to something you said...(...which I agree with..)...that to have the discussions needed...’ the way to tackle it should be compassionately’...words of wisdom, TS...I think that rearranging our views is such an essential, tbh...otherwise on everything, we would all be ‘stuck in one place’ and blinkered in our mindsets etc...we all learn every day in every way/ type thing and so many different sources of listening to learn and consider and reconsider..?...etc...my ‘life song’ as it were and actually, one of my chosen ‘death songs’...is Both Sides Now, because we often look at life’s discussions etc from both sides...and that’s a great thing and a very balanced thing...and a very privileged thing...?...and the thing that creates that compassion...that is so essential and so much ‘the right way’, whatever our particular stance/mindset...


...so I guess, final word ...(...for the moment..)...

Youtube video

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's so rare to see anyone do a u turn on any subject on TiBB TS but I'm glad you did actually take the time to listen and do some research for yourself. And I agree with that point of yours, research, proper research needs to be done on this, most especially for the sake of children and teenagers, I have read lately that puberty blockers being "fully reversible" is starting to be back tracked on now for one example. This is potential sterilisation of children, that has to be looked at properly

...oops, I didn’t see you post, I must have been (...slowly...)...typing...