[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

It's important people don't dispute it, but you have to realise the difficulty when a minority of a minority acting badly is used as an argument in critique of a marginalised demographic.

It happens often - people use negative examples of tiny proportions of a minority group to "prove their point". For example, they spent their time calling homosexuals pedophiles and then one actually is it's a "see I told you".

This creates an extremely difficult balance where people should criticise the bad person, without giving credence to the insinuations that it's a common occurrence within X community.

Sorry, but it's happened in this thread continuously. Minute examples are being used to insinuate it's a more common issue than it actually is. Not acknowledging that isn't disputing it's happening, but it is ignoring the idea it's a common theme.

I don't disagree but the fact that it's "the minority of a minority" is all the more reason for it to be called out as a problem that does happen, rather than ignored and again I'll use the term "stonewalled" as the main line of defense -- the "That Doesn't Happen" mantra I mentioned, which feels like gaslighting, vs the "That rarely happens and we need to minimise the risk of it ever happening" -- a nuanced discussion that just isn't, or hasn't been, allowed to happen. People have been threatened, attacked and have lost their livelihoods for even attempting to have that discussion openly. I hope that now changes, but I think it'll still take time, it's still going to be a fraught issue.

[Vicky.]

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

However, even in your example, gay spaces are rarely straight-excluding and even social clubs like LGBT sports teams are often inclusive of all (gay, straight, trans, women) and things like gay running groups, book clubs etc are done as a way to meet other gay people, rather than exclude straight people.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

I'm going to be controversial here and say that with the example of toilets/changing facilities... it's actually the other way around that the numbers need to be considered. I fully appreciate the need to consider minorities at, for example, a political representation level where the risk is being drowned out / over-ruled by majority opinion arbitrarily and without consideration, but in the case of access to public spaces and risk/comfort, the balance being towards the comfort of the people who will most commonly be using that space is ... actually the primary consideration.

It's difficult to use bathrooms and changing to illustrate this well but you can easily do it with violence against women shelters, where there needs to be a feeling of safety not only in male threats not being present, but in it being not possible for male threats to be present (the possibility is in itself a direct concern). Because 99.9% off people accessing that space will be women, coming from an abusive situation... unfortunately yes, those people do have to be the primary consideration, and that 99.9% can't be disproportionately impacted to accommodate a minority situation. I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to consider.

I would basically counter (as I usually do) that the solution is to head in the direction of individual, self-contained, securable units (toilets, changing, whatever) where this doesn't need to be a concern in the first place. The answer is not shoehorning a situation that, simply, I suspect doesn't HAVE a solution that works for everyone. It does not exist.

[arista]

This is why Tomorrow PM Starmer
should speak in an announcement in parliament
after 2:30PM

To Clarify this Mess.


Then on Weds
no one can take the Piss of him
in PMQ's

[bots]

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

[arista]

Originally Posted by bots

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

Bit late isn't it, we all know his views quiet clearly now

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Bit late isn't it, we all know his views quiet clearly now

Yes, Months back he was confused on LBC Live.


He must speak up tomorrow
or PMQ's on Weds
will take the piss him

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I’m talking about the people giving death threats. Radicals exist in every group?

Is it a common opinion of yours that legitimate reasonable people of a certain demographic should pay the price for the actions of a bad minority within the same community?

If so, it’s a very toxic mentality. If not, why do you do it with this group?

This is the infuriating part, there are scary people in every group, there are dangerous cis women in women only spaces too and dangerous cis men will always find a way to prey on others. This isn't protecting anyone, it's just excluding.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by bots

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

Prepare for malicious compliance.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

This is the infuriating part, there are scary people in every group, there are dangerous cis women in women only spaces too and dangerous cis men will always find a way to prey on others. This isn't protecting anyone, it's just excluding.

so you would be perfectly happy to accommodate a transwoman with a penis in a domestic refuge?

[BBXX]

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.

If the former, then you'll never ever see a trans person as separate from their biological make-up and so the idea of a trans person being in the same safe spaces as biological cis women is an issue, of course, because ultimately to you they are and always will be a man.

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

so you would be perfectly happy to accommodate a transwoman with a penis in a domestic refuge?

If she needed help?? Yeah!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.

I disagree and 15+ years ago before people (intentionally) muddied the water good science and sociology also disagreed - it doesn't boil down to that at all, it boils down to the fact that sex (biological) and gender (social construct) are entirely different concepts and while you can argue that there's nothing inherent about sex and gender that mean they have to "match", it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

Gender as a concept and it's origins is a deep and fascinating subject, my honest and frank opinion is that a lot of transgender rhetoric massively oversimplifies it conceptually and also far too often conflates gender and sex, and that's been an increasing issue over the last decade/decade and a half.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

...it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.

But why? We're not talking about someone feeling more feminine here, we're talking about someone's brain telling them they're a female to the point they have gender-reaffirming surgery to match as closely as possible their body to the gender in which they believe themselves to be. Why is that not considered enough?

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

In essence I agree that gender social rules are restrictive and can be problematic - funnily enough these rules are largely reinforced by right-wingers who take issue with anything that isn't binary and straight - but I think you're verging a bit too close to trans-erasure in your comment by suggesting that if someone doesn't fit into a typical masculine box they are now saying they're trans, or being told they are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that will happen in rare cases, but by and large, stats show the detransition rate is extremely low and I think it's important we don't assume that's what's happening and undermine the validity of something someone is going through just because we think we know better (because as cis people we never will truly understand it).

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Prepare for malicious compliance.

what a bizarre comment to make, what does malicious compliance mean?

[Vicky.]

I agree gender and sex are different. I don't see why 'gender' should have any affect on sex segregated spaces.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

what a bizarre comment to make, what does malicious compliance mean?

It means to toe the line to the point of awkwardness.

If a woman is now defined solely by her biological sexual characteristics, then people should expect to see bearded, muscular, testosterone-patch wearing trans men in women's spaces, for example.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

It means to toe the line to the point of awkwardness.

If a woman is now defined solely by her biological sexual characteristics, then people should expect to see bearded, muscular, testosterone-patch wearing trans men in women's spaces, for example.

I dont think this will happen in all honesty

Transmen are barely heard

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I dont think this will happen in all honesty

But it's the law?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

But why? We're not talking about someone feeling more feminine here, we're talking about someone's brain telling them they're a female to the point they have gender-reaffirming surgery to match as closely as possible their body to the gender in which they believe themselves to be. Why is that not considered enough?

My personal opinion on this and practical/what I should think should happen opinion are slightly different. My personal opinion is that what you're talking about is meaningless; there is no such thing as "your brain telling that you are a ____" that isn't inherently linked to social construct and established societal norms. Again though that is a personal academic stance; I acknowledge that there are people who disagree, and that's an interesting discussion to have (academically), I will confess I have zero interest in that discussion when it comes from a "well that's just how some folks feel and that's that" perspective. If the world operated purely on "individual feeling" we'd be nowhere.

My practical/pragmatic opinion is that what you're talking about was never a problem; people who had actually hormonally/surgically tansitioned were using their bathroom of choice FOR DECADES without it becoming a political issue. Yes there will have been many, many bigots and people who took issue with it but, largely, there was no issue with for want of a better word "proven" transgender people using chosen bathrooms or changing spaces. This is where there is - and has to be, sensibly, for any reasonable person - a clear and distinct difference between someone who is or has medically transitioned, and someone who hasn't or has no intention of doing so using those spaces on the basis of self-ID because they're wearing a wig and a dress and "women have long hair and wear dresses, right?" -- it's nonsense, and no matter how rarely it happens, it does happen, and the failure to acknowledge that it is a different scenario is the sort of gaslighting that's led to the whole thing becoming a wider political issue... and THAT has ultimately led to where we are now: with people who are/have medically transitioned being caught between a rock and a hard place. "Stonewalling"/Stonewall itself and other similar rganised movements flew too close to the sun and have done damage that will take generations to repair. That's just where we are. It's done, it won't change, and it can't be rushed.

In essence I agree that gender social rules are restrictive and can be problematic - funnily enough these rules are largely reinforced by right-wingers who take issue with anything that isn't binary and straight - but I think you're verging a bit too close to trans-erasure in your comment by suggesting that if someone doesn't fit into a typical masculine box they are now saying they're trans, or being told they are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that will happen in rare cases, but by and large, stats show the detransition rate is extremely low and I think it's important we don't assume that's what's happening and undermine the validity of something someone is going through just because we think we know better (because as cis people we never will truly understand it).

I'm not talking about a conscious pushing or anyone being "told" anything, I'm talking about interwoven gendered social constructs that predate written history. Again a fascinating conversation to talk about where they come from, what the nature of human civilisation and socialisation is and its origins, what it "means" (if anything) beyond reproduction to be male or female ... but the current state of gender ideology even in academics is wafer thin, let alone in the vast majority of those trying to assess their own gender. Do I think most people who choose to transition have a deep philosophical understanding of gender? Do I think they've unpacked all of their social ideas of norms / traumas and biases or have any intention of doing so beyond base "feeling"? No. I don't. And everything about the situation backs that up. The clear rage/frustration at being questioned can only come from an anxiety at being unable to fully answer the question.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

But it's the law?

People will use common sense, I was in a pub on Friday and a transwoman used the ladies, nobody batted an eyelid, never seen a transman in sport, and if a transman rocks up at a refuge they are biologically female so where is the issue

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

People will use common sense, I was in a pub on Friday and a transwoman used the ladies, nobody batted an eyelid, never seen a transman in sport, and if a transman rocks up at a refuge they are biologically female so where is the issue

Only thing I can see being an issue is that trans women are disproportionately (by percentage of course, not overall number) likely to be victims of domestic abuse and have few places to go in that situation -- however, women's refuges being women-only is essential, one of the most essential parts of this debate because of potential trauma-triggering, so the solution is not access to women's shelters. I just acknowledge that it's a problem - but the problem is in failing to provide refuges that cater to trans people, and the solution is creating those, NOT changing access to women's shelters.

Or to dream an even bigger dream;

Completely modernise the system so that people seeking refuge are properly and safely housed and it isn't communal living at all (with the associated risks). But we all know that's not going to happen or be funded.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Only thing I can see being an issue is that trans women are disproportionately (by percentage of course, not overall number) likely to be victims of domestic abuse and have few places to go in that situation -- however, women's refuges being women-only is essential, one of the most essential parts of this debate because of potential trauma-triggering, so the solution is not access to women's shelters. I just acknowledge that it's a problem - but the problem is in failing to provide refuges that cater to trans people, and the solution is creating those, NOT changing access to women's shelters.

Or to dream an even bigger dream;

Completely modernise the system so that people seeking refuge are properly and safely housed and it isn't communal living at all (with the associated risks). But we all know that's not going to happen or be funded.

I do think abused women benefit from being able to meet women in a similar situation as it creates an informal support group so not sure I agree that communal living is a bad thing, but certainly a fairly simple solution would be to create refuges specifically for trans women ...that said I don't think that would be acceptable either