[user104658]

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

Indeed. personally my view is someone who is actually transsexual using the areas associated with the sex they wish to be is fine. But I don't think this should extend to male bodied people who are simply crossdressers or who do not actually have sex dysphoria. I am fully for 'trans rights' when 'trans' means transsexual, not any bloke who says he is a woman one day. 'Transgender' and 'transsexual' are two very different things.

And yes, there is something sinister about the current transactivist agenda. Honestly, todays transactivists have so much in common with MRAs (the problematic ones...not people actually concerned about the rights of men..there is a difference) that its impossible to ignore.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

Ironically, I think that one of the groups that all of this is MOST harmful to is actually transitioned / actively transitioning transsexuals. They are probably seen by one side as being supportive of all of it even if they aren't, and by the other as some sort of "traitor" if they have an opinion that deviates from the one that's prescribed. Can you imagine if a fully transitioned transexual responded to a "transwomen are women baaaah" mantra tweet with "Well, hold on a minute, I didn't consider myself a woman until after reassignment surgery"? They would be utterly slaughtered like some sort of defector.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Ironically, I think that one of the groups that all of this is MOST harmful to is actually transitioned / actively transitioning transsexuals. They are probably seen by one side as being supportive of all of it even if they aren't, and by the other as some sort of "traitor" if they have an opinion that deviates from the one that's prescribed. Can you imagine if a fully transitioned transexual responded to a "transwomen are women baaaah" mantra tweet with "Well, hold on a minute, I didn't consider myself a woman until after reassignment surgery"? They would be utterly slaughtered like some sort of defector.

They are. Regularly. There is even a word for them. 'Truscum'. Its disgusting really. and yes, one of the groups its most harmful to is transsexual people who have transitioned. As they are lumped in together with 'gender fluid' entitled dickheads who think putting on a dress one day means they should have access to the womens changing room.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Indeed. personally my view is someone who is actually transsexual using the areas associated with the sex they wish to be is fine. But I don't think this should extend to male bodied people who are simply crossdressers or who do not actually have sex dysphoria. I am fully for 'trans rights' when 'trans' means transsexual, not any bloke who says he is a woman one day. 'Transgender' and 'transsexual' are two very different things.

And yes, there is something sinister about the current transactivist agenda. Honestly, todays transactivists have so much in common with MRAs (the problematic ones...not people actually concerned about the rights of men..there is a difference) that its impossible to ignore.

I don't think transgender and transexual are that seperate. Crossdressing can be a very different thing (although even then there can be crossovers, some people begin by crossdressing without fully acknowledging their trans thoughts/repressing them, and then later transition. And then some people just enjoy crossdressing for reasons that having nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being trans). But with transgender/transexual sometimes the difference can just come down to a transgender person being denied surgical treatment (which does happen - I'm not sure how much though) or through fear of having such extreme surgeries. However much they might feel they are the opposite sex and want to change physically it's such an extreme and frightening thing that it's understandable why not all transgender people transition. Their actual attitudes and who they are inside is often the same as a transexual though. Obviously not always and a lot of transgender people don't want to transition, I'm just saying that isn't always the case.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

We did get accused of trying to take away other peoples rights though during the whole gay marriage thing. For example infringing on peoples right to religion, if a religious person refused to conduct a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. Even that lesbian wedding cake story it was argued that the gay couple were infringing on the religious rights of the cake store owners, same with the gay couple who were refused a room in a b&b.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I don't think transgender and transexual are that seperate. Crossdressing can be a very different thing (although even then there can be crossovers, some people begin by crossdressing without fully acknowledging their trans thoughts/repressing them, and then later transition. And then some people just enjoy crossdressing for reasons that having nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being trans). But with transgender/transexual sometimes the difference can just come down to a transgender person being denied surgical treatment (which does happen - I'm not sure how much though) or through fear of having such extreme surgeries. However much they might feel they are the opposite sex and want to change physically it's such an extreme and frightening thing that it's understandable why not all transgender people transition. Their actual attitudes and who they are inside is often the same as a transexual though. Obviously not always and a lot of transgender people don't want to transition, I'm just saying that isn't always the case.

'Transgender' is used for people who do not actually have sex dysphoria. How can anyone be trans without dysphoria? Transsexual are people with sex dysphoria. Its very different. 'Transgender' is about stereotypes. 'transsexual' is about an actual illness.

I imagine you have seen this before..but all of these people are classed as 'transgender'

Spoiler:

Though a lot of transsexual people do not like being associated with the rest. But protesting earns them the 'truscum' label. According to this, I am actually trans, as I am 'agender' so do not have a 'gender identity' and also as I have a mix of stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine attributes. So I could go waltzing into the mens changing room to gawp at the penises, and I could cry 'transphobe' at anyone who objects. Its nonsense.

We did get accused of trying to take away other peoples rights though during the whole gay marriage thing. For example infringing on peoples right to religion, if a religious person refused to conduct a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. Even that lesbian wedding cake story it was argued that the gay couple were infringing on the religious rights of the cake store owners, same with the gay couple who were refused a room in a b&b.

But wanting the right to marry is not actually taking away the rights of anyone else. Where declaring men are actually women and as such can enter the female changing rooms or something, IS taking away the rights of women to sex segregated areas.

Religious crap is usually quite bonkers though. But this is actually about taking away the rights of 99.9% of the population. Removing the right to sex segregated areas for both males and females.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

'Transgender' is used for people who do not actually have sex dysphoria. How can anyone be trans without dysphoria? Transsexual are people with sex dysphoria. Its very different. 'Transgender' is about stereotypes. 'transsexual' is about an actual illness.

I imagine you have seen this before..but all of these people are classed as 'transgender'

Spoiler:

Though a lot of transsexual people do not like being associated with the rest. But protesting earns them the 'truscum' label. According to this, I am actually trans, as I am 'agender' so do not have a 'gender identity' and also as I have a mix of stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine attributes. So I could go waltzing into the mens changing room to gawp at the penises, and I could cry 'transphobe' at anyone who objects. Its nonsense.

A transexual has to go through hormone treatment and/or surgery to be considered transexual though do they not? Maybe I'm just overcomplicating things but I'm talking about transgender people who would otherwise be transexual, who are the same in every other way, but for various reasons can't or are afraid to have the treatments and surgeries.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

But wanting the right to marry is not actually taking away the rights of anyone else. Where declaring men are actually women and as such can enter the female changing rooms or something, IS taking away the rights of women to sex segregated areas.

Religious crap is usually quite bonkers though. But this is actually about taking away the rights of 99.9% of the population. Removing the right to sex segregated areas for both males and females.

I know this but that's not what a lot religious people would argue. It's much the same thing for me because I don't believe in either case that rights are being taken away (I don't think the 'right' is having a sex segregarted area, the 'right' is having a safe environment, and the difference being that I don't think sex segregation = safety, whereas advocates for sex segration tend to base it on that, so it's a difference in opinion of what actually constitutes safety and whether non segregated areas would actually be less safe... but the actual cause and 'rights' is about safety of women, sex segregation just being a possible means to that.)

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

A transexual has to go through hormone treatment and/or surgery to be considered transexual though do they not? Maybe I'm just overcomplicating things but I'm talking about transgender people who would otherwise be transexual, who are the same in every other way, but for various reasons can't or are afraid to have the treatments and surgeries.

Nope. A transsexual has sex dysphoria., Whatever stage of transition they are at, they are still transsexual. They are obviously not 'post op' transsexual until they have the ops and such, but transsexual just means people with sex dysphoria.

I know this but that's not what a lot religious people would argue. It's much the same thing for me because I don't believe in either case that rights are being taken away (I don't think the 'right' is having a sex segregarted area, the 'right' is having a safe environment, and the difference being that I don't think sex segregation = safety, whereas advocates for sex segration tend to base it on that, so it's a difference in opinion of what actually constitutes safety and whether non segregated areas would actually be less safe... but the actual cause and 'rights' is about safety of women, sex segregation just being a possible means to that.)

I already know we disagree on this so its pointless us keep to-ing and fro-ing about sex segregation tbh

I would say that sex segregation IS a means to safety (and dignity) in itself for women* (dignity for men too, not necessarily safety for them) and taking this away is taking away their rights to safety. Women can challenge that shifty looking dude who is hanging around the changing rooms, making it law that any man who declares himself a woman...would mean a woman who challenged this bloke is committing a hate crime.

*given crime stats say men are a danger to women (not all men, and such disclaimer)

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Nope. A transsexual has sex dysphoria., Whatever stage of transition they are at, they are still transsexual. They are obviously not 'post op' transsexual until they have the ops and such, but transsexual just means people with sex dysphoria.

Ok fair enough, I think I'm getting myself confused with all the different labels and definitions :/

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I already know we disagree on this so its pointless us keep to-ing and fro-ing about sex segregation tbh

I would say that sex segregation IS a means to safety (and dignity) in itself for women* (dignity for men too, not necessarily safety for them) and taking this away is taking away their rights to safety. Women can challenge that shifty looking dude who is hanging around the changing rooms, making it law that any man who declares himself a woman...would mean a woman who challenged this bloke is committing a hate crime.

*given crime stats say men are a danger to women (not all men, and such disclaimer)

If a shifty looking man was hanging around the changing rooms and not using them I'd assume he'd still be able to be reported, regardless of how he identifies he'd be reported just for being shifty and hanging around a changing room, it would have nothing to do with gender so I don't think hate crime wouldn't come into that.

I also don't think that sex segregation = privacy/dignity. You can have a non sex segregated area that is cubicled and private, just as you get sex segregated areas that are open and non private. But yeah we probably have already discussed this 3 times already actually

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

A transexual has to go through hormone treatment and/or surgery to be considered transexual though do they not? Maybe I'm just overcomplicating things but I'm talking about transgender people who would otherwise be transexual, who are the same in every other way, but for various reasons can't or are afraid to have the treatments and surgeries.



I know this but that's not what a lot religious people would argue. It's much the same thing for me because I don't believe in either case that rights are being taken away (I don't think the 'right' is having a sex segregarted area, the 'right' is having a safe environment, and the difference being that I don't think sex segregation = safety, whereas advocates for sex segration tend to base it on that, so it's a difference in opinion of what actually constitutes safety and whether non segregated areas would actually be less safe... but the actual cause and 'rights' is about safety of women, sex segregation just being a possible means to that.)

I think sex segregation equals ‘safer’ not to mention more comfortable. Nothing is 100% safe but as any man claiming to self-identify can go into the ladies toilets it is less safe for women. Sex attacks on women are a huge problem in Britain, probably most places, and something women have to be aware of and therefore live with all their lives.

Women/girls want to feel safer in that environment and I could not understand why anyone would want to deny them that. They will undoubtedly be at more risk if any man or men can enter the ladies toilets at any time unchallenged.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think sex segregation equals ‘safer’ not to mention more comfortable.

I agree on the discomfort part, I just feel that that's something that would change over time as it's more down to social norms... imo.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Nothing is 100% safe but as any man claiming to self-identify can go into the ladies toilets it is less safe for women. Sex attacks on women are a huge problem in Britain, probably most places, and something women have to be aware of and therefore live with all their lives.

Women/girls want to feel safer in that environment and I could not understand why anyone would want to deny them that. They will undoubtedly be at more risk if any man or men can enter the ladies toilets at any time unchallenged.

The distinction for me I suppose is 'feeling of safety' and actual safety being different things. Obviously we disagree on what constitutes actual safety in this instance, but that doesn't equal a disregard for womens safety as I wouldn't want to deny anybody that.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well yes, I agree with this. But thats not the usual setup in many public places. If every place was to change to full floor to ceiling cubicles and such, then I would have no issue at all with unisex. But to decide that the current setups should be unisex..I disagree with that a lot.

Theres also issues not to do with changing rooms though. Such as prisons. In scotland there are currently male rapists in female prisons. I can't imagine anyone thinks thats right. Yet people will still argue that its wrong to put 'transwomen' with penises in with the men. So...lets just throw them in with women instead?! **** that. if they are unsafe in male prisons, make male prisons safer. Loads of men are at risk in male prisons, smaller men, feminine men, gay men, the lot. Should all of them be moved to female ones for their own safety? (with no thought to the safety of the females) Surely the answer is to work on safety for everyone in the mens prisons...

I think the issues with safety in prisons is a huge thing in itself. And yes, obviously I'm speaking very generally and about normal everyday situations but as I've said before there are certainly situations where I'm in favour of segregation.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

Up until very recently (from on here) I hadn't even given trans women a thought. If I saw one in a ladies loo I doubt I'd even notice because I don't tend to observe people in ladies toilets. To my knowledge, apart from that club Stunners, I have never spotted a trans female using a public toilet... and I've used many. I believe most people are like me and haven't given it much thought.

As for women who haven't fully transitioned, how would we know? There are women who have fully transitioned who still find it hard to pass as women and there are women who haven't fully transitioned who are very convincing as women.

I think its sad and pathetic that some of these trans have taken it upon themselves to campaign so aggressively. I think its sad to hear people saying 'trans aren't real women and never will be' but then I'm a live and let live person.

One thing I do know for sure is, if one of my sons came to me and told me they wanted to transition into a female, I would accept them and love them and fight with them for that right.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Up until very recently (from on here) I hadn't even given trans women a thought. If I saw one in a ladies loo I doubt I'd even notice because I don't tend to observe people in ladies toilets. To my knowledge, apart from that club Stunners, I have never spotted a trans female using a public toilet... and I've used many. I believe most people are like me and haven't given it much thought.

As for women who haven't fully transitioned, how would we know? There are women who have fully transitioned who still find it hard to pass as women and there are women who haven't fully transitioned who are very convincing as women.

I think its sad and pathetic that some of these trans have taken it upon themselves to campaign so aggressively. I think its sad to hear people saying 'trans aren't real women and never will be' but then I'm a live and let live person.

One thing I do know for sure is, if one of my sons came to me and told me they wanted to transition into a female, I would accept them and love them and fight with them for that right.

I think that's probably a good point really, the way it's been campaigned for has done so much more harm than good. It's not a reasoned, genuine appeal for acceptance and understanding... It's a battle cry of aggressive demands, harassment and bullying tactics that realistically isn't going to achieve anything except generate a huge backlash... Which it has. But then, the same is very true of the more radical aspects of 3rd wave feminism that venture too far into being "anti-male", and race equality campaigns that become heavily "anti-white". I understand the anger and passion behind it... However the way it's approached does nothing to improve equality and in fact damages it by creating an opposing side much larger than the one that existed before. There seems to be an idea that, if a group has oppressed or affected another group in some way in the past, it's now time for them to sit back, take their lumps, accept that they deserve it and say nothing about it. In the real world, that is simply never going to happen, and people seriously impact their OWN goals by expecting it. I mean... We have a giant, neon, glowing example of this effect sitting in the damn Whitehouse and people still don't get it.

P.S.

I have never spotted a trans female using a public toilet... and I've used many.

This is a very unusual thing to brag about