[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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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

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...

[DemolitionRed]

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...

As far as I know, and admittedly, I haven't done much research, there was one rapist who raped two women before transitioning and who was allowed to wander around with women in a female prison. That ended with her harassing female prisoners. That should never of happened, as a former rapist of women, she should of been fully segregated, which in this instance she was, but not until after the event.

If we are going to make male prisons safer, we can make female prisons safer too. Should we for instance put gay male sex offenders in male prisons? the answer is clearly 'yes' but we have a duty of care to other male prisoners.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

As far as I know, and admittedly, I haven't done much research, there was one rapist who raped two women before transitioning and who was allowed to wander around with women in a female prison. That ended with her harassing female prisoners. That should never of happened, as a former rapist of women, she should of been fully segregated, which in this instance she was, but not until after the event.

If we are going to make male prisons safer, we can make female prisons safer too. Should we for instance put gay male sex offenders in male prisons? the answer is clearly 'yes' but we have a duty of care to other male prisoners.

Well yes, as they are male

Even if a rapist raped a male person, they should not be in with females, as they are not female. Equally if a woman raped a man, or another woman..they should still be in with the women as they are female. if they are a danger to those around them, segregate them. Don't shift them to the prison of the opposite sex, thats insane! Its not to do with sexuality, its to do with sex.

There are a fair few transwomen in female prisons. Something like 100 in the country.

What is interesting (though makes total sense really) is that there are no transmen fighting to be in with the men. Its always transwomen wanting to be with the women.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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



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

No disrespect but personally I would feel more comfortable and more safe in an open sex segregated area than in a cubicled non sex segregated area. I think many women would feel the same way.

I also think that people seem to be mainly thinking of young people here and I think we can pretty much take it as a given that both older and elderly women are not going to be at all comfortable about this. I could even see elderly ladies who frequently need the ladies would stop going out if it meant using non sex segregated public toilets. The idea stinks in my opinion.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

No disrespect but personally I would feel more comfortable and more safe in an open sex segregated area than in a cubicled non sex segregated area. I think many women would feel the same way.

Would you be happy to sit knickers down on the pan in front of men and women? I know I wouldn't

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I also think that people seem to be mainly thinking of young people here and I think we can pretty much take it as a given that both older and elderly women are not going to be at all comfortable about this. I could even see elderly ladies who frequently need the ladies would stop going out if it meant using non sex segregated public toilets. The idea stinks in my opinion.

What's the chance in most towns in the country, of bumping into an obvious transexual in a public toilet. I'm sure little old ladies are the last people to notice. There really isn't that many about. I mean, in the world most of us live in, we are not being plagued by them are we?

It wasn't that long ago that we had the same fear about gay people. People seemed to be under this assumption that gay people were somehow a threat to people of the same sex. They were treated for mental illness. Doctors tried to cure them. They were beaten, threatened, teased and humiliated and male gays were considered a threat to male children

Now, thank god, people have been educated about gay people. Laws have been put in place to protect gays and give them the same rights as heterosexuals. Gays are no longer seen as sexual deviants. They can get married, and they can adopt a child.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Would you be happy to sit knickers down on the pan in front of men and women? I know I wouldn't

I also think that people seem to be mainly thinking of young people here and I think we can pretty much take it as a given that both older and elderly women are not going to be at all comfortable about this. I could even see elderly ladies who frequently need the ladies would stop going out if it meant using non sex segregated public toilets. The idea stinks in my opinion.

What's the chance in most towns in the country, of bumping into an obvious transexual in a public toilet. I'm sure little old ladies are the last people to notice. There really aren't that many about.

It wasn't that long ago that we had the same fear about gay people. People seemed to be under this assumption that gay people were somehow a threat to people of the same sex. They were treated for mental illness. Doctors tried to cure them. They were beaten, threatened, teased and humiliated and male gays were considered a threat to male children

Now, thank god, people have been educated about gay people. Laws have been put in place to protect gays and give them the same rights as heterosexuals. Gays are no longer seen as sexual deviants. They can get married, and they can adopt a child.[/QUOTE]


Are you reading this properly? We are talking about men who pose as transwomen and claim to self-identify as a woman meaning any old perv or worse could come into the ladies loos unchallenged, not actual transwomen. Such a system is open to huge abuse.

You can do what you like but please don’t try and shove your views down my throat or all those women out there who would not be comfortable with it.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

It wasn't that long ago that we had the same fear about gay people. People seemed to be under this assumption that gay people were somehow a threat to people of the same sex. They were treated for mental illness. Doctors tried to cure them. They were beaten, threatened, teased and humiliated and male gays were considered a threat to male children

Now, thank god, people have been educated about gay people. Laws have been put in place to protect gays and give them the same rights as heterosexuals. Gays are no longer seen as sexual deviants. They can get married, and they can adopt a child.

That's a really good point. The fear of gay men being around children being a cause to expect safety issues of gay men being around children. I'm sure many people really did (and some still do) believe that those expectations were totally founded based on news reports and legitimate sources etc. And not even pedophilia but the fear that children might become gay if exposed to or influenced by gay people.
A family friend of mine who's now in his late 60s is gay and when he was in his 20s his best friend at the time had a baby, and although they remained friends he was never allowed to see the child just because he was gay. Seems unbelievable something like that happening now. That they'd remain close friends but it was just a normal thing for him that his friend wouldn't let him around his kid. And I'm sure his friend only had the best interests and the safety of his child in mind (however ****ed up his logic actually was).

[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.