[Niamh.]

With all due respect Maru I never said all black people had the same experiences or women, of course they don't, no two people have the same experiences.

Also, I was in particular taking exception to TS telling the women in this thread that they don't really have worries about womens issues but are just trying to hide their transphobia

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would bloody love this tbh.


Yeah I remember you are against sex segregation to start with

I would have no issue with single floor to ceiling contained loos. Just..thats not whats happening. Whats happening is that the usual flimsy (sometimes just shower curtainy type things) areas being deemed unisex. Which I am very very against, as is fairly obvious

If it was done properly, great. But its not.



And it sounds like your Uni library have it right. Thats exactly how it should be done, if we are moving to unisex. But with setups the way they are now, I reckon the huge majority of people would want to keep things sex segregated.

I also hate communal changing tbh. But many are fine with it, and they always tend to have one cubicle there for people like me who don't like changing in front of anyone. I won't queue for it though, like if I am going to have to wait 30 mins I will just bite the bullet and use the communal bit. I would/could not do this with a random bloke there. regardless of what he was wearing.



Haha yeah, already done

I know you are more likely to be attacked by someone you know. I think the stat is that only 1/10 attacks are by strangers. Still a significant enough number for women to feel/be told that they have to modify their behavior to avoid those men though.



Not like you to make a long post Jack. Heh.

I don't think there is a way to address it at all besides, those places remain based on actual sex.

On the thing I posted earlier about sexual attacks being 5 times more likely on women, it said that it's about half by a partner or someone they know.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

With all due respect Maru I never said all black people had the same experiences or women, of course they don't, no two people have the same experiences.

Also, I was in particular taking exception to TS telling the women in this thread that they don't really have worries about womens issues but are just trying to hide their transphobia

@Bold No, I don't think you intended that at all, and I wouldn't accuse you of such. I just think there's a little bit of loaded verbiage that's out there to the way we word things...

For example, when we're having a discussion about the experiences of entire groups... some of us can sound like we're speaking for entire groups (I too, am guilty of this, and am trying to reform my wording/thought forms away from it).

I think having discussion about how some things appear on the outside are just as useful to those who tend to be on the inside of an issue... but when we write something for example, and preface it "As a woman"... it doesn't have much meaning beyond... "well, I'm a woman and as so I think..."... but actually, the other side, it's open to interpretation... it can very easily be taken to mean "well, I'm not a woman, so am I being told where my place is...?"... it's the opposite of mansplaining... which is why I think that term actually is bollocks.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Of course it would! It just comes across that way in most of these threads. It's less engaging with WHAT people's disagreements are, and more questioning WHO are they and what position are they in to dare disagree. That is not conducive to a productive debate, it's overly hostile, off-putting and really exclusionary. Like I said, I completely understand that these are emotive discussions on all-sides and so in many respects it's understandable that they go the way they do. But I think it'd be a lot more helpful if we could all reign it in a little, and try to converse with each other respectfully? Less of the sniping, the sarcasm, the entitlement, etc. And this isn't even just a male thing either, there are quite clearly females on here who for whatever reason don't feel comfortable participating in these debates either - as we discovered last week. This isn't good for any of us - there's an opportunity here for us all to share our experiences and perspectives and have a fully fleshed out, academic discussion and try to understand each other's points of view - but that just isn't possible at the moment.

I totally get what you're saying re. the transphobia and bigotry accusations. Look, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that some of the language and arguments that have been made on here over the last year or so haven't made me uncomfortable because they have. But that's yours and other people's right to hold opinions that might make some feel uneasy, and in the context of a debate I can't legitimately expect people to not be able to express their genuine feelings . The problem I ACTUALLY have is with the language and tone of people's post that surround those opinions. So, it's less about the opinions and more the way they are put across. Like, 'you're a MAN who are YOU to tell ME how to feel' and 'WHAT would YOU know'. I guarantee that if I posted some of my genuine opinions on these topics, the people who dislike me would immediately circle around with some patronising, dismissive, baiting retorts. When you've invested a huge amount of time and passion in a topic, can you understand how annoying that would be? This is totally different to other debates, where I couldn't care less what people think - when you have a personal stake in it and you're effectively being asked 'well what would you know???' it's pretty damn inflammatory, and is likely to end up in me retaliating with more insults - which is not helpful to anyone. Hence why I refrain from partaking.

But I guess this is a matter for all sides, less of the transphobic/bigot accusations, and less of the exclusionary and patronising posts. More civilised, productive, fleshed out discussions...I don't know how we go about ensuring this happens though. Now...onto the rest...I hope I don't regret engaging with this.

You may have a point about men needing to be inconvenienced first before it becomes a national conversation...that's usually the way, after all. But from my perspective at least...I just...don't and won't care (about females coming into male areas, that is)? When I saw these campaigns you've referenced, my initial thought was 'great! they're more than welcome to come in, hopefully this goes the opposite way and proves we DON'T need segregation'. I think I've expressed this before, but I personally favour complete gender/sex desegregation in many areas of social life. I don't see any need for it (cue people stopping reading here and making 'you're a man' comments...), I actually think the obsession we have as a modern society with segregating and categorising people more and more (this applies to sexuality just as much) causes more problems than it solves. I want to break down gender/sex binary, not enrich it. I realise this is potentially going to be quite inflammatory...so let me explain what I'd actually prefer.

I favour unisex toilets/changing rooms because I don't feel comfortable changing in front of ANYONE, regardless of their sex. Communal changing areas are gross and need banning. Replace them all with individual cubicles that anyone can use. On the issue of toilets - I favour much of the same. At my university library, we had some new gender neutral toilets built (people misunderstand this a lot and think they're just for trans people or 'non binary weird people lul') and they were AMAZING. Basically, you went through a door, and behind it there were three separately locked individual toilets that each had a sink and drier in. They were the cleanest in the whole building. You had your own privacy, your own space and it was perfect. More of these need to build nationally.

As for yours and other's concerns, while I totally understand them (as I said before), I do echo what TS said in that a lot of it (at face value at least) seems to be futile. Put it this way, if a predator wants to enter a female-only space, he is going to do so regardless of whatever is on the sign above the door. No law is going to increase or decrease the likelihood of this happening, IMO. What's more is...you're far more likely to be attacked in a domestic setting by someone you know than a stranger in a public place. That's not to minimise the issue or to say that it doesn't happen, I know it does - I've seen the articles, but I don't think any law is going to prevent this from happening, or even make it less likely. Also - by desegregating these areas, you are statistically likely to have MORE people in them, which actually DOES decrease the chances of anything happening. Here's an interesting question for you as a woman - if you were in a public toilet alone, late at night and with no else around, and a man walked in, would you feel more or less scared than if you were in a public toilet, late at night with ten other men and two other women (presuming it were a unisex toilet)? While I'm not a woman and cannot understand your concerns from your perspective, certainly from mine I would much rather be in any public place with more people - men or women. I don't feel comfortable walking down the street with only one or two people about. There's safety in numbers. [I've just realised I've asked this when you already addressed it in that paragraph, but I've typed it now lol]

The prisons/refuges is a more difficult issue I'll concede, and so I won't address it here because this post will be far too long otherwise.

Jack I appreciate the time it took to form that post, I do have one issue with it however, the intimation that again on here the male view has been sidelined or criticised it hasn't...
What has been criticised is the presumption that that is what is happening based on genuine concern, together with an accusatory tone towards what has been said on the topic as disingenuous.

That to me is both offensive and derogatory, it is seriously lacking in respect or the spirit of debate.
In relation to the thread topic and similar discussions on the forum there is an 'assumed' entitlement, as far as I see there has been no 'you can't comment' personally I have invested my whole adulthood to this topic so imagine how galling it is for me to be told my thinking is flawed...(not that you have)

The reason debate isn't possible for me is based on these presumptions, as said most have been perfectly honest in their reaction to these proposals.

You yourself however have said your genuine opinions have not been expressed for fear of challenges from those who don't like you.... How conducive is that to civilised reasoned debate, if you are too afraid to speak your mind on any given topic? and yet suggest that the rest of the forum should.
I highlighted an area where I feel stats and scenarios are unhelpful, to some these would not be useful and a women only space preferred for whatever reason, but lets go with abuse. The fear of attack from a stranger may be irrational but it doesn't make that fear any less real.

I agree that unisex toilets/changing areas are the answer, a perfect solution that's not to say a don't think toilets as is should ever be phased out.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Maru

I think TS--(referring back to the what is feminism thread)--he kind of got roped into a discussion about everything that is wrong with men... as if all men as a group are acting as a whole... I think when we are talking about activism and how to change the status quo, we should be targeting the culture, which is the more likely culprit... folk are obviously only referencing their personal experiences when talking about their views, they can't speak for any group... but we can all talk about how the culture effects us, man or woman. And I'd argue TS/men in general have to have a say if the culture in the end generally impacts all of us... so to speak.

No he didn't get roped into anything... He began the discussion, and the discussion never was 'what is wrong with men' ...it never was :/

Nobody anywhere has said he can't have a say!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

@Bold No, I don't think you intended that at all, and I wouldn't accuse you of such. I just think there's a little bit of loaded verbiage that's out there to the way we word things...

For example, when we're having a discussion about the experiences of entire groups... some of us can sound like we're speaking for entire groups (I too, am guilty of this, and am trying to reform my wording/thought forms away from it).

I think having discussion about how some things appear on the outside are just as useful to those who tend to be on the inside of an issue... but when we write something for example, and preface it "As a woman"... it doesn't have much meaning beyond... "well, I'm a woman and as so I think..."... but actually, the other side, it's open to interpretation... it can very easily be taken to mean "well, I'm not a woman, so am I being told where my place is...?"... it's the opposite of mansplaining... which is why I think that term actually is bollocks.

On this particular topic though it's entirely relevant to say "as a woman" because it will effect women more than men, that's a fact.

And you did ignore the second part of my previous post about why I took exception to what TS said originally

[Maru]

A good example, I don't tend to agree with every conservative out there. In fact, I tend to dislike how some conservatives are labeled "cucks" for not being "conservative enough" on some issues within that group and thus having their opinions sidelined... but then I'm lumped in with those folk when I agree with them on something, that I must somehow agree with other things... and when we are pointing out TS is a man in a woman's territory, it's like saying he brings in the baggage of his entire group to the discussion... I think TS makes good & bad points... just like some women here, I think make good & bad points... but I see their points, not their stewardship in the group.

Same with feminists, I think I almost would be guaranteed to be tossed out of the group for agreeing too much with men. And that's why I think when we start acting out as a group towards individuals, this is counterproductive towards achieving cultural/social change... which requires all groups to adhere to the new terms of engagement so to speak...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

On this particular topic though it's entirely relevant to say "as a woman" because it will effect women more than men, that's a fact.

And you did ignore the second part of my previous post about why I took exception to what TS said originally

Right, but as I mentioned before, I think TS is bringing up stuff from that other thread and I can see some of his personal issue there on why he feels so strongly... but from that level, we are talking about two different things. (edit)

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

Right, but as I mentioned before, I think TS is bringing up stuff from that other thread and I can see some of his personal issue there on why he feels so strongly... but from that level, we are talking about two different things. (edit)

Well I'd have to find and reread that because I don't remember the thread or what was said in there

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well I'd have to find and reread that because I don't remember the thread or what was said in there

I don't think you have to agree with me though I just can see where he has taken offense is all... and I think it comes down to a difference in perspective. Though is he acting out in this thread (and others) and taking it too far and making it into a personal thing ever since his ban... oh yeah. But I guess if he feels marginalized during discussion on very particular topics... it makes some sense as to why he would take that so personally (edit) and maybe also why he may find some of the moderation suspect. (Anyway, don't want to speak for him here, just my take on the whole thing...)

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Except no one told him he couldn't comment, as has been laboriously reiterated it's his stance that we are all closet transphobes that is the issue

Come on them Marsh put your money where your mouth is and quote the posts telling him he couldn't have an opinion

There is a double standard.

I've had it thrown at me numerous times.

It's not just here and not just with TS.

You've probably seen me mention it several times in this section lately.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It actually isn't double standards at all though. Can white people comment on race issues? yes Can white people say they know how it feels to be discriminated against like a black person does? No. No one is telling men they can't have an opinion on this, what's being said is you can't tell women that what they feel isn't real and is masking something else (their inner transphobia) well you can tell us that if you want but don't be surprised when we disagree with you

Oh well that's separate then If his issue is with being told he can't speak for someone else and know their feelings.

I do think this double standard exists and is rife on the forum.

But as TS himself says, it's not so much the intention (no. Men can't know what it's like to be a woman anymore than women know what it's like to be male) but the way in which it's used as though to shut down an opinion.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Bull. Sounds more like male ego to me.

Sounds like PMS to me.

[JoshBB]

Has she responded to it yet or..

I hope its an accident, honestly.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh well that's separate then If his issue is with being told he can't speak for someone else and know their feelings.

I do think this double standard exists and is rife on the forum.

But as TS himself says, it's not so much the intention (no. Men can't know what it's like to be a woman anymore than women know what it's like to be male) but the way in which it's used as though to shut down an opinion.

In this context where was that?...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Maru

I don't think you have to agree with me though I just can see where he has taken offense is all... and I think it comes down to a difference in perspective. Though is he acting out in this thread (and others) and taking it too far and making it into a personal thing ever since his ban... oh yeah.But I guess if he feels marginalized during discussion on very particular topics... it makes some sense as to why he would take that so personally (edit) and maybe also why he may find some of the moderation suspect. (Anyway, don't want to speak for him here, just my take on the whole thing...)

I don't really know what thread you are referring to or about his ban bit this statement makes the most sense to me as I just can't see where he is coming from. None of us have said he can't have an opinion we just don't like it when he tells ours is hiding some kind of nefarious motives etc.

I did think TS was a reasonably intelligent grown up but this twice now he's started acting up over an infraction or ban. It's childish.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Has she responded to it yet or..

I hope its an accident, honestly.

Her 'people' have said she said it was a 'middle aged moment'. Damage limitation I reckon after the hoards of threats of violence and such from transactivists in reply to her daring to like a tweet.

However the tweet remains liked.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Her 'people' have said she said it was a 'middle aged moment'. Damage limitation I reckon after the hoards of threats of violence and such from transactivists in reply to her daring to like a tweet.

However the tweet remains liked.

[Maru]

Will repost from comedy thread here because it's very relevant here to the OP

Youtube video

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Her 'people' have said she said it was a 'middle aged moment'. Damage limitation I reckon after the hoards of threats of violence and such from transactivists in reply to her daring to like a tweet.

However the tweet remains liked.

Why aren’t Those trans activists making threats being charged and apologising. Who do they think they are!

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

There is a double standard.

I've had it thrown at me numerous times.

It's not just here and not just with TS.

You've probably seen me mention it several times in this section lately.

You were clapping a post that distinctly singled out members of this forum of having told men they can't have an opinion, you can't provide quotes to back this up from the same thread, you need to be a bit clearer about what you are clapping about. I have never once told you you can't have an opinion

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Maru

Will repost from comedy thread here because it's very relevant here to the OP

Youtube video

No we don't need this in here at all, in fact gifs are banned from SD threads so just stop please, you have your comedy thread

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah I remember you are against sex segregation to start with

I would have no issue with single floor to ceiling contained loos. Just..thats not whats happening. Whats happening is that the usual flimsy (sometimes just shower curtainy type things) areas being deemed unisex. Which I am very very against, as is fairly obvious

If it was done properly, great. But its not.

And it sounds like your Uni library have it right. Thats exactly how it should be done, if we are moving to unisex. But with setups the way they are now, I reckon the huge majority of people would want to keep things sex segregated.

You're right, there's a hell of a long way to go in that respect - but thus would it not make more sense for this to be the campaign (on this issue at least)? A compromise of sorts if you will. If females opposed to the proposed changes in the law would be satisfied with this, and if trans people are too (gender neutral toilets are often created to alleviate their awkwardness after all - even if they're not exclusively for them) - would it not make way more sense to collaborate and push for this nationwide? I totally agree that many people would be against it and not see the point, but that's why the argument has to be made!

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I know you are more likely to be attacked by someone you know. I think the stat is that only 1/10 attacks are by strangers. Still a significant enough number for women to feel/be told that they have to modify their behavior to avoid those men though.

Of course! And let me be absolutely clear that I in no way support any kind of 'she was asking for it/wearing too little' arguments.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Not like you to make a long post Jack. Heh.

I don't think there is a way to address it at all besides, those places remain based on actual sex.

I thought I'd try not to make it *too* long

There's a couple of things I want to address though re. the bold so I can understand your argument more.

1) How would this be policed? Short of having genital inspections (and that is only one marker of sex after all, it's just the most visible and tangible) before being allowed entry, how do you go about enforcing this?

2) Isn't the logical conclusion of this though, that any transexual (I'll use this term because I know it's the one you prefer) who wishes to live their life as the gender they feel comfortable as MUST have irreversible and intrusive corrective surgery in order to do so? There are many transexuals who have no desire to modify their body and start messing around with their biological and physiological makeup, and I'm sure you've (quite righty, IMO) said before that as a society we shouldn't be almost coercing and forcing people down this path. It is my opinion that if a trans person wishes to have sex reassignment surgery to alleviate their discomfort then all power to them and they should of course be entitled to. But equally, if they don't wish to spend years transforming their own body in what can be a very psychologically damaging process, that's fine too. Unfortunately, our framing of gender in terms of genitalia inevitably makes surgery a prerequisite for any transexual person to be taken seriously, and that is really problematic for me.

So to bring that back to my initial question slightly, if that is the requirement to have access to sex-segregated areas, then aren't trans people who have for years been living and identifying as women - but have no desire to have surgery - in a pretty awkward position? Again, I'll qualify this by saying I completely understand the concerns of many females here...I'm just trying to highlight the flip side of this. These trans people would then be in the position of having to enter the toilet/changing room that does not correlate with their gender presentation (which is how people perceive one another), and face abuse, confusion and even assault there too? If it's the case that anyone who passes can carry on as normal because no one would know, then this comes full circle and the question really would be - what is the opposition to the proposed changes in the law? If transwomen are currently entering female-only spaces without having had surgery, and would still be allowed to so long as they pass after the fact, what changes?

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Jack I appreciate the time it took to form that post, I do have one issue with it however, the intimation that again on here the male view has been sidelined or criticised it hasn't...
What has been criticised is the presumption that that is what is happening based on genuine concern, together with an accusatory tone towards what has been said on the topic as disingenuous.

That to me is both offensive and derogatory, it is seriously lacking in respect or the spirit of debate.

I'm sorry Kizzy but I respectfully disagree. I can see that you're criticising the 'people aren't being honest' argument and that's fine...but that's Toy Soldier's ballgame and not mine. From my experience and/or (more often) observation, there have been on occasions (not necessarily in this thread or in recent ones since people have started airing their concerns) in the last year or so, many instances of male voices having their opinions denigrated and validity called into question based on their sex. Often in a snide, indirect and baiting manner too. It's not helpful and is not conducive to a productive debate, or a debate at all for that matter.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

In relation to the thread topic and similar discussions on the forum there is an 'assumed' entitlement, as far as I see there has been no 'you can't comment' personally I have invested my whole adulthood to this topic so imagine how galling it is for me to be told my thinking is flawed...(not that you have)

No, I get that totally. Hence why on several occasions I've qualified my point by saying that my personal stake in this topic is obviously COMPLETELY different to that of a female's lived experience. But it's still a personal stake, just from a different angle - that's all my point was.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You yourself however have said your genuine opinions have not been expressed for fear of challenges from those who don't like you.... How conducive is that to civilised reasoned debate, if you are too afraid to speak your mind on any given topic? and yet suggest that the rest of the forum should.
I highlighted an area where I feel stats and scenarios are unhelpful, to some these would not be useful and a women only space preferred for whatever reason, but lets go with abuse. The fear of attack from a stranger may be irrational but it doesn't make that fear any less real.

I'm not sure I understand this bit. I completely agree that feeling afraid to be honest about my genuine opinions is not conducive to civilised and reasoned debate! But I don't think I've suggested that the rest of the forum should? I think you're getting mine and TS' line of arguments mixed up here, I didn't make the point that people aren't being honest...he did. I was coming at it from a different angle.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I agree that unisex toilets/changing areas are the answer, a perfect solution that's not to say a don't think toilets as is should ever be phased out.

I'm glad we agree on this however!

[Niamh.]

Unisex is definitely the way forward when it comes to toilets and changing areas but proper stalls etc I think prisons need to be separated by sex (obviously post op transsexuals would go with their "new" sex) and in regards to sport I just don't think they should be able to compete against women if they were born a man as it's completely unfair

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Jack_

2) Isn't the logical conclusion of this though, that any transexual (I'll use this term because I know it's the one you prefer) who wishes to live their life as the gender they feel comfortable as MUST have irreversible and intrusive corrective surgery in order to do so? There are many transexuals who have no desire to modify their body and start messing around with their biological and physiological makeup, and I'm sure you've (quite righty, IMO) said before that as a society we shouldn't be almost coercing and forcing people down this path. It is my opinion that if a trans person wishes to have sex reassignment surgery to alleviate their discomfort then all power to them and they should of course be entitled to. But equally, if they don't wish to spend years transforming their own body in what can be a very psychologically damaging process, that's fine too. Unfortunately, our framing of gender in terms of genitalia inevitably makes surgery a prerequisite for any transexual person to be taken seriously, and that is really problematic for me.

I'm asking because my knowledge of the topic is rather superficial: isn't one major issue for trans people the fact that their body doesn't match their psychological gender? Wouldn't they all aim at rectifying that? I've always thought sex reassignment procedures were desired by them, not imposed by society.
And why you say it is psychologically damaging? I'd have thought it would be liberating.
[Disclaimer: I knew one f2m person and he couldn't wait for his surgeries and now lives as a happily married man. So it may colour my view of things a bit.]