[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!