[Vicky.]

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.

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?

Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.

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.

The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery?

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'

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?

Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?


And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

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?

Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.

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?

The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

In this context where was that?...

What? Are you requesting more "mansplaining" or are you actually asking for a conversation this time?

[Maru]

One of the main arguments though I thought for having separate areas was to create safe areas though. Against things like sexual assault and invasion of privacy that would otherwise be encouraged if both sexes mingled. I mean they could create individualized rooms in a hallway, sure, but then we'd have to have a sink in each one, a blow dryer, a changing station for babies, etc... so costly.

The other thing too, if we're in a store, it encourages shrink to have a bathroom where one person can simply go in and can't be checked on by staff. They could be taking product in there for example and removing it from cases, etc... that's why in large shops we don't tend to see a unisex bathroom and if there is it often controlled with a key. (but in a doctor's office or other small offices they would have unisex or employee unisex bathrooms)

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

I didn't intend to single you out personally so i cant point you to where you have done this but there is the other trans based thread where I put this across the other day.

There is a double standard across the forum.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by 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

The thing is, the sport issue is quite a complex one - especially when it concerns intersex athletes - unfortunately they never get much attention in these kind of discussions. I wrote a case study last year on Caster Semenya, she's been the pariah of much controversy in track and field for almost a decade but the issue really isn't a clearcut as most people perceive it to be. And what's more is, in our obsession with policing the sex binary, we miss the numerous other genetic advantages that exist in sport that we don't account for.

This is a really great piece that I referenced and discussed in my work, it's thought-provoking IMO

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelot...orkin-2013.pdf

Sport studies scholars have noted the ways in which sport is not a level playing field; rather, it is a site wherein broader forms of social inequality are accepted, tolerated, and ignored. The historic and contemporary structure and culture of sport institutions often reproduces hegemonic masculinity, racism, classism, gender inequalities, and nationalism (Messner, 2002; Sage, 1998). In Western societies, sporting institutions have been organizationally structured to benefit the interests of dominant groups (i.e., White, male, economically affluent; see Burstyn, 1999; Sage, 1998).

...


If monitoring genetically conferred advantage to ensure a level playing field was the primary basis for ensuring fair play, as the IOC and the IAAF claim, athletes would not simply be tested for sex; sport organizations would also test for ‘‘performance enhancing genes that predispose them to be athletically superior’’ by improving muscle growth and efficiency as well as blood flow to skeletal muscles (Vilain & Sánchez, 2012). Sport governing bodies would also test for other conditions that may predispose athletes to be athletically superior. For example, several basketball players have acromegaly, which is a condition responsible for excessive tallness, a clear advantage in basketball (Zaccone, 2010). Female volleyball players have been found to have Marfan syndrome, a disorder that contributes to their unusually tall height, an advantage in that sport. Endurance skier, Eero Ma ̈ntyranta, has primary familial and congenital polycythemia (PFCO), which causes high hemoglobin and increased oxygen capacity due to an inherited mutation in the erythropoietin receptor gene (EPOR) (Genel, 2010).

(p. 107)

Genetically or biologically conferred physical advantages are ‘‘unfair’’ to the same degree that various intersex conditions may be, yet sport organizations do not implement policies to test athletes for these variations, while they do so for those who do not fit into the dichotomous sex binary. At the same time, sport organizations do not view athletes with other types of genetic advantages as a threat to the so-called level playing field, even though researchers have found that athletes with these conditions benefit from clear physical advantages, which by the IOC/IAAF’s standards would be construed as unfair. Thus, as we have illustrated, the second key assumption which justifies the use of sex testing—it levels the playing field by eliminating unfair advantages—has not been consistently upheld when it comes to other naturally occurring genetic variations that predispose athletes to be ‘‘athletically superior.’’ Furthermore, we have shown that sport is not a level playing field, and we argued the claims that current policies are necessary to maintain ‘‘fairness’’ are contradictory (and later, we argue that these are discriminatory). Indeed, sport celebrates those individuals who exist on the extreme end of the biological, physical, and genetic spectrum of human diversity. Here we echo Vilain and Sánchez (2012) who argued that ‘‘attempting to create a ‘level playing field’ among people with unique biological profiles may be a futile endeavor’’ (pp. 198–199).

(pp. 107-108)

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Has she responded to it yet or..

I hope its an accident, honestly.

She responded to it instantly but you know the internet, it doesn't like to go "ooh misunderstood sorry" they prefer "OMFG I got absolutely bloody outraged instantly and I'm not backing down now. You can't click the wrong thing get me riled up and then make me look silly you're transphobic and trying to hide it!!! TELL US YOU'RE TRANSPHOBIC OR ELSE!!!"

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

She responded to it instantly but you know the internet, it doesn't like to go "ooh misunderstood sorry" they prefer "OMFG I got absolutely bloody outraged instantly and I'm not backing down now. You can't click the wrong thing get me riled up and then make me look silly you're transphobic and trying to hide it!!! TELL US YOU'RE TRANSPHOBIC OR ELSE!!!"

Not quite. Her 'reps' responded to it. Her reps claimed she was holding her phone incorrectly.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Not quite. Her 'reps' responded to it. Her reps claimed she was holding her phone incorrectly.

But people would rather believe such a famous woman with so much control over her public image would deliberately air some rather extreme and offensive view about a minority? Expose herself and her whole brand as transphobic.

I think it's a half truth. She agrees with the sentiment of the tweet before the transphobic insult. But, possibly just like on here, didn't see or intend "man in a dress" to be taken quite the way it has.

Then again the woman's probably had enough. They had the pitchforks out for her when she said Dumbledore wouldn't reference his sexuality in the next FB movie. She must make him all about being gay now.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But people would rather believe such a famous woman with so much control over her public image would deliberately air some rather extreme and offensive view about a minority? Expose herself and her whole brand as transphobic.

I think it's a half truth. She agrees with the sentiment of the tweet before the transphobic insult. But, possibly just like on here, didn't see or intend "man in a dress" to be taken quite the way it has.

Then again the woman's probably had enough. They had the pitchforks out for her when she said Dumbledore wouldn't reference his sexuality in the next FB movie. She must make him all about being gay now.

I think it's fairer to say that some folk aren't begging to jump on a particular bandwagon. I thought as writers, we write about the things we know... to expect all those writers to then include certain minorities and trans-folk in all their stories, is a bit silly... because then the next thing that will be said is "Well, what do you know about X issues/contexts, so how could you write about this authentically?..." It's not a battle any creator of things can win I think.

There is a huge following of LGBT fanfolk who have rewritten or redrawn Harry Potter characters in those different contexts, and I think they do a far better job than the original creator in translating those characters to those romantic contexts... so I think that this is area of fanfolk, to reimagine these role models in those specific contexts... that doesn't dismiss that other writers or creators may create something totally new tomorrow (or even Rowling herself)... but then that again--she may very well be accused for only jumping on the bandwagon to "save herself" or some inauthentic nod.

[Maru]

Anyway I would not be surprised if a lot of the people who are upset about the Dumbledore controversy are maybe fanfic/fanpic enthusiasts... and they may think the alternative/spin off storylines are so authentic/well-made, then feel obviously it should be considered making it into the canon. That happens with Star Wars, etc too... OBVIOUSLY XYZ storyline is the most realistic outcome, but you're catering to ZYX pushback, and you HINTED TO IT so god damn obviously so make it canon already gawd...

[Vicky.]

But, possibly just like on here, didn't see or intend "man in a dress" to be taken quite the way it has.

Well quite. Man in a dress, was not meaning to reference transsexuals. It was about quite literal men in dresses.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Then again the woman's probably had enough. They had the pitchforks out for her when she said Dumbledore wouldn't reference his sexuality in the next FB movie. She must make him all about being gay now.

Haha did she really get **** for that...

I have read theories that snape is apparently trans before. The tells are all there they say..

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I wouldn't mind joining a campaign for proper contained unisex facilities. However I can fight against opening our current (pitiful) areas up to being unisex at the same time

I think you may find though, that transactivists are very very much against this idea as a compromise. They do not think that there should be any compromise as 'transwomen are women!!!111' and that women who object to male people in their spaces are just transphobic bigots who are no better than nazis and deserve to be punched And its transactivists/trans pressure groups who are influencing political parties on this.

Where do you see all this stuff, Vicky? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I can't say it's generally something I ever see or have experienced. Maybe we just frequent different sites and that's what it is, but from my perspective at least it seems a little blown out of proportion?

I disagree with screaming transphobic at people, that's not helpful...but equally I do see transwomen as women. The thing is though, perhaps this forum mirrors the wider debate, in that there has to be a little give and take on both sides? To put it another way, if some transactivists feel as though their very existence is being minimised (in the same way some females feel the same) - is it not easy to to see why they'd retaliate in the same way? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it could just be a retaliation, and then it becomes a vicious circle where everyone hates each other and there's no productive and respectful discussions amongst either side to reach some kind of conclusion.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well this is why I do not think that anyones birth certificate should be changed (unless they are actually intersex, which is bugger all to do with trans)

A refuge could not ask for ID in every case, granted...but again its usually extremely easy to tell what sex someone is. And honestly, if someone is trans and actually passes, theres really not that much that can be done about it if they insist on deceiving people when the service is designated for single SEX

I assume prisons get actual full records before you are put in one. I am very much hoping that even the ridiculous 'revised' birth certificates (which are pointless, as a birth certificate is a historical document, so quite why people as adults can change them to say the opposite sex, I don't know) there is some kind of record somewhere. if not that would be rather dangerous really. But single sex is a hell of a lot easier to actually stick to in prisons. I would guess that the strip searching and such would end any questions...if for some reason prisons are not in full possession of all data about you.

I think a trans wing, or two up and down the country would suffice, for those who are in transition. Or you know, better security in prisons anyway, which would keep all safer, even gender non conforming males.

I meant more policing it in terms of entry into toilets/changing rooms, but I see what you mean.

The prisons/refuges one is a difficult issue as I mentioned earlier, and I would probably lean towards the trans wing suggestion you made. I think the overarching concern that needs to be addressed though is how prisons are actually sites of enormous violence (be it directly or indirectly, from other inmates or corrupt staff) against marginalised people, and yes that includes women. The prison industrial complex is so problematic on so many levels that it needs a full and frank reassessment, and really it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The logical conclusion of having services that are actually based on sex would mean that all trans people had to have surgery?

Yes! If correctly corresponding genitalia is the prerequisite of entering a sex-segregated area, then is the logical conclusion not that any and ALL trans people MUST have sex reassignment surgery in order to enter them?

I'll expand on this more below for clarification:

Originally Posted by Vicky.

You seem to be using transsexual but talking about transgender. Its not the term I object to, its this whole...oh I am trans but do not actually have sex dysphoria and will not modify any part of myself but will insist I am actually a woman rubbish...along with crossdressers and such being under the 'umbrella'
Maybe there can be a campaign aimed at stopping men from committing violence or abusing other male people who do not fit 'gendered expectations' or follow the correct stereotypes?

I genuinely mean transexuals. I realise there's a bit of conflation in that the term assumes people who are or will have be having SRS, but there are genuinely trans people who have no desire to modify their body in any way. Not people who are just making it up to be ~cool~ or whatever (as I think you're referring to), but people who've lived for years or decades as the gender of their choice without having surgery. I chose not to use 'trans' or 'transgender' because I thought you'd make the point that you don't believe in them anyway.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but I could've sworn you've made the point or at least agreed before that encouraging people to have surgery is actually quite problematic? And that really, people should be allowed to live however they like without feeling like they HAVE to modify their body (unless they really want to)? Which is what my point is - if the rule is that segregated areas are separated anatomically, that basically means trans people who have for years never had any desire to have surgery, and have been using female areas, must now do so in order to continue?

Here's another interesting question for you - if you don't believe that anyone can truly change sex, and don't wish to have penises in female-only spaces, why would someone having sex reassignment surgery be almost a cast iron guarantee that they wouldn't attack someone? If they're biologically still the same person, and are predisposed to do that - what difference does not having a penis make (other than the obvious legal implications)?

I completely agree with the latter part however! We need to completely break down gender and toxic masculinity.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

And people do not percieve one another on 'gender presentation'...they can generally tell regardless of 'gender presentation' (ie. stereotypes followed) what sex someone is.

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Any male person being able to access (current) female areas. Thats my objection.

The fact that any man, not just transsexual women would be able to access female spaces.

But they can do that now though? Why would the law put off a predator entering a female-only space? Criminals aren't interested in the law or signs above toilet doors, they'll do whatever they like. And any trans person that passes but hasn't had surgery is already doing so?

To be fair, I don't completely understand the proposed changes to the law so maybe I've misunderstood the implications - but that's just what it seems like to me.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Look up skeletal/anatomy studies for portraiture/figure drawing. There are courses dedicated to (edit) dealing with proportional differences between a man and woman. Here's one such summary...

Drawing the Human Body: 5 Tips for Drawing the Torso
https://www.craftsy.com/art/article/...an-body-torso/

1. Know the differences between male and female torsos

Even though every individual has a uniquely shaped torso, there are some differences between male and female that apply in general:

• Males usually have longer torsos than females.
• Females have a bit more subcutaneous body fat. Accordingly, their shape is a rounder, and the muscles are a less defined.
• Female hips are wider, and their waist is usually a touch higher than in males.
• Shoulders are typically wider in males.
• Usually, the length of the spine is a bit shorter in a female than in a male.
• Male nipples are further apart than female nipples, which are more centered.

Human Anatomy Fundamentals: Advanced Body Proportions
https://design.tutsplus.com/articles...--vector-19869

Male vs. Female Proportions

Male and female proportions are so different that even a skeleton (or certain parts of it) betrays its sex. Bear in mind, however, that on a vertical axis there is no real difference: the joints don't move up or down. The variations are almost entirely on the horizontal axis, i.e. in the width of certain parts of the body. So how do we feminize or masculinize our basic figure? On the structural level we're still working on, there's actually just one big difference to master, and the rest are small helpful details.

The Shoulders/Hips Ratio

The primary difference is the relationship of shoulder width to hips. Women have a much broader pelvic bone than men, since they need to be able to bear and give birth to a child. This one, central fact has consequences throughout the body. It means that in women the hip line is the broadest part of the body, and a narrower waist appears by contrast, while in men the broadest part is the shoulder line, and the waist is hardly different from the hips. The overall female silhouette, then, is an hourglass as opposed to the male trapeze shown below.

Waist Line and Elbows

A woman's waist line is level with the belly button but a man's appears much lower. This makes the torso on a male look longer. This is worth remembering, as in my early years I drew equal-length torsos and same-level trouser lines for both sexes and wondered for a long time why the men didn't look right. Also, be careful not to align the elbows with this apparently lower waist! The reference for the elbow joint remains the belly button, so that unlike the female figure, if the impression we have of a man's waist is where his trousers start, the elbows will look much higher.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

I think it's fairer to say that some folk aren't begging to jump on a particular bandwagon. I thought as writers, we write about the things we know... to expect all those writers to then include certain minorities and trans-folk in all their stories, is a bit silly... because then the next thing that will be said is "Well, what do you know about X issues/contexts, so how could you write about this authentically?..." It's not a battle any creator of things can win I think.

There is a huge following of LGBT fanfolk who have rewritten or redrawn Harry Potter characters in those different contexts, and I think they do a far better job than the original creator in translating those characters to those romantic contexts... so I think that this is area of fanfolk, to reimagine these role models in those specific contexts... that doesn't dismiss that other writers or creators may create something totally new tomorrow (or even Rowling herself)... but then that again--she may very well be accused for only jumping on the bandwagon to "save herself" or some inauthentic nod.

Oh no. I mean Dumbledore is gay . They're not asking her to just include a gay character or make one gay. Dumbledore is.

But he doesn't reference it because it's not really relevant.

I'd say that's much more progressive than making a song and dance out of it. We're passed the stage where any and all gay characters must make the story all about being gay, so it makes me think some people are their own worst enemies. They want to be accepted and then at that crucial stage they fear being nothing special and just one of the kind.

My take on it anyway.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well quite. Man in a dress, was not meaning to reference transsexuals. It was about quite literal men in dresses.



Haha did she really get **** for that...

I have read theories that snape is apparently trans before. The tells are all there they say..

Snape was a doppelganger for the mum of an old friend of mine so I would buy that deffo.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh no. I mean Dumbledore is gay . They're not asking her to just include a gay character or make one gay. Dumbledore is.

But he doesn't reference it because it's not really relevant.

I'd say that's much more progressive than making a song and dance out of it. We're passed the stage where any and all gay characters must make the story all about being gay, so it makes me think some people are their own worst enemies. They want to be accepted and then at that crucial stage they fear being nothing special and just one of the kind.

My take on it anyway.

Mine too Marsh - Exactly so.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh no. I mean Dumbledore is gay . They're not asking her to just include a gay character or make one gay. Dumbledore is.

But he doesn't reference it because it's not really relevant.

I'd say that's much more progressive than making a song and dance out of it. We're passed the stage where any and all gay characters must make the story all about being gay, so it makes me think some people are their own worst enemies. They want to be accepted and then at that crucial stage they fear being nothing special and just one of the kind.

My take on it anyway.

Right, but that's what I mean. It's not her bread and butter and so she prefers to keep the story around the main plotline. Though I think some people relate so well with some of the smaller aspects of the story, that they can't really understand why it doesn't get fleshed out in canon...

In Japanese manga/anime, it's the complete opposite. Gay characters are brought into main storylines all the time and they're not afraid to put in a blaringly over the top crossdressing/over the top macho male gay character for comedic relief either. But that could be perceived here as being anti-LGBT as it's considered a "sensitive" area... whereas LGBT characters have been quite prevalent for some time in manga. For example, Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune's storyline in Sailor Moon which was heavily censored here (they're cousins in that version) in the syndicated for TV American version... but left as is in the English manga iirc.

Sailor Neptune and Uranus Come Out of the Fictional Closet
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-...b_5353859.html

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Where do you see all this stuff, Vicky? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I can't say it's generally something I ever see or have experienced. Maybe we just frequent different sites and that's what it is, but from my perspective at least it seems a little blown out of proportion?

Twitter, facebook, mumsnet..and fairly recently on various labour forums. Along with direct threats recieved in real life. And friends of mine being abused by transactivists in real life for daring to attend meetings that discuss quite what the upcoming changes will mean for women..such meetings have to be held in private now, because of the viciousness of transactivists. There has been actual physical violence, and everty venue can only be disclosed literally an hour before the meeting starts, because otherwise transactivists will spam the **** out of the business in phone and email to get them to cancel. Recently though, there was a spectacular own goal, they had harassed Milwall (****ing millwall!) into cancelling, so the organiser had to find somewhere else to host, and the meeting was held in the houses of parliament Oddly enough, there was no gaggle of shouty angry people ready to commit assault when it was hosted there...maybe the threat of armed guards is too much for them.

I disagree with screaming transphobic at people, that's not helpful...but equally I do see transwomen as women. The thing is though, perhaps this forum mirrors the wider debate, in that there has to be a little give and take on both sides? To put it another way, if some transactivists feel as though their very existence is being minimised (in the same way some females feel the same) - is it not easy to to see why they'd retaliate in the same way? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it could just be a retaliation, and then it becomes a vicious circle where everyone hates each other and there's no productive and respectful discussions amongst either side to reach some kind of conclusion.

Transactivists brought this fight to us. To be quite blunt. before they started their ****, women politely looked the other way whilst obvious male people were using womens areas for years and years. Because, well transsexual people have a hard enough life to start with. Then, Stonewall lumped in transvestites and just any gender non conforming person under the mass label of transgender and transactivists started campaigning for all under the umbrella, and literally anyone who just said 'I am a woman' to have access..and it all went to ****. Women just are not going to accept transvestites or ordinary male people just who like to have long hair or whatever in their areas the same way they accepted transsexuals. Its a hugely different thing and a distinction must be made.

It is actually the behaviour of transactivists thats opening up this whole topic for debate now. There was a steady trickle of people waking up to the implications of all of this, and then transactivists decided to jump on a 60 year old woman and attack her, for having an opposing opinion (and in speakers corner none the less...) and thats when the floodgates opened tbh. Its been lesbians bearing the brunt of this for a very long time now..and finally the public appear to be waking up to it all a little more and realising that this is NOT about transsexual people at all.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...bian-community

Here is a heartbreaking thread about quite what this transactivists narrative is doing to the lesbian community (I had to hunt that down as its something I read a while back, but its worth hunting down as I know you will actually read it )

I meant more policing it in terms of entry into toilets/changing rooms, but I see what you mean.

Ah. My reply was actually about refuges and prisons, given thats the part you said was harder

The prisons/refuges one is a difficult issue as I mentioned earlier, and I would probably lean towards the trans wing suggestion you made. I think the overarching concern that needs to be addressed though is how prisons are actually sites of enormous violence (be it directly or indirectly, from other inmates or corrupt staff) against marginalised people, and yes that includes women. The prison industrial complex is so problematic on so many levels that it needs a full and frank reassessment, and really it's beyond the scope of this discussion.

And sex segregation absolutely MUST remain in the general population. Not just because of the risk of violence, but also the risk of pregnancy.

Which is actually part of my issue with the likes of girl guides going stealth gender neutral after training with 'gendered intelligence'. Nothing against them opening up to both sexes, but they have done this without actually telling parents that currently, people with penises could be sharing rooms with their teen daughters. Can't see where that could go wrong...we seem to be throwing everything we know about safeguarding out of the window when it comes to trans matters. Quite why, is anyones guess.

Yes! If correctly corresponding genitalia is the prerequisite of entering a sex-segregated area, then is the logical conclusion not that any and ALL trans people MUST have sex reassignment surgery in order to enter them?

Well, they could also use the male areas. Maybe we could relabel these areas as 'people with penises' and 'people without penises' for clarification here? There could be more cash and effort put into preventing male violence, towards those who are gender non conforming and everyone else too tbh. Honestly, what I do not understand about this 'trans people are scared of violence from male people' argument is that...womens concerns are about this very same violence, but women are expected to ignore this risk.

I genuinely mean transexuals. I realise there's a bit of conflation in that the term assumes people who are or will have be having SRS, but there are genuinely trans people who have no desire to modify their body in any way. Not people who are just making it up to be ~cool~ or whatever (as I think you're referring to), but people who've lived for years or decades as the gender of their choice without having surgery. I chose not to use 'trans' or 'transgender' because I thought you'd make the point that you don't believe in them anyway.

A trans person who did not modify themselves in any way, would surely just be a person who does not conform to stereotypes?(or even a crossdresser) I don't see how a person who just does not follow stereotypes needs to be in the areas associated with the opposite sex.

Maybe I've got this wrong, but I could've sworn you've made the point or at least agreed before that encouraging people to have surgery is actually quite problematic?

Yes.

And that really, people should be allowed to live however they like without feeling like they HAVE to modify their body (unless they really want to)?

Also yes, People should be able to dress and such however they wish to without feeling that they have to be the opposite sex in order to do those things.

Which is what my point is - if the rule is that segregated areas are separated anatomically, that basically means trans people who have for years never had any desire to have surgery, and have been using female areas, must now do so in order to continue?

A trans person who has never had any desire to physically transition and thus is male in every way bar clothing and such..should use the male areas tbh. I don't think saying that male people with no desire to ever transition, but who chose to follow a different set of stereotypes ('gender expression', if you will) should use areas designated for males is especially controversial? May be wrong there though.

Here's another interesting question for you - if you don't believe that anyone can truly change sex, and don't wish to have penises in female-only spaces, why would someone having sex reassignment surgery be almost a cast iron guarantee that they wouldn't attack someone? If they're biologically still the same person, and are predisposed to do that - what difference does not having a penis make (other than the obvious legal implications)?

Its not a cast iron guarantee at all. However I reckon if you hate yourself to the degree that you will go through such surgeries to feel at ease with yourself, then you should be given a break every now and again tbh There are a lot of women who think even post operative transwomen should not be allowed to use female areas. I am not one of them.

I completely agree with the latter part however! We need to completely break down gender and toxic masculinity.

A world without 'gender' would be bloody amazing tbh. We seemed to be getting there in the 80s, with men being more feminine and such and it being fine and even applauded. This then seemed to disappear. Then we seemed to be getting somewhere in regards to children, with more and more people willing to let their boys play with dolls and their girls play in the mud. Then from nowhere, this seems to have turned into 'if your boy is feminine he must be trans!'. Its quite infuriating tbh.

I'm not sure I agree with that, with the exception of cleavage (which varies a hell of a lot) how can you perceive one's sex without seeing what's underneath their trousers?

Are you being serious? You cannot tell what sex someone is unless you see cleavage?

But they can do that now though? Why would the law put off a predator entering a female-only space? Criminals aren't interested in the law or signs above toilet doors, they'll do whatever they like. And any trans person that passes but hasn't had surgery is already doing so?

A lock would not put off a burglar, why have locks?

Honestly, each time this gets said, I read it as 'women are going to be attacked no matter what, why bother trying to reduce that chance somewhat?' I know that sounds really depressing, but thats how it comes over.

This may interest you, or not

http://womanmeanssomething.com/targetstudy/

Seems from the limited data thats there, some sexual predators ARE put off by a sign on the door...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

Right, but that's what I mean. It's not her bread and butter and so she prefers to keep the story around the main plotline. Though I think some people relate so well with some of the smaller aspects of the story, that they can't really understand why it doesn't get fleshed out in canon...

In Japanese manga/anime, it's the complete opposite. Gay characters are brought into main storylines all the time and they're not afraid to put in a blaringly over the top crossdressing/over the top macho male gay character for comedic relief either. But that could be perceived here as being anti-LGBT as it's considered a "sensitive" area... whereas LGBT characters have been quite prevalent for some time in manga. For example, Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune's storyline in Sailor Moon which was heavily censored here (they're cousins in that version) in the syndicated for TV American version... but left as is in the English manga iirc.

Sailor Neptune and Uranus Come Out of the Fictional Closet
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-...b_5353859.html

Well romances are part of the bread and butter of her stories. If she wanted, I don't doubt she could've successfully included one in the story. I don't think gay romances are all that different to straight ones fundamentally.

It just didn't happen and they decided to take it as a slight against them.

Even though him being gay, but it not being a big deal is such a huge thing imo.

[Vicky.]

Dumbledore getting it on with Voldemort could have made deathly hallows part 1 a little more interesting, I must say.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Dumbledore getting it on with Voldemort could have made deathly hallows part 1 a little more interesting, I must say.

Yeah, well, don't ever search characters you like in image search without safe search on, as you will be in for a big shock. Unless you're into that... I'm not that big of a Potter fan as I've only watched the movies, but when I search fantasy art references and end up at DeviantArt, there's always some way Snape porn ends up in the mix...

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Maru

Yeah, well, don't ever search characters you like in image search without safe search on, as you will be in for a big shock. Unless you're into that... I'm not that big of a Potter fan as I've only watched the movies, but when I search fantasy art references and end up at DeviantArt, there's always some way Snape porn ends up in the mix...

I have seen Harry Potter fanfic before.

Infact I freaked the **** out of my sister once years back by sending her a picture of the Harry/Draco slash stuff

I once read one of the fanfic things too. It was disturbing

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I have seen Harry Potter fanfic before.

Infact I freaked the **** out of my sister once years back by sending her a picture of the Harry/Draco slash stuff

I once read one of the fanfic things too. It was disturbing

OMG this is taking up way too much space in my mind right now...

It does seem like if fanfic folk had their way, every single character in a plotline I think would be used to create/hinder/release sexual tension in some way... and this is fine if you're Nora Roberts or into writing smut, but I think that action/adventure/fantasy should focus more on the hero versus the world genre... put in too many romantic references and it's like watching someone play click adventure porn.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

OMG this is taking up way too much space in my mind right now...

It does seem like if fanfic folk had their way, every single character in a plotline I think would be used to create/hinder/release sexual tension in some way... and this is fine if you're Nora Roberts or into writing smut, but I think that action/adventure/fantasy should focus more on the hero versus the world genre... put in too many romantic references and it's like watching someone play click adventure porn.

Lord help me - NOW I am lost in this thread. I did not know that ANY of this 'Frantic' stuff existed.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Lord help me - NOW I am lost in this thread. I did not know that ANY of this 'Frantic' stuff existed.

I made one for you and marsh.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJOMqZrdHQ