[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

This is the opposite of what I want. Serious debates would cease to exist at all (which may or may not be a good thing..hmm) if only people who agreed with the OP were allowed to post in that topic

I don't think only female opinions matter either. Its useful to get opinions from everyone, regardless of their sex.

What I disagree with completely, is people trying to shut down the conversation by crying bigot at anyone with the 'wrong' (in their opinion) view. Or, as it seems is happening in this thread, trying to police other peoples language. Of course slurs and such should not be tolerated, but to try and make out that saying a male person is male is so horrendously offensive, well, thats another way of just trying the 'bigot' yell isn't it.

I don't agree when other posters have said that only female opinions matter. Of course men should be able to post too. But what I totally disagree with is when (and this is usually the way it goes down on here) men come in, and try to dismiss womens valid concerns. Or say that women are transphobic. As has happened on many of these threads, and it always does seem to be a male poster doing it, maybe thats just an unfortunate coincidence. I think men should take a bit more time to actually think about WHY women are so concerned about this, why women are so scared of random men. And then try to work out if their concerns really are OTT or if for some reason or other they are trying to minimize the very real threat that most women face in every day of their lives.

I actually think in this debate, that male opinions will be what changes the direction of it all. Once more men start to stand up and say 'no', it will all end. Which is part of the reason behind the recent manfriday campaign stuff...where women are 'self identifying' as men and entering male only swimming sessions and such, in reaction to men doing this to women. Once men are inconvenienced, it will all change I reckon. Just most men are not interested as it will never really affect them. Even with women taking over THEIR spaces in the way that men are colonizing womens spaces (and especially lesbian spaces) there is not the safety element, men will not be unsafe by women being there, in the way women would be with a random man.

In all honesty, if selfID keeps steamrollering its way into businesses and law, I will start using the male areas I think. Because the kind of man who would force his way into female areas with no thought at all for how that makes the women feel, is exactly the kind of man I do not want near me in states of undress. I reckon the male areas would be safer for me, as most of the pervs and voyeurs will be in the womens. And I sure as hell feel safer around even 100 normal men than I would feel in an enclosed space with one predator. Attacks in the male areas would be uncommon also as...most men are not predators and a predator would definitely think twice about attacking in an area thats mainly populated by blokes. Most men are against sexual assault/rape/voyeurism etc.

This of course does not solve the issue of refuges and prisons though, which I do feel are the most important in this debate. Especially given we currently have male rapists in female prisons, and that 50% of those identifying as trans are actually there for sex offenses (way above the average among men). But thats not surprising at all given transvestites are now classed as trans. And as I said before, transvestism is one of the most common paraphilia among s ex offenders. So it stands to reason that if transvestites are classed as trans, there will be a hell of a lot of 'trans' sex offenders.

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.

I would bloody love this tbh.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[user104658]

if people can't see the issue with this thread, they aren't going to, I guess. TIBB serious debates is an off limits zone for actual debates surrounding trans issues or feminism. Duly noted.

[Maru]

I think when people are upset on board, just don't fight with them so full on as it would seem to make things worse. Because it seems like folk here take things to heart... some just need a good vent.

TS, I can kind of understand his point of view where he may be taking some things personally with regards to feeling excluded. I was on his side in the feminism thread (as an individualist feminist), and I could see where he could've been made to feel that his thoughts need not apply because he feels this way as a man. That said, I can also understand the counter-argument. It does read though as someone as a pro-individualist, that because he was made male, his attempt to discuss was always going to be meant to be panned. I also question how much we really should be barring entry in discussions on SD, because it is a debate forum... we're not activists? We're just sharing our opinions... maybe 15 people will read it (and F5 the f*k out of those threads ).

I also think some here need to be very careful too how they word their posts... I'm very conscious of my use of the word "you". In fact, I sometimes have to go back and edit, because in casual conversation irl I use royal "you" in conversation... but the husband who is a skilled writer warned me of it's use. Ever since then, I'm very conscious of it as it is very easy to come off wrong in text this way, and I can see how it effects reactions when the most energized posts are littered with "yous". It makes it come off quite pointed.
I've debated making a small plugin that counts yous in posts in order to come up with aggression levels...

Anyway, those are just some ideas... I don't think anyone is doing anything particularly wrong. But I do see where TS may have taken some of that discussion to heart... and I can't really blame him (as myself) to a degree, because feminism itself--at various points--quite an ugly beast.

[smudgie]

When my kids were little, I would have hated the thought of hubby sending our little daughter into a public loo on her own if there was any possibility of anybody with a penis allowed in there.
On the other hand, I don’t like the thought of someone genuinely going through the stages of transition but not fully transitioned not having separate facilities.
Going into a male public loo dressed as a woman must be an absolute nightmare.
We have male toilets, we have female toilets, we have disabled toilets, in this day and age would it be so impossible to facilitate everybody, after all, everybody pays their taxes so should have equal rights to pee safely.

[Ashley.]

I haven't seen anybody here invalidate your opinion, but once you start telling everybody else how they should be feeling or how their opinions come across in your eyes, it's not entirely improbable that you're going to face a backlash.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

I haven't seen anybody here invalidate your opinion, but once you start telling everybody else how they should be feeling or how their opinions come across in your eyes, it's not entirely improbable that you're going to face a backlash.

Great post, well put.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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...

[JoshBB]

Has she responded to it yet or..

I hope its an accident, honestly.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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..