Gender again. Sorry!

[Bromptonaut]

I understand your position, Bromptonaut. I honestly think you just want to be kind. I think you recognise that there are people with body dysphoria who feel the need to present themselves in a stereotypically female way and that we should make accommodations for them. Where we differ is that I don't believe that every man who says he is a woman has gender/body dysphoria. I think there are some men who will abuse the accommodations that people make for their own satisfaction, and there are those men who will game the prison system for their own advantage.

What does 'looks and behaves like a woman' even mean? It just means adherence to stereotypes surely. Women look and behave in all sorts of different ways.

To start at the beginning, I am not trying to be kind. My position is one based on philosophy and observation.

I'm pretty sure that the term gender dysphoria is not any longer recognised in medical circles. Pages back I linked to a recent court judgment that, before getting down into the detail of waiting for treatment, explained the current medical thinking and terminology.

It would be disingenuous to say my current attitude to this stuff was not affected by meeting, perhaps four, people who have transitioned or are in the process of doing so. However, to dispose of another argument used in the past, none of them are people who are personal friends. Three are folks I've worked with professionally and the other is my 28 year old son's friend who he met when they were at the same workplace nursery at the age of 6 months.

There are, of course, men who abuse facilities and accommodations for their own sexual gratification. If you visit the free porn sites on the 'net there are any number of genres around real or put up 'peeping Tom' type behaviour. But you deal with that when you catch people offending, not by banging up those who are 'gender incongruent' in some sort of third type and probably third class, loos and changing rooms.

I think that, in the real world, we can have our own view on how a woman looks/behaves. It will vary according to our upbringing, culture etc but it's there and most of us in the UK will have similar perspectives

FWIW, judging by the number of times I've had my given name feminised by 'friends' adding an e at the end, I'm towards the 'female' end of male normality in terms of how I look/present.

 

[multitool]

Here's how it goes. You point out that AS's point that predatory men will abuse GRC system is ridiculous because obtaining a GRC is a hurdle they don't need to jump over in order to abuse. There isn't a whole bunch of predatory men NOT abusing because it's currently harder to get a GRC.

AS then pivots onto "yes but it's not only about that it's also about dignity".

 

[classic33]

How can you 'take to womanhood'? It's a biological state. Can you take to 'blackness' in the same fashion? I'd like to take to 'youth'.

So they aren't women in every circumstance then? Who decides when they aren't and are?

People who 'look like a woman'? So it depends on how good they are at presenting as a stereotypical female as to whether we allow them access to women's single sex spaces? Who gets to judge?

Do you honestly think girls and women who don't want to should have to change next to a male body in a changing room just because said male body has long hair and makeup on?

And as long as their penis isn't erect it's perfectly acceptable and women have no right to feel uncomfortable or intimidated?

So we're basing the level of discomfort that girls and women are allowed to have on the flaccidity of the genitals on the male body next to them? Men with erectile dysfunction should be just as welcome in the female changing room when they fancy a swim then I suppose.

Can you not see how utterly bonkers that is? The idea that looking like a woman gives you access to single sex spaces? The reason we exclude men from single sex spaces isn't because of looks.

It doesn't matter what the person looks like. It doesn't matter how they dress or how stereotypically female they present. They are still male.

I don't know what's more depressing really, the fact that you think 'woman' is a costume that can be worn, or the fact that not a single male who has contributed to this thread has ever said, 'You know what .... transwomen are welcome in our changing rooms, our sports' or even 'Let's make unisex provision, third spaces'. Instead it's just been an endless demand that women move over and make room.

No male posters on this thread has demanded that trans men be subject to the same restrictions as you are wanting for trans women. IE, they should be in women only spaces, or worse seperate areas set up for "them" to use. And just as important, no male posters on this thread have said No to them having to use the same areas as ourselves. We recognise what the law says and we seem willing to accept it.

I did question female staff in male only area's, with a mobile phone, and your answer was to make a complaint.
Despite it being clear that the matter had been raised.

If anyone has questioned why, you have said "you understand we are being compassionate or inclusive". Patronising words, nowt else, being used as a put down.

 

[classic33]

They're sexed because blokes have bigger feet lol. They're not gendered, other than manufacturers imagine girls like flowers and pink etc. This is regressive. What would an agender pair of walking boots even look like? What would a pair of non binary trainers look like? Available in half sizes and the Adidas stripes would alternate pink and blue perhaps.

This explains the difference's better than I can,
https://m.epictv.com/article/do-we-really-need-gender-specific-climbing-shoes

 

[AuroraSaab]

There are, of course, men who abuse facilities and accommodations for their own sexual gratification. If you visit the free porn sites on the 'net there are any number of genres around real or put up 'peeping Tom' type behaviour. But you deal with that when you catch people offending, not by banging up those who are 'gender incongruent' in some sort of third type and probably third class, loos and changing rooms.

So you wait until people offend before you apply safeguarding? We don't do that in any other sphere, especially when we know that it's one class (men) that are responsible for most assaults the another class (women). We already know the statistics. Plus it's about privacy and dignity, not just safety.

Why would a third unisex space have to be 3rd class? It would just be the same as any other changing room, except anybody can use it.

I think that, in the real world, we can have our own view on how a woman looks/behaves. It will vary according to our upbringing, culture etc but it's there and most of us in the UK will have similar perspectives

FWIW, judging by the number of times I've had my given name feminised by 'friends' adding an e at the end, I'm towards the 'female' end of male normality in terms of how I look/present.

These are just stereotypes, B, that we are socialised into from our early years. If it varies from culture to culture these norms of dress and behaviour for men and women can't be anything else can it. Apart from having a female body, and the experiences that come from having that body, there's nothing in dress or behaviour that makes you a woman.

Women and men look and behave in a myriad of different ways. There's no 'female end to male normality' either. How can there be? No man is any more or less a male than any other man, regardless of dress or behaviour. How could he be?

 

[AuroraSaab]

No male posters on this thread has demanded that trans men be subject to the same restrictions as you are wanting for trans women. IE, they should be in women only spaces, or worse seperate areas set up for "them" to use. And just as important, no male posters on this thread have said No to them having to use the same areas as ourselves. We recognise what the law says and we seem willing to accept it.

I did question female staff in male only area's, with a mobile phone, and your answer was to make a complaint.
Despite it being clear that the matter had been raised.

If anyone has questioned why, you have said "you understand we are being compassionate or inclusive". Patronising words, nowt else, being used as a put down.

Not a single man on this thread has offered a solution that involves anything other than women having to give up something. Including you. Transmen using men's single sex spaces is a different issue - they are unlikely to be a safeguarding issue to men. But if men wish to exclude them, that's up to men. They should have every right to do so.

I'd rather think that you were trying to be kind and inclusive than think it's just that you don't give a toss about women.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Here's how it goes. You point out that AS's point that predatory men will abuse GRC system is ridiculous because obtaining a GRC is a hurdle they don't need to jump over in order to abuse. There isn't a whole bunch of predatory men NOT abusing because it's currently harder to get a GRC.

AS then pivots onto "yes but it's not only about that it's also about dignity".

This is just the 'They're going to rape you anyway' argument. It's nonsensical. I would imagine someone could burgle your house if they really wanted to. I expect you still lock your doors at night like everybody else though.


It's always been a discussion about privacy and dignity as much as safety. The prison discussion has emphasised the safety aspect. It shows how little you value women's feelings on privacy and dignity though that you diminish their importance.

 

[monkers]

Not a single man on this thread has offered a solution that involves anything other than women having to give up something. Including you. Transmen using men's single sex spaces is a different issue - they are unlikely to be a safeguarding issue to men. But if men wish to exclude them, that's up to men. They should have every right to do so.

I'd rather think that you were trying to be kind and inclusive than think it's just that you don't give a toss about women.

The third but unstated option is 'not prepared to be cruel'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The third but unstated option is 'not prepared to be cruel'.

Easy enough when the cost of 'not being prepared to be cruel' is borne by someone else.

Third unisex spaces. Seems a good solution.

 

[monkers]

Easy enough when the cost of 'not being prepared to be cruel' is borne by someone else.

Third unisex spaces. Seems a good solution.

It isn't and I've already explained the reasons why.

 

[winjim]

not a single male who has contributed to this thread has ever said, 'You know what .... transwomen are welcome in our changing rooms, our sports' or even 'Let's make unisex provision, third spaces'. Instead it's just been

If there's something specific you'd like people to discuss and engage with, have you considered starting a new thread? You say this one has 'covered everything' but to my mind a large part of it has been you dragging the argument hither and yon, to places only tangentially related to the OP, and then getting upset when people don't follow you.

You've said before that I don't say what I think on this thread. There's a reason that my contributions might be perceived in that way.

 

[multitool]

This is just the 'They're going to rape you anyway' argument. It's nonsensical. I would imagine someone could burgle your house if they really wanted to. I expect you still lock your doors at night like everybody else though.

Of course it isn't. It's about an imaginary threat.

It's always been a discussion about privacy and dignity as much as safety. The prison discussion has emphasised the safety aspect. It shows how little you value women's feelings on privacy and dignity though that you diminish their importance.

Other women disagree with you. Some of them on this thread, and from surveys the majority of women.

Are you going to apply the same bullshit argument against them?

 

[AuroraSaab]

If there's something specific you'd like people to discuss and engage with, have you considered starting a new thread? You say this one has 'covered everything' but to my mind a large part of it has been you dragging the argument hither and yon, to places only tangentially related to the OP, and then getting upset when people don't follow you.

You've said before that I don't say what I think on this thread. There's a reason that my contributions might be perceived in that way.

I didn't start nor resurrect the thread. In fact I didn't start any of the other transgender related threads. Threads wander a fair bit, not just this thread. I have been happy to put this thread back to sleep several times because it really has covered everything - hence no need to start another thread. I don't think it's unreasonable to answer points when people quote or @ me though.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Of course it isn't. It's about an imaginary threat.



Other women disagree with you. Some of them on this thread, and from surveys the majority of women.

Are you going to apply the same bullshit argument against them?
[/QUOTE]

Male violence isn't an imaginary threat. I know you don't think the other lesser stuff counts, but even with your thinking only acts of violence should bother women there's no evidence transwomen are anything other than the same risk as other men.

I'm not sure the 51% toilet survey was as conclusive as you imagine it to be. Neither does the tiny sample of women on this forum - some of whom don't disagree with everything I've said - mean there aren't others who do agree with me. For someone who moans that I claim to speak for all women, you've twice today spoken for other women on this forum.

 

[multitool]

Male violence isn't an imaginary threat. I know you don't think the other lesser stuff counts,

I knew you'd say exactly this. It's so utterly bone-headed, so you.

Anybody with a functioning brain can see why what I said, and what you said I said are wildly different.

Are you so terminally dim that I need to explain why?