Gender again. Sorry!

[Cirrus]

It's you who wants your own way - you demand that we believe transwomen are magically different from other men and that we treat them differently from other men. That's an extraordinary claim and you have provided no evidence for it.

Some of it does seem a bit ‘ emperors new clothes’

 

[AuroraSaab]

1) That you can provide the proof that the decision to be housed in a women's prison was their choice, not the system deciding it for them. Because there aren't that many transmen who are violent or sex offenders so it seems unlikely they would fail a risk assessment unless it was for their own safety.

2) Does this make the first point a personal opinion, on your part, not fact. Bear in mind you weren't "priviy to each individual's prison records" for trans women either, but bold assumptions were made by yourself on this. An educated guess. If it's all about not being a risk to the other prisoners, not choice, it seems odd that a higher % of transwomen end up in the female estate than transmen in the men's.

In Ireland, from 2016, you went where the court decided you should serve your sentence.

3)Within the limits already given. You can even have treatment declined for insisting on same sex treatment. You shouldn't, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Everybody should have the right to same sex care.

You state its the nature of the nursing profession, is it the same for doctors, which I did include, "all medical treatment", but you overlooked. Hair-splitting.

How do you ascertain whether a person is/should be allowed into certain areas. If you're actually asking for proof you are exceeding your authority. Well for years we relied on the social contract - the tacit understanding that people would respect single sex services and spaces. Just like they respect disabled toilets or speed limits on empty roads. It mostly worked ok. It's not exceeding your authority to ask for males to be removed from single sex spaces. Such exemptions are allowed in the Equality Act.

Do you apply the "Mick Dundee Test", or do you demand to see their paperwork? No need. Just use the correct services and spaces. And if someone is in the wrong space they can be removed under the Equality Act exemptions. We don't routinely allow people to identify as say, disabled or of a specific age - services ask for proof. This idea that it would be rude to check if they had a GRC is a bit nonsensical.

Can we move away from being fixated on prisons, it's as bad as being fixated on toilets. Happy to but it's an important issue because it shows the problems with self-ID. It also raises the question that transactivists don't want to address. Do some men pretend to be trans in order to gain benefits? Or is every man who says they are a woman, 100% genuine? I'd say there are men for whom being in women's spaces are simply a big thrill. They aren't trans. How are we supposed to know the difference?

 

[monkers]

Aurora believes her own bullshit so passionately that she actually believes that the people that the state gave gender identity recognition to and accordingly amended the records of their birth, also gave her the right to exercise her own blanket ban on that same group of people, and anyone else that she perceives as being, you know, a bit dodgy. She also applies the term 'we', as in (to paraphrase) 'that's why we exclude them' but then gets terribly cross if I say, 'those people in your group' because she's an 'independent thinker' (I use that term here advisedly).

In the absence of enough Mick Dundees to go around, perhaps she'll helpfully provide enough test bots to probe the anus of everyone entering every facility she claims to be exclusively for women to test for the presence of a prostate gland. I'm sure there are some people who would produce the test result '100% arse'.

Somedays my sides hurt so much. Other days I feel like banging my head against the wall. Today I think I'll just pick a bike according to the forecast and go ride.

 

[Ian H]

It's interesting watching someone with a sense of humour arguing with someone who has none.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't find much to laugh at in this subject, Ian, as it's basically just about eradicating women's boundaries.

Monkers always falls back on personal abuse in the end because there's simply no evidence that a transwoman is any different from any of the other 4 billion men on the planet. To demand that we should treat them as different to other men based on some magical words is an extraordinary claim.

"The fact that society believes a man who says he's a woman, instead of a woman who says he’s not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman."
- Jen Izaakson

 

[multitool]

Aurora. How would you feel if this person came into a woman's loo when you were in it? Threatened? Either physically or a threat to your dignity?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Do you really want to go down the 'Does this person's appearance mean they look like a stereotypical woman or are they a transwoman' avenue? Because that reduces being a woman to looks - long hair, make up, and a dress. And you know those things don't make you a woman, right? Anymore than short hair and no makeup makes you not a woman.

It's not about any one person's appearance. It's about one group (women) who have been historically oppressed by another group (men) and whether that means it is legitimate to exclude those in the second group from single sex spaces, of which toilets are just one small example.

Do you think we should decide access on a case by case basis based on how any given person performs stereotypes of femininity?

 

[classic33]

1) That you can provide the proof that the decision to be housed in a women's prison was their choice, not the system deciding it for them.

[SIZE=4]AuroraSaab[/SIZE]​

Because there aren't that many transmen who are violent or sex offenders so it seems unlikely they would fail a risk assessment unless it was for their own safety.
Answer is clear and firm No then?
Again can you provide proof of this statement?

2) Does this make the first point a personal opinion, on your part, not fact. Bear in mind you weren't "priviy to each individual's prison records" for trans women either, but bold assumptions were made by yourself on this.

[SIZE=4]AuroraSaab[/SIZE]​

An educated guess. If it's all about not being a risk to the other prisoners, not choice, it seems odd that a higher % of transwomen end up in the female estate than transmen in the men's.
Again the answer is a clear and firm No?
"Educated guesses", and you aren't privy to the risk assessment results either.

You've previously stated that you read the court reports and relied on third party reporting when it came to trans offenders

3)Within the limits already given. You can even have treatment declined for insisting on same sex treatment.

[SIZE=4]AuroraSaab[/SIZE]​

3) You shouldn't, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Everybody should have the right to same sex care.
What you feel should and what actually happens are two very different things. I've been treated by as many female doctors over the years as male. Asking for same sex care can lead to treatment being declined. But you've probably never encountered that.

[SIZE=4]AuroraSaab[/SIZE]​

Well for years we relied on the social contract - the tacit understanding that people would respect single sex services and spaces. Just like they respect disabled toilets or speed limits on empty roads. It mostly worked ok. It's not exceeding your authority to ask for males to be removed from single sex spaces. Such exemptions are allowed in the Equality Act.
It is if you are asking them to prove it, which is clearly what you have implied. Unless you know for certain, you can't legally ask for a trans women to be removed. Unless the afore mentioned "Mick Dundee Test" is your means of checking.
Disabled toilets only really came into being after the DDA 1995 was made law. Before that date, many places didn't even have them, as they kept to the minimum required. They are now the most abused toilets of any, mainly because they are open to abuse by both sexes.

Speed limits on any road, busy or quiet/empty, are routinely ignored.


As an aside, in the first five years that the Gender Recognition Certificates were issued in Ireland, 447 were for men to women, 442 were for women to men. A difference of only five.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Everybody should have the right to same sex care.
What you feel should and what actually happens are two very different things. I've been treated by as many female doctors over the years as male. Asking for same sex care can lead to treatment being declined. But you've probably never encountered that.

I haven't. But I've never had a male doctor who didn't ask if I wanted a female nurse/doctor present for an examination or procedure. Because safeguarding, dignity etc. And because blokes.

Well for years we relied on the social contract - the tacit understanding that people would respect single sex services and spaces. Just like they respect disabled toilets or speed limits on empty roads. It mostly worked ok. It's not exceeding your authority to ask for males to be removed from single sex spaces. Such exemptions are allowed in the Equality Act.
It is if you are asking them to prove it, which is clearly what you have implied. Unless you know for certain, you can't legally ask for a trans women to be removed. Unless the afore mentioned "Mick Dundee Test" is your means of checking.
Disabled toilets only really came into being after the DDA 1995 was made law. Before that date, many places didn't even have them, as they kept to the minimum required. They are now the most abused toilets of any, mainly because they are open to abuse by both sexes.

I'm not asking them to prove it. I'm asking them to respect women's right to single sex spaces and use the services and facilities that are appropriate for their sex rather than using those set aside just for women.

Trans people have services just for them that aren't accessible to non trans people. If a gay man who had been raped wanted a male counsellor you wouldn't insist he had a female one. Black groups are allowed to meet and exclude non black people. Do you think disabled people are allowed stuff just for themselves? Or should their services be available for everybody?

Why would you deny women the same rights to exclusive services and facilities in those limited areas where it really matters to them?

Speed limits on any road, busy or quiet/empty, are routinely ignored.

That's not an argument for doing away with speed limits. If anything it's an argument for enforcing them more aggressively.

 

[classic33]

I haven't. But I've never had a male doctor who didn't ask if I wanted a female nurse/doctor present for an examination or procedure. Because safeguarding, dignity etc. And because blokes.

I'm not asking them to prove it. I'm asking them to respect women's right to single sex spaces and use the services and facilities that are appropriate for their sex rather than using those set aside just for women.

Trans people have services just for them that aren't accessible to non trans people. If a gay man who had been raped wanted a male counsellor you wouldn't insist he had a female one. Black groups are allowed to meet and exclude non black people. Do you think disabled people are allowed stuff just for themselves? Or should their services be available for everybody?

Why would you deny women the same rights to exclusive services and facilities in those limited areas where it really matters to them?

That's not an argument for doing away with speed limits. If anything it's an argument for enforcing them more aggressively.

That'd be more for his protection than yours.
Because blokes what?

If in the eyes of the law they are a women, how do you prove otherwise? And what other facilities, other than women's or men's do you feel they should be using. If you say disabled I'll be asking why, it's not a disability now is it?

Do two support groups for disabled people and we aren't allowed to exclude the able bodied. In fact we invite them in, to try and help demystify the disability. Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

Who are you to decide who gets excluded, and what matters to others?

Stricter enforcement of speed limits hasn't worked over the years though, has it.

 

[qigong chimp]

Just back from my annual Holotropic Breathing and Chakra Balancing retreat and am gratified to see this thread is rapidly converging on consensus.
Bravo.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That'd be more for his protection than yours.
Because blokes what?

If it was for his protection they'd insist on a chaperone female being present. They just ask if you'd like one. I can't recall many female patients being charged with sexually assaulting a male doctor. I can recall male doctors and male nurses being charged with sexual offences against patients or other staff though.

Because blokes .... are responsible for the vast majority of sexual assaults. So women are offered chaperones with male doctors, even if that doctor is a lovely, harmless man.

If in the eyes of the law they are a women, how do you prove otherwise? And what other facilities, other than women's or men's do you feel they should be using. If you say disabled I'll be asking why, it's not a disability now is it?

Only if they have a GRC and even then they can be excluded when appropriate. They should use the facilities appropriate to their birth sex. If they don't wish to do so they should campaign for a third unisex space in regard to changing rooms etc or special trans provision re things like rape crisis groups.

Do two support groups for disabled people and we aren't allowed to exclude the able bodied. In fact we invite them in, to try and help demystify the disability. Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

So it's in your interests to have them there at the moment. But you could legally exclude them if you didn't want them there, say if there were so many able bodied people there that the disabled members didn't get a look in.
I would support your right to do so.

Who are you to decide who gets excluded, and what matters to others?

Who are you to tell women what they should have to tolerate in order to appease the feelings of a small number of men who wish they weren't men?

Stricter enforcement of speed limits hasn't worked over the years though, has it.

It seems to work pretty well actually. Most people don't speed, even on empty roads. Because most of us don't think our personal feelings (wanting to get somewhere quickly) should override other people's feelings (of not wanting to be hit by a car).

 

[multitool]

Do you really want to go down the 'Does this person's appearance mean they look like a stereotypical woman or are they a transwoman' avenue? Because that reduces being a woman to looks - long hair, make up, and a dress. And you know those things don't make you a woman, right? Anymore than short hair and no makeup makes you not a woman.

It's not about any one person's appearance. It's about one group (women) who have been historically oppressed by another group (men) and whether that means it is legitimate to exclude those in the second group from single sex spaces, of which toilets are just one small example.

Do you think we should decide access on a case by case basis based on how any given person performs stereotypes of femininity?

I'd like you to answer the question rather than try and evade it.

Would you feel physically threatened, or would your dignity be threatened if this person was in a toilet you were using?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I have no idea if that photoshopped image is male or female and I'm not sure what you imagine a heavily retouched image of someone proves, other than you are equating feminine appearance with being a woman.

If this person appeared exactly as in the photo and it was a toilet, I would likely not notice them. If I was in a changing room or a rape counselling group, or a domestic violence refuge, and I was aware they were male I would be uncomfortable, regardless of how they looked. For some women, it would be more than uncomfortable, it would be distressing.

And if the person shown is biologically male, yes, they would be statistically far more likely to comit a sexual assault than a biological woman. And that remains the case however they are dressed or how feminine they look.

As you well know, this isn't really about toilets. It's about all single sex services and facilities. Neither is it about how feminine someone's appearance is, because that would be a ridiculous criteria for admitting people to women's single sex spaces.

Perhaps a better question would be Why can't feminine looking men use male facilities and services? I'm sure it wouldn't make most men uncomfortable and there wouldn't be a safeguarding issue.

 

[multitool]

I have no idea if that photoshopped image is male or female and I'm not sure what you imagine a heavily retouched image of someone proves, other than you are equating feminine appearance with being a woman.

No I'm not. I don't know who the person is. No idea. And the point is neither do you.

And if the person shown is biologically male, yes, they would be statistically far more likely to comit a sexual assault than a biological woman. And that remains the case however they are dressed or how feminine they look.

Decontextualised statistics aren't of much use, particularly when it comes to assessment of risk. The absolute overwhelming majority of rapes and sexual assaults occur between people who know each other. You wouldn't assess other risks on this basis because it wouldn't make any sense. Your little hobbyhorse is an absolute red-herring.