Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

Meanwhile, Aurora is looking forward to women in women's toilets encountering this...

 

[AuroraSaab]

'This'....

I don't object to people using the designated facilities for their sex, regardless of their appearance.

If you blokes don't object I suppose they could use the Gents as they'd be no safeguarding risk to men, but that would be up to you guys.

Similarly, I'm sure all the men on here would be happy to accommodate their gender non conforming brethren in the Gents, regardless of how they were dressed or styled their hair.

 

[multitool]

I don't object to people using the designated facilities for their sex, regardless of their appearance.

You couldn't make this up.

Open door for men to start using women's facilities.

 

[AuroraSaab]

They would have that under self ID anyway, which is what you support. At least under current legislation men can still be lawfully excluded or challenged.

Strange that you seem to think that conforming to stereotypes is anything to do with what sex you are. Seems a bit sexist and regressive really.

Why can't you guys welcome your non conforming compadres like former Stonewall Lesbian Officer Alex Drummond into your spaces instead of insisting they should be allowed into women's?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstr...r-woman-has-a-full-beard-and-she-couldnt-be-h

 

[multitool]

They would have that under self ID anyway, which is what you support. At least under current legislation men can still be lawfully excluded or challenged.

No. It would be under your preferred regime of biological women in women's toilets, which means trans men like the one above, which means without a genital check predatory cis men could enter to predate, claiming they were trans men and therefore, by your definition...women. Not to mention other women freaking out and losing their dignity at the sight of muscular beard men, possibly even with a penis, using their spaces. How would these women know they were actually biological women.

You've tied yourself in knots with your own argument and it is objectively hilarious.

 

[AuroraSaab]

My 'preferred regime' is that biological males are excluded from women's single sex spaces and services on the few occasions where that is necessary and proportionate. There are ways to do this that allow both transmen and transwomen to be accommodated.

The toilet issue could be easily be solved by having a third unisex space. But transwomen like Alex Drummond don't want that; they don't want extra provision, just access to women's single sex spaces.

If you are as concerned about transmen as you claim to be, you would happily accept both them and transwomen into male spaces. Alternatively you would campaign for unisex provision alongside protected women's single sex spaces, services, and facilities. You don't. You just demand that women move over.

 

[multitool]

As expected, here come the caveats around practicalies when it comes to the binary nature of biological sex

 

[monkers]

So that's a No then? There aren't any gender critical women stopping other women from speaking or trying tactics of violence or intimidation to silence others. Just blokes that rock up uninvited.

Anybody is entitled to their view. The difference is I think you should be able to express those views (if they are legal to hold) in public without fear of intimidation or violence.

Swim England look like they've been listening to women athletes.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...gender-policy-with-open-and-female-categories

So many lesbian women are saying that cis women are trying to silence them over trans rights. I'm one of them. That is our shared experience.

https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/lesbians-are-not-anti-trans/

 

[multitool]

NZ High Court explicitly states link between Kellie-Jay Keen's "Let Women Speak" movement and the far-right.

“That information, it appears, goes some way to highlight Ms Keen- Minshull’s association to conservative, far-right, and white supremacist groups in the United States of America.”


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/CourtsofNZ/status/1643487276671074305

 

[theclaud]

I don't object to people using the designated facilities for their sex, regardless of their appearance

LOL. So, in your formulation, how are 'we' supposed to tell who is a risk and who isn't? Isn't the theory that 'we' exclude 'them all', just in case?

 

[multitool]

LOL. So, in your formulation, how are 'we' supposed to tell who is a risk and who isn't? Isn't the theory that 'we' exclude 'them all', just in case?

Prostate inspectors, obvs...durr

 

[AuroraSaab]

LOL. So, in your formulation, how are 'we' supposed to tell who is a risk and who isn't? Isn't the theory that 'we' exclude 'them all', just in case?

A transman is likely to be no more risk to women than anybody else who was born female. Statistically, men are the risk. And that doesn't change with how they dress or appear.

How do we tell which transwomen are a risk in women's single sex facilities? You seem to be arguing that appearing masculine or feminine is the criteria that decides if you are male or female and overrules safeguarding.

 

[monkers]

29 March 2023 ~ AuroraSaab #2848

We do know however that testosterone is one element in male aggression and it seems unlikely that it wouldn't produce a similar effect in females as it does in males

6 April 2023 ~ AuroraSaab #2982

A transman is likely to be no more risk to women than anybody else who was born female.

Oh dear!

 

[AuroraSaab]

Testosterone might well increase agression in females to some extent. What it doesn't do is suddenly give those born female the decades of male socialisation that contributes to the fact that men comit 98% of sex crimes, nor does it give the 30% increase in upper body strength or huge increase in grip strength that men have.

Lack of testosterone doesn't mitigate male socialisation that contributes to male offending patterns either.

 

[theclaud]

A transman is likely to be no more risk to women than anybody else who was born female. Statistically, men are the risk. And that doesn't change with how they dress or appear.

How do we tell which transwomen are a risk in women's single sex facilities? You seem to be arguing that appearing masculine or feminine is the criteria that decides if you are male or female and overrules safeguarding.

All I'm saying is that you can't reliably read birth sex (or biological sex) from appearance. Everybody knows this, although conservatives like to portray it as a matter of deception. Separate 'sex' public toilets have always in fact been gendered toilets - hence labels like 'ladies' and 'gents' - which are gender categories, not biological ones. The distinction has always been a matter of convention, not law. You could just acknowledge this, and then we can talk about what sort of toilet gatekeeping you are actually advocating and why it's a really bad idea. I predict you'll IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT TOILETS me, despite being perfectly happy to pronounce on toilet access yourself upthread. I'm thinking that if you can't think straight (no pun intended) about public toilets, then we haven't got a hope when it comes to anything more complicated.