Gender again. Sorry!

[fozy tornip]

Finally, this thread is picking up...

 

[Ian H]

You’re a man. If you met a women at a bar and then you ended up at her place one thing leads to another and you’re in bed with her but find she has a penis bigger than yours but you have sex with each other does that make you gay?

 

[Milzy]

What are you drinking?

Yorkshire tea.

 

[multitool]

You’re a man. If you met a women at a bar and then you ended up at her place one thing leads to another and you’re in bed with her but find she has a penis bigger than yours but you have sex with each other does that make you gay?

But Milzy, what if you ARE gay, and you met a man at a bar and then you ended up at his place one thing leads to another and you’re in bed with him but find he has a fanny but you have sex with each other does that make you straight?

THE HORROR! THE HORRRRRRORRRRRRRRR!

 

[Milzy]

But Milzy, what if you ARE gay, and you met a man at a bar and then you ended up at his place one thing leads to another and you’re in bed with him but find he has a fanny but you have sex with each other does that make you straight?

THE HORROR! THE HORRRRRRORRRRRRRRR!

Brilliant post Multi. I guess it’s very simple, you’d be bisexual. Lucky *%#! twice the variety.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We're not talking all male bodies, just a tiny subset of the population who are accepted by society as female but some of whom may have a penis, though in most cases it will according to monkers be shrivelled and atrophied. I don't believe for a minute that they're a sexual threat or indeed any other sort of threat in any real sense.

We are talking about male bodies. Are they accepted by society as female for the purposes of access to women's spaces and services? Surveys suggest not.

If we are allowing access on the basis of whether you can get an erection, what would be your grounds for excluding all the other blokes with that predicament? The prostate sufferers, the cancer patients, the injured guys? Why can't they go in the female changing rooms with women and girls? It's not just about safety.

Once again Bromptonaut, you are waving men into women's spaces and services just because it doesn't seem a big deal to you. And of course it comes at no cost to you whatsoever.

Trans people are a fact of life. We all have to rub along. Privacy and dignity can be managed; it's years since I was in a changing area without cubicles.

That's great. The transwomen can go in the men's changing room with you then. You can manage their privacy and dignity there rather than expecting women to make the sacrifices so that we can all 'rub along'.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

she has a penis bigger than yours

Is the bigger the significant factor?

 

[classic33]

We are talking about male bodies. Are they accepted by society as female for the purposes of access to women's spaces and services? Surveys suggest not.

If we are allowing access on the basis of whether you can get an erection, what would be your grounds for excluding all the other blokes with that predicament? The prostate sufferers, the cancer patients, the injured guys? Why can't they go in the female changing rooms with women and girls? It's not just about safety.

Once again Bromptonaut, you are waving men into women's spaces and services just because it doesn't seem a big deal to you. And of course it comes at no cost to you whatsoever.

That's great. The transwomen can go in the men's changing room with you then. You can manage their privacy and dignity there rather than expecting women to make the sacrifices so that we can all 'rub along'.

I'm in the cancer group, but I'm not seeking access to women only areas. Despite what you've said, and will continue to think.

Should a woman with prostrate cancer be forced to use the men only area?
Following your line of thought, the answer appears to be yes. It's a men only condition, that some women get treated for each year. Percentage diagnosed each year is much smaller than that for men diagnosed with breast cancer. And I'm fully aware of your views on that. We're only a minority, so we don't matter when it comes to being treated.

 

[icowden]

This is exactly why a call you n 'idiot'.

Which is unfortunate and a little unjustified. You always argue and support your points well, and this does make your arguments look weaker IMHO (sorry I may have started mansplaining - not my intention)/

Trans women with a GRC are legally female, and are women. This has been UK law for some 19 years and been in practice since the first GRCs were issued 17 years ago.
There is no form of words that can change that no matter how you try.

Yep, and I think @AuroraSaab will agree with that. However just because something has been defined legally it doesn't alter the fundamental biological truth of what transwomen are. They are entitled to live their lives in peace and have all the support they need, but some women remain concerned that because these women are not biological women, with the lived experiences of being a biological woman, that it dilutes and undermines all that it is to be a woman.

Whether you like it or not, this is a discussion that should be had, and it would be better to do that with death threats and shouting, particularly if you want to weaken existing protections by making it easier for men to obtain a certificate which defines them as a woman. Currently there are significant hurdles, which does mean that they serve a gatekeeping function.

As for your last part, what I think is as irrelevant as what you think. What matters is what parliament intended in 2003 when they passed the law.

Which is also irrelevant. Laws can be changed.

 

[classic33]

This is what I mean when I say I have no idea what you are on about half the time.

I'm still trying to work out why you think males should be in female spaces.


I'm still noting when a man comits a crime and claims he's a woman, yes. It's relevant to the public discussion about self ID, womens prisons, and accurate recording of crime stats.

Are you still trying to prove women are just as bad as men when it comes to sex offences? How's that going?

Given you'd already mentioned his case, I thought you had at least read the piece given in the link.

Maybe if you did, a bit more often, you'd see what was being talked about. You however have a CBA'd attitude, which leaves you trying to work very simple things out.

 

[icowden]

Do you not think excluding male bodies from changing rooms is a proportionate means to the legitimate end of allowing women and girls to get undressed with safety, privacy, and dignity? I think most people would think it's proportionate. Otherwise you are really arguing for all changing rooms to be unisex. If it's not proportionate to exclude transwomen, how is it proportionate to exclude any man?

The problem is that it isn't realistic to do it.

There is a video doing the rounds this week on social media of a lesbian woman being given abuse and dragged out of a ladies toilet because the other women thought she was a man. She wasn't. Now the video, just like that article about the trans cyclists is being misrepresented to a degree as it is 8 years old and being swapped as if it was current, but the point does remain.

There are lots of women who don't look "usual". Miranda Hart includes in her comedy references to being mistaken for a man, because of her general look and height. There are also some transwomen who you could not distinguish visually from a cis woman.

So whilst I agree with you that women's safety should be a consideration, I don't see that toilets are anything other than an irrelevant convenience (if you'll forgive the pun).

What matters is that there is a law that says you cannot assault someone in a toilet. I don't see how else you could police toilets because people look different.

 

[multitool]

Whether you like it or not, this is a discussion that should be had, and it would be better to do that with death threats and shouting, particularly if you want to weaken existing protections by making it easier for men to obtain a certificate which defines them as a woman. Currently there are significant hurdles, which does mean that they serve a gatekeeping function.

Dear God. We are back to this facile notion of men going through a 6 month process for a permanent gender change via self-ID in order to predate, when they can just do it anyway.

And, of course, what makes this view especially dull-witted is that we have a country next door where we can test your theory.

 

[classic33]

Which is unfortunate and a little unjustified. You always argue and support your points well, and this does make your arguments look weaker IMHO (sorry I may have started mansplaining - not my intention)/


Yep, and I think @AuroraSaab will agree with that. However just because something has been defined legally it doesn't alter the fundamental biological truth of what transwomen are. They are entitled to live their lives in peace and have all the support they need, but some women remain concerned that because these women are not biological women, with the lived experiences of being a biological woman, that it dilutes and undermines all that it is to be a woman.

Whether you like it or not, this is a discussion that should be had, and it would be better to do that with death threats and shouting, particularly if you want to weaken existing protections by making it easier for men to obtain a certificate which defines them as a woman. Currently there are significant hurdles, which does mean that they serve a gatekeeping function.

Which is also irrelevant. Laws can be changed.

Why would making death threats and shouting help?

Maybe Aurorasaab would be better off accepting the fact she cannot exclude women from where she wants to. I'll include trans men in this as she sees them as men, not women. Despite her repeated claims about trans women.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Why would making death threats and shouting help?

Good question, we need to know.

 

[multitool]

Why would making death threats and shouting help?

Icow typo, without doubt, classic