Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Really? I have literally never heard of feminists being involved in anything like that. They are usually arrested for putting stickers and ribbons out. I'm surprised it hasn't made the papers.

In years gone by transwomen didn't push for access to single sex spaces. Now they do. We can argue about whether they are genuinely transgender or not, but the fact is it is happening.

https://nypost.com/2023/06/09/women-only-spa-must-welcome-naked-trans-clients-with-penises/

I'm tired of kindness being demanded of the women who have to put up with this nonsense in the name of inclusivity. I'm tired of women being told to move over because the feelings of the men who don't want to be men matter more than women's feelings.

I'm busy, but I'm just going to quote this here before it gets changed. I want people to see just how you replied.

 

[classic33]

It's not fascism to think that men - because that's who we are talking about - shouldn't be in women's prisons, rape centres, domestic violence refuges, changing rooms, and sports.

It's not fascism to ask that a disabled person gets a same sex carer if they wish.

It's not fascism to ask for better, holistic standards of care, rather than automatic affirmation, for kids with body dysphoria.

It's certainly not fascism for women to discuss things which impinge on their lives, or their children's lives. They have every right to do so. Shouting terf/Nazi/fascist because the days of No Debate are over won't make any difference anymore. Nobody cares about your hyperbolic slurs.

I ain't satisfied by your argument, and to date you've had a one sided argument going.
If they are legally a women then why shouldn't they be allowed to use any service they are entitled to? Because you don't like them being able to doesn't count as a legitimate concern. Where should trans men go? As we are talking about them, though you'd rather just ignore that they even exist in the first place. You dismiss them out off hand.
Your idea/version of trans people are trans women only, who, pose such a huge risk to everyone else that they shouldn't be afforded any dignity. The very thing that you are demanding be given to yourself. Only you are using "the bigger picture" of all women and girls as a shield.

And if they can't get what they want, free, then they're free to kick off, throwing insults and false accusations around.

You want to rewrite history, erasing parts of it to suit yourself.

 

[classic33]

Really? I have literally never heard of feminists being involved in anything like that. They are usually arrested for putting stickers and ribbons out. I'm surprised it hasn't made the papers.

In years gone by transwomen didn't push for access to single sex spaces. Now they do. We can argue about whether they are genuinely transgender or not, but the fact is it is happening.

https://nypost.com/2023/06/09/women-only-spa-must-welcome-naked-trans-clients-with-penises/

I'm tired of kindness being demanded of the women who have to put up with this nonsense in the name of inclusivity. I'm tired of women being told to move over because the feelings of the men who don't want to be men matter more than women's feelings.

How do you know who was behind the attacks?

Years ago, some people pushed to keep disabled people out of "their spaces". They didn't want to have to use the same facilities as them. Avoid using train stations then, because were upgrades are carried out, the disabled toilets are being placed in with the women's toilets. Disabled toilets are unisex, so you'll not be able to demand the removal of anyone.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm busy, but I'm just going to quote this here before it gets changed. I want people to see just how you replied.

Lol. Feel free. I made it clear I don't believe any of your anecdotes including this one. This is the same incident where the perpetrators grafittied 'Rowlings Rulz' across a wall I presume.

You're very rude and the most disingenuous person on here, Monica. Quite why you think I should believe anything you post escapes me.

 

[classic33]

It's not a report. It's an Editorial, ie opinion piece, by Sam Thomas. It's online in full here:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00139-5/fulltext

It's main thrust seems to be that children, or if not the child then the parents, should have bodily autonomy in deciding whether puberty blockers are appropriate treatment for body/gender dysphoria in kids.

That's all well and good but it relies on children and parents having the full information on these drugs, when in reality both Mermaids and the Tavistock promoted them as a 'pause button' and reversible. They are not.

Parents and kids are/were not always in possession of the full facts on either puberty blockers or the fact that most body dysphoria resolves on it's own. The Affirmation model doesn't allow for exploratory therapy or 'watchful waiting' either. Add to this the promotion of suicidal ideation and 'Would you rather have a trans kid or a dead kid?' and I would say that distressed children and desperate parents were not making properly informed decisions. They were going along with 'Doctor knows best'.

It's funny that having looked at the lack of evidence the countries with free health care are ending the medical pathway for children with body issue. The ones with a large private health sector are going full steam ahead. Almost as if generating money comes before 'First do no harm'.

Looks like the Conversion Therapy Ban Bill in Iceland has failed and been dropped. Common sense.

Sound familiar to you?
"More fear is stoked by rhetoric about a malevolent threat to children. Social conservatives in the USA, UK, and Australia frame gender-affirming care as child abuse and medical experimentation."

Taken from the piece you linked to, an editorial piece.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If they are legally a women then why shouldn't they be allowed to use any service they are entitled to? Because you don't like them being able to doesn't count as a legitimate concern.

Because they are men. The safety, dignity, and privacy of women and girls is a legitimate concern. That you don't give a toss about it says a lot about you.

Where should trans men go? As we are talking about them, though you'd rather just ignore that they even exist in the first place. You dismiss them out off hand.

Nope. They are welcome in the spaces intended for their actual sex. If you chaps want them in your spaces, that's up to you boys.

Your idea/version of trans people are trans women only, who, pose such a huge risk to everyone else that they shouldn't be afforded any dignity. The very thing that you are demanding be given to yourself.

It's men, Classic. Just men, however they identify, whatever they choose to wear. You demand women move over to accommodate a particular subset of men. Prisons, sports, changing rooms .... You have no empathy whatsoever for women and girls. I mean it's zero.

Why can't you accommodate transwomen in the male single sex spaces, Classic? It sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[monkers]

I think I've seen enough hysterical ranting from one dangerous woman for one day.

 

[classic33]

Because they are men. The safety, dignity, and privacy of women and girls is a legitimate concern. That you don't give a toss about it says a lot about you.

Nope. They are welcome in the spaces intended for their actual sex. If you chaps want them in your spaces, that's up to you boys.

It's men, Classic. Just men, however they identify, whatever they choose to wear. You demand women move over to accommodate a particular subset of men. Prisons, sports, changing rooms .... You have no empathy whatsoever for women and girls. I mean it's zero.

Why can't you accommodate transwomen in the male single sex spaces, Classic? It sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with it.

On that last part, it's something called the law.

And if someone were to come in to a men's area, I have no authority to ask that they prove that they have the legal right to be there. Nor have I any intention of doing your "Mick Dundee" test to see if they have the right. Both are illegal, with the second leaving me open to having to explain to police why I did what I did. "Well you see officer, it was like this...."

Why is it just men, women are just as capable as men. Check Fiona Carrier, now on the sex offenders register as a paedophile.

I have no empathy for your way of doing things, that's the big difference.

 

[classic33]

Because they are men. The safety, dignity, and privacy of women and girls is a legitimate concern. That you don't give a toss about it says a lot about you.

Nope. They are welcome in the spaces intended for their actual sex. If you chaps want them in your spaces, that's up to you boys.

It's men, Classic. Just men, however they identify, whatever they choose to wear. You demand women move over to accommodate a particular subset of men. Prisons, sports, changing rooms .... You have no empathy whatsoever for women and girls. I mean it's zero.

Why can't you accommodate transwomen in the male single sex spaces, Classic? It sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with it.

Using your guide that would place them in the women's. Which means that you're now saying you'd have no problem with someone dressed in suit, and for all intentional purposes looking like a man entering what you consider your space.

How are you going to prove that they have the right to be there?

 

[AuroraSaab]

On that last part, it's something called the law.

Legally a woman but it's not current law that a male with a GRC can access single sex spaces. You would like it to be so. I would not.

Why is it just men, women are just as capable as men. Check Fiona Carrier, now on the sex offenders register as a paedophile.

Episode 973, in which Classic manages to find one of the 2% of sex offenders who are female, ignoring the 98% who are male. It's not all men of course, but it's nearly always men, isn't it?

I have no empathy for your way of doing things, that's the big difference.

Your way involves women moving over to accommodate those men with a special identity. It costs you absolutely nothing. Why you think this demand should evoke my empathy I have no idea.

We really are on the millionth time of trawling over the same stuff.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Legally a woman but it's not current law that a male with a GRC can access single sex spaces. You would like it to be so. I would not.

A male with a GRC would, presumably, have been female at birth so, in your eyes a woman and perfectly entitled to use single sex spaces designated for women.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, a biological woman with a certificate saying they are to be treated as a male in law, under most circumstances, would (and should) be entitled to use female single sex spaces and services if they wish. It's not in my eyes though; they just are female, however little they might look like a stereotypical woman. Because women can look and dress however they want. It's sexist and regressive to think otherwise.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Yes, a biological woman with a certificate saying they are to be treated as a male in law, under most circumstances, would (and should) be entitled to use female single sex spaces and services if they wish. It's not in my eyes though; they just are female, however little they might look like a stereotypical woman. Because women can look and dress however they want. It's sexist and regressive to think otherwise.

But they've a bit of flesh between their legs that looks like a penis....

 

[classic33]

Legally a woman but it's not current law that a male with a GRC can access single sex spaces. You would like it to be so. I would not.

Episode 973, in which Classic manages to find one of the 2% of sex offenders who are female, ignoring the 98% who are male. It's not all men of course, but it's nearly always men, isn't it?

Your way involves women moving over to accommodate those men with a special identity. It costs you absolutely nothing. Why you think this demand should evoke my empathy I have no idea.

We really are on the millionth time of trawling over the same stuff.

You don't like the laws of the land, I'd suggest moving somewhere where the laws are to your liking.

Episode 974 in which you regurgitate old, questionable figures. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation* puts a conservative figure at 20% of UK sex offenders are women.
You want another?
Susan Abbott, recently released after serving just 50% of the sentence handed down. Before being released to her home county, where the assaults were carried out. She still poses a risk and concerns have been raised by her early release, for her victims, and for other kids in the area. It seems that like Maxine Carr, she's been given a new identity to allow her to continue living in an area where her victims will not have the same anonymity allowing them to start afresh. If that's even possible for them.

You're the one "trawling the same old "story" of it's men who are the problem. And you feel that you're entitled to dictate how others should be allowed to live around you.



*A child protection charity that deals with British female sex offenders.

 

[classic33]

Yes, a biological woman with a certificate saying they are to be treated as a male in law, under most circumstances, would (and should) be entitled to use female single sex spaces and services if they wish. It's not in my eyes though; they just are female, however little they might look like a stereotypical woman. Because women can look and dress however they want. It's sexist and regressive to think otherwise.

Why don't you extend the same courtesy to men?
Maybe you're the sexist and regressive one here.