Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I've had a lifetime of people like her making their opinions about my disability known. Often quite vocally.

So basically because some people are mean to you about your disability you are siding with another group who you perceived to be as marginalised as the disabled. And women should put up with what you demand transwomen should be allowed to do because why exactly? Because trans people are also marginalised? You are asking women and girls to make sacrifices to give transwomen what they want with no thought to their own welfare. That's not very kind of you now is it?

Whilst I'm viewing parts of these threads from a viewpoint of another minority group, the same prejudices are plainly visible. Right down to the choice of wording, only she doesn't use disabled as much, in her rants. Everyone in that group is treated the same by her, and if you're not agreeing with her then you're wrong.

Again, you're projecting your upset at being a member of a marginalised group. And asking women and girls to pay the cost.

'People are mean to the disabled so transwomen should get what they want' isn't a very convincing argument.

 

[AuroraSaab]

To use your turn of phrase, it's up to all of us to look out for each other. There is no need for this aggressive inhumane marginalisation of people.

You aren't looking out for women if you tell them to include men in their single sex spaces and services. Why don't you advocate for third unisex spaces or specialist transgender services? Most people will support that unequivocally.

You are also incorrect from the legal standpoint. Spaces and facilities are reserved for people with physical and sensory disabilities in everyday life, and you should respect that.

I respect separate services and spaces for the disabled. I think all groups are entitled to them in certain circumstances, including women and men. It's you who think they aren't.

 

[monkers]

You aren't looking out for women if you tell them to include men in their single sex spaces and services. Why don't you advocate for third unisex spaces or specialist transgender services? Most people will support that unequivocally.

Because trans women are women.

'Third unisex spaces'? Surely even you can see what a nonsense phrase that is. It strongly suggest third sex, when you argue that sex is a binary. You can't argue that trans women are men and argue for a third sex space.

Specialist trans services? Why yes of course. However your group have successfully already destroyed them. You are usually smug to the fact.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No, it suggests third spaces that either sex can use. Nobody thinks there is a third sex.

Because trans women are women.

This is a metaphysical belief which many people do not share and for which there is no scientific basis. As such it's not a sensible concept on which to base laws.

Specialist trans services? Why yes of course. However your group have successfully already destroyed them. You are usually smug to the fact.

There are lots of services and spaces that are exclusively for transgender people. I would imagine most people would agree that there are times when they need specialist services that shouldn't be open to non trans individuals.

 

[icowden]

Because trans women are women.

And that single phrase has done more harm to women than anything else. Many women would disagree that someone who is wearing women's clothes but who has not taken hormones and who still has a penis is a woman. It reduces women to "people who say they are women".

'Third unisex spaces'? Surely even you can see what a nonsense phrase that is. It strongly suggest third sex, when you argue that sex is a binary. You can't argue that trans women are men and argue for a third sex space.

But you can argue that they are not women but maybe they should not be expected to be comfortable in a men's space either.

Specialist trans services? Why yes of course. However your group have successfully already destroyed them. You are usually smug to the fact.

Eh?

 

[classic33]

Presumably you mean transwomen. They are the same as other men. In five years you haven't provided any evidence why they should be treated differently from other men, other than they (and you) say so.

Other than your scare tactics, coupled with picking out the sensational, you've failed to prove why. You have said that trans men should be using the men's facilities, with no objections from men.
As they're the "same as all men".

I'm not frightened of men in most circumstances. I just don't think they should be in women's single sex spaces and services, or their sports.

That isn't why youre so vocal about trans women though. You present the argument as though it has impacted directly on you, along with your usual sensational story to demonstrate that you are right.

I wouldn't care because it's a train or a plane. I would care if they were the police officer assigned to strip search me after arrest or the carer who turned up to perform my intimate care if I were disabled and had asked for a same sex carer. Surely even you can see the difference.

Would you know if they were to sit next to you, or you them. Do you demand that your seat be nowhere near a trans person.

What continues to surprise me is how quickly and resolutely you would dismiss women's needs and welfare in the most obvious of situations - prisons, sports, same sex care - and side with men. Just because you feel sorry for them it seems.

It's not up to women to give things up in order to accommodate any specific group, and prioritise their needs above their own, regardless of how marginalised that group might be.

That you think women should do so shows how little you think of women.

You on the other hand have no problems with stating that trans men should be allowed the use men's single sex facilities. You don't see them as women, but you continue to say that people should be made use the facilities appropriate to your needs.

You just don't want anyone different to yourself near you. And it shows.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Other than your scare tactics, coupled with picking out the sensational, you've failed to prove why. You have said that trans men should be using the men's facilities, with no objections from men.
As they're the "same as all men".

I have said no such thing. I have repeatedly said that it's up to men whether they are comfortable with women who identify as men using their spaces.

That isn't why youre so vocal about trans women though. You present the argument as though it has impacted directly on you, along with your usual sensational story to demonstrate that you are right.

It does impact on me if men are allowed in women's spaces. It's also permissible for women to care about other women and girls regardless.

You certainly seem to care about getting men into women's spaces and services even though it doesn't impact on you. I have to stay in my lane but you don't apparently.

Would you know if they were to sit next to you, or you them. Do you demand that your seat be nowhere near a trans person.

No, but the issue isn't seats on a train is it?

You on the other hand have no problems with stating that trans men should be allowed the use men's single sex facilities.

I've said it's up to men. I can't give permission on their behalf.

You don't see them as women, but you continue to say that people should be made use the facilities appropriate to your needs. You just don't want anyone different to yourself near you. And it shows.

All you seem to care about is making women accommodate marginalised men because people have been mean to you over your disability. Women are human beings, they aren't here to right perceived wrongs against one marginalised group because a different marginalised group are treated badly. This is a bitter and misogynistic viewpoint.

 

[monkers]

And that single phrase has done more harm to women than anything else.

It is a form of words that has done no harm to women at all.

I'm going to say something to you Ian for what must be the umpteenth time. I was going to let it go, but you said something earlier about women living in fear of men pretending to be transgender. Trans women are transgender people, but not all transgender people are trans women. The majority of transgender people are not in the category you have called 'truly trans'. The majority are transvestites, cross-dressers, and such like. While it is true that all tigers are cats, it doesn't follow that all cats are killers of humans.

Aurora might say, 'but how do we tell the difference'? Which is a fair question. We don't, but they are not protected by the GR Act or the EqA.

The simple approach by the government, and much less toxic one, would be to say that unless a person has started transition or has a GRC they must not be in those spaces. This way, no change to the GRA or the EqA would be needed. But the government is determined to use a culture war as political capital.

 

[icowden]

The majority are transvestites, cross-dressers, and such like.

I think that community would not identify as transgender in any way. See my paragraph about Grayson Perry for further detail.

While it is true that all tigers are cats, it doesn't follow that all cats are killers of humans.

But it does follow that if lions, tigers and cats are all called cats, you won't know if you are about to be eaten or purred at.

 

[classic33]

So basically because some people are mean to you about your disability you are siding with another group who you perceived to be as marginalised as the disabled. And women should put up with what you demand transwomen should be allowed to do because why exactly? Because trans people are also marginalised? You are asking women and girls to make sacrifices to give transwomen what they want with no thought to their own welfare. That's not very kind of you now is it?

I've had a lifetime, so far, of living with a disability. That includes other people spouting their opinions about that disability, and what they feel I should be allowed to do. Where I should go, normally its anywhere but near them. Use seperate facilities, not the ones put there for "their" use. To return to your "toilet talk", you've even said that they should be using seperate toilets, away from and out of sight of you.

I'm seeing the same "objections" being spouted by yourself, against another minority group. Yet you deem them fair and just.

Again, you're projecting your upset at being a member of a marginalised group. And asking women and girls to pay the cost.

'People are mean to the disabled so transwomen should get what they want' isn't a very convincing argument.

People are mean, yourself included, about the disability. You don't seem to be bothered about that though. You just want my sort kept away from you, at all costs, because I'm different to you.
Problem is, you'd never notice unless you were to see the visible side.

I'd not say I'm projecting my upset(I would say that though, wouldn't I!), more I'm seeing age old fears rising to the surface and aimed at another minority group. In your case, you're using a small minority of a minority to generate a scare/cause panic. Even in your response quoted here.

I still maintain you're running scared.

 

[AuroraSaab]

..... To return to your "toilet talk", you've even said that they should be using seperate toilets, away from and out of sight of you.

What on earth are you on about here? I've said women need distinct single sex spaces and services sometimes. So do men. So do disabled people.

I'm seeing the same "objections" being spouted by yourself, against another minority group. Yet you deem them fair and just.

Yes, it's fair and just not to have men in women's prisons and sports etc. What you advocate is unfair and unjust.

People are mean, yourself included, about the disability. You don't seem to be bothered about that though. You just want my sort kept away from you, at all costs, because I'm different to you.
Problem is, you'd never notice unless you were to see the visible side.

Again, this is you massively projecting your own difficulties onto an unrelated issue. You've been part of a marginalised group so any marginalised group must get what they want seems to be your view. If it's at the expense of women, that seems to be too bad.

I'd not say I'm projecting my upset(I would say that though, wouldn't I!), more I'm seeing age old fears rising to the surface and aimed at another minority group. In your case, you're using a small minority of a minority to generate a scare/cause panic. Even in your response quoted here.

For all your dredging up of female serial killers it remains a fact that men are more dangerous to women than the other way round. In certain vulnerable situations women are entitled to feel uncomfortable with men present. That doesn't change because they don't identify as men.

 

[classic33]

I have said no such thing. I have repeatedly said that it's up to men whether they are comfortable with women who identify as men using their spaces.

It does impact on me if men are allowed in women's spaces. It's also permissible for women to care about other women and girls regardless.

You certainly seem to care about getting men into women's spaces and services even though it doesn't impact on you. I have to stay in my lane but you don't apparently.

No, but the issue isn't seats on a train is it?

I've said it's up to men. I can't give permission on their behalf.

All you seem to care about is making women accommodate marginalised men because people have been mean to you over your disability. Women are human beings, they aren't here to right perceived wrongs against one marginalised group because a different marginalised group are treated badly. This is a bitter and misogynistic viewpoint.

You have repeatedly said that they should be allowed the use of the men's facilities, with no objections from men.
You see them as men, so should be using the men's facilities.
Throws your "argument" of not recognising a trans person for what they present themselves as.

I've made no demands for special treatment, just the same treatment as every other person. At times though others have demanded that I not be allowed near them. You are doing the same, albeit to a different group of people, yet don't see any difference in what you're saying.

I'm all for people being allowed to live their lives how they want. Not how others demand they should live.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You have repeatedly said that they should be allowed the use of the men's facilities, with no objections from men.

Are you talking about transwomen now? Or transmen? I have said it's up to men if they are happy sharing facilities with transmen.

You see them as men, so should be using the men's facilities.
Throws your "argument" of not recognising a trans person for what they present themselves as.

Again, no idea who or what you are talking about.

I've made no demands for special treatment, just the same treatment as every other person. At times though others have demanded that I not be allowed near them. You are doing the same, albeit to a different group of people, yet don't see any difference in what you're saying.

I can see the difference between discrimination for no good reason and having services and spaces for specific groups (based on sex, age, disability, race, or whatever) for acceptable reasons.

I'm all for people being allowed to live their lives how they want. Not how others demand they should live.

That can't mean doing what you want all the time though surely. I'm not disabled. I shouldn't be allowed to access spaces and services meant for disabled people just because that's me living my life how I want.

 

[monkers]

I think that community would not identify as transgender in any way. See my paragraph about Grayson Perry for further detail.

That community are very much included in the term 'transgender'. My very first post (#918 on P62 )on this thread spoke to this point and the confusion that the word can create. 'Transgender' means different things to different people. You could almost ask 100 different people the meaning of the word and get 100 different answers.

A problem word is 'transgender'. It's problematic for a number of reasons.
1 It's spelt with the 'trans' part as a prefix rather than an adjective like other trans terms.
2 If a person undergoes transition, their gender is confirmed not changed as the term implies.
3 It's an umbrella term that includes not just trans people, but transvestites, crossdressers, etc.
4 It's used in different ways in different parts of the world.
5 It lends itself to the form 'transgendered' which is in turn problematic for a number of reasons, but essentially it suggest that to be trans is to experience an enforced change by something external to the person.

But it does follow that if lions, tigers and cats are all called cats, you won't know if you are about to be eaten or purred at.

Yet in my younger days whenever I wore leopard print, nobody mistook me for a leopard. Nonetheless I'm sure you understood my point well enough.

 

[icowden]

That community are very much included in the term 'transgender'.

Grayson Perry would tell you to very much F Off. He had quite strong opinions about it. As one of the most famous transvestites in the country I would have thought his opinion would carry some weight.

Trans = Across
Gender = Male or Female

Someone who is transgender wants to be the gender that they are not. Surely that's the only definition?

A man who wants to wear women's clothes but does not wish to be a woman is not in any way transgender.