Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

laurentian

New Member
It never ceases to amaze me how animated, opinionated and vitriolic some people can get about matters that they have little understanding of, and that don't, have never, and probably never will affect them.

I can't recall ever having knowingly met a trans person and therefore, one has never had an effect on my life. I use the word "knowingly" advisedly there. It is quite possible that a trans man has stood next to me at a urinal, got changed next to me or even showered with me in a rugby club changing room. If they did, it affected me not one iota - and I would like to think it wouldn't.

I suspect many people on here, including those shouting about the issue, are similarly unaffected. Those that have knowingly met or engaged with a trans person probably know them or know people who know them and, even in this capacity, I suspect that the trans person they have met would be a vanishingly small percentage of the people that they have engaged with throughout their lives and have had little or no negative effect. In such circumstances, it seems bizarre to me that some people can get so angry or animated on the subject - a subject of which they have very little understanding or experience of.

Everything I have seen or heard on the subject leads me to believe that trans people deal with a terrible crisis of identity and a torturous existence on their route to transitioning but, once there, just want to live a life of whatever sex/gender they have chosen. Peacefully and in harmony with the rest of society. It is definitely not "men pretending o be women". Why anyone would choose to vilify someone who has chosen that path after such a struggle is beyond me and suggests they are just looking for something or someone to get mad about to impress or jump on some kind of bandwagon of intimidation, harassment and oppression in an attempt to improve their dearth of self worth.

The process of a legal necessity to make the definition must be a hard one and perhaps one that had to be made but how on earth people can celebrate it in the way that some people are is, frankly, sadistic. The absence of empathy speaks volumes for who they are as people and makes me wonder who or what the next target will be on their path to make themselves feel good.

Presumably, the women who I saw celebrating the fact that trans women will now be forced to use male toilets yesterday will also be celebrating when a ripped, bearded trans man uses their women only spaces (not to mention the idea that a non-trans man could now use those spaces under the guise of being trans) and those men who have been so vociferously supportive of this decision will be quite comfortable when a person who looks, sounds and acts just like a woman walks in to their toilet or changing room.

Very, very few people, a tiny, tiny percentage would be negatively affected by a trans woman using a woman's toilet or changing facility but it will absolutely affect 100% of trans women who now have to use men's facilities and, once again, they will have to endure the identity crisis and torture of their pre-trans lives.

It is desperately sad for them.
 
But they don't. It's another illustration of what @monkers pointed out which is that it's judged on whether you "Look" a certain way.
It's very common for people with invisible disabilities to be accused of not being disabled, just as butch lesbians can often be challenged as to whether they are women.

So is the solution to let anybody use them because 'you can't always tell'? Or encourage people to return to the convention where you don't use them unless you're disabled? At which point we can all relax because however the person looks we can be pretty confident they are entitled to use the disabled toilet. I've never seen anyone challenged over a disabled toilet or women for looking a certain way. If it is a problem it's a problem created by those who use facilities they aren't entitled to be in.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how animated, opinionated and vitriolic some people can get about matters that they have little understanding of, and that don't, have never, and probably never will affect them.
Women have no understanding of why there is a need for single sex spaces and services that exclude men? This is what they debate is about. It's not about how sad it is that some people don't like being the sex they were born.
I can't recall ever having knowingly met a trans person and therefore, one has never had an effect on my life. I use the word "knowingly" advisedly there. It is quite possible that a trans man has stood next to me at a urinal, got changed next to me or even showered with me in a rugby club changing room. If they did, it affected me not one iota - and I would like to think it wouldn't.

I suspect many people on here, including those shouting about the issue, are similarly unaffected. Those that have knowingly met or engaged with a trans person probably know them or know people who know them and, even in this capacity, I suspect that the trans person they have met would be a vanishingly small percentage of the people that they have engaged with throughout their lives and have had little or no negative effect. In such circumstances, it seems bizarre to me that some people can get so angry or animated on the subject - a subject of which they have very little understanding or experience of.

Everything I have seen or heard on the subject leads me to believe that trans people deal with a terrible crisis of identity and a torturous existence on their route to transitioning but, once there, just want to live a life of whatever sex/gender they have chosen. Peacefully and in harmony with the rest of society. It is definitely not "men pretending o be women". Why anyone would choose to vilify someone who has chosen that path after such a struggle is beyond me and suggests they are just looking for something or someone to get mad about to impress or jump on some kind of bandwagon of intimidation, harassment and oppression in an attempt to improve their dearth of self worth.

The process of a legal necessity to make the definition must be a hard one and perhaps one that had to be made but how on earth people can celebrate it in the way that some people are is, frankly, sadistic. The absence of empathy speaks volumes for who they are as people and makes me wonder who or what the next target will be on their path to make themselves feel good.

Presumably, the women who I saw celebrating the fact that trans women will now be forced to use male toilets yesterday will also be celebrating when a ripped, bearded trans man uses their women only spaces (not to mention the idea that a non-trans man could now use those spaces under the guise of being trans) and those men who have been so vociferously supportive of this decision will be quite comfortable when a person who looks, sounds and acts just like a woman walks in to their toilet or changing room.

Very, very few people, a tiny, tiny percentage would be negatively affected by a trans woman using a woman's toilet or changing facility but it will absolutely affect 100% of trans women who now have to use men's facilities and, once again, they will have to endure the identity crisis and torture of their pre-trans lives.

It is desperately sad for them.

Oh ffs. This is one of the most ignorant, self-centred takes I've ever read on here. 'It doesn't affect me so I can't see why it would affect women'. You're demanding women be kind and let men in to their single sex spaces, all at no cost to you whatsoever. And it's never affected you so you can't see why it would be a problem.

It's you who are entirely devoid of empathy.

You're a man. A woman identifying as a man is going to impinge on you very little. Are they going to be taking your place on a sports team? No. Are you going to be sharing a prison wing or domestic violence refuge with them? No. If you did, are they a physical or sexual danger to you? No.

Women don't much care if transmen use women's facilities - they're women so they're entitled to. This idea that women are afraid of trans identifying women is a figment of the male imagination. Perhaps it indicates you being more uncomfortable with non conforming men than women are with non conforming women.

Seeing as you're so empathetic and women are such bigots, why aren't you welcoming men who identify as women into the male facilities? They'll be safe with you and women will retain their safety and privacy.

By the way, not many UK transmen get phalloplasties (they take a strip of flesh from the arm or thigh and roll it into a cylinder to attach to your groin) so the chances of one being next to you at a urinal to pee is near zero. I think you know zero about this whole debate.
 
Last edited:

Xipe Totec

Something nasty in the woodshed
You're prone to the hyperbolic language yourself so a bit cheeky to complain about finding another poster a little bit extra. Apart from which you've never suggested those posters who call people c*nts or similar should take it down a notch, so I can only assume your outrage is performative and selective.

I'm hardly 'complaining' - and I'd have hoped there's a significant & observable difference between 'outrage' (performative or otherwise) and me just ripping the p!ss out our resident swivel-eyed GB News caricature at every opportunity - happy as he evidently is to hand it out for free every time he posts. I'm pretty sure Andy gets it. :smile:
 

Stevo 666

Regular
Nah. Disabled toilets are for those with a disability, just like women's toilets are for women.

In principle I'd agree, but the reality is that a lot of places won't have the space or the money to install an extra room with plumbing etc. So they will end up using the disabled toilets in quite a few places. Or the facilities just won't be available.
 
So is the solution to let anybody use them because 'you can't always tell'? Or encourage people to return to the convention where you don't use them unless you're disabled? At which point we can all relax because however the person looks we can be pretty confident they are entitled to use the disabled toilet. I've never seen anyone challenged over a disabled toilet or women for looking a certain way. If it is a problem it's a problem created by those who use facilities they aren't entitled to be in.
Not every disabled person is comfortable making it known they've a disability. Especially in public, and where it is instantly visible. Some even dress to hide the disability, you'll notice what they're wearing more than the disability. That being the case, I'll repeat an old question that you've avoided answering, how do you(or anyone) decide who is disabled and who isn't. Let alone check that what they're saying is correct before you allow them to use a facility put in place for them.

And as was said two years ago, when you kept repeating the same, you were wrong. And you're still wrong.
 
That being the case, I'll repeat an old question that you've avoided answering, how do you (or anyone) decide who is disabled and who isn't. Let alone check that what they're saying is correct before you allow them to use a facility put in place for them.
I've answered it lots of times. How do you stop 25 year olds playing under 16's football? How do you stop people drink driving or parking in disabled gaps? By dealing with those who break the 'rules' - in this case the entitlement to use certain spaces - so that we return to the convention that people don't abuse their provision.

You're basically saying that because it's hard to enforce we shouldn't bother enforcing it at all. That's nonsense.
 
In principle I'd agree, but the reality is that a lot of places won't have the space or the money to install an extra room with plumbing etc. So they will end up using the disabled toilets in quite a few places. Or the facilities just won't be available.

Or they could use the facilities appropriate to their sex until those unisex third spaces are available. So many men on here are suggesting they themselves are compassionate and kind and understanding of the vulnerabilities of men who say they are women that I can't understand why this isn't the ideal intermediate solution. Welcome your non conforming brethren into your spaces, lads.
 
I've answered it lots of times. How do you stop 25 year olds playing under 16's football? How do you stop people drink driving or parking in disabled gaps? By dealing with those who break the 'rules' - in this case the entitlement to use certain spaces - so that we return to the convention that people don't abuse their provision.

You're basically saying that because it's hard to enforce we shouldn't bother enforcing it at all. That's nonsense.
You've never answered it, either since you introduced it here or in the predecessor to here.

You're doing your basic tactic of sidestepping the question asked, and introducing something that wasn't asked.
I'll repeat the question, bearing in mind your previous piece about being willing to stand at the door of the toilets to check. How do you check that that person using the disabled toilets are disabled?
Reminding you at this stage that under the DDA and Equalities Act, that demanding proof isn't allowed. You've to take the person at their word.
 
Or they could use the facilities appropriate to their sex until those unisex third spaces are available. So many men on here are suggesting they themselves are compassionate and kind and understanding of the vulnerabilities of men who say they are women that I can't understand why this isn't the ideal intermediate solution. Welcome your non conforming brethren into your spaces, lads.
Or maybe those fourth unisex facilities never appear, and they simply knock the two into one to form one unisex facility, or they simply close them and save money and the hassle.
I assume you're answering the point raised in asking this.
 

mickle

New Member
Im sorry i missed most of this thread - being too busy TERFing in other places. Interesting to note that here, like everywhere else, it's the 'Just be kind' brigade who resort to vile name calling.

I'm over the moon at the supreme court ruling and absolutely cannot wait to see what impact it'll have over the coming months and years in women's prisons, sports, refuges and private spaces. I hope it inspires womens rights activists abroad too. Ireland, Canada and Australia in particular are all captured by the LGBQWERTY genital mutilation cult.
 
I'll repeat the question, bearing in mind your previous piece about being willing to stand at the door of the toilets to check. How do you check that that person using the disabled toilets are disabled?
You can ask them, just like you'd ask someone who looked too old to play in an under 15 football game how old they were. Someone who was entitled to be there would be able to explain. Knowing that they might be asked or removed if they weren't eligible would deter those who weren't and before long we'd likely be back to the convention where you don't pretend to be something you're not in order to be somewhere you aren't entitled to be.

Reminding you at this stage that under the DDA and Equalities Act, that demanding proof isn't allowed. You've to take the person at their word.

You aren't allowed to ask at the recruitment stage for jobs, because that might lead employers to discriminate. You can certainly ask for proof of disability where being disabled brings a benefit eg preferential parking at work.

Firstly, I'm surprised that you seem happy to let anybody use disabled facilities simply because you think no member of staff should be allowed to ask politely if they're entitled to. Disabled people fought long and hard for those facilities and you seem happy to give them away.

Secondly, you can surely see that arguing about how to stop able bodied prople from using an enclosed single use disabled toilet is a million miles from the situations which this court ruling is about. You know it isn't about toilets.
 

Ian H

Legendary Member
Ruling does not diminish transgender women’s protections against direct discrimination, says supreme court

The ruling by the supreme court that “woman” in the Equality Act (EA) 2010 refers to biological women does not diminish transgender women’s protections against direct discrimination, the judges have said.
 
Or maybe those fourth unisex facilities never appear, and they simply knock the two into one to form one unisex facility, or they simply close them and save money and the hassle.
I assume you're answering the point raised in asking this.

Well parliament needs to ensure the law that provides single sex facilities is enforced then. This ruling clarifies the law: if service providers are offering a facility or service for women it is only for biological women. They can offer only unisex if they wish (in some circumstances) but they can't call it Womens and admit men.
 
Ruling does not diminish transgender women’s protections against direct discrimination, says supreme court

The ruling by the supreme court that “woman” in the Equality Act (EA) 2010 refers to biological women does not diminish transgender women’s protections against direct discrimination, the judges have said.

No of course it doesn't. They quite rightly have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It just means they don't get to trump women's rights to single sex services or lesbian's rights to exclude men.

I'm sorry i missed most of this thread - being too busy TERFing in other places. Interesting to note that here, like everywhere else, it's the 'Just be kind' brigade who resort to vile name calling. I'm over the moon at the supreme court ruling and absolutely cannot wait to see what impact it'll have over the coming months and years in women's prisons, sports, refuges and private spaces.

Nice to see you. Hope you are well.
You haven't missed much. It's mostly an endless repetition of the same arguments, with men telling me to be kind whilst calling me a bigot, c*nt, or tw*t lol. You can't mention Mumsnet on here, Mickle, as it gives the Naca lads an attack of the vapours but I might have a look tomorrow.
 
Top Bottom