Gender again. Sorry!

[icowden]

Not that she needs any help from me, but to the best of my knowledge Aurora is one of the few actual women who posts on this site which is very well represented by middle class professional men.

I agree.

yet in recent days you've asked her "Are you sure you're a woman? "

A joke

and told her to stop "getting her knickers in a twist".

Another joke.

You couldn't sound more condescending if you tried. What's next? Telling her to "Calm down love!"

There is no point posting about the topic if you are never prepared to listen to anything anyone says or argue the points. Aurora refuses to accept that toilets are not, and have never been policed and that her aims of banning transwomen from female toilets are unachievable.

 

[icowden]

Seemed.
And your 'somewhere' appears to have been a busy private club with predominantly middle class clientele. I suggest the safety aspect was definitely policed, if only implicitly.

Agreed. As I said, it was anecdotal and made me wonder whether the obsession with strictly separating genders was starting from a false premise. I hadn't thought that it could work previously.

That experience made me re-evaluate my thoughts on the matter, so I thought that I would share them as an interesting experience and discussion point. What I forgot is that actual discussion isn't welcome here. The only permissible position is what Aurora wants. Nothing else is valid.

I'm starting to see why its so difficult to have constructive discussions on this topic*.

*I'm not saying that there are not Aurora types on the pro-trans side as well by the way. There absolutely are.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Telling women who want toilets that give them privacy, dignity, and safety (which is most easily achieved by giving them a space away from men) that they are prudish and Victorian is an age old sexist response.

It's the same trope used about the Suffragettes. It's the same line trotted out by the likes of Gregg Wallace. It's the same line used by every man who wants to justify being in women's spaces or getting his nob out in public. It does you no credit at all to dismiss single sex toilets as unnecessary and the women and girls who want them as pearl clutching prudes.

 

[icowden]

It's the same trope used about the Suffragettes. It's the same line trotted out by the likes of Gregg Wallace. It's the same line used by every man who wants to justify being in women's spaces or getting his nob out in public. It does you no credit at all to dismiss single sex toilets as unnecessary and the women and girls who want them as pearl clutching prudes.

Would it kill you to try reading, considering, thinking and replying with something well thought out?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

What I forgot is that actual discussion isn't welcome here. The only permissible position is what Aurora wants. Nothing else is valid.

For me the premise is and has been throughout this thread - transwomen are men and therefore their presence in women only spaces is not valid.

Why should that change because you went to a nightclub?

 

[Shortfall]

I agree.

A joke

Another joke.

There is no point posting about the topic if you are never prepared to listen to anything anyone says or argue the points. Aurora refuses to accept that toilets are not, and have never been policed and that her aims of banning transwomen from female toilets are unachievable.

You mean she publicly disagrees with you on a discussion forum? Birds eh?

 

[icowden]

For me the premise is and has been throughout this thread - transwomen are men and therefore their presence in women only spaces is not valid.
Why should that change because you went to a nightclub?

Again. Please try reading my posts before writing.
I didn't go to a nightclub, I went to the theatre.

What I posted was a discussion point. The point of this forum is to discuss things.
The thread title suggests that this thread was created to discuss gender.

The idea is to discuss gender ideology and to look at different arguments both to validate our own thoughts and to learn from each other.
There are many strands of thought in the gender ideology spectrum.

Sadly we aren't getting any discussion just "I'M RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG". We have had the benefit of women posting in here as well as a transwoman and people who embrace gender fluidity. You'd think that would make for an interesting discussion.

Not all of my views have changed while I have been posting on this thread and I agree with some notions - e.g. women's sport should be protected to ensure a fair and level playing field, but some others are a bit more nuanced and require some thought. Sometimes although a black and white premise seems sensible, it's arguable that the thing isn't as black and white as it first seems.

 

[icowden]

You mean she publicly disagrees with you on a discussion forum? Birds eh?

No. She just publicly disagrees with anyone that does not share her viewpoint. She seldom goes into any detail as to why she holds that viewpoint and is not willing to examine why she holds that viewpoint.

The point of a discussion is to learn new things and to try to understand other people's points of view, whether you agree with them or not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I have explained at length many times over why women and girls need (and very much want, in my experience anyway) single sex spaces. The fact that you still don't get it isn't really my problem. Fortunately most men do get it. As they say 'Good men stay out so bad men stand out'.

Bob pretty much summed it up for you.

You seem completely unable to extrapolate your experience of the very, very busy loos during an evening at the theatre with a cohort of middle class people who had paid a lot to be there, to other public facilities.

And you think loos can't be policed without checking genitals when they have been routinely policed for decades.

 

[icowden]

And you think loos can't be policed without checking genitals when they have been routinely policed for decades.

The joke is that you think that toilets have been policed. They haven't. That's just your imagination.
You are the one that wants to introduce policing but don't have any idea how to do it.

Come on then. What is your proposal that is going to ensure that transwomen cannot use the women's toilet? How are you going to prevent it?

 

[Shortfall]

No. She just publicly disagrees with anyone that does not share her viewpoint. She seldom goes into any detail as to why she holds that viewpoint and is not willing to examine why she holds that viewpoint.

The point of a discussion is to learn new things and to try to understand other people's points of view, whether you agree with them or not.

From where I'm sitting she absolutely does go into detail as to why she holds her viewpoints and she regularly refers to the points of law that underpin them. She's allowed to disagree with you mate, even if you're absolutely certain that you're right and you're winning all the arguments. I think you're guilty of letting your ego get in the way now and only an admission that she has been wrong all along will appease you. It's not a zero sum game and we all benefit from reading the exchanges and then making our own minds up. Robust debate is good, there doesn't have to be a winner and a loser every time.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The joke is that you think that toilets have been policed. They haven't. That's just your imagination.
You are the one that wants to introduce policing but don't have any idea how to do it.

Firstly, most men self police because it's long been established that they shouldn't go into women's spaces. You're basically saying that these men cannot be trusted to respect single sex spaces.

Secondly, when the law is clear - as it now is - that 'woman' means biological women, both women and service providers will know that any men in women's spaces and services can be asked to leave and/or be removed.

I literally posted a video of women 'policing' their toilet space and getting men removed.

If service providers refuse to 'police' it they will be open to claims of indirect sex discrimination, just like the Scottish primary school.

Come on then. What is your proposal that is going to ensure that transwomen cannot use the women's toilet? How are you going to prevent it?

As above. What is your proposal to stop any man using women's spaces and saying he's a transwoman? You say you need to check genitals to know the users are female but seem to think women can read minds to know who's a trans identifying male and who's a bog standard male. One gets in, one doesn't according to you.

 

[icowden]

Firstly, most men self police because it's long been established that they shouldn't go into women's spaces. You're basically saying that these men cannot be trusted to respect single sex spaces.

No, people who normally use the mens will use the mens, and those who use the womens will use the womens facilities. The point is that you don't know who they are and whether or not they are genetically male or female.

Secondly, when the law is clear - as it now is - that 'woman' means biological women, both women and service providers will know that any men in women's spaces and services can be asked to leave and/or be removed.

How do you know who they are, and what gender? There are also videos of militant women trying to get women removed from women's loos because those women don't look like what they think women should look like. We call this prejudice.

I literally posted a video of women 'policing' their toilet space and getting men removed.

How did they prove that they were men? Genital Checks? DNA?

As above. What is your proposal to stop any man using women's spaces and saying he's a transwoman?

I don't need one. I genuinely don't think it matters. 99.9% of the population won't bother. If someone does bother and they are a pervert or try to attack someone the protection in law is exactly the same as it would be outside of the toilet. Toilets are not magical. They don't have magic barriers. Just unenforcable convention.

You say you need to check genitals to know the users are female but seem to think women can read minds to know who's a trans identifying male and who's a bog standard male. One gets in, one doesn't according to you.

Nope. Literally anyone can walk into a toilet of either gender. Try it next time you are out and about. It will blow your mind.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The point is that you don't know who they are and whether or not they are genetically male or female.

You can have a pretty good guess. How did you know your wife was a woman not a trans identifying man? Were you unsure until you asked her? I doubt you needed to.

Your whole position rests on men being indistinguishable from women once they pop a wig on. But conversely tall women will be automatically thought to be men and challenged. It makes no sense.

How did they prove that they were men? Genital Checks? DNA?

Did you watch the video? Did you think they were women?

I don't need one. I genuinely don't think it matters. 99.9% of the population won't bother.

There you have it. It doesn't matter to you.
It very much does seem to matter to women and the reasons why are obvious.

If someone does bother and they are a pervert or try to attack someone the protection in law is exactly the same as it would be outside of the toilet. Toilets are not magical. They don't have magic barriers. Just unenforcable convention.

That 'unenforceable convention' has made single sex toilets safer than mixed sex ones for decades. It prevents the incidents that you seem to think aren't important because, well, you can always call the police afterwards can't you? Prevention is better than cure.

Lots of things that are rightly separated by certain characteristics are open to abuse, from parking in disabled spaces to getting alcohol when you're under 18. Nobody in their right mind thinks we should do away with these restrictions because a. Some people will do it anyway, and b. It can be hard to police.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

What I posted was a discussion point. The point of this forum is to discuss things.

And people replied to your discussion point. They didn't agree with you, but that's the nature of discussion. You appear to be confusing discussion with compromise, where both sides converge on point somewhere between their starting position.

Would you expect the same if one of us thought the world was round and the other thought it was flat? Let's both converge on flat in parts, what about a dodecahedron, I'm quite fond of those?