X

[Ianonabike]

Oh dear god to the monkersness above, and icowden's enabling (as so often happens, I had hopes at first. So cruelly dashed.)

 

[AuroraSaab]

Most women I know (yes, I am aware, not a statistically significant sample) regard menstruation as nuisance, so, "why would you want to pretend?", but, what would I know?

It's because these men wish to appropriate even the really crappy parts of being female in order to provide validation and affirmation for themselves. Every aspect of womanhood is something to be adopted as a costume. That includes periods, pregnancy, and being treated as a sex object.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You might reason that sense came from a place of just being about bodies but it wasn't - it was more about the conduct of men as a group. She used to laugh and express it with humour and somewhat crudely because it felt that saying it this was made it more relatable - ''it isn't so much the dick I'm worried about, but the dick it's attached to''.

Funny how when women advance this view as an argument for single sex spaces it's dismissed on here.

 

[monkers]

I'm sure you must appreciate that many would see that as an aspect of mental illness though?

I'm trying to explain that the innate sense of self is inextricably wrapped up in self worth.

I've been watching the Epstein files 4 parter on Netflix. The sheer horror of it! The narrative, and quite correctly, is concerned with two aspects of it, the stories from individuals and the lasting effects of abuse, and then the sheer scale of it.

Quite rightly you might say, that these people are victims of abuse, and that lasting harm can be cast as 'mental illness'. They were not mentally ill before the abuse. The abuse is the cause what the person experiences as a mental health issue. That does necessarily not make them dangerous to others as mental health illnesses might.

Now for the my main a argument, as somebody who needed 'therapies', I can speak to this directly in my own case. In therapy, I was 'the victim of abuse' and the 'therapy' was not a treatment concerned with my mental illness, not about my gender identity.

You might argue it is a form of 'conversion therapy' - it is the transition from 'victim' to 'survivor' through analysis of self worth. Even those people who are not therapists use the same strategies. It is very difficult for some people to move beyond their status as victim, and why they so frequently talk about having no sense of their own worth.

In my case, the difficulty being my parents were the abusers, and therefore could not act as my therapists.

The main thrust is concerned with ''this is not your fault''. It is why we send abusers to prison (when we can) and not victims to hospitals for the mentally ill. The process is to persuade the person that their worth is not damaged by abuse, but the worth of the abuser is reduced by their conduct.

So my point is this, if people are abused for having their own self-belief and self knowledge, then decline into mental health concern, and maybe later mental illness is a well-recognised path.

More widely about trans people, and not just me, it is not good enough to allow toxic narratives to be promoted as ''free speech'' when these are attacks on personhood. Where being a member of the majority group justifies abuse of the minority. Worse than this, is a state under leaders in either government or opposition, do this for political gain, talking about culture wars while denying that they are the very people who initiated them. They claim to be just 'fighting the woke'.

Where to next? Do we now persecute all American nationals living in the UK because we believe 'Trump is a twat'?

 

[monkers]

Funny how when women advance this view as an argument for single sex spaces it's dismissed on here.

Because all the evidence points to abuse being about relationships, not mere presence. The data from the various women's groups all points the same way. Abuse happens in the home by the men and boys they live with it, otherwise by men and boys a little more widely in the family and friendship groups. The next category are men as opportunists, on the streets, in parks, in mini-cabs, even in police cells, but very rarely in women's public spaces, and then for very good reason - there is only one means of escape.

The chances of men entering workspace toilets, abusing women, and leaving are ridiculously low because recognition is inevitable.

The prisons data does not show that in the UK that trans women (those with a GRC) are abusing women in women's spaces. This is because it just is not happening.

The rest of the EU countries are alert to this except in the case of a couple of countries in the grip of further right political regimes, which by their very nature are not friends of women's rights.

But this is yet another thread polluted by the toxic belief that trans women are all mentally ill and predators. Scapegoating innocent groups just enables the focus to shift from the group with the highest ratio of offenders - white cis straight men. This is the tragic error.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Because all the evidence points to abuse being about relationships, not mere presence.

Simply not true. Mixed sex spaces are more dangerous to women than single sex ones.

The next category are men as opportunists, on the streets, in parks, in mini-cabs, even in police cells, but very rarely in women's public spaces, and then for very good reason - there is only one means of escape.

No, it's because a man going into a single sex space stands out and women can rightly call on him to leave or be removed. You want that right to only apply to some men but not to others.

We all know why single sex spaces came about and why they are needed.

The chances of men entering workspace toilets, abusing women, and leaving are ridiculously low because recognition is inevitable.

You want access for some men but not for others though.

But this is yet another thread polluted by the toxic belief that trans women are all mentally ill and predators. Scapegoating innocent groups just enables the focus to shift from the group with the highest ratio of offenders - white cis straight men. This is the tragic error.

Men. They're all just men. There are no special subsets of men to whom the rules of safeguarding magically don't apply.

 

[monkers]

But you must concede that as the person you are, you made the decision to undergo medical procedures for the benefit of your mental health. It must take a great deal of courage to do that, and I'm not intending to diminish or demean here. Your early life experiences must have been truly awful.

I don't concede that at all.

People's human rights all emanate from state recognition. For trans people there is only one pathway for that recognition. There was the promise from parliament of state recognition under ''for all purposes'' which provided that protection. The celebration of the SC effectively legislating from the bench is a detriment in terms of democracy.

Trans people might well choose to have hormone therapy or cherry pick from a range of available clinical treatments and therapies - that is wrapped up in bodily autonomy and consent. While there is not an explicit requirement for trans people to have vaginoplasty, not doing so requires explanation, most usually in clinical terms.

Therefore in order to have the right to self-determination, one is obliged to follow a prescriptive path. If trans women have no clinical reason not to have vaginoplasy, the panel expect them to do so. Therefore they are have surgeries in order to have rights. This is not the same as me saying that all trans women who have vaginoplasty only do so for that reason.

 

[monkers]

Men. They're all just men. There are no special subsets of men to whom the rules of safeguarding magically don't apply.

There you have it men - just as I explained up there.

None of you are trustworthy anywhere. Presence is always sexual harassment - you must live single lives and stay home unless accompanied by a responsible woman who requires you for her purposes of impregnation or some other arbitrary reason such as washing her car, or getting the lid off the pickle jar.

Yes this is extravagant rhetoric, but it demonstrates that narrative of demonisation.

And for any of you who can read data - you know none of the TERF narrative around safeguarding is untrue.

 

[icowden]

I don't concede that at all.

Perhaps I phrased it badly.

Let me try again. We are all born and grow up. We are all different. Some people have male bodies, some female and some have genetic variations. The part I have trouble with is where a person chooses to do something to their body which is not medically necessary.

In the case of transwomen and transmen we are told that body altering treatments are needed where that person is at risk of suicide, depression etc because mentally they cannot cope with the physical body that they inhabit, and indeed a while back the trope was that even to question why people might want to take hormone treatment or surgical procedures would result in trans people committing suicide.

As you are aware, the topic is very "weaponised" by both sides.

This is probably the area that I most question. I also don't believe that cosmetic surgery should be permitted unless there is a genuine health issue (e.g. burns victim, musculoskeletal problems etc).

I'm always curious to understand more, but this is the area that I find most challenging in terms of my world view.

I'm not suggesting that any or all surgeries / treatments should be required to be a transwoman or transman, but I do challenge why we go that route as opposed to therapy and support.

 

[monkers]

The part I have trouble with is where a person chooses to do something to their body which is not medically necessary.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

In fact we seem close to a point of agreeing that there should not be a pathway that says that access to human rights should not or must not depend upon it.

You've effectively argued for self-ID. This is a position that I agree with philosophically but disagree with on the basis of TERF legitimate concern.

There should be a managed process, but the management should be on the basis of safeguarding, not on the basis of a single instance of self-assessment. To be fair, that is similar to the model that Scotland was proposing, which with a little further refinement could have been an suitable accommodation of rights for everyone.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Therefore in order to have the right to self-determination, one is obliged to follow a prescriptive path. If trans women have no clinical reason not to have vaginoplasy, the panel expect them to do so. Therefore they are have surgeries in order to have rights. This is not the same as me saying that all trans women who have vaginoplasty only do so for that reason.

This is not true. There is no requirement to have surgery to get a GRC. There is no requirement to have any treatment to have the rights that protect you from discrimination under the Equality Act.

There you have it men - just as I explained up there.
None of you are trustworthy anywhere. Presence is always sexual harassment - you must live single lives and stay home unless accompanied by a responsible woman who requires you for her purposes of impregnation or some other arbitrary reason such as washing her car, or getting the lid off the pickle jar.

You are being required to stay out of women's single sex spaces, sports etc., just like other men. This is not asking much. The idea that this somehow frames all men as predators is disingenuous because you are not asking that all men be given access to women's spaces, just a special subset of men like you.

 

[monkers]

We all know why single sex spaces came about and why they are needed.

Sure we do. Initially we had single sex spaces because men made provision for men and told women they couldn't have their own spaces.

Ritualistically also we had single sex spaces on the grounds of modesty - not to be confused with dignity and privacy which have other specific legal meanings.

 

[monkers]

This is not true. There is no requirement to have surgery to get a GRC. There is no requirement to have any treatment to have the rights that protect you from discrimination under the Equality Act.

What I am saying is that the panel expect the applicant to show is that they have taken up available opportunities. Where they do not take up opportunities the applicant must be persuasive why - for example, ''clinicians's evaluation is that I don't have sufficient donor material'' - there can be other reasons. But the panel consider every application on its merits, and they do refuse applications where they are not persuaded that the applicant is sincere.

 

[BoldonLad]

It's because these men wish to appropriate even the really crappy parts of being female in order to provide validation and affirmation for themselves. Every aspect of womanhood is something to be adopted as a costume. That includes periods, pregnancy, and being treated as a sex object.

View attachment 13293

View attachment 13294

It would have to be a permanent state of pregnancy, I don't believe any man would 'do" childbirth 😂. As my wife, and daughters tell me, 'if the men had to have the babies, we would be extinct" 😂

 

[monkers]

You are being required to stay out of women's single sex spaces, sports etc., just like other men. This is not asking much. The idea that this somehow frames all men as predators is disingenuous because you are not asking that all men be given access to women's spaces, just a special subset of men like you.

Sport was always a permitted exception under the GRA. It has no basis in this discussion.

The law continues to say that my sex is reassigned. As Andrew of Sandringham - 'Andy Sandy' - has demonstrated, nobody is above the law, not even you Aurora.