Follow on thread III - Feeling sad and weary that feminists and trans-women are constantly pitted against one another.

[SophoclesTheFox]

I don't know if it has the legs to sustain a third thread, but kudos to perfectly for the impeccable timing of finally answering a question on the second to last post before the thread filled up. Genius.

here is the second thread

As I am now the OP, I wonder if this gives me the right of veto over the resolutions that we apparently made in the Great Accords of 2017?

Thanks for the thread.

In response to the post about lesbians in sex segregated areas (should be self explanatory as they are sex segregated not sexual orientation segregated...)

The truth is that we don't know anyone's true motives - male or female

What we do know is that 98% of sexual crimes are committed by men. Incidentally, trans-identified men still continue to commit crimes at the same rate as other men. We also know that lesbians are women. HTH

I find the comparison with lebians and male people really offensive. Last post in that thread.

Its not sexuality thats important. Its sex.

Male lesbians do not exist. So bringing up lesbians in relation to sex segregation is homophobic.

Yes the post about lesbians. I couldn't believe that one. Last post on the thread as well!

Inevitable that there had to be a new thread to reply to it.

Thank you for the third thread, Sophocles!

I didn't want to bugger off for Christmas without wishing a good one to everyone who has been so painstaking and eloquent on behalf of a gender critical position.

I'm already a couple of gins into the night, so I shall hold off on agreeing with Batshite about homophobia lest I am too intemperate about it.

See you after Boxing Day for further discussion, I am sure.

Happy Christmas!

As long as a transwoman passes, what's the problem? It's not like there are going to be genital checks or anything.

Thank you for the new thread. Here's what I was typing while it got full:

1. Leave the GRA well alone
2. Self ID would work on a honour system controlled by women

What the fuck do you think self-ID means?

You have NO SAY in how women decide in any specific circumstance to operate our honour system. It's up to the particular women who are there in that situation to decide whether they will let a transwoman in based on the particulars of the situation, the transwoman's behaviour (including choices they have made about their appearance) and the personal boundaries of every woman there.

Our honour system is not up for debate and absolutely should not be enshrined in legislation. It's a favour women extend to transwomen who don't take the piss. It is absolutely not a right and the moment it is treated as such it ceases to be an honour system and starts being an erosion of women's rights.

This has nothing to do with self-ID, which is the change that is being proposed to the GRA. Self-ID means that instead of needing a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and 2 years worth of documents to legally change gender, you can just sign a form.

I don't know what you think self-ID is perfectly, but it's not anything anybody else here is discussing and it's nothing to do with what is being proposed as an actual change to the actual law.

Genital checks again. Such active imaginations some have. Odd how its never feminists who bring up these genital checks. Another thing feminists do not say, but get blamed for saying, basically.

"It's up to the particular women who are there in that situation to decide whether they will let a transwoman in based on the particulars of the situation"

Or the law, like every other situation. We don't operate via mob rule in this society, we use legislation.

Either the exemptions will be strengthened (VERY unlikely I think), or they'll continue as they currently are - with exemptions granted only under extreme cases. Toilets are not extreme cases.

But please, keep pretending that somehow you get to be gatekeepers of our toilets, denying transwomen entry based on whims or your decisions. No - we need this settled legally one way or the other. And hopefully it will be legally settled soon.

Done with this place. I disagree with self-ID, but again this comes down to banning legitimate transwomen with GRC/disphoria from toilets, or leaving it at the whims of others, rather than the law - it's ridiculous. Good luck with your campaigns to reduce minority rights, while pretending that you're somehow defending minority rights (cue comments on the Roma community, a patriarchal community where women are kept separate in spaces as they are "unclean" to men, and an attempt to dress that up as somehow a positive for them rather than a patriarchal abuse that we should be stopping if people here were real Radical Feminists. But no, we get to sympathy-troll and use their submission to the patriarchal system as a way of backing up OUR ability to deny minorities rights, so whahay right?)

I hope we don't lose on Self-ID, but if we do it's because people around here couldn't stop there and wanted to go much further in denying transwomen rights, therefore poisoning people against their initial legitimate concerns - when you're teaming up with right wing Christians and gender essentialists, when you're saying things like "OH WOW I AGREE WITH THE EXPRESS!" and conservative MPs who are more anti-trans than pro-women, you've soiled yourself.

Done with this place. Good luck to all the nicer women around here who genuinely are trying to address the issues with the self-ID aspect of the GRA consultation. Don't let the loudmouthed transphobes with agendas to grind speak for you too loudly, or don't be cowed by them. They're toxic.

Puresummer

Exactly what rights are trans women being denied?

Lesbians are sexually attracted to other women, and may thus have a motive to sexually assault other women in the area, yet they are still allowed into women's facilities.

Where to start with this?

Honestly, I'm asking, because I've been at the eggnog and I have no idea how to begin to address this nonsense. Help me out here.

I think we have to start with the fact that it isn't lesbians who commit 98% of sexual assualts.

Then move onto the fact that lesbians are "allowed" in women's facilities because they are, in fact, women.

I've done competitive sports most of my adult life and most of them involve communal changing and/or showering. One of them has a high lesbian representation. It has never occurred to me to wonder about the sexuality of the women I'm showering and changing with, and it makes me sad that my friends are being wheeled out in defence of males in women's spaces

SophoclesTheFox

This is ridiculous. If a transwoman feels like a woman, looks like a woman, and is legally a woman, then she's a woman. Calling transwomen 'men' is factually incorrect and is clearly ideological bias.

Also, if a transwoman passes as a woman, then what is the problem? You won't even realise they're trans.

Also, you're painting yourselves as vulnerable. Not a smart move. Feminism is about equality between men and women - we women are equal, not vulnerable, as being vulnerable suggests we are inferior. And we aren't.

Um, I didn't call any transwoman a man, sienna?

I did refer to "males" but if you think it's factually incorrect to refer to an adult human with an XY chromosome as a male, then honestly, I can't help you. Sorry.

What thread are you on, sienna? Is it Perfectly's alternative reality thread again?

I can't even begin to start with we are painting ourselves vulnerable. We must tell those women who are raped and sexually assaulted to just say " but we are equal" and I am sure it will all stop.

Are you suggesting that men do not attack women in vast numbers, that men are usually much stronger than women also? Of course women are vulnerable. In an ideal world we would not be. Unfortunately, biology and the real world dictate this for us and its not a choice. If it was, so any women would not be attacked by men would they..

No, it is factually incorrect to refer to someone who is legally female as 'male'.

@birdsdestiny:

What we need to do is introduce harsher sentences for men who sexually assault women. But if we focus gender differences, then we're suggesting that one gender is superior to the other. Which isn't true, because one cannot exist without the other.

@BatShite:

I've already covered this in my previous response to birdsdestiny.

An actual man could run into the women's toilets/changing rooms and sexually assault a woman. There is, in general, a lack of genuine safety in women-only spaces.

We are not suggesting they are superior, we are stating they commit pretty much all the violent sexual crime. I know these facts are very irritating for everyone but we are going to keep stating them.

No, it is factually incorrect to refer to someone who is legally female as 'male'

Is it? And did I do that?

But if we focus gender differences, then we're suggesting that one gender is superior to the other

What an odd way to conceptualise feminism. That's not how I see it at all.

@birdsdestiny:

I'm not denying that almost all (reported) violent sexual crime is perpetrated by men. But that doesn't mean that we should be criticising all men, because sexual offenders are very much a minority of the population.

We are not suggesting they are superior, we are stating they commit pretty much all the violent sexual crime. I know these facts are very irritating for everyone but we are going to keep stating them.

Indeed.

An actual man could run into the women's toilets/changing rooms and sexually assault a woman. There is, in general, a lack of genuine safety in women-only spaces.

He could. But making this even easier for him..is quite silly I would say.