Gender reassignment surgery... Would you then be happy with them in female spaces?

People get their bodies modified to suit their mental illness all the time.

It doesn't make them actually a cat. Actually a natural 36Z. I suppose trans able people can make themselves disabled but that's about it.

They just need a doctor to perform the surgery here or abroad if they can afford it. Doctors are just as at risk of being in it for the money or because they've been blinded by the trans ideology themselves as any other person

You can't have surgery until you are over 18. So what dorm rooms would this be?

Halls of residence. American term

Genuinely gobsmacked by "transwomen are not women, transmen are not men" yes they are. That is the whole point.

In what sense of the word?

And yes I agree with SpaghettiAndMeatballs about the two types of trans.

They may have certain things in common, but a determination to violate women's boundaries, I don't think is one of them.

Unfortunately, as genuine transsexuals predicted, this new breed of transactivist is ruining it for them.

tocas

Ah ok. Yes I agree, anyone who has the surgery certainly is driven by a need. Although there are many cases of post surgery regret. So it's not always a need that can be relied upon.

I think, from what you're saying, that you want to be able to accommodate them because their need to so great. And I totally understand that. It's a very human emotion.

Unfortunately, this entire issue rests upon the fact that needs are in direct conflict. The needs of women and girls versus the needs of men who want to be women.

I originally assumed that this could be resolved by having third options for trans-people. To accommodate their specific requirements. A post op man will have entirely different biological and medical needs to a woman, for example. None of which will involve the particular issues specific to women, like pregnancy, menstruation, etc. Likewise, women don't need to be in a position where they have to regularly dilate a neo vagina. (I never see transwomen asking for special accommodation to do this, during the day. So I don't know how that works when they are working).

So the third option would seem preferable.

Unfortunately, the question of validation gets in the way (that and autogynephilia). Transwomen don't want a third option. Otherwise, we could all pack up and go home.

Because the two issues clash so spectacularly, one ends up having to pick a side.

And I'm not saying it is more important than women's right to privacy, but I certainly believe it is equally as important

Then how do you balance these scales? If someone has been through all that, is it fair that they compete in professional women's sports? They're still biologically male, with all the advantage that entails, penis or no.

The problem has never (well, rarely) been with transexuals - who just want to go on and live their life, who have taken this huge step with re-assignment surgery in a final attempt to be at peace with themselves, who don't want to encroach on women's spaces etc.

The problem comes with the new breed of transgender person, who feels they have the right to women's spaces, who believe that they actually are women - who feel that it's not just about being at peace with themselves, but about bullying me into saying what they want to hear too.

I don't want these boundary breakers anywhere near me, let alone having the right to be near me and my only recourse is to get back in my house like it's the 1800s. The old type, just quietly living their lives like the rest of us? Really not the issue here.

And I'm not saying it is more important than women's right to privacy, but I certainly believe it is equally as important

Datun

Sorry that wasn't clear. What I mean by that is that in order to qualify for gender re-assignment surgery you have to go through a great deal of counselling, have lived as the sex you are wanting to transition to and have already started hormonal therapy for the transition. These are not things you would be able to do if your wish to transition was not born of genuine need

Today 08:43 tocas

Titchy - yes I do believe in biology. But gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition

Yes it is. Of course. But why is that more important than women's rights and privacy?

tocas

Transitioning from male to female is no easy task, it's not like people can just decide to do it and it's done within the week and without due consideration to their reasons for doing so.

I genuinely don't understand this argument. What has the difficulty of surgery got to do with it?

All it demonstrates is a commitment to cosmetically alter your body.

I don't think anyone doubts that there are certainly many trans people who are utterly committed to being trans.

Their conviction is immaterial to women's privacy and protecting women's boundaries.

You don't give people something that is damaging to others, just because they really, really want it.

Titchy - yes I do believe in biology. But gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition

I'm not sure what you mean by this OP?

Today 01:28 TurquoiseChevrotain

I suppose I'm talking about same sex dorm rooms, etc.

You can't have surgery until you are over 18. So what dorm rooms would this be?

Do you not believe in biology then @tocas?

That seems to be a viewpoint that having surgery, somehow decreases the risk, or feelings of discomfort that women go through.

And whilst no penis means they can't rape you with one, I disagree in any way, that it makes them any less male.

Autogynephilia is certainly not precluded by surgery. It can be the ultimate goal, in fact.

A man who fetishises women and their biology is unwelcome on that basis, not the fact that he has a penis.

There is no framework to distinguish between a pre-op and post-op transwoman. So it's moot and pointless.

Are far more effective distinction would be to separate men with gender dysphoria from men with autogynephilia. But only in terms of the direct threat they pose. Participating unwittingly in someone's fetish is a huge boundary violation.

Men without AGP, but with gender dysphoria, don't tend to want to violate boundaries, for the sake of it.

Having said that, the presence of a male, (from either camp), certainly alters the dynamic.

Expecting women to ignore their socialisation and experience of men in general, is, in itself, a boundary violation.

A third option would be far more preferable. Segregation on the basis of sex for those who want it, and a third option for those who are gender variant.

That I would campaign for.

There's also the issue about whether religions like .Muslims would then be able to use toilets etc

Genuinely gobsmacked by "transwomen are not women, transmen are not men" yes they are. That is the whole point.

Annadale not believing a man is a woman is nothing like believing Jews are not human. Presumably you don't wish to erradicate them.

We're all being gaslighted into double think.

I'm a little less concerned where the person has had full genital surgery. However it's a moot point isn't it - no one is going to require another person to drop their pants to check their entitlement to a particular space.

We need openly mixed gender spaces.

Male socialisation is dangerous, not male genitalia.

Toilets were ever really safe spaces. Anyone could walk in them and I won't lie I've used the men's when situation was desperate. Some men use thr women's when there are no clean options for their children. Also when disabled facilities are in the main toilets it might mean that a male comes in with his disable wife. I think they're a nice polite convention that society allows but not a legal safe space

I also appreciate the inherent danger for trans women and I think even more so for transmen in a men's prison so I would support a third option for trans disorders. But that's not my fight

I don't exactly mean case by case, just that I don't care about public toilets at all, but do care about single sex hospital wards, prisons, schools and sports.

I used to be a 'yes'. But I've realised that it's an arbitrary line drawn in the sand based on nothing. You can have your penise removed and still be obviously a man which will cause issues for women. I don't care about toilets, but women's safe spaces, prisons, hospitals, dv shelters are for women not anyone without a penis.

There is a law on the way which - if passed - will mean you can't object to a person with male genitals having access to female spaces if they say they are a woman.

Those of you who think a reasonable approach is to judge on a case hy case basis will soon find yourself on the wrong side of the law if it goes through.

Given the lack of public debate on the subject (people trying to debate this are shut down and - now - even physically attacked by trans rights activists) and that it has cross party support, it looks likely to go through.

This for example " in a situation where this individual could choose to stay out altogether? Sports, jobs that involve dealing with women who might prefer not to have a man around at that moment? Then no, a trans woman should do something else, and not be there."

... will be seen as discrimination if the law goes through.

Just popping this sign here. Saw it on Twitter last night.

I think I am coming down firmly on the side of even after surgery they still aren't women so no they can't come in our spaces, but I realise this isn't the case in law. Just my opinion.

I understand only about 5% of transwoman do have the surgery so that's an awful lot of intact penises wanting to be acknowledged as lady penises. Which is nonsense IMHO.