Reconciling competing rights

No, I don't believe we're reordering society. I believe we're allowing an extra few poor sods to co-exist equally with us.

If this was actually about trans rights I think I'd have gone a different way with it from the start. It's not - it's about conflicting rights and demands. TRA's don't want to 'co-exist equally' - they are scarily vocal about telling us that we're bigots for wanting to centre our reproductive systems in feminism, for one example. There's no 'equal' about it.

It's dehumanising to tell a man "no"?
This is what the whole issue comes down to. Not just on this thread, but trans activism is based on the idea that it's dehumanising to say 'no' to a man.
Its not what we are saying 'no' about, it's the fact we are saying 'no' at all.
Cor blimey. That's well put.

OP: give us your reason why sex segregated spaces exist in the first place.

I think youre being kind in assuming OP is blinded by wokeness, Ereshkigal. I'm feeling very skeptical about that.

OP in her utter self assured wokeness, is incapable of engaging with my analogy about religious beliefs. I'm sure people thought the Inquisition had a "net benefit" too (to continue my analogy)

It really is jawdroppingly fucking outrageous how little consideration is paid to the rights, feelings, boundaries, concerns, privacy, safety and dignity of women and girls.

And OP is apparently blind to it.

Common sense (and typical organisational/legislative process) would have all stakeholder groups properly informed and consulted before even small trials were done.

But women have not been consulted. We haven't been given consideration as a primary stakeholder group on the issue of 'gender recognition' or on the impact of allowing the legal fiction of 'changing sex'.

We are being expected to 'reorder' society and give up our spaces and our opportunities (hard fought for), and even the basic naming of our bodies and our ability to recognise our cultural history of being women under patriarchy is being taken away. Our rights to freedom of association and to organise and speak to each other are all being taken away. But we aren't supposed to notice let alone be consulted on it!

Where is the benefit to women of all this?

What about women and girls?

That statement suggests you only believe the changes that are happening only apply to people with dysphoria. Is that the case?

Yes, how is it a "net benefit" to society to disadvantage women further by making their sex based oppression invisible and unspeakable, giving positions, awards etc meant to redress the inequality between women and men to male people, not collecting accurate biological data and violating women's boundaries so they can be props in the sexual fetish and power games and dominance displays of cross dressing males, @GaspingShark?

? I was quoting your previous post.

So make a third space or the mens unisex, and you can all show us how safe and workable it is.

No, I don't believe we're reordering society. I believe we're allowing an extra few poor sods to co-exist equally with us.

That statement suggests you only believe the changes that are happening only apply to people with dysphoria. Is that the case?

Its good to recognise the rights are competing. Common sense would say to test this re-ordering on a small scale, before imposing it on people who's lived experience is that it will be a disaster for them as a group.

I don't believe in innate gender identity given that I don't have one and have seen no compelling evidence of it that can't be Occams Razored away.

Your love for Joy Division is only relevant to you and not other people who don't share your subjective position on them. Unlike, say, the Inquisition.

The bottom line is that I don't believe we're reordering society to benefit a minority of people while disadvantaging another protected group. I believe there's a net and indeed overall benefit.

Which is?

It's dehumanising to tell a man "no"?

This is what the whole issue comes down to. Not just on this thread, but trans activism is based on the idea that it's dehumanising to say 'no' to a man.

Its not what we are saying 'no' about, it's the fact we are saying 'no' at all.

So you agree that there is a push to reorder society, but you think that that has a "net benefit" to everyone.

Like potplant2, I'd like to know what the benefit is for women.

What’s the benefit to women (51% of the population) of allowing men into our protected spaces?

People who believe in an innate gender identity draw on their own personal belief system. Other people go on the fact that we only have subjective personal accounts of that innate gender identity.

Where is the material evidence compelling enough that we should reorder society to benefit a minority of people and disadvantage another protected group who make up 51% of the worlds population?

It's an objective fact, that we can't know either way, surely. Exactly the same.

Theists who believe in a specific god draw on their personal belief system. Other people go on the fact that we only have subjective personal accounts of that God.

Which position has more material evidence?

@GaspingShark

I asked you a question you didn't answer and you may have missed. I'm going to put it again given that you are a Dawkins Fan and I'm very interested in your answer:

You said:

I would like you to consider the possibility that somebody else has a different experience of the world, of their gender from yours and it is equally valid

And I would like to ask:

If someone perceives and thinks they have experienced the presence of a specific god, is it reasonable for them to believe that god exists?

And is it reasonable for others to believe that specific god (or any) exists just because the person tells them they have experienced its presence?

It's dehumanising to tell a man "no"?

@GaspingShark

"I would suggest that segregating people because apparently nobody else wants to share a space with them is the dehumanizing bit, Italiangreyhound."

How far do you want to take the forced sharing of spaces? I don;t feel dehumaized if my 80 year old father in law doesn't want me in the toilet with him, or changing alongside him. Why would I?

Men who claim their humanity is damaged by not being put in prison with vulnerable women are not thinking about humanity.

Hospital wards, showers, toilets, prisons etc are segregated for safety and for dignity by sex, not by humanity, we are all human.

Expecting young girls and old ladies and everyone else female in between to share toilets with the opposite sex is denying them dignity, that to me is dehumanizing. Society only segregates certain things by sex, and other things it gives an option (male or female doctor or nurse, or carer in a care home) and others no option at all (who serves me at Tesco).

Saying that I, as a woman, do not want to shower naked next to a male is not denying them their humanity, saying I get no choice in the matter is denying me my dignity.

Likewise expecting female althlets to complete against men is ensuring the end of female sports.

Men's dignity as men does not rest on their right to be in intimate spaces with women. This is false. And if you catch them saying this, rest assured that it's not a question of humanity. The human race is male and female and we all understand that. We segregate on sex for some things.

BUT "Personally I think the increasing pink/blue divergence is an effect of consumerism. They can sell twice as much if your son and daughter won't share" I 100% agree with you there.