What would it look like?

Feminism: The radical idea that women are human.
Opinions differ.

Bewilderednow

If you want to debate whether or not women have too many rights and which ones men should let us keep you are looking for the MRA forums, not the Feminists forum.
We consider our human rights as absolute.

Best of luck with running off the very people who try engage

The subtext here though is shut up shut up, stop talking about it, why can’t you just be NICE?

We are engaging. We are explaining, politely, the myriad issues with self ID and TRA ideology.

It is not our job to convince you why we should give up our rights. If you want to take our rights from us YOU must make the compelling case.

your positions

You have had a fair few people engage and lots have been very polite even when they have disagreed with you and vice versa to be fair

And as a parting shot you treat everyone on this thread the same way you feel you have been treated...

That said I see there is no place here for a transperson unless they fully subscribe to your positions.

That would be an I'll leave rather than address those rather awkward situations I was asked to address then? Oh well.

I don’t need anyone who requires me to shut up, put up and be nice as an ally. I dont need the ID politics of goodies and baddies.

I’d prefer to get this whole debate right out in public - in the tabloid press, everywhere. Let people understand the ramifications. Exactly what it means for women and children and sport and prisons and rape crisis and healthcare and all the rest. Shine a light on it.

And then see where public opinion turns.

Do 51% of the population need allies to keep their rights? Who are these allies?

Depends who you want as your ally surely

We shouldn’t need to be fighting for this, that’s the point.

We shouldnt need to say anything more than NO.

But here we are:

justifying why we need sex segregated toilets (please sir! Please can we keep them?)
Justifying why men should t be racing women in competitive sprinting
Justifying why we need to keep child safeguarding rules intact
Justifying... god just about everything. We shouldn’t have to. our rights should NOT be up for negotiation.

We simply should not have to be fighting for this, to not be erased. And we are. And lots of us are pretty pissed off about it. To suggest that we behave nicely to win ‘allies’ is grossly insulting.

People who think women's human rights are negotiable are in no way shape or form potential allies. The framing of the issue as one where women need to earn the right to be treated as human by men is despicable.

Ok maybe this will help me illustrate where I believe there is some agreement possible between us( at this this transperson.)

Sexual preference is just that. Lesbians are not transphobic for not wanting to have intercourse with transwomen. Obvious but in this day...

Lesbians are not required to fuck transgender identified males to prove they are not transphobic.

Direct sports inclusion is stupid in all but a few rare cases. I'd leave those up to an independent sports experts.

Sex segregated men's races but women's races to be mixed in rare cases.

Private gatherings can exclude folks, transfolk obviously included. If a Group of lesbians wants to party in a private facility... go for it.

Women are not required to leave their doors unlocked in case a transgender identified male wants to come in their home.

Wow! Women's right really are human rights, eh.
It is very difficult to have a discussion with people who act as though them agreeing that women ought not be punished for saying no is a generous concession.

Also, many of the recent posters on this board who are adamant that TW are women (irrespective of whether the TW in question have made any 'transition' whatsoever) and should have free and unfettered access to female only spaces, services, sports, etc., know full well that this will have, and already has had, a detrimental impact on women. Women will just quietly stop accessing these spaces and services no-one will hear or notice that they have done so because they are the women who are already some of the most isolated and marginalised and whose voices are rarely, if ever, heard.

The only people who do care are the women on this board and they are routinely vilified for doing so.

Ereshkigal absolutely. That case was clearly a combination of a) seeking validation and b) a man who was unwilling to accept women saying "no" to him.

That was not someone who wanted to help; who believed they had somethig to give.

That was pure and simple "How fucking dare they! I'll show them..."

BarrackerBarmer has put it far more eloquently than I can, but my views are as follows, OP:

TW and women are not the same we do not share:

The same chromosomes
The same biology
The same skeletal structure
The same socialisation
The same history
The same basis for opression

We are different nothing wrong with being different but the differences between us matter and need to be acknowledged and accounted for in any law or legislation.

Transgender is the topic du jour at the moment, you (general, not personal you) have the eyes and ears of the media, politicians, lawmakers and public. You could ask for services, facilities, etc., etc., designed specifically for you that accommodate your differences and don't impact negatively on women - why don't you?

Which of the rather paltry rights and protections women have do you want removed and why? What rights do women have that you don't?

which can be opened up with risk of harm to other protected groups.

WITHOUT risk of harm

I liked MrsTP’s answer at the top of the thread - it pretty much states my view on this.

However, in recognition that people sometimes change their external sexual characteristics, I think that should probably be noted. For example, a male who identifies as transgender and has undergone irreversible physical transition to resemble female physiology could have their sex recorded a M(t) to denote 'Male - Trans'. Again, this is important due to the need to accurately record statistics. For example, if we find out the M(t) people are being the victims of crimes at a hugely disproportionate rate, or being paid less overall, that is important information to have so that we can act and change the situation for them. Changing their sex to F obscures that and also obscures the same necessary information for women.

I have also been thinking about this point. Sex and gender need to be captured separately. If the equality laws (and related actions) are clearly stated as “sex” (biology) and “gender identity/expression” I would favour the separate collection of sex and gender on forms. Men and women who don’t note a gender identity for whatever reason can pick ‘none’ and would be assumed to be generally congruent in their presentation with their biological sex & whatever local conventions apply. Separating sex and gender would allow us to properly evaluate the success of policies and initiatives to address sex discrimination, ditto trans inclusion policies, track specific medical problems arising from adminstration of cross-sex hormones and crimes against both women and gender non-conforming individuals accurately. The separation of gender from sex would also allow us to cater for the multitude of other variations on the gender non binary spectrum, as the gender field could expand indefinitely to accommodate new categories. We can then have a sensible conversation about which activities and services need to be separated on sex grounds and which can be opened up with risk of harm to other protected groups.

(And that the examples I gave are real life events; not what if scenarios.)

(Should also add that I welcome any trans person who does not arrive here and then proceed to issue proclamations, commands and insults based on misogyny and a disregard for women's rights. This includes the OP, who seems to hold positions I disagree with but is not telling me to submit to them or else.)

I would also be interested in your answers to langcleg's questions, as it might show us other area of agreement/disagreement that we can then discuss.

bewildered you asked if you are welcome here. My opinion (from observation as i am more of a lurker) is that all are welcome here, if by welcome you mean welcome to discuss, debate and engage around women's rights issues (without necessarily agreeing with each other).

I can also only conclude that any transwoman who did not recognise that the rights of females trumps theirs in those situations you describe are demonstrating precisely why they should not be allowed in in the first place.

Yes, like the trans identified male in Canada who pursued the only rape refuge in Vancouver to only allow female people and not TIMs to counsel female rape victims through the courts for 12 years, bringing them to the brink of bankruptcy. Definitely the right sort of person to work with traumatised, victimised, vulnerable women who have faced male violence.

I read your questions, Lang and can only conclude that any 'decent' transwoman would realise that this was not about them but about truly vulnerable women. Not vulnerable males who are affected by the literal violence of someone identifying their sex.

As such, and I know there are many transwomen posting on here and elsewhere who feel the same, I can also only conclude that any transwoman who did not recognise that the rights of females trumps theirs in those situations you describe are demonstrating precisely why they should not be allowed in in the first place.

Ok maybe this will help me illustrate where I believe there is some agreement possible between us( at this this transperson.)

Here are some situations, what do you think of them, OP?

1. A DV survivor with PTSD related to the male body is in a refuge. Should the refuge be able to exclude both trans employees and trans clients? Whose rights come first?

2. A beauty salon offers intimate waxing as one of its services. It also employs Muslim women. The salon is woman only. Should it be required to perform sack'n'crack waxes on self-identified trans people?

3. A woman goes for her smear test. She requests a same sex HCP to perform this intimate examination. Should a trans person be eligible to perform this?

4. Should locked mental health wards be mixed sex? Even when a woman in that ward has issues relating to men?

5. Should a male-bodied sex offender be accommodated in a woman's jail?

6. Should club and youth organisations have mixed sex overnight accommodation for teenagers on residential trips without disclosing this as a safeguarding risk to parents (teen pregnancy, etc)?

ALL of these things are happening. It's not scare-mongering. It's not about prejudice against trans people. It's not about disliking trans people. It's about women and their rights.

I actually do believe in boundaries, just those created by curtesy not law.

I'm not sure what this means? That boundaries should evolve as a result of the needs in society rather than law enforced on society?

As Italiangreyhound said, curtesy often seems to go only one way. Some people have more power than others, can be more of a threat than others and some can be more vulnerable. Laws are often in place because of this imbalance of power and have been hard won and are in place because curtesy was not followed.

Sorry if that's not what was meant.