Confused

Just to be fair

They aren't in the mother and baby unit
They are / were in women's prisons that have mother and baby units.

I am not sure how much mixing there is between the general population and the mothers/babies.
Babies can stay with their mums til age 2 I think and so I'd expect there is some mixing, otherwise it would be very isolating and pscholgically not good for the mothers or the children.

So it is an important point - that women's prisons can and do house children while men's don't >> but AFAIK (!) these paedophiles were not actually locked in the mother and baby unit.

Happy to be corrected / advised on how these are organised in real life.

treating people equally is not how we achieve fairness, anyway. That would mean giving everyone or no one a guide dog or crutches.

Where women are currently disadvantaged by their sex, they need adjustments for that that males don't need.

assess each rare occurrence on a case by case basis. And realise that self ID does not mean opening the flood gates to sinister males

From the comfortable perspective of my own life, I would have agreed with you not long ago.
But it only takes ONE boy (meaning male child) in the girl's changing rooms at school to make it mixed-sex for the whole 1000-pupil school, one male child competing in the girls' hockey to make it less safe for all the girls, one transwoman councillor to rewrite the rule book (while everyone refrains from objecting in case she's offended) so that thousands of people who don't believe the ideology have less say, one moderator on a newspaper comments team to delete a range of dissenting voices.

It's a drip rather than a flood.

And realise that self ID does not mean opening the flood gates to sinister males, as is so often suggested on here.

Dear lord. You can't be serious.

Martin Ponting, Michelle Lewin, Karen White, all rapists. Two of them are paedophiles, incarcerated in a mother and baby unit.

One's just been removed because they attacked four women (for which they've been convicted).

In your world they should all remain. The paedophiles and the rapists.
Because they are women.

If you think there is a case for removing them, it's because you don't believe transwomen are women.

You bigot.

" the focus being on treating males and females equally. "

But what does this mean?
Treating all people equally... somehow and without the ability to measure that this is what is happening

Take crime stats
Sex offences committed by women are through the roof all of a sudden, it was reported in all the papers, what is happening with women that this has happened?
Included in the stats were a number of rapes
It is vanishingly rare for someone without a penis to be convicted of rape
So
Have sex crimes committed by women gone through the roof?
Or have sex crimes committed by women been static and the numbers are inflated by penis-people who have declared a female gender ID (no GRC required they go on self dec).

if we don't know, how can we know if there is a genuine change that needs addressing?

These stats have already been lauded by certain groups who like to claim that women are just as bad as men when it comes to sexual violence and the focus on male perpetrators is a poor approach. ie MRAs. But that's a side issue.

Is it possible to be a feminist and have no issue with all inclusive toilets and changing rooms and to believe that trans women are women?

It shows a complete disregard for other women who are unable to share mixed sex spaces, such as women from religious or conservative backgrounds, or who are in violent or controlling relationships. Or those who are managing PTSD, or need privacy to manage their miscarriage.

When you put it that way, does it sound like a feminist way of thinking?

the focus being on treating males and females equally. Really? You can know about a convicted rapist housed in a women's prison, sexually assaulting other inmates and STILL say that? You think that case was sensibly assessed? You think that because it is currently rare it is fine, cos hey! It was only a few women, it was only one man?

Nope!

Not because all transwomen are dangerous but because today's transwoman is not the same as the transwomen many of us have known, or been, for many decades.

Nope because the current gender focus is so damaging. And I STILL wonder hat the hell went wrong after the 80s? Adam Ant and Boy George - both sex symbols for both sexes, girls will be boys will be girls was just a matter of how you chose to dress and do your make on any given day. We were all gender benders, to some extent.

Now you have to choose which little gender box you want to live in... and then stay in it! Weird and regressive!

Those occurrences seem to be getting less and less rare don't they Dakinis? We seem to be averaging about one per week (that we know about) at the moment.

And realise that self ID does not mean opening the flood gates to sinister males, as is so often suggested on here.

That is exactly what it means. If you support it, own it and be honest about it.

Anyone can identify as a feminst, it’s a free country. Depends I suppose on working out what you see ‘feminist’ as meaning.

If you see it as about the equality of the sexes – well for a start, if you’re pro mixed gender bathrooms you already have an interesting conflict in your feminism, since this pro position ignores the issues this presents around safeguarding, the massive issues of women who have been abused, raped and assaulted and are highly distressed at the idea of sharing private spaces of undress with male bodies, and women whose culture and religion will mean not being able to enter any gender neutral or ‘inclusive’ toilet or changing room. Those are all pretty massive issues of equality, inclusion and the specific difficulties facing (only) the female sex that feminism should be considering.

If you’re ok with mixed sex inclusion in things like Girl Guides you have another issue there, as you’re agreeing that female born people shouldn’t have the right to meet and have any provision apart from male born people, and that there is no impact on female born people and their opportunities and even how they talk and play and interact as children, if male bodied children are present. Huge issues specific to females.

Other whacking female body issues: pregnancy, periods, FGM, 98% of sexual assaults being committed by men, needing to share prison provision with convicted rapists and paedophiles – if you’re identifying as feminism being the equality and rights of women those things probably ought to be of interest you. Otherwise your feminism runs the risk of actually being about suppressing the voices and the vulnerable groups of female born people to please and pacify male born people, some of whom have used the word ‘feminism’ to colonise and shift the focus away from women from inside, and encourage other women to believe that focusing on women's bodies, women's rights and women's equality is somehow selfish and wrong.
Female socialisation: another big feminist issue.

As pp says, YMMV. Depends on what you see 'feminism' as being.

Once again, if you can't actually be honest about who is male and who is female and what those words mean, you aren't able to treat them equally.

You can't treat two unknown, indefinable and immeasurable concepts equally.

How will you know if you have equality of the sexes if you can't distinguish between the sexes?

OldCrone the clue is in the word 'equality' - the focus being on treating males and females equally.

When it comes to single sex provisions, most feminists I know take the sensible approach which is to assess each rare occurrence on a case by case basis. And realise that self ID does not mean opening the flood gates to sinister males, as is so often suggested on here.

What do you think OP, if I reframe your question thus:

Is it possible to be a feminist and to find it acceptable to disregard the boundaries and consent of many women with respect to their bodily autonomy and dignity?

If other women refuse their consent to share intimate spaces with men, be touched by men in intimate medical examinations or security pat downs, share overnight accommodation with men in hospital wards, be supplanted by men in female held roles, sporting events and quotas for colleges etc...

Is it feminist to say, tough, I'm fine with it, so I overrule your consent?

Is it feminist to stand by as thousands, even millions of women and girls self exclude, or are excluded from participation in society because the female rights they were once entitled to have been dismantled?

My opinion is no.

Your mileage may vary.

The core of feminism is centring females, both women and girls. So in any scenario the questions to ask are how will this impact women and girls and will this be beneficial in any way to women and girls?

All analysis I've done around gender ideology has come up with very clear negatives for women and girls. So in my opinion it's not compatible with the core of feminism.

PenguinSaidEverything

Can you explain how self id would benefit women? I can only see negatives for women, so if you are a feminist who is in favour of it, I assume you can see some clear benefits for women if any man is permitted to have a legal status of female.

I cannot see how it benefits women if men are allowed to declare themselves female and gain access to women's sporting events, women's changing rooms, women's prisons, all-women shortlists and so on. Can you explain this to me, please?

PenguinSaidEverything Except that those females are not feminists in any way. They do not centre females in their politics.

Yes, lots of feminists are in favour of self ID. Loads of different theories and ways of viewing the world that come under feminism.

Feminism is about achieving parity of power and control over our lives as members of the sex caste that is female, everywhere in our world.

To admit males as members of the female sex caste negates the existence of the female sex caste as a distinct entity.

So, no feminist can ever support the Legal Fiction that says a male can become a female, since to do so is to support the erasure of the female sex caste.

That thing about the 40+ year old man with a tutu fetish joining a ballet class for little girls was grotequse.

Age is just a number, right?

Sidetrack I've just had it fucking up to here with this shit.

The vast majority of feminists are focused on equality of the sexes and don't have any beef with treating trans people as the gender with which they identify

It's very easy to nake these kinds of statements. I think many people are very sympathetic with trans people on the basis they think they are a very small minority of people struggling hugely with dysphoria. Once you explain self-id, which is that any man can identify as a woman with no checks and balances then the evidence is that people suddenly change their minds in some way about 'trans people'. Trans can mean anything and everything these days, including kinks and fetishes.

Yes some feminists believe twaw. They tend to be young, lib fems who haven't much experience of the worst of sexism.

The idea fro example that it will be a great advance for women if parliament is 50% men and 50% transwomen.

Because that's 50/50 and equal female representation in parliament has been achieved.

Awesome.

When current implementation of trans rights sees sexually violent men lawfully housed in women's prisons, I struggle to see how someone can embrace the current legal status quo, seek to further it and still call themselves a feminist.

Naw, the vast majority of feminists know that gender is an instrument of structural oppression.

🤓

The vast majority of feminists are focused on equality of the sexes and don't have any beef with treating trans people as the gender with which they identify.

Really? What do you think about being forced to share intimate spaces with people like Karen White or Jessica Winfield?
Does it fill you with a warm cosy glow of virtue? Or are you just relying on the public not being aware that these rapists with fully intact male genitals are being moved to women's prisons.