Feminists only claim to care about lesbians in order to justify transphobia

Hashtags aren't arguments. Saying some lesbians are extremely invested, for some reason, in pretending that the lesbians who are dealing with cotton ceiling shit are not actually dealing with it isn't a point. It's just showing there's a group of dismissive women who resolutely disbelieve other women and prioritize men over them.

I don't feel there's a need to coddle that kind of deep internal misogyny by pretending it's an actual argument. Seriously. In what other women's rights issue would it be laudable for a group of women to respond to other women talking about their oppression by banding together with the oppressors and tell the first group of women they didn't believe them, and tough shit anyway?

I don’t think it is right to expect normal TW to use male toilets.

Most TW keep their penises, so if by "normal" you mean post-SRS, you are mistaken. I think that toilets, where you have to expose your genitals to use them, are a legitimate facility to be segregated by genitalia. We can keep female toilets female-only without expecting transwomen to use the gents by insisting that all new public and commercial buildings must have unisex single-occupant toilets in additional to multi-occupant single-sex ones, and by insisting that any major renovations of existing buildings must add these (out of the men's loo space, not the women's, women need more loos per capita because of biology). We did this for disabled people, we are increasingly seeing organisations (including my employer) putting a Changing Places toilet in all new buildings, we can do this for trans people. Trans people must have access to safe toilets, but this must not come at women's expense.

Linda Riley @lindariley8
Dyess is a a Transphobic sell-out who is continually throwing her Cis lesbian sisters under the bus in order to increase visibility for her Transphobic preachings. Block and ignore. #wrongsideofhistory #Dinosaur

Amy Dyess @ amydyess
Can I get a British solicitor to DM me so I can sue this person? It’s time to finally do it. Thanks!

Looks like things might get interesting

Floral L with the t was started by lesbians, you know the cunty type. That was my point.

Re. Ad hominem, you chose to mock my style of communication rather than engage with my point.

Just to be clear that wasn’t a NAMALT. I’m agreeing with the law and culture that yes we treat some born males as women, not men.

wacademia I understand some of your points. I agree AD has no business in female spaces. I don’t want to normalise men in our spaces.

I also see the logic and consistency in your argument.. let one in, you let them all in. What you describe is somewhat of an extreme though.

Surely we can’t make rules or laws in a way that punishes the majority in lieu of lowest common denominator. I don’t think it is right to expect normal TW to use male toilets. I don’t think someone with a penis should be getting changed in changing room with people with vaginas. I don’t think that would be acceptable to majority society. It has to be proportionate response to each situation.

What is your purpose, please?

JackyHolyoake this feels a bit like an interrogation. Are you asking me to explain or justify my being here?

Oooh, how transphobic to suggest that someone is presenting as a man if they have a beard.

And a hashtag. Tres progressive. Devastatingly effective point.

Is it necessary to resort to personal insults/ ad hominem?

Field, where is the ad hom or personal insult in my quoted post? It criticizes your lack of genuine engagement via a hashtag, and the inconsistencies in the sidetrack about toilets you have wandered down, particularly your assumption that a 'transwoman' wouldn't have a beard, which most of the delightful AWA transactivists would consider transphobia enough to throw you as far under the bus as you're happy to throw the lesbians who object to coercion.

Hello feildofgreycorn
I've posted about this before, I was followed to the ladies toilets not long ago, it was a single sexed space. I shouted and shouted until a bar man and security man came in.
If this was a unisexed area, what reason would I have had for calling the security man in?
I didn't like a man following me into the toilets but if it was a mixed space what could I say?
That he was creepy-he was, that he didn't do anything-he didn't get a chance to. Unisex, I shout they come in and what? He didn't do anything he has a right to be there...

That isn’t what the GRA or EQ act is about, it’s not taking it in the spirit intended.

I invite you to address this good faith complaint to Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Labour or any of the craven public sector organisations hanging on their every word and throwing women under the no 21 to Genderland.

This is why women are scared, we can see how this works. Entitled selfish males like Alex Drummond, who are in appearance and attitude are identical to all other entitled males, have caused this fear by creating an environment where we cannot tell a transwoman from a man and will be censured for trying to, even as part of a good-faith attempt to make protect women and girls

Great post, wacademia

These posters. The very clear message being ‘Women, you don’t matter so suck it up & be nice.’

Yes, exactly.

fieldofgreycorn

For example. my point or purpose in any thread in which I contribute is to explain how the UK Trans Lobby has no knowledge or understanding of relevant UK law, given the misinformation and misrepresentation that is communicated by the organisations that constitute the UK Trans Lobby to all UK public institutions.

What is your purpose, please?

Fieldofgreycorn

What is the point you are trying to make in this thread, please?

Oooh, how transphobic to suggest that someone is presenting as a man if they have a beard.

And a hashtag. Tres progressive. Devastatingly effective point.

Is it necessary to resort to personal insults/ ad hominem?

Note also that there is no UK law that recognises the status of any "transgender child".

The GRA 2004 applies only to those aged 18 years and older.

So, in UK law, it is a fair statement to make that there is no such person as a "transgender child". Such a person has no impact on any UK law.

Beyond that, the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 specifically restrict their application to "transsexuals" only.

There is no legal recognition in UK for "gender", "gender identity", "transgender". There is only legal recognition of [natural] sex and gender reassignment [as pertaining to transsexuals].

Stonewall, GIRES and the rest of the LGBT / Trans Lobby have no knowledge or understanding of UK law and have been misinforming all UK schools.

Of course, the reason why Stonewall and Gires etc want into schools is to teach girl children not to object to male presence before they have a chance to learn their rights. I see these tactics clearly.

Schools are required, by law, to provide sex-segregated toilet and washing facilities for all children aged 8 years and over.

School changing rooms and showers must, by law, be sex segregated for children aged 11 years and above.

See section 4: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1943/made

Note that the possession of a GRC only confers rights to the person possessing that GRC in relation to relevant legal statutes.

See GRA 2004, Section 9 [General] subsection 3:

"Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

This means that the granting of a GRC is restricted to the provisions contained within the GRA 2004 [marriage plus access to pension and social security benefits] plus relevant law such as the Equality Act 2010 specific provisions related to Gender Reassignment as a protected characteristic.

The granting of a GRC to a natural male is not a licence for legal access to "all things female" or for a natural female to have legal access to "all things male".

The GRA is explicit about this about this in sections 12 [Parenthood]; 15 [Succession]; 16 [Peerages]; 19 [Sport]; 20 [Gender specific offences]

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

Good find, Jacky.

Of course, the reason why Stonewall and Gires etc want into schools is to teach girl children not to object to male presence before they have a chance to learn their rights. I see these tactics clearly.

See Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, section 27 [single sex services]; subsection 6:

(6) The condition is that—

(a) the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and

(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7/crossheading/singlesex-services

This legal provision provides the legal right for any female to object to any person perceived to be of the opposite sex in their single sex space [eg: female only communal toilets, that is toilets used by more than one female at the same time ].

So, we females always have the legal right to have excluded from our single sex spaces anyone who is male. The possession of a GRC does not supersede this basic legal right.

See Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, section 27 [single sex services] and section 28 [gender reassignment]:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

These posters. The very clear message being ‘Women, you don’t matter so suck it up & be nice.’

canadian social

I meant canadian society.

For toilet purposes you can’t start specifying exact genitalia.

Why not? You piss with your genitals.

If someone presents as a man, with a beard etc and starts claiming or I-Ding as a ‘woman’ and using female toilets I don’t think society will accept that at all.

Danielle Muscato obtained a place in a women's homeless shelter, with a beard. Canadian social is being forced to accept that by Canadian law. The same will happen if the law is changed here.

Such a person would still be challenged following a girl into toilet.

Did you read the UWE poster?