Have things gone too far?

OP, just a question. There's a thread currently active in here where Muslim women can't use mixed sex (sometimes called gender neutral) toilets at work. Have you thought about this in terms of the 'just want to pee' arguement? Is it ok to exclude some women on the basis that some people born male want to use women's toilets? What about victims of male violence, are you happy to make them less comfortable in every day life?

Women are socialised to put the demands of others first, do you think that might play any part in your thinking? I regularly examine my thoughts to see if I feel the same about the situation with different people. So if women wanted to use the men's toilets and that excluded male Muslims would you still think that was reasonable?

XDown ...

What I meant to say, is that while discussing GRA reform with a GC friend, that assertion was put to me as if my view on GRA necessitates me being in agreement with the proposition that women who would not accept a 'woman' partner with a penis are bigots

I do see that this would have been frustrating. However, that's one friend. By your initial 'you' statement I assumed you were talking about 'us' as if we were all like your friend - and we really are not.

It appears to be quite a mainstream view, at least in the "LGBTQ" sites that cater to lesbians

(I don't think this is a mainstream view in the general public - most people would think the idea that lesbians should accept penis is preposterous. The problem is it's "mainstream" in the spaces that are supposed to be accepting of lesbians. Lesbians would apparently be more accepted in general spaces.)

OP, what's your response to the Staniland question? I'd pose it here but I can't remember whether we're allowed to or not. Just google it.

Simple yes or no answer is all that's required.

When I encounter women saying they don't mind using mixed sex loos and facilities all I can say is that's fine for them, but I do mind and I have tradition and the law on my side. What's so special about about that you think you can go giving away my rights?

women who would not accept a 'woman' partner with a penis are bigots. I am not, and never have been in agreement with that point, and I'm baffled as to the assumption that I would be.

Can we dial it back a notch? Remove the "bigots"?

Is it permissable for women to say that they would not accept a "woman" partner with a penis? Should women be allowed to say "female-only" on a dating profile?

It appears to be quite a mainstream view, at least in the "LGBTQ" sites that cater to lesbians, that that is not permissible, and is indeed a bannable offence.

Do you agree with that going on? And if it is bannable, what actually is the "offence" supposed to be here? If not an accusation of "bigotry", then what? Hate?

Also interested to hear what you think are the 'wild' arguments on the gc side?

I think 'there are two sexes and sometimes women need single sex spaces' is about as wild as it gets, no?

You can dress how you want, call yourself what you want, use the spaces you want, as actually I don't think most trans people are a threat

So, do you think that because most men aren't a threat to women, all spaces should be mixed sex?

That is, hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, toilets?

Op toilets are often a bit of a red herring. Money and a third option can sort that.

It's other spaces that are women only which are being eliminated. Like lesbian on-line dating, sports, rape refuges, women specific political representation, requesting a female HCP, prisons, etc.

It's not at all extreme to expect sex segregation under certain circumstances. Indeed it's written into equality law.

Trying to roll back these rights and protocols is what women are against.

Ok, people are disagreeing with you. They feel strongly about female spaces. Semantics aside you must be able to see that surely? Many women have been assaulted by men, and this makes them anxious about someone who may well still have a penis using a female toilet? Surely you get that, even if you don't feel that way?

I'd be interested in you answering tinsel angel's question. It's not posed in an aggressive manner and does get to the crux of the matter.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Sorry, in hindsight I should have been clearer.

What I meant to say, is that while discussing GRA reform with a GC friend, that assertion was put to me as if my view on GRA necessitates me being in agreement with the proposition that women who would not accept a 'woman' partner with a penis are bigots.

I am not, and never have been in agreement with that point, and I'm baffled as to the assumption that I would be. I've never actually come across another person who is in favour of GRA reform and is of that view either, hence my bewilderment.

Actually I'm not sure on the you you're talking about. As in a pp yiu seemed to impky I was attacking trans activists by saying

Sorry OP. I'm brain dead today through lack of sleep. I wasn't quoting you - I was quoting another poster and didn't think to cut and paste their name for clarity.

With increasingly wild arguments on both sides.

What do you see as the wild arguments on "this" side?

So, a group of lesbians’Get the L Out’ feel totally disenfranchised by Stonewall’s redefinition of their sexual orientation to include people not born female that identify as lesbians. Their statement is below.

The reaction of Stonewall, led by CEO at the time, Ruth Hunt vilified them for being transphobic and demanded their removal from the Pride March (remember that Pride was support be about LGB?)

The edict comes from the very top. Stonewall is an extremely powerful lobbying group who has influenced government policy to the major detriment of women and basic safeguarding and is being financed by taxpayers money to do so.

A Get The L Out spokeswoman said: "We protested to protect our rights and on behalf of all the lesbians intimidated, threatened and silenced by the GBT community everywhere.

"The GBT community today, by supporting the rights of males who "identify as lesbians" (also called "transwomen") over the rights of lesbians to choose their sexual partners (on the basis of their sex, not how they "identify") is in fact enforcing heterosexuality on lesbians.

"This is a misogynistic and anti-lesbian manifestation of the rape culture we live in."

www.stonewall.org.uk/node/82236

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-44757403

But also I'm trying to have a non accusatory conversation about this and we are just a few comments in but already seem to be getting adversarial. Which I really don't think I've brought in my tone. As if I have I need to review how I email at work!

I don't think my post was agressive. And if you start a thread like this, where women feel very strongly, you are going to have to put big girl pants on.

I've had it levied at me, purely because I'm a Bi woman who has expressed the view that I'm in favour of proposed GRA reform

That's really unclear. It seems that you might also be generalising (which I don't think we are allowed to do here). What do you mean by 'you'? Did you get a couple of criticisms (about what is unclear) and you are projecting that 'you' (us) all think the same?

The idea that people are being phobic because of sexual preference isn't a mainstream or widely held view, even among trans rights activists

Maybe not "people", but it certainly seems to be mainstream when considering lesbians, as per this thread.

There's far less pressure on gay men to accept females, or straight women to accept females, and basically none on straight men to accept males.

There's a clear "females must accept males" dynamic in play.

How do you think your question would go over on a forum for trans people, ok? If you posed the question “has this gone too far?”, in relation to trans rights, what do you think would happen?

Examples?

Sure.

I've had it levied at me, purely because I'm a Bi woman who has expressed the view that I'm in favour of proposed GRA reform.

Couldn't begin to unpick the logic behind it, but the assumption was made none the less.

We’re talking about men like this accessing female spaces
www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/former-teacher-avoids-jail-after-18722860
I genuinely have no issue with people being whomever they want, call yourself a pineapple if you like
I fully accept there are individuals that are attracted to trans women/men
But nobody should be abused for having a different opinion to you and we shouldn’t have our free speech criminalised

I have

Examples?

Things have definitely gone way too far.

I’m sure someone will be able to link you to the Break it Down for me thread which will give you a starting point.

Returning your post, on what grounds do you accept transwomen as women? In what way can they be included in the female sex class?

Would your heterosexual male partner consider having sex with a pre-op, no hormones transwoman?

Does Eddie Izzard (now a transwoman) share more physical similarities and life experiences with me (a woman) or my husband?

Re Downwiths comment, Stonewall itself is the self appointed policy maker for all public service organisations and the employers of 1/4 of the population and has decreed that lesbians wanting exclusively same sex relationships are transphobic (and indeed is currently being taken to court for trying to get a prominent black lesbian sacked for asserting that lesbians are same sex attracted).

Stonewall have also unilaterally decreed that lesbian and gay orientation is ‘same gender’ not same sex. ‘Same gender’ is pretty much the opposite of same sex. This is contrary to the legal definition that provides protection against discrimination based on Sexual Orientation in the Equality Act 2010.

I’d say that qualifies as a widely propagated edict.