Passing

I think it shows just how much transactivists and gender ideologists are AGAINST gender non-conformity, and how stereotype-ridden their thinking is.

It's barely hidden hostility to butch lesbians too. Transactivists hate that we are not trans when according to all their measures, we should be.

Anyway, my initial thought was that only men who are completely outside social norms get challenged, and even then only when an organisation is strong enough to do so.

I think his original premise is flawed, as PP have stated there never really was a carte blanche approach for "passing" transwomen. They either didn't pass and women were scared, or they didn't pass and women were polite. The "stealth" thing is overplayed. Even if a transwoman passes to some people, some of the time, it won't be to every woman all the time.

So I might think X is a natal woman and not notice X in the ladies', but you might notice. Is he really suggesting some transwomen pass so well that nobody notices ever? Especially years ago pre FFS? It seems really unlikely.

It boils down to "women are going to get raped anyway, stop being so mean".

Also, we've never excluded anyone except using local rules and policy. You could walk into the gents' in a shopping centre, it's not illegal. If you did it at work, you might get reprimanded if someone complained and thought your actions were inappropriate. But the law doesn't state that a man can't enter a women's toilet, it isn't even legally required that a sign is put up when a male cleaner is in there, AFAIK. That's just customary.

It's more about reducing risk, and dealing with incidents. If it becomes customary for all toilets to be used by men, then there will be no grounds for (as an example) security staff to ask a man to leave because he is making women feel uncomfortable. There would be no social expectation that he should leave. There is no law that says he has to leave. The risk would increase, because not only will those toilets be used by men who get a stiffy at the thought of being perceived as a woman, but also by men who like to spy on women, listen to women urinate and defecate and change sanpro, and men who want to attack women, and men who hadn't even considered it but are now emboldened by the fact they are allowed. Like how we see the use of prostituted women increasing massively where it is legalised, men will use this new permission because why not? Which in itself increases risk. You might be safer in the gents'.

That's why the "organisation behind us" bit is important. The lack of actual legal provision in many situations is weird. Why isn't it illegal for a man to go into the women's toilets? You could write a law that made it legal for security staff or first responders or police or the cleaner etc to go in there, couldn't you?

And where it is written in law, those laws are ignored, eg in hospitals and prisons. Where the law states there should be separate facilities, those laws are also ignored. The law just isn't working for us.

As for the "poor butch women" bullshit - there is no correlation between crossdressing men colonising women's facilities and women being homophobic to other women. They have yet to explain why they think keeping those men out of the women's toilet makes me safer in any way. (Spoiler: it doesn't.)

I think it shows just how much transactivists and gender ideologists are AGAINST gender non-conformity, and how stereotype-ridden their thinking is.

And as others have said, the fact that occasionally a woman may be mistaken for a man doesn't mean that men should be allowed in women's single sex spaces.

Absolutely, Helleofabore - and it’s interesting that the comparison is always between trans women and GNC women being “misgendered” in the ladies’ loo. And it’s formulated as something like “GNC women sometimes get “misgendered” by other women, so somehow this means it’s unjustified that women should be able to ever have same-sex-only loos”.

But the whole “pee in peace” argument falls down if you reverse it and instead of pretending trans women are actually women, to make the analogy work, instead call them “GNC men”. In which case - why aren’t the TRA lot on men’s forums telling them not to “aggressively challenge” GNC men in their loos?

Is it just not such an enjoyable ride to go on Reddit and tell a bunch of men they need to let GNC men “pee in peace” in the men’s loos?

I’ve yet to hear an argument as to why the desire of some GNC men to “pee in peace” is more important than women’s and girls’ need to pee in peace?

Even the smallest transwoman is likely to stand a better chance against male aggression or rape than a woman or a little girl. So why is it the women and girls who have to budge up and put up and shut up and not get to pee in peace? I would really like @CatherinaJTV to speak on this point.

This is an old study done on ability to read sex from faces. It will be still relevant. I posted it on the Break it down for me thread a few days ago.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8474840/

Sex discrimination: how do we tell the difference between male and female faces?
V Bruce et al. Perception. 1993.

Abstract

People are remarkably accurate (approaching ceiling) at deciding whether faces are male or female, even when cues from hair style, makeup, and facial hair are minimised.

Rather interesting isn't? I guess if a gender non-conforming female is micro-dosing with testosterone as we have been told happens by other posters, it would make it more difficult to detect. But I think that the 'GNC women getting hassled' tends to get overplayed and having grown up as a GNC girl, being constantly mistaken for a boy, I also think the reaction gets also amplified by those seeking to distract from the fact that women can usually tell accurately whether a male has come into a single sex space.

I am sure that some women will be asked as well, there is no denying it. However, how many of those being asked are offended vs how many of those being asked are appreciative of other women's efforts to maintain a single sex space?

Now that is a study I would like to see the results of. As long as it was strictly independent and non biased.

Men shouldn’t be in women-only spaces. Ever.

The only reason it’s happened so far is due to women being kind or by stealth.

That’s completely different to mandating it in law so any bloke can declare himself a woman (despite all evidence to the contrary) and have a free pass at yourselves, your mothers and daughters in toilets, changing rooms, DV shelters and everywhere else.

Why do women have to set aside their own safety and comfort to satisfy a feeling in a man’s head?

Ach, we need a different word than 'sex', it's so difficult trying to google anything with it included.

Found this,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744967/

'Men appear to interpret people’s behaviors more sexually than do women'

• but nothing on sexing people. Well, not in the way I mean, anyway. There's a lot of stuff on the internet about sexing people, isn't there?

Is there research on accuracy of sex recognition split by sex, I wonder?

@CatherinaJTV:

well, if you want to change in a communal changing room, or pee in peace in the women's toilets and you get aggressively challenged because you are taken for a man, then that is hardly "adventageous".

Can you clarify what your argument is here?

Is it:
a). Some GNC women very occasionally get accidentally “misgendered” by other women, and this is such a heinous crime that all women must therefore let men into the loos as a collective punishment for this;
or;
b) so that some men can “pee in peace”, all the women and girls don’t get to “pee in peace”?

Because, as the logical end point of your argument, if women should not be threatened by men in the loo, then why can’t trans women (who are women, under this dogma), pee in peace in the men’s loo?

Either they’re women and so not at risk of violence by men; or they’re not women, and as a result will attract violence from other men. Which is it? They can’t both be true.

Just thinking about power plays/oppression. I presume it is considered worse for a man to be mistaken for a woman as women are below them in the power structure. When women are mistaken for men, eg at work by email, then it can be advantageous to be treated as a man rather than a woman. We are also more used to it generally as the default is often male: guys, chairman, dear sir, etc. So it doesn't tend to affect women as much.

Of course for transwomen it matters because it shows we see they are men. We are decieved and have not pretended we are.

It’s some bizarre category error to effectively say “some women might occasionally get “misgendered”” in the loos, therefore women shouldn’t be allowed single sex loos at all”.

Surely the fact that the odd woman might get “misgendered” accidentally in the loos (and like others, I’m sceptical that this happens very often), is an indication that women really don’t want potential men in their loos?

I’m yet to be convinced that being “misgendered” is any sort of a serious insult to anyone, frankly, or should be considered so by anyone, whatever “dysphoria” they have.

The whole “but GNC women get misgendered too!” argument is not the gotcha that some TRAs think it is, because AFAIK not many GNC women are going about shouting about how dreadfully violent and hurtful it is to be accidentally misgendered in the toilets and how this must be immediately stamped out by letting all the men in as well.

So if some people genuinely can't tell a woman from a man what are our options?

Why is this a question in the first place? It is because men are ignoring women's boundaries and transgressing on our safe spaces. They shouldn't be there and the law should be upheld. We don't say 'burglars have alwaya been breaking into houses so we should leave doors unlocked'.

So if some people genuinely can't tell a woman from a man what are our options? Going by self identified gender is basically giving up on single sex spaces as far as women's safety or privacy goes. Any man with ill intent will self ID in.

Yes, to a genderist that is the only way. Their logic goes "if X is true for 99% of the population but unclear for 1%, X is meaningless so we must act as if it is never true of anyone and throw away all laws or rights based on X"

When a rational person would say X is meaningful and useful 99% of the time, how do we handle the exceptional 1% scenarios so that we can keep the usefulness of X?

It's another of the genderist logical errors (to be charitable) or deliberate misrepresentations (to be less charitable)... to reduce everything to all or nothing.

Third spaces would get my vote

I was asked a few years ago if I was a male or female: short hair, shorts/t-shirt.
I wasn't offended but I guess you might call it misgendering
I hate the concept of 'passing' : I saw a transwoman on TV and knew by build, stance and walk that this wasn't a natal female. Be assured, women "know" because we have to. And if we don't challenge it's because we dare not risk it
I wouldn't

So if some people genuinely can't tell a woman from a man what are our options? Going by self identified gender is basically giving up on single sex spaces as far as women's safety or privacy goes. Any man with ill intent will self ID in. We /know/ unisex facilities aren't an acceptable option for women. Self ID facilities give zero advantage over unisex, the only people excluded are men without present ill intent, the ones who might help us if there was a problem.

So back to third space provision. Women who frequently get mis-sexed and are bothered by that would also have the option to use third spaces, as would anyone who wants extra privacy. Definitely the model to aspire to.

In the meantime I think a few people being annoyed by being mis-sexed is a lesser evil than women not having single sex provision at all.

When ive been missexed its been by men

I did have a dr receptionist call me sir a few weeks ago but to be fair I don’t think the mask was helping

This "Women don't challenge men because they are afraid."

Misgendered? Sexed?

This rather desperate point always seems to come up. Interestingly, it's never the women referred to who make it; on the contrary, those women say it doesn't bother them, they appreciate that a challenge is about keeping women safe, & the sound of their voice always convinces of their sex.

that's not my experience and there are plenty of women online who post about their regular misgendering. They might get used to it, it's still not ok and I am sure they'd prefer it didn't happen.