Can't make this add up.

This has also been explored on threads too. The compression suits though do go someway to reduce this advantage it seems.

'keeping women safe puts trans people at risk'
Oh bog off will you.

OP not coming back to address the difficult points raised then , seem to just feel their opinion that trans people are unsafe trumps all.

I can tell the OP one thing for definite, no transwoman has ever been raped by a woman. Since the reverse is not true my sympathies are limited.

Yes I know NATWALT I’m really tired of having to state that as no one here has ever stated that they are all like that just we cant tell which are

Helleofabore · Today 10:31

iszac Henig at the moment is equivalent to a woman who has had a mastectomy (but without cancer and perhaps without removing lymph nodes”. In other respects, Iszag is female, though identifies as male and wishes to live as a man. No one objects to iszag because iszag has no unfair competitive advantage (as opposed to Lia Thomas competitions against women).

Not being funny, but surely if every single female swimmer prioritized winning within the rules then they'd all get double mastectomies? Is there not an argument that unnecessary medical procedures that may confer an advantage should be banned from women's sports?

How do you know that?

I too know a few transpeople and they don't have the same hangups and worries that the vocal TRA types seem to.

Transman uses male facilities and has had no issues in more than 30 years. He gets nothing more than the occasional side glance.

Transwomen uses male facilities and has had nothing more than a few side glances and the odd nod and mumbled 'mate!?'. She stopped using female loos many years ago when it became obvious that other women were startled or scared.

Neither of them report themselves being the focus of male violence, nor have I seen that happen to them. We live in a bit of a rural backwater, not really known for being cosmopolitan or even particularly accepting of strangers. Male violence is as prevalent here as anywhere else.

No it doesn't, only in a world where women are the default solution for this subset of men.

Keeping women safe puts men called Keith at risk. If only men called Keith could use women's spaces, they'd be safer.

Exactly the same logic applies for any subset of men. Transwomen, ones called Keith, blonde ones, ones carrying a guitar.

To nominate one of those groups as "the men that get to be safe(r)" by going into "women's" spaces is unfair to other men, and even more unfair to women. And also works on the assumption that suddenly lots of men won't change their name to Keith, dye their hair blonde, or buy a guitar, if there's an incentive.

Sure, it sucks that by being male you don't get to be in a male-free space, but basic logic makes that impossible. Sorry. A different solution to male violence is required for males - a much more difficult one - but you can't take away the simple and effective solution for females as a sort of "levelling-down" equity measure.

But keeping women safe puts trans people at risk.
No it doesn't, only in a world where women are the default solution for this subset of men.

Women campaigned tirelessly for every fucking protection they have, I can't tell you how angry that makes me that it is being spun that way, that it's a problem for entitled males that women keep what they fucking earned.

I’m sorry but I don’t care about men who identify as women. I’ve run out of kindness. My friend has just started chemo for Breast cancer. This the last possible week for her treatment before the NHS breaks it’s own targets. That’s who I’m focusing on. And when she is ready for breast reconstruction I hope she is top of the pile before any transmen men.

@Inamuddle36 I have to assume that you are not familiar with the appearance of Fionne Orlander.

Grayson Perry self-describes as 'transvestite with gender dysphoria' which fits under the Stonewall trans umbrella.

I'm not sure what points you think you are making wrt the Iszac Henig and your omission of Emily Bridges. I was pointing out that both were competing with their sex class and nobody had any sense of awkwardness around their gender non-conforming appearance.

I was using examples to challenge the OP's account: Trans women are not welcome in female spaces, but also aren't safe in male spaces. Emily Bridges competed with male team mates and was plainly safe. I thought it would be helpful to address the inverse with Izsac Henig. There are trans people who facilities for their sex and they're safe.

In response to “embarrassing hadrosauraus” who commented that “no objects to Iszac Henig competing in the women's swimming events.” And “Grayson Perry, Miranda Yardley and Fionne Orlander report using the Men's public loos without incident.”:
iszac Henig at the moment is equivalent to a woman who has had a mastectomy (but without cancer and perhaps without removing lymph nodes”. In other respects, Iszag is female, though identifies as male and wishes to live as a man. No one objects to iszag because iszag has no unfair competitive advantage (as opposed to Lia Thomas competitions against women).

I believe that is exactly embarassing's point.

Many of us have been following and discussed Henig's races along with Thomas' over the past month. It is similar to Quinn being lauded as being able to play football in the female comp. Quinn is not on testosterone at all, nor had any surgery. It is a ridiculous sleight of hand that some people use them as comparators to competitors like Thomas, Hubbard and Bridges etc.

would the decisions being contemplated in this chat be easier if we could refer to men, women, transmen and transwomen

How about sticking to male and female.

would the decisions being contemplated in this chat be easier if we could refer to men, women, transmen and transwomen?

Yes, it's what we frequently do in discussions here so no one is confused. Some of the medical etc literature uses this sort of terminology. (Of course then they start being nagged to tack on something to cover 'nonbinaries' too...)

But to do that you have to deny the dogma of the transactivists (which is not shared by all genuine trans people of course) that transwomen are women.

I have some further thoughts, which might be more useful to you OP than my previous one!)

This might be an obvious and basic question, but can your friends not live their authentic lives as gender-nonconforming men, rather than as actual women?

80s star Marilyn comes to mind as an example of this - still cool and glamorous, and yet supports Jk Rowling and acknowledges he is a "he".

There are males who have transitioned and now feel with hindsight that the former would have been a better path for them. I'm thinking of TulipR, and Corinna Cohn/Heterodox Podcast. Both very wise voices (on Twitter and Substack).

Personally, I find androgyny an a very attractive trait in people. Literally pretending to be the opposite sex? Not so much.

(The "third space" option seems like an expensive onerous solution for a relatively small percentage of people. And kudos to you OP for having empathy for everyone in this).

A transwoman might like very much like a woman (if lucky to afford good plastic surgery) so might encounter the same “incidents” in a male loo as women might.

Such people - a tiny, tiny minority - are irrelevant - if no-one can tell they're men, they could go into the women's without anyone noticing anyway. No-one's performing ID checks, and it's not worthwhile to do so.

In practice, the problem is inability to keep out people we can tell are men. A population at least thousands of times bigger than the mythical "passing transwoman".

Men are a real threat. There are lots of them. It's unlikely you'll ever meet a "passing transwoman", so they can be basically ignored.

In response to “embarrassing hadrosauraus” who commented that “no objects to Iszac Henig competing in the women's swimming events.” And “Grayson Perry, Miranda Yardley and Fionne Orlander report using the Men's public loos without incident.”:
iszac Henig at the moment is equivalent to a woman who has had a mastectomy (but without cancer and perhaps without removing lymph nodes”. In other respects, Iszag is female, though identifies as male and wishes to live as a man. No one objects to iszag because iszag has no unfair competitive advantage (as opposed to Lia Thomas competitions against women).

With regard to Grayson Perry: when dressed as his alter ego, he looks like a man dressed as a woman and is entirely confident in that role so am not surprised he does not have “incidents”. A transwoman might like very much like a woman (if lucky to afford good plastic surgery) so might encounter the same “incidents” in a male loo as women might.

one further thought: would the decisions being contemplated in this chat be easier if we could refer to men, women, transmen and transwomen? I know trans people wish to “be” the gender to which they have transitioned but medically and biologically they will always be trans. We could get around the ridiculous “people with a prostate” campaigns for prostate cancer, for example, if they were addressed to Men and Transwomen. More people know they are men or transwomen than have awareness of their prostates (amazing as that might sound.)

I know a fair number of trans men and women, all of whom have endless stories of the ways in which society victimises and sidelines them on a daily basis, and it's undeniable that policy centring GC views would make their lives worse.

First of all, society victimises and sidelines women on a daily basis, so if Tw want to be women why are they not embracing it as affirmation? And as society in general recognises females as women however they present, Tm are experiencing the continuation of sex-based victimisation and sidelining that you cannot identify out of.

Secondly, I do wonder what these stories of daily victimisation and sidelining actually reflect. Is it mockery, threats, or refusal of legitimate services because of their transness? (Again,similar to the misogyny that women regularly experience.) Of course wrong and should be challenged and changed. But if they are objecting to others refusing to engage with or affirm their personal faith, narrative or sexuality then they are being ridiculous and unreasonable.

Policy centring GC views would deny trans people access to the spaces and services specific to the other sex, but would also protect their rights to present as they wished and not be discriminated against for it. It would also protect their rights to have the same high quality of medical care as the rest of the population

This. This in spades.

I think it will be true whatever toilets they use- until we succeed in dismantling stereotypes about what clothes the two sexes 'should' wear.

This is at the root of why it doesn't add up.

Sex and gender are two different things. You can't map them together on a straight line - you need a 2-d graph with one on each axis. (Of course, 'gender' in itself isn't one-dimensional so even that is a massive simplification).

The huge error has been the false logic of pretending gender == sex, or worse that gender > sex.

This was a problem in some male dominated spaces like tech workplaces before self id. I remember being annoyed about someone constantly leaving the loo seat up in one the ladies toilets at work 30 years ago, there were so few women and a large site so I never bumped into anyone when I was using the ladies female or otherwise but it felt like someone was ‘marking’ their territory. I moved office nearly 20 years ago to avoid a massive male colleague who was aggressive in the ladies if I didn’t play at girly talk (and used to follow me whenever I went to the loo). I took a tech professional exam maybe 10 years ago and noticed the transwomen outnumbered the women (and they physically blocked me and froze me out of any conversations with other candidates). Now the transwomen dominate speaking about women in tech and make it pointless to try and organise any mutual support organisations for women.

It just wasn't a problem for many women then, it is getting so much worse and widespread with self id.

In what way are trans women not safe in male spaces? This seems to be stated a lot but never clarified.

I know a fair number of trans men and women, all of whom have endless stories of the ways in which society victimises and sidelines them on a daily basis, and it's undeniable that policy centring GC views would make their lives worse.

Genuine question: why?

GC feminism doesn't mean anything about being treated as male except in very specific situations, where it matters for women's safety and dignity. I don't think it's making someone's life harder to say they should compete in sports with the rest of their sex, for example.

The one situation I can think of is toilets and if a transwoman passes then no-one is going to bat an eyelid.

So the real problem is non-passing trans women. Those people do unquestionably get a lot of grief but I doubt much of it is because of feminism and I think it will be true whatever toilets they use- until we succeed in dismantling stereotypes about what clothes the two sexes 'should' wear.

I think perhaps none of this was a problem until self-Id became a thing?

It was at least contained. But allowing the official deceit in the first place was the thin end of the wedge - once you allow official falsehoods, the whole system inevitably dissolves in time, as you can't use reality to justify doing or not doing things.

If you're going to allow a deceit for some group, based on nothing real, you can't deny it to anyone else.

Some interesting stuff showing that in practice in these Reduxx pieces about California prisons.

ACLU Claims Denying Male Sex Offenders Transfer to Women’s Prisons is “Discriminatory”
“Trailblazing” Trans Inmate Slams Prison Self-ID, Wants Prisons to Apologize to Women

So the ACLU is arguing in the first piece:

"Similarly, CDCR cannot deny a transgender woman's transfer request based on her convictions or disciplinary history so long as it incarcerates cigender women with similar records in its women's prisons, as that would run afoul of the non-discrimination provision".

And they may well be right, given the state of the law there, unless you can argue it would contravene a higher human rights claim from the women inmates.

In the second article, someone points out a potential future legal attack in the other direction:

Norsworthy also noted that despite SB-132 being in effect, no transgender female-to-males have been sent to a men’s prison, and says that the official reluctance to move biological females who identify as men to the gender-specific institution exposes the ultimate intention of the law.

“They’re never going to allow a [female] to walk on a man’s yard because they know the men’s side is different,” Norsworthy says, “Those [female-to-males] are either going to have to start saying they’re women again in order to stay [in a women’s prison], or, if they are recognized as men — you gotta’ get them out of there! Because if you don’t, the male inmates are going to figure that out.”

Norsworthy warned that there will be no legal basis to keep any male inmate out of women’s facilities if trans-identified females are allowed to be legally recognized as men but avoid transfer to a male estate.

“That’s where the problem lies. The problem lies in the contradictions. And it is a very obvious game being played by these advocacy groups who got into California lawmaker’s ears and sold them a story.”

See - if "transgender men" can be held in the prison estate, then it would be discrimination to stop "cisgender men" - so men shouldn't even have to bother with the "self ID". With sex removed from the law, there's no remaining basis to prevent that. "Transgender men" and "cisgender men" have to be treated the same.

That claim probably won't be made by ACLU, as they're all about the trans, but someone could certainly bring it.

I think perhaps none of this was a problem until self-Id became a thing? Seem to recall Allison Bailey saying something similar in her recent tribunal.
Under the old GRA rules and gatekeeping, numbers were kept small and the "non genuine" filtered out, and it wasn't an issue.

In our local swimming baths (and most others I've visited) it's mixed changing so cubicles with locks this seems a simple way to be inclusive. Mixed changing rooms in shops wouldn't offend me if there were doors rather than curtains. Toilets that are individual are safer than cubicles. Not easy though with regards to prisons and hospitals. What there needs to be is better security/policing to protect women as well as obviously a shift in society so that women do not have to fear men.
Sport there's no easy solution, athletics could be categorised by weight/height etc rather than gender but that would potentially push women out of a already very male oriented area.

And by no one seriously thinks prisons should be mixed, I mean no one but ideologues.