Single sex spaces

But language doesn't matter Keating (except when it's pronouns and it's apparently on a par with Himmler to insist on correctly sexing someone in a sexual harassment court case).

Exactly. It's criminal to plant these false ideas in young people's heads.

How are vulnerable teens, perhaps lacking in education supposed to make informed decisions when we get nonsense like 'transmen have a penis'.

It's the Big Lie. And they hope we don't notice or challenge it.

You can't change sex and grow a penis or have one surgically attached.

No transman has a penis.

Please can we just drop the feigned stupidity? It's ridiculous.

Hard agree. Speaking as a woman who had a total hysterectomy....

Could all the women who are not bothered by sharing intimate spaces with TiMs please put their efforts into lobbying for third spaces where they can mingle freely with no concern for their dignity or safety and the TiMs can be affirmed and validated to their hearts content, and leave women’s spaces the fuck alone? Thanks.

So if they pop a skirt on instead, that would be fine by you?

That would be safer, the assault with a jar could be painful.

This is the problem when you have people demand that descriptors for body parts are unused for attempts to implant replicas that are not those body parts onto bodies of the opposite sex which do not have those body parts naturally.

It is like the fallacious HRT. No the hormones being added to the male body are not replacing depleted naturally produced hormones that would be typical or were typical for that body. It is hormone therapy but it is not replacement therapy as meant by the term.

The appropriation of these terms is a dishonest attempt to normalise those bodies even receiving these novel (ie not meant for the sexed body) procedures.

I suppose Tupperware could work too?

The only way a transman can have a penis is if she cut it off a biological male and stored it in a jar.

I wouldn’t want a pickled peen near me either but I’m not afraid of a transman assaulting me with it.

“Some trans men have penises, are you okay with that? But you have an issue with trans women who might not”

Female people’s crime patterns don’t seem to have seen a significant change in the UK at any stage of transition. Ie. There isn’t an increase in their crime pattern toward male statistics.

The same can be said for male pattern criminality - the prisoner statistics for male people at any stage of transition don’t show that that group’s pattern approaching female statistics. Those male people retain their male pattern of crime.

Therefore, the lack of a penis doesn’t impact male patterns of crime. And the presence of an inflatable tube removed from an arm and sewn onto a female groin doesn’t show a deviation from female crime patterns - in rate or type.

It is understood though that the changes to faces including facial hair and voice may cause some female people distress so the SC judgement has made a provision for those instances.

Trans men don't belong in the ladies is all i'm saying. Doesn't seem safe.

Whatever you wanna call it, I don't want it near me.

Im not sure you can call a fake arm skin tube a penis. They need artificial inflation to become erect and are in no way comparable to the real thing

This doesn’t make sense to me. Some trans men have penises, are you okay with that? But you have an issue with trans women who might not? This also opens the door for predatory cis men to walk into our bathrooms, not even dressing like a woman, just claiming to be trans men definitely not "easy peasy.” This whole thing seems a very reactionary and not very well thought out.

I was just curious what people thought regarding trans men as I’ve not seen it mentioned

I doubt that you are 'curious' and I also doubt that you've 'not seen it mentioned' because it has cropped up as a disingenuous attempt at a Gotcha here a few times a month for about 9 years.

Transmen are women. Whether or not they've taken testosterone and grown facial hair, whether they've gone full E. Paige and had cosmetic surgery on their torsos. They are still shorter, with narrower frames, with wide hips and angled thighs, with lower grip strength and punch power.

They are welcome in women's spaces because changing sex isn't possible. If they prefer to use men's facilities and men don't mind, that's fine. But our gender-

I just read about another nullification surgery which maintains the penis but removes the testicles for a ‘smooth’ effect.
These are elective surgeries where male people are putting their future health at risk to fit into their own personalised version of a philosophical belief about their sex class that has no basis in material reality.

I'm not even sure that such a man would be claiming to have changed to the opposite sex class. It seems more like an extreme modification of someone still claiming to be male. But who knows with these troubled and troubling men?

What they said.

I just read about another nullification surgery which maintains the penis but removes the testicles for a ‘smooth’ effect.

These are elective surgeries where male people are putting their future health at risk to fit into their own personalised version of a philosophical belief about their sex class that has no basis in material reality.

It needs to be very clearly understood by any person undergoing surgeries of this kind, for identity affirmation, that changing unique sexed body parts doesn’t change that person’s sex and when sex matters they will not be treated other than the sex class that they are rejecting.

There is no kindness in allowing people to think that extreme body modifications change people’s sex class and ensure that that person is treated by society as the opposite sex class to what they materially are.

I suppose it’s an unnecessary additional risk for the surgeons and for the surgical recipient a combo of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ (no cosmetic benefit) and wanting to retain as much (male) sexual and urological function as possible?

Some male trans people opt to keep their penis and have an additional ‘neovagina’ created (‘phallus preserving vaginoplasty’ or PPV - wouldn’t recommend a Google image search without eyebleach handy!) so it’s clearly not necessary to remove all male organs to adequately affirm an ‘acquired gender’

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime @TheUnusuallyQuerulentMxLauraBrown

It does seem that it is not common. You would think that removal of the prostate would be 'gender affirming'. I get that there are risks, but the whole penile-inversion surgery is a big risk anyway and radical prostatectomy is a well-practised procedure for cancer.

Is it because it adds to sexual pleasure and that this is more important than removing male organs?
Is it because SRS is only focussed on visible signs of sex; the 'dysphoria' is only skin deep?
Is it because the surgeons gatekeep this procedure?

Different reasons for different men sheltering under the trans umbrella perhaps?

Edit for spag

’Labia’ fashioned out of an old scrotum is definitely distinguishable from actual, real labia!

And this was in answer to

“I don't know if you've seen a vagina after surgery, but unless something goes wrong it absolutely is indistinguishable. There is photo evidence on it. Can we just agree to disagree?”

I believe the serious answer here (alongside the male arousal reason already given) is because the removal of the prostate is high risk of causing male urinary incontinence.

(aka even more proof that humans cannot change sex)