Single sex spaces

...and yet that is not what opinion polls say. Overwhelmingly, the British public want people to use the facilities allocated to their sex.

Personally I couldn’t give a shit if a transwoman used the women’s bathroom. I think the men who are a threat to women are more often the red-blooded cis men who don’t need to sneak into a women’s bathroom in order to harass women.

A lot of trans men are very, very male looking, very hairy, ripped up, and I’d definitely feel weirder about seeing one of them in the women’s bathroom than a somewhat androgynous looking trans woman. I think most people would, if it actually came down to it.

You appear to be the only poster here who seems to be trying to insinuate that a woman's vagina is being called a fuckhole by posters on here.

I've just skimmed back through the posts and there is mention of when a man has had his penis inverted (or part of his colon refashioned) that what, essentially, he ends up with is something that really doesn't have any actual use than to be a hole that another person inserts a penis , or other item, into.

Can you

a) point us to the post/ posts, other than your own, where a poster says a woman's vagina is essentially a fuckhole

b) tell us exactly what other use a man's inverted penis / re fashioned colon has other than being an open wound that has to have an object inserted in it at a regular interval to stop it closing up.

You are the only person calling women's vaginas 'fuckholes'.

This is the level of the argument.

The argument seems to be that we can't understand humans as bi-pedal because some people don't have legs.

In MRKH: The vast majority do have mucosa and therefore natural lubrication once the canal is lengthened.

Lubrication absence in MRKH or similar blind vaginas is uncommon — estimated at well under 10% of cases in medical literature.

That means we’re talking about fewer than 1 in 50,000 biological women overall having a congenital blind vagina and no natural lubrication.

A neovagina made from skin will never produce natural lubrication — this is the default, not the exception.
A blind vagina in a biological woman will almost always lubricate naturally unless the tissue lining is atypical.

There's absolutely women who's vaginas don't function in this way because of medical conditions and therefore don't have the same flora and lubricate etc. Is it so much to say just not to not call them fuckholes on a feminist board because you think you're throwing an insult at one group but actually throwing it at a bunch of women as well?

"This entire argument is an attempt to force team the idea that men who get extreme cosmetic surgery are like women who have vaginas and therefore the same. All whilst feigning offense to women who have genetic disorders or who are infertile."

Indeed it is.

The twisting is happening so very hard that all limbs of that poster are in danger of being dislocated twice over.

And all to support the misogyny of labelling a male person's surgically inserted cavity that is in their groin using the name for the female body part.

Except, she didn't.

If you are talking about people with no gonads, I think you are straying into talking about a very small group of people with DSDs. However that still doesn't change the reason why women have vaginas.

A developmental disorder is just a developmental disorder, not evidence of a new kind of human.

It truly is a luxury belief to think that vaginas are just random parts of the body that have no definable purpose.

That is absolutely not what she said. But you know that already, don't you?

Fucking hell. This is actually insane that this is even a discussion.

The tissue lining in WOMEN with a blind vagina is still natural vaginal mucosa, because the person is genetically and hormonally female.
Vaginal mucosa is present, with natural epithelial cells, acidic pH, normal bacterial flora.

'Neo vaginas' created by intestinal tissue are not naturally acidic and it has a fundamentally different bacterial environment.

Women with a blind vagina still have a hormonal response to estrogen — thickens during menstrual cycle, maintains natural lubrication.

'Neo vaginas' do not respond to menstrual cycle hormones in the same way (skin/intestinal tissue doesn’t have vaginal mucosa cells).

Women with a blind vagina still experience self-lubrication — vaginal mucosa produces lubrication in response to arousal.

'Neo vaginas' do not experience any of these things

In women with a blind vagina, usually no daily dilation is needed, once surgery to lengthen is complete.

'Neo vaginas' require ongoing dilation, especially early on, to prevent closure.

A blind vagina still has biological vaginal cells — the tissue is soft, stretchy, self-moistening, and naturally maintains healthy flora.

A 'neo vagina' may look 'similar' externally, but the inner lining is fundamentally different — it behaves more like the tissue it was made from (skin or bowel), not like natural vaginal mucosa.

But the fact remains, in 100% of cases, a 'neo vagina' is only ever attached to a fucking bloke.
They may as well have had a fucking tube attached to their face and call themselves an elephant.

Fucking nonsense.
The fact that a (presumably) adult is making any kind of comparison between a WOMAN'S vagina and a 'neo vagina' is embarrassing.

This is indeed usually how the discussion goes.

Female people realise that they cannot consent for others and therefore they tend to support the third spaces that so many feminists suggested in the past. And to be fair, the quantity of those third spaces have increased over the past few years.

Now there are very often alternative options but they are being rejected by some people who will only accept their inclusion, as a male person, into a female single sex space.

Your post made it crystal clear what you think.

Absolutely.

Only @Helleofabore thinks of or uses that term that I've ever heard, she's the one that described women's vaginas that way

This entire argument is an attempt to force team the idea that men who get extreme cosmetic surgery are like women who have vaginas and therefore the same

And it has to be couched in some faux-feminism in a desperate attempt to get women on board

That explains why you imagine a bloke with a flesh tube likely made from his cock or colon has the same thing. Purest gynaephobic misogyny

This is the consequence of these men never having been told NO before. The rage and fury that their access to women and women's spaces has been denied is unhinged.
Hence the attempted appropriation of every aspect of women's lives and the mad display of batshittery in arguing with women about our bodies 🙄

Oh I see you actually do think a vagina is just a fuck hole

Why is calling you out for being misogynistic a gotcha sorry? Did you do it unintentionally or you're just all in on talking about women's bodies that way still?

I think for women who are happy for male to use their single sex spaces why not extend that same empathy to women who are not happy to do so? Women with trauma or women from certain faiths or even women who would just self exclude themselves because they are not comfortable and don't feel safe sharing such spaces with males. Even if I didn't mind sharing with men I think on the basis that most women do object that is enough to make me come down on that side of the argument.

And your point is what?

I know...

But, when you apply a 'determinism' style meaning and not the other common meaning, I guess you can personify people's body parts so that they have a 'higher' purpose.

The fuckwittery is strong.