Thoughts on this tweet?

Thank you for answering.

“Agree - self ID is a dangerous thing that leads to genuine predators etc having access to areas that can cause harm to others (including genuine trans people!).”

Can you please explain how you can tell the difference between who is acting in a predatory way and who is not when any male person who enters a female single sex space when they are male and above the age of a child of about 8 - 10 years old is dismissing female people’s consent and needs for that provision ?

I think these 'reasonable' men do more to highlight TRA than the men just demanding and obviously feeding off womens discomfort.

We've experienced it here often enough. They claim to understand women, have used women spaces without issues, blame the 'loud minority' or stonewall, give reasons why they are special cases.

I remember the support Kim, and many others, had here several years ago, but how it shifted over time when it became clear he wasn't here to debate or understand more just to talk about himself and his transition. Women were so keen to find the 'good TW', they overlooked his entitlement until it became too obvious. And it was clear that there is no exceptions possible.

Men here had the advantage of not being visible, we dont know if they passed. So when women argued that they made us feel uncomfortable, they could claim we would never know, women have given them tips on the menopause or something.

Now these discussion appear visually, the whole thing becomes ludicrous. Our arguments havent changed, but their excuses become seen as lies.

”Agree - trans women should not be in female sports, also agree that it is unkind to call them men (I am aware i’ll get dogpiled around ‘being kind is the way things go to shit’ but that’s how I feel).”

I see this answer and I think you understand that your position is harmful to female people. So why do you think you are ‘moderate’ to hold it?

Why do you think it is in anyway acceptable that anyone should be expected through any pressure or coercion to act as if a male person is a female person? Why should any person be coerced to act as if an individual’s personally constructed subjective reality is material reality when that subjective reality doesn’t reflect material reality?

Can you please explain how that is acceptable ?

@walkthedinowe need to be able to use clear language to fight for women’s rights. If we go around calling men, women, this impedes our ability to make the case for actual women.

I’m not sure why being ‘kind’ to men has become so prized above all other virtues.

What about being kind to the women who need single sex spaces? What about being just? Being fair? Being clear about people’s rights and needs?

”Agree - trans women should not be in female sports, also agree that it is unkind to call them men (I am aware i’ll get dogpiled around ‘being kind is the way things go to shit’ but that’s how I feel).”

Instead of viewing it as a pile on perhaps you should think of it as people who are disagreeing with you, and give some consideration to the points they are making. Then maybe you could reach an informed decision and not rely on how you 'feel' about things.

Also @walkthedinoi don’t want to misrepresent you, but what you seem to be suggesting is that is if men find other men (like Lu) ‘unnerving’ that means Lu should use women’s spaces?

Is that correct? Like I say, I don’t want to misrepresent you.

If it is your position, then I would argue very strongly against it. I don’t think women are here as a back up option because men can’t cope with their non gender conforming brothers.

I think it’s interesting that @walkthedino’feels’ that we should be kind to men and budge up for them if needs be.

I’m sure she genuinely does feel like that. It just shows how much society has been conditioned to put men’s desires before women’s needs.

to be fair, she's saying stuff that many people here were probably saying 5 or 10 years ago. we've just been round the roller coaster a couple of times

I certainly hoped there was a reasonable explanation and therefore a reasonable compromise to be reached for ages

there really is nothing like talking to some 'trans women' for crystalising your views about whether you want to share single sex spaces with them

There is a lot of transactivist history that throws doubt on any man taking this line. It was the “reasonable” line that sold the GRA to the UK government. Government officials assured us that, yes they recognized it could be harmful to women and their rights, but there would only ever be a few people using the law, so any impact would be minimal.

But behind the scenes, the transactivists who planned this public approach , were privately trying to ensure that the new law muddied the waters, mixing up sex and gender in a way that made it unclear what the law actually achieved, building in room for both expansion and plausible deniability.

Similarly, bringing in the EA2010, politicians were persuaded to make the definition of “gender reassignment” so loose that it could apply to anyone who simply made a claim to their doctor. No treatment required, no process begun.

Slippery slope does not apply always in politics, but here it’s more like a downhill ski run. For many of the men leading this charge, transvestism is an addiction and it will always escalate, individually and in opening trapdoors for others to climb through.

Women have seen the endgame of transactivism and the whole thing has to stop.

and that is absolutely fine, provided you don't expect women who do mind making space to do so

Women’s hard fought, legal rights to single sex spaces might not be important to you.

But you understand they ARE important to other women, right?

You seem to be telling us that the ‘moderate’ position would be for women to give these rights up if some men want access to them. I hope you understand why many of us would reject that as ‘moderate’ in the strongest possible terms.

“Women’s feelings and safety matter, so if you cannot use the ladies non-disruptively - don’t.”

Oh dear. Even if that were accepted by all occupants willingly, it means the designs have to change because the toilets are now mixed sex. Death to the Ladies toilet. Practically it means all individual toilet rooms with the sink and dryer inside. Luckily, and in England it’s very clear, regulations mean that in larger venues, cubicles are single sex and single sex toilets have to be prioritised before unisex universal designs.

There are many reasons why single sex toilet cubicles are healthier and safer than a mixed sex room. Particularly for women, children and the medically vulnerable.

This is what is should say:

Women’s feelings, health and safety matter, so you cannot use the ladies.

I just personally think that it doesn’t impact me to respect how someone would prefer to be called. To me (again, personally) using a persons preferred pronouns are the same as using a nickname etc

I'm All Right Jack.

Is there anything about this deeply misogynistic and homophobic ideology that deny's reality and rejects science that would have an impact on you Jack.
If there were would you want support to right the wrong, and who would you expect to get that from, if every one were like you.

@walkthedino

how can it ever be hateful to tell the truth - insensitive perhaps, even maybe stretch as far as unkind with some truths - but hateful? that is a very big and meaningful word to describe a simple factual observation…

if someone 4’ tall identified as 6’ tall and you were operating the height check on a rollercoaster, would it be hateful to observe that they were 4’ of course not, you would be observing reality…

so with sex. observation of someone’s sex is never hateful, it is just fact. if they are a man, then they are still a man. no surgery or cross dressing will change that…

as to their claims of it being dangerous in the gents - tosh!
this is someone telling you lies, living those lies and emotionally blackmailing others into agreeing with those lies… so don’t believe what they are saying, there are no issues with their using the gents.

we need to reclaim language and bring back honesty - a man is a man.

The thing about Wu is that he is a 6 foot plus, broadly built man. He doesn’t come anywhere close to ‘passing’.

The idea that he’s causing no issues by using women’s spaces is entirely in his own head.

He has decided he should have access to women’s spaces. That’s all.

So even by his own criteria, he fails the bar. Who decides who can use the ladies without ‘disruption’? If a line has to be drawn between ‘men who can’ and ‘men who can’t’ who gets to draw that line?

You are the one though who put a moral judgement on it. You decided it was kind. That is a moral judgement.

Language does negatively impact women and girls though when our language is used for male people. I can list numerous ways it does this.

It was language demands that supported changes to sports policies that allowed male people into female sports in the first place. Using moral judgements such as ‘it is cruel to exclude us when all these people consider us female, they use our pronouns and call us women, why are we excluded from the sports we want’?

Incorrect language has also meant that people are confused by things that that should be alarmed by.

‘she was in the changing room with me’
vs
’he was in the changing room with me’.

While many of us have been trying to use accurate language for years and been deleted for in on FWR and shamed by posters, the clarifying effect it had when Naomi Cunningham cut to the heart of the issues with Upton using the female single sex changing room was immediate.

I, personally, have been abused by male people when I refused to use female language for them. Why should I have used inaccurate language for an abuser?

You, personally, not seeing the harm doesn’t mean the harm is not being done.

Can you be clear what those circumstances are?

Toilets?
Changing rooms?
Rape crisis ?
Female support groups?
Prisons?
sport that is single sex?
Heath care situations?
Female representational roles?
Girl guides?
Accomodation for school away trips?

they are though - once you start calling a man she & her to "be kind" how do you then say to them "oh but you're not a women in x or y scenario"?

also consider the following

he followed her into the women's toilets and asked her for a tampon and commented that he liked her lipstick

v

she followed her into the women's toilets and asked her for a tampon and commented that she liked her lipstick

if you go along with the pronouns to be kind, then you end up with being unable to tell from a description of the sex of the person in question

hence why so many ppl still think Scarlett Blake for example is a woman https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-68401335 when Blake is a man.

This is not consistent with your comment about it being unkind to call a male adult a man though.

You have used a moral judgment to negatively judge the action of someone uncomfortable choosing to not use demanded language.

This is one area where the use of language comes incoherent.

If someone will choose who to use the language for and not use the language for, how is this kind? It is actually being used as some kind of reward system.

If it is supposedly kind to use it for one it has to be used for all.

When accurate sexed language is used, it is irrelevant whether they are the fucking worst person in the world. They still are accurately described.

edit to add: any arbitration of who deserves female language and who doesn’t is not an act of kindness. In fact, it is as patronising and condescending as fuck in my opinion.

Additionally, OP.

Do you believe that male people should be accepted into grass roots female single sex sports? Why? Why not?