Does it make someone a LGBTQ ally if they wear the pride lanyard but object when a transgender person uses their restroom ?

[thecatmother]

In my workplace we are very open and inclusive and many colleagues chose to wear their IDs on the Pride lanyards and are very active participants in all the Pride related events.
So far so peaceful, or so I thought, we had a new colleague joining recently, it is a lady who is transitioning from being born a man. She is very polite and just gets on with her work and day. I wasn't surprised to see her using the Ladies, unfortunately a number of my colleagues have formed an opinion about that. The management has been supporting the new colleague, and they held "conversations " with the complaining parties.
However, those people are still wearing their Pride lanyards, I can't get my head around that. The lanyards are purely on volunteer basis, we have generic ones. I generally wonder whether they actually realise that being an ally is not about getting drunk on Pride , but actually to be supportive to the people of LGBTQ.

@NiceGerbil

In reality of course in the instance that someone 100% passes then they will go unnoticed as they always have.

Or at least used to, until loads of people have started looking more closely because of the massive broadening of what trans means.

So it's fucking things up for the smaller number of old school transsexuals, GNC people, and those with physical characteristics more usual in the opposite sex.

There are people who switch between boy mode and girl mode. One uses the facilities at work depending on their mode that day. They also expect everyone to get their pronouns and name right depending on the mode that day. That's really hard for people to do, especially if they have known them for years. This person is in a very senior role.

They have won awards for women in the industry despite being boy mode half the week.

I suspect if they need to have a meeting with clients from various other cultures they prefer to be in boy mode that day.

That's all fine and dandy. Apparently.

The new approach has nothing to do with passing. Or in work, with risk. The employees in the very large offices know the person is trans. They use the gents on boy mode days. How come? Why not fearful?

This sums up my feelings on all of this. I would like everyone to be able to live their life as they please, so long as their behaviour doesn't impact on others. And I feel as though this suggestion that everyone who doesn't support self ID or watering down of sex-based rights is some sort of right-wing bigot, or religious zealot, is frankly laughable. In my time I've had plenty of unwanted attention from men, of various shapes, sizes and ages, and in many contexts. It's unpleasant and can be frightening. I'm lucky that in my case that was the extent of it. Many many others aren't so lucky. I'm happily married, have lots of fab male family members, have lots of male friends. But I don't want me, or my pre-teen daughter, to share loos, female changing rooms or any other sex segregated space with someone who has a penis. Whoever they are.

Unisex facilities are not going to happen, in addition to single sex ones.

And if everyone goes where they fancy what's the point?

My tube station had ladies, gents, accessible. The signage has been changed. The gents is still the gents (3 urinals and a cubicle I'm told). The two women's bogs are unisex. The accessible one always was.

Women need more facilities (queues, more urgency eg pregnancy). Not less. But now the men have access to all. Including a gents. And the women have no single sex facilities.

This is happening all over the place.

We lose facilities. We lose privacy. The urinary leash is a thing. Been talked about by women for what 100 years in UK?

How many women are going to be ok with no women only stuff.

And no it won't be all unisex single rooms. No space. No money. And anyway. Increased risk of cameras/ being shoved in. Or having something happen eg medical emergency and who knows? It's ok for eg a cafe with one bog but that's about it.

Sorry to go on.

You must feel got at.

But you came and posted and honestly. It's just not any good. At all.

This sums up my feelings on all of this. I would like everyone to be able to live their life as they please, so long as their behaviour doesn't impact on others. And I feel as though this suggestion that everyone who doesn't support self ID or watering down of sex-based rights is some sort of right-wing bigot, or religious zealot, is frankly laughable. In my time I've had plenty of unwanted attention from men, of various shapes, sizes and ages, and in many contexts. It's unpleasant and can be frightening. I'm lucky that in my case that was the extent of it. Many many others aren't so lucky. I'm happily married, have lots of fab male family members, have lots of male friends. But I don't want me, or my pre-teen daughter, to share loos, female changing rooms or any other sex segregated space with someone who has a penis. Whoever they are.

Or has had a penis before someone uses that as a gotcha.

Thank you @Binglebong. I've had wine. 🤦🏼‍♀️😬🤣

Where is, in the groups pushing this who are very well funded.

Stonewall
The city of London (people who run it)
All the other orgs.

Where is

The call for additional facilities
The challenge to men around being more tolerant
Any kind of response to concerns that various women/ groups of women have, addressing their issues and engaging in looking for a solution that works for all
Anything recognising the particular risks women and girls face
Anything at all about the fact of the oppression that though history and around the world that women have faced and continue to face at the hands of men/ supported by society
Etc etc.

Sorry long.

Have you thought about this stuff? Some/ a lot?

I'm so angry too, NiceGerbil, that flippant throw away comment says so much about how women are viewed, it wouldn't enter someone's mind to say it unless that is what they truly thought.

I was watching a crime programme earlier, two girls raped and murdered by a man who, guess what, had a previous conviction and had been in prison for raping and attempting to kill a 13 year old. For some reason this programme just tipped me over today, the pain and despair of the parents, the horror of what those girls had gone through, the fact that the scum had previous and had received a paltry sentence and was set free. The parents campaigned for a change in the law and were successful, but why should they have to? Why should their daughter and the other family's daughter have to be sacrificed before the law took the matter seriously enough?

Sorry, I am ranting, VAWG is endemic and then you get some smart arse referring to women as not men just a pair of tits and a vagina. I guess my friend who had a double mastectomy due to breast cancer and no reconstruction surgery is half a non man then? Just fuck off with demeaning and dehumanising women and stay out of our single sex spaces. I am sick of it.

Well, this thread has certainly outgrown my humble question. I had a simple question, and I believe I received an answer.
To those hypothising about hidden childhood traumas and religious grounds and why there are separate toilets. The real situation is very much non eventful: don't know about anyone's childhood traumas, in fact my profession and industry do vet our mental health strictly; as for the religious aspect, all are white and Christian; toilets are separated due to the awfully old purpose built premises circa 1970. The modern buildings belonging to my organisation have unisex toilets.
In fact, this discussion is scary and outdated. Makes me think of what the people would have been saying about BAME people in 50s/60s/70s and before.

A disabled toilet is a toilet that should be reserved for the disabled.

An accessible toilet is a toilet intended for general use, that has been designed to also be accessible for people with disabilities (depending on the severity).

Makes me think of what the people would have been saying about BAME people in 50s/60s/70s and before

Does it really...

What's the difference between disabled and accessible? I feel a bit ignorant on the terminology. Sorry.

My understanding (and others may disagree with me) - the term disabled is generally becoming less socially acceptable and is not particularly people - first language. It also conjures up the image of someone in a wheelchair for many, and there are others that need an accessible toilet that are not in a wheelchair. It is therefore seen as being more inclusive language especially for those with hidden disabilities.

In fact, this discussion is scary and outdated. Makes me think of what the people would have been saying about BAME people in 50s/60s/70s and before.

Scary and outdated? Concerns about women's safety is scary and outdated? Really? And you're comparing the concerns to racism? Ffs.

OP

You started the thread. At least have the decency to read the posts.

Oh Bingo - 1970's racist attitudes.

The situation is clearly not uneventful if women in your organisation do not want to share a space with a man, however he identifies, so much so they have gone to management. Clearly an issue for them whatever their reasons, heard of consent have you, OP? Women are saying NO, that is not the start of a negotiation it's a NO, doesn't need to be justified or explained, single sex facilities are based on sex it is that simple.

In fact, this discussion is scary and outdated. Makes me think of what the people would have been saying about BAME people in 50s/60s/70s and before.

Then you have really not been listening.

@Erikrie

In fact, this discussion is scary and outdated. Makes me think of what the people would have been saying about BAME people in 50s/60s/70s and before.

Scary and outdated? Concerns about women's safety is scary and outdated? Really? And you're comparing the concerns to racism? Ffs.

It does! Absolutely! How many people on this thread have suffered a sexual offense from a transgender woman? Instead of hypothising perhaps it's better to be realistic and honest? I don't know... we all have our own version of reality according to our expectations and fears. I feel that every human in my vicinity deserves to be treated with respect.

@thecatmother

Well, this thread has certainly outgrown my humble question. I had a simple question, and I believe I received an answer. To those hypothising about hidden childhood traumas and religious grounds and why there are separate toilets. The real situation is very much non eventful: don't know about anyone's childhood traumas, in fact my profession and industry do vet our mental health strictly; as for the religious aspect, all are white and Christian; toilets are separated due to the awfully old purpose built premises circa 1970. The modern buildings belonging to my organisation have unisex toilets. In fact, this discussion is scary and outdated. Makes me think of what the people would have been saying about BAME people in 50s/60s/70s and before.

So because you’re all white and Christian, @thecatmother fuck anyone that isn’t? As a woman who isn’t white and grew up with 70s and 80s racism, I find your equation of women wanting to retain single-sex spaces with racism disgustingly offensive and, yes, actually racist.

dgrnewsservice.org/civilization/patriarchy/gender/white-feminism-thing-gender-identity-ideology-epitomizes/

I feel that every human in my vicinity deserves to be treated with respect

Why on earth do people write stuff like this? Do they honestly think that no one else on the thread thinks that people should be treated with respect

They are a lone voice in the wilderness...for goodness sake!

I could have put money on race being dragged into this - it's like trans activists/ allies can't stop themselves. We've seen appallingly racist comments from posters before where they 'other' black women in particular and the women of colour on the FWR board asked them to stop as they find it deeply offensive. Please stop.

@NiceGerbil

OP

You started the thread. At least have the decency to read the posts.

Don't be disappointed that I don't share your views, it is a free country, and a lively but unexpected debate. I simply asked a question that was relevant to me, I read and then researched, and I have made up my mind on the matter. That's all there is to it.

'believe I received an answer.
To those hypothising about hidden childhood traumas and religious grounds and why there are separate toilets. The real situation is very much non eventful: don't know about anyone's childhood traumas, in fact my profession and industry do vet our mental health strictly'

Seriously?

I posted just now that in the news today there's a report about 29 men being arrested for the sexual abuse of ONE girl. For seven years starting when she was 13.

You seem to be implying that

You should know about colleagues experience of CSA (???!!!)
That experiencing sexual abuse as a child is uncommon (are you really sure about that?)
That women (and men?) who have been sexually abused as children would be disbarred from working in your sector because they'd automatically have mental health problems?

So... You're saying that it's legal and ok to bar people with a background of sexual abuse from employment. In your sector. Because obviously pre employment checks wouldn't ask about bogs.

What sector are you in?

And you seem to think it's GOOD that anyone who has been sexually abused as a child should be automatically denied a job because they will be flagged as having mental health problems?

Are you even thinking about what you're writing?

Have you ever asked one of the ‘complaining’ women why they are uncomfortable? Or have you simply dismissed their discomfort as being just like racism?

You must put a great deal of trust in your vetting processes, plus ignore the statistics about sex abuse of you believe that no one woman at your work has experienced abuse at the hands of a male and either got through vetting OR, and here is a radical thought, experienced it since vetting....

And why the fuck would you know the private histories of all the females in your workplace?

Your respect only goes one way though doesn't it OP? In favour of the man not the women.

To put it another way.

Recently it was in the news that there was systematic sexual abuse of boys by football coaches. Some men went on to have football careers. They went on telly some of them to talk about it. Very brave.

These men would be seen as having mental health problems by your place of work, automatically. And denied employment. Yes?

And you think that's a good thing?

Ok let me see if I got this right. In OPs work place nobody female who has ever been sexually assaulted works because those who have are vetted out?

And everybody is white and Christian?

So diversity and understanding of mental health is not very high? And everyone is assumed to be happy to go give up the single sex facilities as unisex is the way to go? Because no woman ever menstruates in the office and need to wash their hands or feel sick during pregnancy? Or at least don’t admit that they do?

Why does this feel so wrong on so many levels?