to object to MNHQ forcing a MALE/FEMALE gender binary on my account.

[HairyLittleCarrot]

I don't have any GENDER.

My MN account forces me to pick from two 'genders'.

I can't even opt out, it's a forced binary choice.

I'm not agender, pangender, cisgender, transgender, male gender, female gender or ANY GENDER.

If you want to know my sex, I am happy to provide that information. But you'll have to add that in as a field, because it doesn't exist currently.

Sex and gender are not the same thing. If you insist on collecting data by gender and making it a forced choice I would like an option as follows:

"Reject gender as a harmful, made up, bullshit concept".

Then when you analyse your account database you can say
X% identify as female gender
Y% identify as male gender
Z% reject gender as a bullshit concept.

AIBU to request MNHQ to alter my account details so that they do not misrepresent me?

So it's ok to discriminate against men and suggest that most of them are possible rapist because women 'do less sexual assaults'? They still are capable of doing it, that fact shouldn't be ignored because they're less likely to - doesn't make out sex the better, more trustworthy one.

How is saying that women are more likely to be raped or assaulted, and that the majority of these rapes and assaults are done by men, saying that all men rape? Or discriminating against them? This is fact. Yes, women are capable of assault, however there is a far lower chance of this happening in female only spaces.

I'm just saying you can't have it both ways, either we accept there is a difference between men and women on more than just a biological level and use these reasons to keep both genders (women in prison for example) safe - or there is no gender and we all live together, no separation everyone is equally capable of good/bad regardless of sex without saying 'women are more likely to do this, men are more likely to do that'.

Gender is not innate to us, sex is a biological fact. Prisons etc. are segregated by sex, not gender. This still keeps the sexes separate and rejects the concept of gender. If we allow people to choose their gender and where they wish to go based on this choice, where do you think all the men who want to assault women will chose to go?

For those who think this is a non-issue, please look at what is happening with the review of prisons and trans prisoners. Not one person I have spoken with who wants sex not gender segregated spaces wishes any harm to come to trans prisoners or trans people using bathrooms etc. However, if what Maria Miller wants becomes a reality, where do you think all the men who want to assault women will chose to go? To the men's prison/bathroom/changing room? Or the women's? This is, of course, not to say that all men will do this, most won't. But those who wish to commit these crimes will. On a smaller scale, you may not be bothered about seeing a stranger's penis in the bathroom or changing room, as it happens it doesn't particularly bother me as long as the man is just using the facilities and not getting a kick out of it. However, my personal feelings are irrelevent as many woemn will be bothered by it and won't want their daughters under 18 exposed to it, either

Lord no, I'd in no way think this is an attempt to bash anyone in the trans community, which I still consider myself a part of, albeit in a increasingly peripheral way as a detransitioned non-binary person. I'm sure there are other folks in that community space in a more active way who would disagree. Simply put, it's not that I disagree or cannot empathise with anyone, it's because it seems like in recent years there's an epidemic of flat-out woman-hating when it comes to the physical reality of XX bodies. Conversations about what it means to be 'cis' or 'trans' are impossible to carry out without vitriolic backlash. Talking about your uterus is 'transphobic' It's ridiculous - I'm not sure when intersectionality became a synonym for doormat but it seems to be happening at an increasingly alarming rate.

Where was it that introduced totally gender neutral toilets, and the had to change back because of the amount of complaints about peeping toms? I forget.

Of course I haven't got a separate toilet or bathroom from my male DP at home, that's a ridiculous comparison. Why would I need a separate toilet at home from a man I trust not to rape or assault me? One that I have complied sexual consent with (but who I trust to stop the moment I ask) and am happy to see me naked/on the toilet/changing sanitary products etc.? That is a whole other world to sharing a space with strangers who are male, who I do not want to see me naked/in a vulnerable position and who's intentions I have no idea about

I don't know about you, ChiefClerk, but I don't tend to let anyone, male or female, see me naked or vulnerable in public toilets. That's what the locks on doors are for.

Actually DP and I do have separate toilets at home :P

"I don't tend to let anyone, male or female, see me naked or vulnerable in public toilets. That's what the locks on doors are for."

I was trying to post exactly this when the page crashed.

Sorry, but that's utter rubbish. Look at that fact that these days an increasing number of public loos are for both sexes. ?

Is it rubbish? That toilets are sex segregated for a reason, I mean? Where are all these shared facilities? Are they in addition to or as well as sex segregated facilities? In my experience it's the latter. Why do you think this is?

And, if a man wants to attack a woman in a public loo, why on earth would the fact that there is a picture of a woman on the door stop him from doing so

The point is that it may not stop a very determined man, but the level of protection is there. However, if we allow gender segregation, any woman who objects to a man in a women's toilets will be breaking the law, not the other way around. As it stands, if a man entered a women's toilets with any intention, be it for assault or just to use the facilities, the women can object. If he can say oh but I'm a woman, regardless of his intentions then the women cannot object.

We need segragation to keep people safe. That's due to gender not biology though. A penis is only dangerous when a man choses to use it to sexually assault. That's a psychological choice, not a biological one (using their bodies to control/dominate, not to procreate or for pleasure). If it's psychological and men are more likely to sexually assault people then gender must be an actual thing, right?

Cleaty, I think it was the Uni of Toronto, and it was showers, in the student halls of residence, not just toilets.

if a man wants to attack a woman in a public loo, why on earth would the fact that there is a picture of a woman on the door stop him from doing so?

You don't have to have physical contact with someone in order to commit a sexual offence.

What happens if someone with a penis is exposing it to me in order to alarm or intimidate me in a unisex loo and the person with the penis says to me, or the security guard I call: 'I don't mean anything. She has a dirty mind. She shouldn't be looking.'

Thanks. I knew I had read about it, but could not remember where.

liz70, these peeping toms were angling their camera phones over/under the cubicle doors to perv on the women in the shower/toilet... it's not just a case of locking the door behind you & being safe. This was made possible by designating all facilities gender neutral, and why we need women-only space based on biology, not feelings.

I was dumb enough to put "public toilet voyeur" into Google. I don't recommend it and if our IT people ever look at my Google history I won't be able to look them in the eye ever again. But it did demonstrate that having single sex toilets is no protection whatsoever from voyeurism.

good shout Hairy

Example: a friend of mine runs a women's only space and last year received death threats online for asking that pre-op transwomen only attend. This was to protect vulnerable participants who are sexual assault survivors from feeling unsafe in an environment with those who were currently male-bodied. They had to shelve the retreat for fear of personal safety.

I'm not sure why all women's voices can't be heard equally, but it seems that, increasingly, the only voices that matter are the ones kicking down on FAAB women. People like to argue that trans experience disproves that what's between your legs makes you a 'woman' or not, but how is this not a significant part of the reality of being a woman when the oppression of females for that very reason is a global phenomenon?

Can't remember who sorry, but someone posted about having toilets which are more like standalone rooms which can be m/f and indeed wheelchair accessible rather than rooms with many cubicles in them.

I've seen those in some local restaurants and think they're a great idea. Everyone is happy and afforded rather more privacy than we are now, however we identify.

^It was the university of Toronto cleaty. m.thestar.com/#/article/news/crime/2015/10/05/university-of-toronto-alters-bathroom-policy-after-two-reports-of-voyeurism.html^

Now there's a surprise JoanFerguson