AIBU to ask MNHQ if we can have a trans discussion section?

[Skarossinkplunger]

Out of the first 10 threads showing on my AIBU page 4 of them are trans threads. There is seriously no escaping, please can they have their own board?

WR want the evidence and statistics they post to be accurate, reliable and solid, otherwise it's not much use

I would disagree with that - only certain evidence that support a view is normally given,

It can be both

@Vixky Just to defend myself, 1. I did provide stats to prove that transwomen are assaulted in male spaces - other posters argued that these didn't prove my point because the violence wasn't the result of them being refused access to women's bathrooms etc which is a fair point (although I would argue there's correlation there) - but I DID back up my argument with statistics.

And 2. when I said "nobody ever does on these threads", I was referring to BOTH sides of the argument, reiterating my earlier point that nobody ever really changes anyone's mind EITHER way, which is why these threads are so circular. It's just endless rhetoric from completely differing perspectives.

There was no sneering whatsoever, and I think it's very unfair to portray the conversation that way. All my posts were considered and balanced. I may disagree with many of the points made on this thread but I'm perfectly capable of doing so rationally and politely. And I never called anyone a bigot or a transphobe - in fact I apologised for not finding a better term to sum up the opposing opinion than "anti-trans". I would also be happy to add that the majority of posters who directly responded to me were also polite and considered.

People DO change their minds, PeachGreen. Did you not read MrsTerryPratchett's post above?

It's relatively common with PBPs that when they rejoin they use similar names (that they know won't last long too) to carry on a conversation.

So eg, MT posts and mn ban. MT reregs as MF, and mn ban. MT reregs as MFf, and mn ban again. That'd also explain why the posts may be deleted if they didn't break any guidelines.

@Lancelottie I'm sure they do on the feminism boards where these threads tend to be more nuanced and evidence-based (as the posters are discussing specifics in more detail). However, every trans thread I've ever seen on AIBU has always descended into a rhetoric-fuelled bun fight.

@Lancelottie I'm sure they do on the feminism boards where these threads tend to be more nuanced and evidence-based (as the posters are discussing specifics in more detail). However, every trans thread I've ever seen on AIBU has always descended into a rhetoric-fuelled bun fight.

My mind was changed by these threads. I then went to the feminism board for more info. I haven't name changed so you can probably follow my conversion through an advanced search.

Fair enough. Maybe I misread the tone then, I do that sometimes.

@Vixky No problem - easily done in text.

Nah, I think they should stay on here thanks, and I wouldn't have said that yesterday before I was made aware of what cis meant thanks to one thread on here today!
If the "what does cis mean?" thread had been hidden away I'd have been non the wiser and I think it's important that people know.
Basically biological women being told they're not women, they're cis women. Because they can't be women as that's alienating transexuals or something like that.
Off. You. Fuck. Don't be telling me I'm not a woman.

peachgreen I did provide stats to prove that transwomen are assaulted in male space

It's not clear from the report you provided whether they were in women's space or men's space. Since some of the assaults were being removed from the facilities, those would seem to be in women's spaces.

The point is that we are asked to assume that trans identified males are at risk of violence in male spaces - "what do you think would happen?" I appreciate that you did provide the evidence that is available but my point is that the evidence is really lacking. We are being asked to make a change in law and in societal behaviour that will make women's spaces significantly less safe by allowing men to access them and I think it is legitimate to ask what harm are we trying to prevent. At present, I am struggling to believe that trans identified males are at significant risk of harm in male spaces or that that can't be addressed by making third spaces available. I believe that the main reason trans identified males want access to women's spaces is to validate their sense of womanhood and the main risk they face in male spaces is being taunted or laughed at. I'm frankly not willing to sacrifice women's safety for those goals.

At present, I am struggling to believe that trans identified males are at significant risk of harm in male spaces or that that can't be addressed by making third spaces available

Why do you struggle to believe that transwomen are at significant risk of harm in male spaces such as toilets?

Male violence is a thing. What makes you think that transwomen are immune from such violence in a male space such as a toilet when people are vulnerable and usually alone?

I believe that the main reason trans identified males want access to women's spaces is to validate their sense of womanhood and the main risk they face in male spaces is being taunted or laughed at. I'm frankly not willing to sacrifice women's safety for those goals

Do you think taunting and being laughed at is not a concern for transwomen? Or is it just something that trans people have to put up with?

Do you think taunting and being laughed at is not a concern for transwomen? Or is it just something that trans people have to put up with?

Nobody thinks this. What many of us think is that if there is a problem with males harming other males in any way, including taunting and laughing, then it's up to the males to sort it out, not dump the problem on women, and expect women to sacrifice everything to sort it out.

And women in this discussion are constantly being told that they are "fragile" or "delicate" or whatever for feeling unsafe when they cannot rely on an intimate space being women-only. Why should transwomen be entitled to a higher standard of care, at women's expense, than women are, when the problem originates with men?

Do you think taunting and being laughed at is not a concern for transwomen? Or is it just something that trans people have to put up with?

Margaret Attwood nailed it with "Men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them"

Men are at highest risk from other males, statistically, if they go out clubbing and boozing on a Saturday night (apart from prison). Not being attacked in toilets.

The main area of concern for women is not, I believe, so much that they might actually be attacked, but the voyeurism aspect. The discomfort, lack of privacy. The understanding that their boundaries can be violated, with little effort, and there’s nothing they can do. And the problem of AGP individuals.

Just the knowledge that the person of the cohort which does commit the vast majority of sexual offences is in their space.

Women constantly walk around with the knowledge that this cohort exists and they are not of it.

Men generally don’t mind peeing in front of one another, for instance. One man using his penis to urinate does not constitute indecent exposure in the men’s toilet.

Then same man unzipping his fly and exposing his penis in a female toilet, would.

Men identifying as women have their own issues, I am sure.

But pretending they are the same as women’s is wrong.

Male violence is a thing. What makes you think that transwomen are immune from such violence in a male space such as a toilet when people are vulnerable and usually alone?

How can this be reconciled with transwomen then going into women's toilets, if male violence is indeed a thing?

(To be clear: I agree entirely that male violence is a thing.)

Margaret Attwood nailed it with "Men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them

So are transwomen afraid men will kill them.

"What makes you think that transwomen are immune from such violence in a male space such as a toilet when people are vulnerable and usually alone?"

Why is the solution to remove all sex segregated places?

Why is it women's problem to sort out?

So are transwomen afraid men will kill them.

Statistically, man who transitions, reduces his risk of being killed by another man.

sagamartha then why isn't the solution for trans activists to push for a third space, trans-friendly loos, changing rooms, etc? Women would support that, there wouldn't be all this opposition, and surely that would be preferable?

What isn't on is for transwomen to say "this isn't suitable for me because of men, so I'm going to steal women's instead".

Male violence is definitely a thing. Transwomen should absolutely not have to expose themselves to fear of violence or abuse of any kind.

I agree with the problem. I don't agree that the only right or possible solution is removing women's rights to single sex spaces. What are other solutions?

The main blocking point is that this is not about safe spaces or third spaces, and this is why trans activists insist that women surrendering all rights to them is the only possible answer. And don't want mixed sex or gender neutral provision either. The point is individuals personally overcoming all boundaries around women, and women being compelled to hand all control and power over the word 'woman', it's language and even its biology to a small group of men who are using many vulnerable groups under the trans umbrella as a human shield.

Politicians frame this as an impossible situation: two sets of' rights' that are incompatible, it's simply a matter of choosing who wins. Trans lobbyists then throw the word privilege around as explanation why it must be women. In this context the word 'right' is being exploited. I agree that everyone has an unquestionable right to be safe and to have access to safe, appropriate, equal facilities in all situations. I don't agree that it is a right or should be a right to be personally validated at the cost of other people.

The compromises women are being expected to make are huge, with possibly very serious repercussions. What compromises are trans lobbyists suggesting? None. They are 'women' with no interest whatever in womens' issues or care for any interests but their own group, and only total capitulation including rape and death threats will do.

Statistically, man who transitions, reduces his risk of being killed by another man

Well that's alright then

Still doesn't reduce the fear of male violence.

Reading the most recent exchanges, it seems clear to me that if transwomen need to flee men's spaces, then safe spaces specifically for transwomen is the solution.

Men win by not being "caused" to attack transwomen, transwomen win by finding safety, and women win by having the sex exclusivity of their spaces preserved.

The one thing missing in this solution is validation. But that's not for women to provide.

Still doesn't reduce the fear of male violence.

You still haven't said why women should ignore their own fear of male violence in order to prioritise the feelings of males who fear male violence.

I would never have clicked on a trans section because I simply thought live and let live.

If it weren't for these threads, I would have no idea of the very real and serious threat to us biological women.

So please don't set up.a separate board.