To think the tide is turning with transgenderism

[abacucat]

There have been a flood of articles in mainstream newspapers criticising transgenderism and putting forward the feminist perspective. It is not long ago that no mainstream newspaper would carry these articles. The tide seems to be turning.

If your friend is a transwoman balth then she should use the ladies just like what trans women have done for years without issue. Nobody on here thinks she's a rapist either. No idea where you've got that from.

Why would she be beaten up in the gents? You're not suggesting that men are violent are you? You're not a man hating feminazi are you?

As a side note it's hilarious that you don't have problem with mixed gender (you mean sex?) changing rooms and toilets whilst claiming that your trans friend would be best up in the gents. You do realise that if everything was mixed sex then the violent men who would beat up your friend in the gents would suddenly be in the same place as her right? Whereas if there were separate facilities then she would be in with the ladies and away from the violent men. Check your logic.

The last time I actually got suckered into answering what is a woman type question, nobody actually gave a shit and just refused to actually listen to anything they didn't want to hear.

People did give a shit. I gave a shit. I gave a counter argument to what you said (I believe your argument was that you know that you feel like a woman on the inside and that if you found yourself with a male body you would be uncomfortable) and you didn't reply.

Stop saying people don't engage with you when you try to join in the debate, because it's not true, and again it's getting tiresome. Just because we don't turn around and say 'oh yes Verbeena, you are totes right' does not mean we are 'refusing to listen' or that we 'don't want to hear any answer that isn't the right one'. It means we still disagree and you are going to have to try a bit harder to convince us.

And have an increased rate of incidents involving voyeurism and assault

Stats/link? Or just meaningless scaremongering with no back up?

It means we still disagree and you are going to have to try a bit harder to convince us

Exactly, goes round and round and round and round in circles as you (collective you) won't accept them as women.
As I said, no point.

*beat

Loads of swimming pools are definitely mixed sex changing rooms.

Yes, and as per the link I just posted upthread, the data reveals that women are at much higher risk of sexual assault in unisex changing rooms.

But women are torn apart for their looks constantly and Lily Madigan wants to be a woman so...she best get used to it.

We gave you the stats last time you posted that, Verbeena, but you just weren't interested.

Here they are again;
''The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.''
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

And Karen white has just been given a life sentence for rape while on a women only psychiatric ward.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838

If you're going to say that though, you'd think you'd back it up with actual stats otherwise it looks like fear mongering. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you did post on another thread, what about posting for those on this thread that weren't on any others? Otherwise it's just scaremongering pure and simple.

Exactly, goes round and round and round and round in circles as you (collective you) won't accept them as women.

You can't expect to convince anyone to see transwomen as women when you can't give a definition if either transwomen or women. And don't say that you have already done it and no one listened, it wasn't the right answer blah blah blah because you know that's bullshit.

I wasn't going to bother engaging with you again on this thread, but to be honest the more posters who see how disingenuous you are the better.

That was to elephants post a few posts back

Bullshit to you as you're incapable of seeing it

If you're going to say that though, you'd think you'd back it up with actual stats otherwise it looks like fear mongering.

Both myself and Upstart have now posted the link to the story about the data about sexual assault in unisex changing rooms?

I wasn't going to bother engaging with you again on this thread, but to be honest the more posters who see how disingenuous you are the better.

The posts are always some flavour of DARVO.

Right, thanks, just seen you've posted. Good good

The thing is Rufus, it's like Caligula said - theres a strong cumulative undercurrent of posts that fall within the official deletion guidelines.

If there was an entire board that was 90% full of posts saying things like "I'm not saying all ginger people are bad but I certainly don't want them around my children!" "I know she dies her hair NOW but I'll never describe her as blonde - as far as I'm concerned, a ginger is always ginger, its basic biology!", if there was a tide of people piling on with "Oh, another GRA - I see you handmaiden! Good try bro!" to anyone who posted anything saying that ginger people mostly just want to live their lives and don't have the slightest interest in harming or hurting anyone - would you still say there wasnt a strong gingerphobic message coming across? None of those messages fall under the deletion guidelines but the silencing message is clear.

It's actually really sad because makes discussion really difficult and there are some very necessary discussions that need to happen around how we help make changing rooms etc as safe for women as we can - it may shock everyone that I actually agreed with a lot of Plants big post at 16.33 - god knows it shocked me when I checked the poster!

But if the two camps are so firmly entrenched as "we must let NO gay/transgender/ginger/black women in changing rooms because some have been known to be aggressive, and one or two of them may pretend so they can prey on other women!" and "we must let ALL gay/transgender/ginger/black women in changing rooms even though some have been known to be aggressive and one or two of them may pretend so they can prey on other women." then neither side seems like the complete and final answer.

Darvo? Assuming that's another FWR code speak to tick off the bingo board. Deny, argue, resist, something, whatever.

If you're going to say that though, you'd think you'd back it up with actual stats otherwise it looks like fear mongering. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and say you did post on another thread, what about posting for those on this thread that weren't on any others? Otherwise it's just scaremongering pure and simple.

The article with stats was posted. It's almost like you're ignoring it. And then to keep going on about how no stats were posted and it's "scaremongering". Gaslighting 101. Hmm..at least it's out there for all to see.

Hmm..at least it's out there for all to see.

Exactly.

DARVO is well known to all women working in the field of domestic abuse. It stands for;
Deny, Attack, Reverse victim and Offender.

As you have shown you have no background in working with abuse victims, maybe you could listen more to women in the field.

Well said Stormtreader. There's self ID concerns, I'm sure we're all on agreement with that, but I'm never OK with out and out hostility to all transwomen just because of the fact they're trans and therefore not women to some.

Always make me uncomfortable when people bring people of colour into this. Bit like listening to my grandad who I KNOW isn't a racist but he says things and I'm like "grandad......noooooooooooooo!"

If you actually scroll up a bit, I actually said good good thanks, just seen you've posted it. I acknowledged you'd posted them. Or maybe you can't see that either.

Are you going to acknowledge my post about DARVO? Or are you going to ignore that as well?
so many elephants in the room we can no longer move for elephants.

If you actually scroll up a bit, I actually said good good thanks, just seen you've posted it. I acknowledged you'd posted them. Or maybe you can't see that either.

Sorry, you posted that as I was typing. So..what do you think about the article? Any comments? Is it scaremongering still?