Trans and third space?

[Teachtolive]

This is by no means an anti trans thread. I am not anti trans. It could also be an extremely naive question so I apologise in advance if this is in any way offensive, it's not my intention. Would the use of third spaces not solve a lot of issues? So men's, women's and trans bathrooms, men's, women's and trans sporting events etc? Or if it wouldn't solve issues of safe spaces and biological advantages, why not?

babbs if you can find examples of radical feminists sending death threats and punching TRAs please do post them.

I suppose you also think that women are just as violent as men, too. They aren't, not by a country mile.

Why do women think so little of themselves?

That's not what the trans activists say.

I made a specific reference to 15 women's meetings being targeted by transactivists. So if they're saying the same has happened to them, I think you'll find they are lying. Stop being disingenuous.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

Babbs if you want to educate yourself on the gender critical position this is a good thread. Don't demand that others do all the work.

captain I think you've misconstrued my words.

would love to know what your friends think of some of the threads on Mumsnet though, which don't seem anti self ID as much as anti trans.

RiverTam as I said above I'm deeply unhappy about behaviour I've seen from both camps.

And I still don't see how that's justification for people to slag off trans women as a whole.

Which no one ever does. I've given you specific examples.

I'm deeply unhappy about behaviour I've seen from both camps

Except you can't reference any behaviour from radical feminists which matches that of transactivists. Feminists having meetings, not agreeing that men are women and showing how the laws are being exploited is not the same as bomb threats, punching, threats to kill, doxxing families and trying to get you fired.

You know, instead of immediately going on the attack and calling me part of the problem you could actually try to persuade me to understand your point of view using better facts, explanations or examples - all I've got is a shortlist of trans women who do stuff you think is perverted by the looks of it. Not sure what that is meant to be convincing me of?

I don't need to convince you. It's a fact. Like Karen White is a transwoman who got transferred to a female prison and has been convicted of assaulting the inmates.

If you don't understand how trans the ideology has allowed men, whether they are trans or not, to exploit and menace women, it's because you don't agree that it has.

Which means you don't see it as exploiting or menacing women, which does make you part of the problem.

You talked about 'genuine transwomen', I showed you 'genuine transwomen' who are influencing policy, and should be nowhere near it. And you don't think that's a problem because you know nice transwoman!

babbs what behaviour have you seen from feminists that equates or is even vaguely similar to sending death threats and actual (not literal) violence?

Karen White shouldn't have been put in that prison as a convicted sex offender. The board have admitted they made an error and very sadly that's too late for the victims. I'm sure in case-by-case assessments of trans people in future however much more care will be taken both to protect them and potential victims of attack. In the grand scheme of things it's a tiny amount of people to assess.

I do agree however that Karen White was probably trying to exploit or manipulate people and situations by transitioning. Unfortunately there are a few really nasty pieces of work out there that go to extreme lengths.

I didn't say I knew a transwoman? My reason for mentioning the people I know had nothing to do with the five women you mention and everything to do with is why should they be forced to go through such a lengthy and rigorous process to live their life as they wish i.e. punished for the not-crimes of others?

@RiverTam I don't know off the top of my head of any actual violence on either side, I'm sure you do otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it, and if I had the time to do a bit of Googling I could probably find examples of actual violence on both sides. Maybe I will later. I do know trans people are disproportionately victims of violence though and anti-trans sentiment and rhetoric will absolutely be fuelling this.

yes, I do know which is why i mentioned it, you seem happy spouting things that you have no actual proof of - like trans people being disproportionate victims of violence - again, source? Because I can source the fact that 7 trans identifying men have been murdered over the last 9 years (none because they were trans, btw), whereas 14 trans identifying men have committed murder in the same time frame, and that women are murdered at a rate of 2 a DAY.

And either you think TWAW in which case accept Karen White as a woman, or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick.

would love to know what your friends think of some of the threads on Mumsnet though, which don't seem anti self ID as much as anti trans.

I don't think Mumsnet would really interest them.

I do know trans people are disproportionately victims of violence though

Disproportionate In comparison to whom?
Whats the comparison here, another protected group, the disabled, women, race?

I know had nothing to do with the five women you mention and everything to do with is why should they be forced to go through such a lengthy and rigorous process to live their life as they wish i.e. punished for the not-crimes of others?

There is no lengthy or rigorous process. You know that. That's how Karen White got into a female prison. None of the people I mentioned have a GRC.

Reform to the GRA will impact the equality law, which is part of the problem.

If you eliminate the criteria to legally change sex, it means anyone can be any sex.

If sex is a protected characteristic under the equality law, and anyone to be any sex, how does that work?

You've got two problems here babbscrabbs. Firstly is the change to the law. And secondly the people who are pushing it and why.

Historically transwomen had had no problem sharing toilets and changing rooms with women. They were very small in number, about 5000. They certainly didn't think they were eligible for all women shortlists, female prisons, or competing as women in sport.

And many of them still don't. Hence all their letter writing to mainstream media and talking on TV panels. See Miranda Yardley and Debbie Heyton.

The problem is a new breed of aggressive, misogynistic, fetishist transactivists who, in an effort to legitimise their position, are throwing women and men with gender dysphoria under the bus.

Many women have, and lots still do, make a distinction between genuine transsexuals, and transwomen. (Although that is apparently incredibly transphobic too).

A number of women have reached the conclusion that as you can't tell the difference, we need to ensure that laws can't be exploited.

That's not what the trans activists say. They talk about bullying and intimidating behaviour too.

Examples? Although does make me laugh that people imagine a handful of women can intimidate great swathes of men.

Serendipitously I had just read this comment when I flicked to Facebook and the following article was linked on my newsfeed. A woman assaulted two trans women for being "men": metro.co.uk/2018/10/21/woman-assaulted-two-trans-women-at-karaoke-night-after-saying-what-is-that-8060176/

So I thought I'd hit Google, because whilst I read a lot about what GC feminists experience from threads on Mumsnet I've never really known what the trans community experience in this respect. This article is from only last week; it says that reported anti-transgender hate crime up a third on last year! Also that anti-trans hate crime is the most likely to be violent, and has the largest proportion of online offences within it.

Now I'm not being funny, but it would seem to me that between online hate-crime against the trans community and them being the most likely to experience violent hate crimes, that there most definitely is a flip-side to this whole thing. This woman was granted residency in New Zealand on the basis that she would be safer there than in the UK!

There's bad on both sides, but if we're saying there is no abuse levied against the trans community that is comparable than that which is levied against GC women, well I don't think that stacks up. You think you're abused by trans people and their allies, well I very much doubt trans people care whether someone's "GC" or not when they're being abused; but no doubt someone who would abuse a trans person for being trans certainly would consider themselves an ally to your cause.

And then when I was Googling I read this (which is horrendous, by the way) about a trans woman murdered in March by a man who fetishised her gender reassignment. And [[https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/transgender-woman-punched-back-head-752545]] about a trans woman attacked in Grimsby in 2017.

Honestly, I wish I'd never started Googling! The following are two links about a trans woman kept in a male prison - sort of the flip side to the infamous Karen White. Is this what you want?? Is this the situation you want? No-one wants another Karen White, but no-one wants this either. The second link points out that just months after this woman was moved to a women's jail, two trans inmates DIED whilst being held in male jails. DIED for Christ's sake!!

www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/transgender-woman-bath-sues-ministry-1109115

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/06/12/transgender-prisoner-tara-hudson-ministry-of-justice-discrimination-trial/

The answer is the middle ground.

Quite, you have to remember there are people in this that are suffering discrimination. The people who have done nothing wrong are going to be caught in it and feel the brunt of the backlash.

It's pushed acceptance and respect back decades.

It's pushed acceptance and respect back decades.

It has! And the very first thing we can do about that is to ourselves be accepting and show respect.

Which, I'll be honest, was in short supply on the FWR boards when I used to visit. I hear the reverse is true on Twitter. But we can only control our own behaviour.

'Be nice' is not a good argument for losing women only spaces and services.

The third unisex all inclusive space is the way forwards, it does not remove any rights that other people need. Everyone who feels comfortable can use it and show the rest of us how safe it is.

'Be nice' is not a good argument for losing women only spaces and services.

If you over-reduce what I've said to something so over-simplistic that is bears no resemblance at all to what I've actually said... that's what's called a straw man.

But it makes a lovely soundbite that women who are tired of being told to "be nice" can rally around.

It's incredibly manipulative.

I read something that stuck with me recently on here; "Tyranny is the purposeful removal of nuance". I'll leave that one with you.

Calling it a third space worries me, because there are (mostly) already three- men, women and disabled (disabled facilities seem to be unisex more often, although this could be just my area).
So, given that most businesses and a huge number of public buildings will not be able to just magic up extra space, it has to be taken from someone to be given to this "extra" group. How many of these new facilities would never be used? And what happens to the groups who have to be "nice" and give up their spaces? I'm guessing that able-bodied men will be asked to give up exactly nothing.

The answer is the middle ground.
The middle ground is third spaces (or fourth if you prefer). Don't force transwomen who believe they are women into men-only spaces. Don't force women to share with people they believe to be men if they are unable or unwilling. Sounds fair to me.

I'm not sure if I've yet organised this thought into a coherent form, but I also have a nagging feeling that this is nothing to do with transwomen* (who have mostly been quietly going about their business for years) at all, and in a few years there could well be another division, with this new group trying to force out the "old-style" transpeople. Or perhaps they will find a new cause, a different group to torment and a new way to troll humanity.

Whatever, these people are not pro-transwomen. Forcing transwomen into the "woman" box is denying their special needs and circumstances. I feel strongly that their needs should be met and they should be able to live as they wish, but not at the expense of women and not by the fingers-in-ears lalala-ing of TWAW.

*this thought is clearly not new but I don't see this new group getting what they want as being a way to quiet them, or stop their worst behaviours.

Sounds fair to me.

And what if it doesn't sound fair to trans women? Because their concerns can not be assumed to be the same as ours, after all. And one of their concerns will undoubtedly be being isolated from the general population on the basis of their gender reassignment.

I'm afraid it can't be assumed that a minority will be happy with the same solution you think they should be happy with, because minorities have their own specific concerns and priorities. A Jew may see their needs differently to what you may perceive as important. As might any other member of a minority group.

What seems fairer is men's and women's facilities that are safe and private regardless of who you're sharing with, although the general social convention of "men's" and "women's" would prevail.

Forcing transwomen into the "woman" box is denying their special needs and circumstances.

Do you have evidence that there is a divide between "old-school" trans people and some new kind? And that the two are of fundamentally different opinions? And that one is forcing the other to consider themselves "women"?

I hear this a lot, but it does not ring true when you look at the groups representing the trans community, or look at the dialogue coming from them. There is certainly a myriad of different views within any one group, but are there really these two warring factions? I would love to see the evidence.

And what if it doesn't sound fair to trans women?
Then don't picture them getting exactly what they want as middle ground. It isn't.

Not all facilities can be entirely enclosed and private. Those that can may as well be fully unisex.

but are there really these two warring factions? I would love to see the evidence.

Ask Miranda Yardley (oh whoops you can't because TRAs got Miranda kicked off Twitter), Debbie Hayton, Kristina Harrison, Fionne Orlander, Rose of Dawn and many others. Go on Twitter and see how respectful it all is.

Google what "truscum" and "HBSer" mean.

I don't believe you're not informed about this Rat so I can only assume you're being disingenuous.

Then don't picture them getting exactly what they want as middle ground.

What they want is to use the facilities of the gender they identify with.

What we want is to have safety and privacy whilst using facilities.

Both groups can have what they want. It's better security and privacy measures.