AIBU to think women should not be banned from Social media for asking the question - Thread 2

[Thewithesarehere]

Many women have been suspended from sm for asking the question:
“Do you believe that male sexed people should be allowed access to changing rooms and showers for female sexed people and teenagers?”
Seems like a perfectly reasonable question which we should be allowed to ask.

Let’s vote with our AIBU.

Player of the county*

[quote PoleToPole]One of the things which always strikes me is that when you are new to the debate, like I was a while ago, and trying to find things out, you ask with the best of intentions someone to explain something:

• Supporters of the gender critical point of view gives you facts, figures and honest information

• Trans rights activists tell you that you`re transphobic for even asking and not taking them blindly at their word. Then you get told to go die in a greasefire, or choke on their girldicks

I hope its ok to link to the thread of Trans Rights Activists screenshots? That thread really opened my eyes.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3955276-resource-thread-of-tra-screenshots[/quote]
EXACTLY!

That thread in the post from @PoleToPole is very scary.
It will be very interesting to analyse these tweets through a pattern recognition software to compare the outcome vs men and women.
(Or do we need a software to tell us the outcome?).

And even here, OP, you can get deleted for calling a male a 'man' (i think that's what happened in your deleted post).

You're kidding. This is the sort of thing I mean. We all have to lie. Some people even seem to lie to themselves.

IIRC, the deleted post referred to a cricketer who was pretty mediocre as a county player and then...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7369619/Kent-transgender-cricketer-reignites-row-allowed-play-womens-sports.html

It is worth reiterating for those who have not read the whole thread or previous ones

Around 90% of Transwomen keep their penis and testicles

[quote SweetPetrichor]@Idratherberude

*No... read what I wrote.
A male who has had gender reassignment and is now a transwoman would be treated fairly compared to any other male.

I fail to see what you are finding so difficult to grasp *@SweetPetrichor.

———

Sorry it’s not in the same thread but I genuinely don’t understand how you’re getting this confused. There is no reason to have legislation protecting a trans woman with equality equal to a male. She had that...what she needs is equality equal to a woman. That is the purpose of the act.

Here’s an example borrowed from another source (equalityhumanrights.com) which is it self discussion what constitutes indirect discrimination but proves my point that you are protecting a trans woman equal to any other woman:

^”Indirect discrimination happens when an organisation has a particular policy or way of working that puts transsexual people at a disadvantage.

Sometimes indirect gender assignment discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination. This is known as objective justification. For example:

• a local health authority decides that it will not fund breast implants. As a result the health authority refuses to provide this treatment for a woman undergoing gender reassignment even though she considers it essential to make her look more feminine. The same policy is applied to all women but puts transsexuals at a greater disadvantage. The health authority may be able to justify its policy if it can prove that it has legitimate reasons.”^

Does that help? It’s about protecting trans gender people with regard to their correct gender, not their gender as assigned at birth.[/quote]
No.

You cannot discriminate against somebody because of their gender reassignment status.

So a man who has that protected characteristic cannot be discriminated against any other man - a man is the comparator.

Because both are legally male.

It only changes if someone has a gender recognition certificate, where, for instance, a man has the legal sex female, and therefore a woman is the comparator.

I have read the last and This thread. My daughter is autistic (no language), My oldest DS is autistic (Asperger) and My middle DS has ADHD. Both boys have long hair.
The last few posts regarding a push for sex-transitioning when children want to wear comfy clothes or wear their clothes or hair in any other way than stereotypically acceptable are really worrying.
In the last thread one poster made a very important point re single sex spaces (I realise the discussion has moved on). IT is the nature of the assaults Women experience from men. They are sexual assaults and rape. With the large possibility of becoming pregnant, or otherwise maimed for life.
I have experienced IT myself. IT was a male feminist and ardent pacifist who raped me repeatedly during our relationship, and who finally tried to kill me.

Thus, I loved Hannah Gadsby’s Nanette. I Even joined a fanclub! First time in My life. IT supported queer people. I will admit I do not understand what queer is. But I thought IT would be an inclusive and supportive group regarding sexual assault experiences and also autism. And IT was, until JK Rowling’s tweets were broUght up. I asked the question of why would a transwoman need to transit/transition to or from anything, if they truly believe sex is not based on biology.
I was called a terf and booted out.

Threads like This have given me lost of food for thought, and answers to some behaviours that I have struggled to fathom.

Here’s an example borrowed from another source (equalityhumanrights.com) which is it self discussion what constitutes indirect discrimination but proves my point that you are protecting a trans woman equal to any other woman:

EHRC is an ideologically captured quango that has been misrepresenting this issue for years and is the subject of a legal challenge for this reason. MTF trans people without a GRC (the vast majority) are legally male for the purposes of the Equality Act and EHRC were forced to confirm this around the time of the GRA consultation. Males are the comparator for them, unless there is a GRC. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not the same as the protected characteristic of sex.

I have to say, this idea that one protected characteristic impacts on another in this way, is the result of Stonewall training.

It doesn't.

What it does mean is that you cannot, for example, fire a transwoman on the basis that they are transgender, if they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

It does not mean that you are legally obliged to treat them as female. There are numerous exemptions in the equality act which highlight this.

It all changes with a GRC, but even then there are exemptions.

YY Datun

Yes Datun there is a LOT of misunderstanding over this.

Yes @Thewithesarehere the screenshots are so disturbing, its the sheer scale and violence of the threats for asking the most gentle of questions. Not from just a few extremists too, from social workers, academics, teachers, politicians.

I also allowed to link to the It will never happen thread? That was a huge eye opener for me too, all of the things that TRAs claim never happen which are quietly going on all the time:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread

Hey Mumsnet!
I know my around a cricket pitch and can tell a mediocre player from a mile.

@SweetPetrichor I know and you know, we all know you're talking nonsense now and just outright telling porkies. It's fine, because you've been corrected several times.

What I do want to ask, can you help me? I wasn't assigned a gender at birth!
My sex was observed at birth to be female. Does that mean anything, and what legal protections are there for no-genders like me?

@Thewithesarehere

Hey Mumsnet! I know my around a cricket pitch and can tell a mediocre player from a mile.

Especially if they're a head taller than their teammates?

@ErrolTheDragon
If we compare the average bowling speed for male vs female bowlers, it’s immediately obvious that this kind of advantage is unbeatable. As a female bowler, I would not even bother bowling to someone of that height and build because I would know where the ball will go even before it hits the bat.
It’s so obvious it’s insulting. And since every effort at demanding a rigorous scientific analysis is shouted down by TWAW, scientists will be hard pushed to figure out compiling even the existing data out there, let alone start new studies or trials.
It’s suffocating. It should have been a woman who should have got that award and the benefits that came with it.

I don’t think you or anyone else’s ignorance or bigotry flies here. The be all and end all of the point that I stupidly tried to make is that a trans woman can use female facilities and you can do nothing about that, thankfully

This is the kind of trashy stuff trans activists trot out all day every day on twitter, it seems weird (and unpleasant) to see it exported over here to MN. Despite posts making clear that TW don't have any rights to use female facilities, you keep on with the bullying tone.

What's that cheeky little emoji doing at the end of your daft post @SweetPetrichor? Do you imagine it makes you look less gynophobic or something?

The be all and end all of the point that I stupidly tried to make is that a trans woman can use female facilities and you can do nothing about that, thankfully.
The tide is turning so you better watch. You can face libel if you call someone a bigot and transphobic and they lose their job.

This is why women like JK Rowling make a difference. No one can silence that kind of power.

Maybe SweetPetrichor could define what they mean by a transwoman?. It is very clear that there is a lot of misunderstanding over the meaning of the word and hence a lot of conversations at cross purposes.
To be charitable, it is possible that this poster thinks that a transwoman always has a GRC?

God I’m glad the rest of the world isn’t MN

Fair point, MN isn't a great place for misogyny such as yours.