AIBU to think women should not be banned from Social media for asking the question - Thread 3

[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.

@ScreamingBeans brilliantly put!

@Tyoesofcatalogue

It’s not just about being accepted though.

Many people with intense gender dysphoria will not be able to use the toilets of (what feels like) the wrong sex. For some it creates such a disgusting painful, self-hatred reaction, they just can’t do it.

That means they need more help. It doesn’t mean they should be given access to women-only spaces.

@lifeturnsonadime

In the same way that you (not you personally)) completely refuse to accept them as they are, continually accuse them of wanting to be better or more important than you and refuse to understand why they want in toilets other than to be a threat

@RootyT00t

I take offence at a suggestion i have sneered at anyone.

I'll ask again. Why do transwomen count more than muslim girls? They have the option to use the toilets based on their sex (the Mens). Muslim and girls do not have another option. My daughter who is autistic does have the option of using the disabled toilets but given that her needs are not physical and those facilities are limited why should she? Why should disabled people and muslim people and women who have faced assault or just simply have boundaries have to lose out to people who do most definitely have other options. Whether it be using the toilets based upon their SEX or entering into a discussion about third spaces which would meet everyone's needs to go to the toilet, which is actually what this should be about. Not the need to affirm someone's belief that a person can literally change sex , sometimes without making one single physical change.

The sneer comment wasnt at you but has been rectified through shared love of gin and feminism.

I don't disagree with anything you say here.

[quote Impatiens]**@ScreamingBeans brilliantly put![/quote]
Seconded

@Thewithesarehere

Hang on. Would you say that to someone else with any kind of 'mental' barrier that means they need extra requirements?

That means they need more help.

More help being different help. Help that doesn’t exist, for which there’s no evidence at all and isn’t likely to appear any time soon.

Hang on. Would you say that to someone else with any kind of 'mental' barrier that means they need extra requirements?

The answer will be that accommodating other mental barriers or disabilities doesn’t usually mean having to infringe or conflict with another group’s rights.

Of course it’s not unreasonable.

@Tyoesofcatalogue

Hang on. Would you say that to someone else with any kind of 'mental' barrier that means they need extra requirements?

The answer will be that accommodating other mental barriers or disabilities doesn’t usually mean having to infringe or conflict with another group’s rights.

Which is true.

When you think about things like "autism friendly screenings", or signed performances, or bigger cubicles, these are always done separately (I'm not comparing disabilites to trans, btw, but these are things I can think of in day to day life.

The only thing I can think of that directly impacts other people is something like queue jumping.

The problem is, the only form of 'help' if you will that has been given out on here is to tell these people that trans doesn't exist. If that solved anything, for anyone like the parents on here with trans children, I'm fairly sure that this would have been explored. I understand that internationally with the campaign it seems that there is almost a gleeful trend of pumping kids full of hormones and wishing them well with a "you go hun" but in the real world I can't imagine that this is as commonplace.

CoffeeTeaChocolate
And how can you (even if you want) allow a trans girl in and exclude a mature trans woman who is very happy with their male genitalia, trans women like Jessica Yaniv or men who just claim to be trans?

This is where the main problem lies, for me.

The first category of person is a great deal less liable to trample on my rights or safety than the second or third (well, the third category and the fourth are sometimes hard to tell apart).

The fourth category absolutely should not be allowed anywhere near women or children in a vulnerable position, and is also the category of person whom "self ID" would allow free access to precisely those people they ought never to be allowed anywhere near unless very thoroughly policed by other, larger men who will have no truck with the abuse of women and children.

But I am not allowed to draw a distinction between "unhappy person who needs care and support" and "predatory git who needs a kick between the legs", either in argument or, if those people and their fellow-travellers have their way, in law.

It's a bit of a whataboutery question at this stage in the debate because IF the TRA movement and all of the related very aggressive twitter brigade didn't exist and IF this was purely a question of whether perfectly well meaning transitioned or non-transitioned trans people should still be allowed into toilets, this would be a different debate.

I have to admit that although I still disagree with some aspects of the argument, I certainly feel nothing like i did reading the first thread, and that's the problem.

This side of the argument have heard the same things so many times that they are now bored of pointing out that it isn't about being anti-trans, it's about being anti violated, and that there is no way to stand at the toilet door to check for ID and intentions before letting someone in.

Ergo, if it's a choice between letting everyone in for the good of a few, or letting no-one in and being risk free, they're going to go for no-one in.

I don’t think it’s the case that the only form of help suggested here is to say trans doesn’t exist

I don’t know anyone who would deny the existence of trans people - but it’s undeniable that stonewall have expanded the definition of trans way beyond that of what we used to call transexual and that by doing so they’re saying that any male bodied person who falls into their definition is entitled to use woman’s spaces

The obvious solution as has been said so many times is third spaces but we’re told by TRA that even suggesting that is “literal violence” & denying their right to exist

@ScreamingBeans

Better that millions of women are sent back to the kitchen, than even 1 male person be told women have the right to set boundaries.

how the urinary leash keeps women at home

Hang on, the position seems to be that a teenage trans girl, who may look indistinguishable from every other girl, should always use male spaces, surrounded by men with their cocks out because the one in three hundred women who are trans might be a threat in the women's toilets.

How would you feel if you were told from now on you can only use the men's toilets? Is that comparable to occassionally having to share a space with a trans women in the women's toilets? Who is more likely to get assaulted, the teenage trans girl who always has to use the men's toilets or a non-trans girl who might come across a trans woman about once a year? Spoiler - there is only one reported case in UK legal history of a trans woman assaulting a woman in a woman's toilet. The chance of it happening are hundreds of million to one.

Agreed, jj.

@Biscuitsanddoombar

I don’t think it’s the case that the only form of help suggested here is to say trans doesn’t exist

I don’t know anyone who would deny the existence of trans people - but it’s undeniable that stonewall have expanded the definition of trans way beyond that of what we used to call transexual and that by doing so they’re saying that any male bodied person who falls into their definition is entitled to use woman’s spaces

The obvious solution as has been said so many times is third spaces but we’re told by TRA that even suggesting that is “literal violence” & denying their right to exist

No, but by saying you can't change your biological sex, people are effectively denying the existence of trans.

When you think about things like "autism friendly screenings", or signed performances, or bigger cubicles, these are always done separately (I'm not comparing disabilites to trans, btw, but these are things I can think of in day to day life.

And here's the rub. Society does not do enough to be inclusive to autistic children. I say that as the parent of two autistic children who don't even have the right to be educated with their peers as there are no schools to meet their needs. The Local Authority has agreed that is the case and funds them to be educated at home.

All of this political focus seems to be on the needs of trans women many of whom do not have any form of dysphoria as this is not needed to come under the trans umbrella. Cross dressing men are transwomen and transwomen are women according Stonewall etc.

It does anger me that Self ID works to remove the safe spaces of women and children. it also angers me that this issue detracts from other groups that are more excluded by society on a day to day basis, certainly than the transwomen who are cross dressers.

@lifeturnsonadime

When you think about things like "autism friendly screenings", or signed performances, or bigger cubicles, these are always done separately (I'm not comparing disabilites to trans, btw, but these are things I can think of in day to day life.

And here's the rub. Society does not do enough to be inclusive to autistic children. I say that as the parent of two autistic children who don't even have the right to be educated with their peers as there are no schools to meet their needs. The Local Authority has agreed that is the case and funds them to be educated at home.

All of this political focus seems to be on the needs of trans women many of whom do not have any form of dysphoria as this is not needed to come under the trans umbrella. Cross dressing men are transwomen and transwomen are women according Stonewall etc.

It does anger me that Self ID works to remove the safe spaces of women and children. it also angers me that this issue detracts from other groups that are more excluded by society on a day to day basis, certainly than the transwomen who are cross dressers.

Autism is my specialist field, and I completely agree, and that's what I touched upon earlier with the issue with the autistic girls.

I'm sorry that you haven't found a school to meet your needs. I think that is really, really sad and far from the minority.

[quote RootyT00t]@Thewithesarehere

Hang on. Would you say that to someone else with any kind of 'mental' barrier that means they need extra requirements?[/quote]
Why would I say this to them? They are not my responsibility or problem, thank you. As a a woman, I have plenty on my plate.

But you can’t change your biological sex. It is physically impossible to alter your DNA & skeletal structure. People born a biological female will die a biological female

What people can do is present as the opposite sex and I’ve no problem with that. Wear what you like, call yourself what you want & if you’re an adult subject your body ti whatever drugs & surgery you deem necessary

People on the whole arent cunts. I would never go up to a transwoman and say “ha! You’re a man” but it doesn’t alter the fact that they’re not and never will be a biological woman and I should not be compelled to give up my sex based rights as a woman to make them feel better

Im not a support human

Hang on, the position seems to be that a teenage trans girl, who may look indistinguishable from every other girl, should always use male spaces, surrounded by men with their cocks out because the one in three hundred women who are trans might be a threat in the women's toilets.
NOW you are being obtuse.
How hard is it to understand that a women’s toilet is not a space for a trans woman, regardless of whether they are teen or middle aged.
They need their own space. End of.

@Biscuitsanddoombar

But you can’t change your biological sex. It is physically impossible to alter your DNA & skeletal structure. People born a biological female will die a biological female

What people can do is present as the opposite sex and I’ve no problem with that. Wear what you like, call yourself what you want & if you’re an adult subject your body ti whatever drugs & surgery you deem necessary

People on the whole arent cunts. I would never go up to a transwoman and say “ha! You’re a man” but it doesn’t alter the fact that they’re not and never will be a biological woman and I should not be compelled to give up my sex based rights as a woman to make them feel better

Im not a support human

All of that is fine, and your opinion, but you can't then say you don't know anyone who is denying the existence of trans.

By claiming you can't change your sex, that is exactly what you are doing. Whether saying it to their face or not, in principle it's the same thing.

Beware jj1968 when they start a post with "Hang on, the position seems to be...."
Usually it is a mispresentation of the position.

You have seen us say, many times over, that the risk isn't "because the one in three hundred women who are trans might be a threat in the women's toilets". We are (usually) not talking about a hypothetical person who is somehow 'indistiguishable' from all other women.

We are talking about male-bodied people, with no further qualifications to this description, accessing changing rooms and showers for female-bodied people.
It's there in the OP.
Male-bodied people, whether they identify as male, female, masculine, non-binary, feminine, or whatever.

You clearly think that there is a group of male-bodied people that are a threat to others. How does one differentiate these to reduce risk?

No, but by saying you can't change your biological sex, people are effectively denying the existence of trans

That's not true Rooty. As we've said previously, there are Trans people that agree with us that you can't change your biological sex. Are they denying their own existence?

No, but by saying you can't change your biological sex, people are effectively denying the existence of trans.
It astonished me that you say this and yet you are working with people with autism. The mind boggles.

@DeaconBoo

Beware jj1968 when they start a post with "Hang on, the position seems to be...." Usually it is a mispresentation of the position.

You have seen us say, many times over, that the risk isn't "because the one in three hundred women who are trans might be a threat in the women's toilets". We are (usually) not talking about a hypothetical person who is somehow 'indistiguishable' from all other women.

We are talking about male-bodied people, with no further qualifications to this description, accessing changing rooms and showers for female-bodied people.
It's there in the OP.
Male-bodied people, whether they identify as male, female, masculine, non-binary, feminine, or whatever.

You clearly think that there is a group of male-bodied people that are a threat to others. How does one differentiate these to reduce risk?

I can see both posts here (I'm not a DA or some lone resolute voice, I just can). I agreed with jj in principle that the risk is low.

@jj1968 is missing the point that regardless of the lack of risk, there is no way to determine who is a risk and who isn't.