to NOT think women's rights are being attacked?

[MissPrimaryCrafts]

Wanted to namechange in case this turns into a bloodbath but new users not being accepted so we'll see how it goes!

I realise this could be a bit provocative but I'm not looking for an argument, I just genuinely am finding it hard to understand the other side of this so would genuinely like a polite dicussion so I can understand better. Apologies in advance if it sparks natiness in replies

The issue being transphobia and womens rights...I've seen a lot of talk in threads recently about how 'anyone standing up for women is apparantly and transphobe and TERF' and that women are losing their rights and I just don't see how.

I assume the main issue is with allowing trans women into female only spaces, and people feeling like it's no longer really a 'female only' space as men could just say they're a woman and be allowed in?

I understand this as being a problem...but only to an extent. Firstly I feel like I wonder how much more access this would actually give men? Like honestly, if a man is going to go a commit a crime against a woman, is seeing a 'women only' sign on a changing room door really going to stop him? Is he really going to pretend to identify as a woman to enter the space, or is he just going to enter the space? Does allowing trans women really change things?

Also, if that IS your issue with allowing trans people into female only spaces, then your issue isn't with trans women, it's with men. If you're worried about men entering the space by 'pretending' to be trans, then the potential problems are because of men, not because of trans women. So surely there are better ways to address our issues with men committing crimes than to make sure trans women are excluded from certain spaces? Aren't there other ways we as a society can address the prevalence of crimes against women?

Of course - this is all if you 'believe' that being trans is a real thing, I'm aware many people don't think it's real and I think that's a separate issue. But if you think trans people do 'exist'/it is a real thing, but you want to bar them from female only spaces, I just wonder why? What do you think of the above?

Sorry this is an essay!

I for one have always valued women's bogs with the strongly socially enforced norm that men couldn't enter.

For things like getting away from persistent men in clubs and variety of other things as well.

@Biffbaff

Yes *@anotheruser02* I do think wanting separate spaces for trans people is TERFy. Because that imposes a restriction and an exclusion on the daily lives of trans people. I think the toilet thing is a straw"man" of an argument. It's not really about safety in toilets, is it? It's an expression of the limits on your inclusion and is therefore still exclusionary.

So you don't believe that women by sex are as important as transwomen?

Both fall under protected characteristics, both are equal. Neither has the right to put the other at risk.

You indeed are sexist and misogynistic.

I will step away from you now as there is no point trying to speak to a person like you.

@Biffbaff

Yes *@anotheruser02* I do think wanting separate spaces for trans people is TERFy. Because that imposes a restriction and an exclusion on the daily lives of trans people. I think the toilet thing is a straw"man" of an argument. It's not really about safety in toilets, is it? It's an expression of the limits on your inclusion and is therefore still exclusionary.

Why do you people need an insult for women who want to retain sex based rights and protections?

And why does this exclusively feminine insult rely on invalidating and disparaging feminism itself? As "radical", no less, with all the associated stereotypes?

Why do I feel like I have just stepped in something?

However I do see that you people like to play "victims with vaginas" so, if you must.

I don't see anyone playing victims on here but to quote Liz Truss- women have vaginas.

Just to remind you of the 'people' you are accusing of 'playing' victims.

I did ask the question in those words DrSbaitso, that was my fault, I put the word in BiffBaff's mouth.

Given the staggering amounts of threats of violence and rape against 'TERFS' as demonstrated by this site - www.terfisaslur.com, it's clear it's a violent and aggressive term to silence women. But you know that Biff. It's impossible not to know given the dialogue around JK Rowling for example.

Did you put the phrase playing vagina victims (or whatever it was) in their mouth as well?

@Biffbaff

Yes *@anotheruser02* I do think wanting separate spaces for trans people is TERFy. Because that imposes a restriction and an exclusion on the daily lives of trans people. I think the toilet thing is a straw"man" of an argument. It's not really about safety in toilets, is it? It's an expression of the limits on your inclusion and is therefore still exclusionary.

Thanks for answering.

@NiceGerbil

Did you put the phrase playing vagina victims (or whatever it was) in their mouth as well?

Haha no But they don't need to take the flack for TERFy

*Imagine being in a prison with a female face..."

What is a female face?

Was that before the 20.50 post where I thought Biff started their abuse?

Victims with vaginas is really transphobic and triggering for trans people. There’s a slur for people like you.

At what point does a man actually become a woman? When he says so? When he wears a dress ? When he takes hormones? Most trans women are easily recognisable as men. They have gone through male puberty and socislised as males. Why cant men be more accepting of a sub group of males which is trans women .

If it's not about safety then why do we have mixed sex anything in the first place?

Given that the approach is that gender ID and gender presentation are entirely unconnected. And further that policing what women look like is anti women /misogyny (argument taken from feminism and turned against women).

Then there is no way whatsoever to tell from appearance, which people read as male are men and which are women.

So that presents a little problem for us. Given that we aren't psychic.

(Cis) men should all be up in arms and supporting trans women regarding their right to use a toilet free from harassment. They should be absolutely raging and taking to the streets and posting on social media and talking with their pals about how to support trans women.

Instead of, you know, blaming women.

@NiceGerbil

'However I do see that you people like to play "victims with vaginas" so, if you must'

What does this mean, please?

Playing... At what?

Are you saying those who are uncomfy with some of this are vagina people who are playing victim? Or is it about the use of people with vaginas, don't you agree with that language?

The former. The assumption that trans inclusion means victimhood for born women doesn't sit right with me. All the anti-inclusion arguments rest on the assumption that born women will be victimised by trans people if they are "let in". It's not a particularly respectful view of either trans people or born women to expect this to be the result, and is somewhat of a non-argument seeing as it happens already.

Flap it's when they say so.

Actually. Not even that.

The approach women and girls must take on thinking hold on that's a bloke and this is the women's changing/ sports team / inpatient mental health ward etc.

Is to understand that they know better than you where they should be and that saying something, or indeed reacting in any noticeable way. Could be a crime or just really upsetting for them.

Then there are those who id as men sometimes and women sometimes. Eg the police officer with two warrant cards in different names, pips bunce, and the person who plays on both the men's and women's cricket teams for a club.

If transwomen really truly believed transwomen were women, then a transwomen only space would be fine, because it would be exactly the same as (would be) a women only space.

Then women only spaces could be for women who believe that women and transwomen are different.

@Anotheruser02

I did ask the question in those words DrSbaitso, that was my fault, I put the word in BiffBaff's mouth.

Well, good old Biffy clearly likes the taste of the word and is happy to use it, so my question still stands.

I mean, it's amazing. So if my 90 year old grandmother insisted on a female carer to do her personal care, she isn't merely a feminist, she's a RADICAL feminist? Or a traumatised rape survivor who wants a penis-free space? She's a RADICAL feminist for that? You know, the really really bad kind?

The concept of women as not men, as sexually opposite, isn't radical. It's so un-radical I don't know where to start. It's been the base building block of every human civilisation ever. It's a very very established and observable concept. Whatever it may be, it really really isn't radical.

I actually find the conflation between sex based rights and RADICAL FEMINISM to be one of the most sinister things about this movement. "Feminist" has been used as an insult to shut women up since the concept was first conceived. And now we have a load of intact male people demanding to be considered women, the go-to insult for their opponents is designed to denigrate the women's rights movement itself, and this is OK to many people?

If I didn't know better, I'd think they were trying to invalidate feminism to hide the cost of their agenda to women....

'The assumption that trans inclusion means victimhood for born women doesn't sit right with me. All the anti-inclusion arguments rest on the assumption that born women will be victimised by trans people if they are "let in".'

Thank you for clarifying.

I would say.

Victimhood for born women. Did you choose this word due to its meaning or did you mean something else?

Cambridge dictionary:
'the condition of having been hurt, damaged, or made to suffer, especially when you want people to feel sorry for you because of this or use it as an excuse for something:
These bloody terror attacks forged a bond of victimhood between the inhabitants of Paris and London.
Despite his personal losses, Paul carries himself without a hint of victimhood.'

All the anti-inclusion arguments rest on the assumption that born women will be victimised by trans people if they are "let in".

It's a simple matter of privacy and dignity and respect for women and girls. You don't really seem to know what you're talking about.

I'm not sure everyone on this thread is posting in good faith...
We may not be on the feminist boards but i'm pretty sure language being used on here would be getting you deleted there.

This is not a discussion about whether trans people should be let in.

Here in England (also Wales Scotland not sure about NI) it's already been done in many situations.

From prisons to sport to changing to loads of things it's happened.

Eg my local tube station about 3 years ago changed the signage.

Accessible single loo stays unisex.
The ladies with 2 cubicles changed to all gender.
The gents which I'm reliably ok informed has urinals plus 2 cubicles is still the gents.

All over the place signs have been changed on female facilities to say all gender while the men's stuff is not touched.

Sex offenders who attacked women, who have male physiology have been imprisoned in the women's prisons (I'm not surprised at some of the consequences. Are you?)

And etc.

You are way out of date if you think female things are still female only and this is about convincing women to allow transwomen in.

' the assumption that born women will be victimised by trans people if they are "let in". It's not a particularly respectful view of either trans people or born women to expect this to be the result'

Out of interest, how do you feel about lots of women feeling that men in general pose a risk?

How do terms like
Male sexual violence
Male pattern violence
Sit with you?

I think the answer to this could be pretty key.