What does your network think about trans people?

[deeter]

Immediate family think it's all a bit silly, trans people should be treated well but you cannot change sex. Women's spaces should be protected etc.

But interestingly all of my university friends think trans women are women (did go to a London uni with well to do sorts).

I'm 31 btw.

To me, trans women are women.

And in the real world, they aren't. They need to be male to be a trans woman. That's pretty simple.

If they're gender based spaces and not sex based spaces, why are there typically two of them labelled male and female? Why are there no non-binary prisons? Why are there no demi-gender or cat-gender gym changing rooms? If they are gender based spaces why aren't public toilets arranged as a long line of cubicles in a spectrum from most male to most female and people pick the one that aligns most closely with their identity?

To me, trans women are women.

You know they aren't - why keep lying?

ANY man can declare he 'is a woman' and have access to women's spaces. So you are granting access to any man who wants it. The whole sex class. You know this.

Not in womens spaces though.
Campaign for trans spaces. Then everyone is physically and mentally safe.

If they're gender based spaces and not sex based spaces, why are there typically two of them labelled male and female? Why are there no non-binary prisons? Why are there no demi-gender or cat-gender gym changing rooms?

Exactly

Again, arguing gender when it suits and sex when that suits.

I thought there were 72 genders. So why don't we have 72 gender based spaces then? 🤔

So, you think 31 women or girls harmed is acceptable to allow a sub-set of male people to have access to female single sex spaces knowing that those male people have at least the same degree of risk of committing a sex offense as all the other male people in the UK?

You think 31 women and girls is acceptable collateral?

It's infuriating isn't it? Not sure if we are being trolled at the moment.

The idea that a man, on his say so, can declare himself a woman, without a single change in their name or appearance and then be granted access to all women's spaces and services is quite frankly insane.

Ah well, just goes to show that you can go to university and still be so thick you are unable to grasp a fundamental biological concept.

The gender of woman doesn’t ‘look like’ anything other than a person telling me they identify as a woman. I believe trans women are women. That’s really all it comes down to

In order to back up the absurd notion that a man can magically be a woman, you first have to provide a very clear, factual definition of what a woman actually is without using sexist stereotypes or 'feelings'.

The ridiculous 'a woman is anyone who identifies as one' doesn't work as it still doesn't provide an actual definition of woman.

'Do YOU accept that allowing men to continue to work as teachers, doctors, police officers means that all future female victims of male offenders in these professions are collateral damage of your ideology that it’s acceptable for men to work with vulnerable groups of people?'

This is a false equivalence.

Because those people are subject to safeguarding protocols. And if they are in a position where they are alone with a female person in a vulnerable position, ie, when they are in any state of undress they will require a chaperone. They also require a DBS check. And yes, those are very basic, but at least it is something. And none of this is done when a male person enters into what is supposed to be a female single sex space.

You are trying to use this false equivalence as some kind of extreme generalisation.

You were asked if you had evidence that this sub-group of male people has a reduced risk of committing a sex offense than the rest of the UK population so that they were treated differently for safeguarding. You clearly have none so you tried to pivot this to a discussion about the failures of safeguarding as it stands at the moment.

Excellent.

Safeguarding at the moment has significant issues. So why the fuck are you lowering the safeguarding of women and children even more?

Can you not make these basic connections between points?

Absolutely people with a transgender identity need to be included in safeguarding!

I don't believe anyone on this thread would disagree. However, there are solutions that don't involve putting female people into positions of facing additional risk.

Your position adds to the risk to female people. You even stated that 31 women and children is acceptable collateral in your view.

Women are on this thread pointing out that there are solutions that don't put female people at additional risk while providing safe solutions, if needed, for those male people who have a trans identity.

And in addition to transgender people needing safeguarding.

All male transgender people also need to be treated equally as all other male people in the UK for safeguarding until such time as there is evidence that this group has the exact same propensity to commit sex crimes as female people. Until then, they are need to be treated as their sex.

To create a sub-group of male people that is to be excluded from safeguarding risk assessment is contra to robust safeguarding principles.

If you don't understand this, then that is a massive concern if you are working with vulnerable people. You have created loopholes in safeguarding due to your own ideological belief.

Cookie just thinks that men with 'special trans feelings' are more important than women.

That's some internalised misogyny right there.

She believes these males and doesn't care if women and girls are harmed as a result of males being able to be in women's single sex spaces. She's picked a random number 31 women harmed as acceptable collateral damage, yet doesn't seem to understand that it is likely that at least that number have already been harmed or displaced by the demands of trans women.

That trans rights movement has really played a blinder, women's rights through the window because of the demands of some males.

Indeed.

In the UK alone, there has been numerous rapes. And that does not then include the women who then self-exclude from going out because they cannot rely on toilets being safe for them.

All those women and girls with just religious requirements alone are being harmed. And some women declare that they have no problem with those women and girls being harmed to prioritise the male people who they do extend their empathy to.

Once you see it and you see people post again and again that 'they are alright Jack' meaning that they have no empathy for others or cannot even conceive of their needs, then you will not unsee it.

But can’t you see that this isn’t comparable? Of course you can’t bar men from pursuing their chosen career because some of them might behave inappropriately. Take this ludicrous train of thought to its natural conclusion and where do you get? Ban men altogether because they’re more dangerous than women?! No.

But does that mean we do nothing?! No safeguarding whatsoever?! No.

We assess risk, we put in safety precautions. One of these that works perfectly well is segregating on the basis of sex in situations where people are vulnerable or undressed etc.

But you know all this; you’re just being obtuse.

(Interesting that you used the example of men working in mental health as your analogy. Almost as if you actually know that trans women are in fact men, despite the fact you then claimed to believe they’re women 🙄)

Of course you don’t actually believe it. No one does. No mentally competent adult could actually, literally believe that a man becomes a woman by wishing it.

I do not believe that you believe this.

Thanks. Slightly off topic, but certainly when desperate and suffering bladder issues I have used the disabled toilet with a buggy. I do not think this is in anyway wrong.

You denying the reality of trans people’s experiences has nothing to do with me and my beliefs.

The 'reality of trans people's experiences' is not that they can magically become female when they're male.

You KNOW this. So why keep going with this magical thinking?

What is the "experience" of being a woman? Can you define it?

Yes I'm very intrigued about 'the experience of being a woman.' Do trans people assume that 'being a woman's is just a generic, homogeneous experience? Because I'm damned sure that my experience of being a straight, married woman is very definite to that of my lesbian school friend now married to her wife. And neither of our experiences of being a woman is anything like that of our mutual female friend who has been a serving officer in the Navy for over twenty years.

So exactly what 'experience' are trans people hoping for?

This pretty much reflects my family/friends network.

Not sure what this load of nonsense means?

Not denying anyone’s experiences. Just saying men aren’t women. The average 3 year old would be able to grasp that.

There are huge inconsistencies posted on this thread today. From making completely unsubstantiated claims of ‘overwhelming people happy with transition’ when even the WHO had to do a rapid u-turn to say that well, there is little evidence of improvement after treatment.

To the declaration that this poster even cares about the plight of women and girl’s safeguarding. How the fuck can someone care about women currently being attacked when this person then declares that standards of safeguarding are lowered even further by allowing a sub set of male people access to female single sex spaces. That is a completely incoherent position for someone who declares to be more concerned about women.

It is completely contradictory.

Surprise surprise, no response!