Thread 2 - Is anyone else on here pro-trans

[tinydaisies]

I was really enjoying the 1st thread, hopefully it's ok to have a follow on so we can continue debating

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5115405-to-ask-if-anyone-else-on-mn-is-not-anti-trans

Hopefully this isn't a TAAT.

We really do need to go back to sorting people by general body type, because we can't see dna, gonads or genitals, and the fact that men are big and strong is what makes them so potentially dangerous.

Sure, some passing people might slip through, but we'd still be much safer.

So we can only tell who is male from who is female, by looking at their genitals? Is that the TWAW position?

It makes a perverse kind of sense. If for some bizarre reason you could gain social approval by pretending that postmen, bricklayers or pastry chefs, were some new category of completely harmless and innocent men, you could make a policy that no men were allowed except any in one of these professions. You've then excluded 99% of the risk by excluding 99% of the men. You'll be pretty unlucky if your company falls foul of a psycho pastry chef, and you consider that risk to your customers' safety a price worth paying to not be accused of engaging in anti-pastry culture wars. The fact that there is no logical reason or evidence that these people are less dangerous than other men doesn't affect the business decision.

As I've said multiple times, all we need is for people to stop telling males it's ok to use women's spaces. It would stop organisations being so confused about what a woman only space is and make the males who disrespect women as obvious as they have always been traditionally.

I am not asking about why they comply

I am asking why they bother to have a female + transowmen as their choice out of the available options

The rules also allow all females and males

Why does she decide to exclude some men given that statistically all men have equal risk to her independent of their status ?

Is it just that she reduces the pool of men that might stay which makes her feel safer?

Or does she not understand that data that says transwomen are as much a risk to women as men ?

Ir is there something I have missed / not understood ?

And of course nobody is actually checking whether they are actually pastry chefs at all...

A fellow female host in my town has three Airbnb rooms in her house. She states her place is women only and LQGBT friendly as do I. Clear enough? Not to one.woman

A guest demanded a refund when she saw a trans woman had checked in. The host refused and I believe Airbnb backed her.

It appears to be. (Obviously complete nonsense.)

But let's just give them the benefit of the doubt for a second and assume it is true. That we have literally no way of telling whether someone is male or female unless they strip butt naked.

Trans people know what kind of genitals they were born with.

If we say that people born with male genitals should not use female only spaces, and in particular if we provide third spaces for people who feel unable to use spaces for their own biological sex, shouldn't that be enough?

If trans people are as lovely and harmless and trustworthy as trans activists claim they are, surely they will do the right thing and respect the rule?

And if not, well that kind of proves our point, doesn't it?

A guest demanded a refund when she saw a trans woman had checked in

Because it isn't woman only.

I expect that, in the absence of any "non TQ+ friendly" alternatives, this woman (to whom it was clearly important to be in a female only space) took her chances that the other guests would all be female.

Is there any particular reason why trans women need to be in female only Airbnbs when most Airbnbs are available to both sexes?

So, can you tell us what evidence you personally saw that showed you that the subgroup of male people you allow to stay with you have a lower risk of committing a sex offence than the rest of the male people in the UK that you exclude? I am assuming you are in the UK. If not, then by all means answer using the statistics from your own country.

Or have you just made that choice emotionally without evidence at all?

She stated her home was women only and it wasn't.

I'm not "pro-trans" , and I don't think one gender can actually become another. I do think there are some bad actors amongst a few trans people eg those few using the issue to avoid male prisons. I suspect a lot of trans people are mismanaging mental health issues.

That said, I do worry that the whole debate has become too polarised. What is the win-win? Genuine trans people want to live in peace without judgement, and should be able to. Women should not have their rights and freedoms protected.

But there has to be some common understanding first and a way forward. Maybe it's too much to ask, or impossible to meet the needs of both sides of the debate. But we aren't in a good place on it now.

So Airbnb prioritise the feelings of male people over female people's safety.

Thanks Franny. That is very good to know.

I wanted to book a sleeper carriage recently but I wanted women only and it seems that that's no longer a given. Do I just have to risk it and hope for the best? I don't want to share with a male and I really don't want to share with a male who has booked a female-only couchette. BIG red flag.

No, they don't fear being turned away. They want you to know! If they 'pass', which they allllways claim to, then they wouldn't be fearful of being turned away, would they? Because, well they'd look like a woman!

I wanted to book a sleeper carriage recently but I wanted women only and it seems that that's no longer a given. Do I just have to risk it and hope for the best? I don't want to share with a male and I really don't want to share with a male who has booked a female-only couchette. BIG red flag.

Agree. I think this came up around the time of the GRA consultation in 2018, and this policy dates from then.

I believe that the official position is that the only way to know if someone is male or female is to ask them. Their bodies are irrelevant. The fact that we are able to speak freely here, and increasingly in public, about TW being male, reflects a bit of a shift.

@marmaladeandpeanutbutter Really I think we can only resolve this issue by realising that sex matters. Gender identity is not relevant for most situations.

I agree. Gender identity is not relevant to anything, or to anyone except the people who believe they have one.

"Women should not have their rights and freedoms protected." I assume that a sneaky 'not' snuck in there. If not, could you explain this.

What is the win-win?

That all people involved have spaces that are safe for their use and that all female people have safe and fair sport events.

There are male trans people who are very respectful of female people's rights and their needs. So, therefore, we know that equitable solutions can be found.

The 'polarisation' is not symmetrical and has become a lazy phrase to use. Can you suggest what your own idea of a solution would be? For instance what rights should female people relinquish so as not to be in a 'polarised' position?

Do you have a number of female people that is acceptable to be harmed in your suggested solution or have you not thought about that?

And today’s “just let us pee” campaign

“It’s not a decision they'll have taken lightly”, really?
Don’t you think they might have done it because they thought it would place them “on the right side of history” and show everyone how progressive they are?

The only unnecessarily verbose posters are those doing linguistic gymnastics to justify their mistaken belief that men can be women.

Decent men wouldn't go into women's spaces. It is therefore reasonable to assume that one that does go in is there for nefarious purposes, be that violence, humiliation of women, validation or any other reason.

But there has to be some common understanding first and a way forward. Maybe it's too much to ask, or impossible to meet the needs of both sides of the debate. But we aren't in a good place on it now.

I'm not sure how common ground can be found when one side is saying 'biological sex is important' and the other side is saying 'something that I can't define but that I 'identify as' is more important.'

I don't see how common ground can be found there. Do you?

The common sense answer is obviously 1) acceptance for however anyone wants to present and 2) third spaces for those who feel unsafe in the spaces that belong to their sex. No more lying, coercion or bullying others.