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.

@DrBlackbird yes to your post at 1pm ish ... its irritating that so many GC leaning posters ask questions about Topics Other Than Toilets but allies come back All About the Toilets (also AirBnB today which was refreshingly different yet the same) and accuse others of being genital obsessed 😳

What I'm bored by are childish, unedifying attempts to bully others rather than engage in informative discussion. That's if you're capable.

But to a casual bystander, your attempt to galvanise others on the thread to belittle the above PP are transparently the result of your inability to compete with her because her arguments are wiping the floor with yours.

I'm embarrassed for you.

Have you read this thread? Most posters would respond like Maggie in Little Britain if a trans person entered their establishment!

///

No idea who that is but actually I don't think we would. If a TW tries to use a DV shelter or rape survivors group I was in I'd be pissed off.

If they tried to demand to join my daughters swimming team and use her changing rooms damn right I'd voice my opinion.

If a trans ally cheerleads a young gender questioning person on to a medical and surgical pathway I'd have something to say.

Is that what you mean?

"Gay men and lesbians weren't demanding the use of the opposite sex's spaces, sports, awards, etc. They just wanted the same rights as everyone else. There is no comparison."

This should be said over and over.

The sub group of male people who are demanding that they have their philosophical belief be affirmed, that they are somehow a female person, are asking for extra rights over every one else.

It is also very important to remember that the word 'discrimination' is not inherently wrong. That under the EA2010 legitimate discrimination is allowed where people of the male sex can be excluded, even with a GRC, from some situations that an organisation has claimed an exception for under the Act.

Discrimination that was negative towards homosexual and bisexual people was always wrong and considered 'illegimate' in comparison to the legitimate comparison that allows male people to be excluded based on their sex.

I really think that the rejection of the false comparison should be repeated constantly until people stop making that comparison.

It says you cannot discriminate on grounds of gender identity unless you share living space with your guests. The word "identity" is fairly key here. If it just said you cannot discriminate on grounds of "gender" then I would interpret that to mean you can make your Airbnb available to women only, but trans women are women. But saying that you can discriminate on grounds of gender identity suggests to me that you can in fact refuse to let your accomodation to a trans woman in such circumstances.

How does this work in practice?

In the case of the Airbnb owner who refused to issue a refund to the female customer, Airbnb sided with the owner. The owner had said in the T&Cs that it was for women only but "LGBTQ+" friendly. It was the owner's decision to allow the trans woman to stay there. So the question there is not whether the owner should be allowed to do that (obviously she should), but whether she was misleading potential customers by saying her accommodation was "women only".

What if the owner had refused to allow the trans woman to stay there and it had been the trans woman (and not the female guest) who initiated a complaint with Airbnb? I wonder what the outcome would have been. Because from my reading of the rules, the owner is allowed to do this.

Before this fills up, a refreshing thread about gender identity and children. Lots of common sense on that thread.

To think we’ve got it wrong about gender identity in children http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/5116481-to-think-weve-got-it-wrong-about-gender-identity-in-children

The pro trans camp are some of the least tolerant people I have ever encountered.

This. Men do not get it. I asked my dh the last time he'd felt afraid for his safety. Guess what? He never has. Imagine that sort of freedom. Most women at least by the time they have reached middle age, have been assaulted by men - often multiple times. How DARE men tell us that our proven distrust of having males in spaces where we are vulnerable is bigotry? It is jaw-dropping.

Other people express more tolerance and feel its not as black and white as that and so it continues.

Why is this presented as 'tolerance' rather than 'compromising women's safety'?

Other people express more tolerance and feel its not as black and white as that

Yet have no rational argument why women should go along with this.

Express more tolerance and it’s not black and white? Attempt to explain that one then.

Your ‘express more tolerance’ equates to ‘make it more risky for females in order to appease male feelings’. Explain why that is ok? Why does women’s safety not matter?

I don’t believe that people’s subjective, changeable and unverifiable feelings about themselves are a better basis for law and policy than the objective fact of their sex.

And yet you never explain why.

Why is the AirBnb 'thing' enlightening?

You seem to be dismissing that some female people need to feel safe in either their own home (as a host) or in staying at a venue? It is not any different from the discussion on any other single sex space.

Female people need to have confidence that single sex spaces, if declared as such, are just that. Single sex. Not single gender.

Just because you wish that there was some kind of nuance to the discussion around the category a sexed body is categorised as, there really isn't. And I suspect that you know this hence you couldn't do more than to plead that people should consider the 'psychological and mental aspects' of transgender people. As if that would make any difference to the points under discussion - ie. that when sex matters, sex should be prioritised above gender identity.

There are only two sexes. There is only two options. Either something is single sex, or it is mixed sex. And including a male person in a single sex provision, makes it mixed sex.

There is nothing in between. It really is black and white.

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwn we can predict in advance you hang onto every difference of opinion, I've said several times I get the "against" argument and thats fine, but other opinions are available.

Compelling stuff.

So what? You can still discriminate on the basis of it, according to what @Helleofabore posted.

I don’t believe that people’s subjective, changeable and unverifiable feelings about themselves are a better basis for law and policy than the objective fact of their sex.

Only naive people, misogynists and chancers do believe it.

In preference to the rules published on the Airbnb website?

Meant to quote @HermioneWeasley

Opinions you are unable to articulate. Well
done!