To think that releasing crickets at a gay rights conference, specifically to shut them down, should be considered a homophobic hate crime? Somehow these people are crowdfunding to do it AGAIN

[Zahariel]

The optics of having to fumigate a hall after gay people used it to speak about their rights being eroded should not be lost on anyone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13950839/Trans-activists-release-bags-insects-LGB-Alliance-conference.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/suspected-trans-rights-activists-disrupt-lgba-conference-with-live-crickets/ar-AA1s9JHH

This is CLERLY A HATE CRIME - yet it's being reported as trans rights activists, not anti gay hate mongers, I can't really understand why not

How transphobic.

And therein lies your issue.

This isn't acceptable to the militants out there, prepared to take direct actions against people like the LGB Alliance...

The unisex toilet thing ought to be very cheap, based on the possibly as high as 0.5% trans people in Britain. There are 5,159 council operated public toilets in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/27/britain-public-toilets-coronavirus-private-interests

That works out at about 13 public unisex loos and however many private businesses wish to provide.

Btw can anyone point me to piggles post which clarified the point at which it is ok to depronoun.

Only I was out and appear to have missed that response.

What's the 0.5% based on?

The census?!

Raspberryripple11
ICYMI..

If you wouldn't mind - can you tell us what you mean by this:
The standard procedure would be asking the gender, and then a second question "is your gender the same as you were assigned at birth?".

"Gender" in the first question and "gender" in the second question - what do they mean?

I'd appreciate a response if you can give one. Thanks.

I love it that a transactivist comes onto Mumsnet and lectures women that most women & girls want to share toilets, showers, hospital wards etc with men claiming to be women. 😂😂😂
And then proposes single sex toilets for women as the solution 😅

Shows just how stupendously out of touch they are with the reality for women & girls doesn't it?

Fully enclosed toilets are not the answer. Below is a post from earlier this year by @keeptoiletssafe who has researched this type of toilet design and explains the problems well. This poster actually saved someone's life, she noticed someone had collapsed in a cubicle when she saw her hand sticking out of a toilet door gap.

"The problem with this design is it is fully enclosed. So if someone has a heart attack/stroke/collapses from heat exhaustion, illness or spiking etc no one would know. In fact none of the designs stipulate door gaps which will be used in any toilet refurbishments or new builds in non domestic situations from October. In the U.K. around 1% of people have epilepsy, plus someone has a heart attack every 5 minutes, plus someone has a stroke every 5 minutes. And enclosed toilets could be the only option in the future, so it will affect a lot of older people who are frail too. These enclosed designs were designed to be used for all where the footfall was really high in an open atrium so there was safety in numbers and hopefully someone would notice. Though no safety analysis has been done on them and you are at a disadvantage if there’s not many people passing by. Disabled toilets are currently where a lot of assaults happen as the perpetrator can’t be seen. It’s a mess. I could go on about ventilation, drug taking, inability to mop effectively etc."

RedToothBrush · Today 15:44

What's the 0.5% based on?
The census?!

Yes, that's why I said possibly as high as 0.5%....

It's so funny. They say it like they are making a massive concession and we'd all go 'no that sounds terrible' and as if we haven't contemplated it and come across the militants who absolutely will not tolerate this as the whole point is to use the women in the women's space for validation and it's got nothing to do with their safety at all.

And the suggestion is regarded as completely transphobic by these militants.

The whole point of this thread is the creeping and growing militancy of transactivism and the rather naive determination of allies to go along with this and not recognise the problematic militancy and power/control issues that are walking hand in hand with the activism without any thought to how this is playing out in real life and impacting certain groups particularly hard....

... Groups like lesbians who not only are female and want to retain their sex based rights as a female but are also homosexual and want to retain their sex based rights as a homosexual.

Lesbians who might want to organise and discuss this militancy and how to deal with it as a group and how they can respond to this collectively.

Oh. Wait.

So the needs of 1% with a condition should come ahead of a population 'that could be as high as 0.5%'.

Great so we keep the gaps at the bottom and we get third spaces and everyones happy?

If only that were true.

These circular arguments determined to frame us as unreasonable never fail to highlight the problem.

Those berating us cant offer a legal description of woman which then doesn't fracture when a 'woman' rapes. They just say 'well they aren't worth of respect and pronouns shouldn't apply '. Except in law if you define not following pronouns as a hate crime then you run into a mess very quickly about when is the appropriate point to depronoun to be respectful and legal.

Nor can they cope and address the issue of reasonableness and respect not being equal when it comes to safety and toilets. Especially when you throw in the reasons for why gaps were adopted in the first place - they've never thought about why toilets were never all enclosed.

Nor can they grasp how homosexual rights rest on the definition of being same sex attracted and when you replace sex with gender you expose homosexuals to greater risk of being abused in way that had previously explicitly been identified as homophobic (harassment of lesbians by straight males to 'just try it' with reference to heterosexual sex) and a loss of existing protections. It makes it harder for lesbians to assert themselves and avoid harassment.

We NEED to talk about this in the face of growing militancy.

The militancy is a byproduct of being encouraged and enabled to impose power over women and homosexuals unlawfully previously rather than applying the law accurately and equally.

There is no 'equality' going on here. Nor respect.

That's the point.

The charity says it 'promotes the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men, as recognised by biological sex'." They are excluding trans people and I think it is pretty clear that is why they were attacked.

//

Why is it unacceptable to recognise biological sex when discussing sexuality?

Trans has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. At all. Why should an organisation which supports gay men, bisexuals and lesbians have to include anyone else?

And why should a philosophical belief receive public medical funding to make extreme body modifications now that we are told that being transgender is not a medical condition?

///

Can we please add this to the list of Questions We Will Never Have A Response To?

Now there is a new type of homophobia in the UK that the established LGBTQ+ groups are failing to tackle and, in many cases, are actually making worse.
They promote the idea that gender, the way you feel or dress, is more important than biological sex. As lesbians, gay men and bisexuals whose orientation is sex based, we believe that replacing sex with gender means that we can no longer name or describe the discrimination we face and, therefore, that our hard-won rights can be dismantled.

//

I cannot see what's wrong with this. Or is it just that facts hurt? Literal violence and all that?

It's always fantastically funny when it (often) happens.

They go 'we'll just make separate toilets for the nasty GC women - that'll teach you!!!!'

We go - 'single sex female toilets? Yep, exactly what we've been talking about. Woo hoo!'

In law both sex and homosexuality are protected characteristics. This is separate to gender reassignment.

They all have legal protections.

Legally we have to recognise this. All of us.

Meeting to discuss how you might be affected and what threats there are to your protected status is legitimate for each and every group.

This does not mean it is 'anti' anything. It is pro-whatever.

Women meeting to discuss their rights are not anti-men.
Homosexuals meeting to discuss their rights are not anti-heterosexual.

So how the hell have we got to a position where we accept that stakeholder meetings about your own status are somehow 'anti-trans'?

Again language use as a means of power and control.

It repeats over and over again.

Great, you do you and use the 'gender neutral toilets'. And leave the female single sex toilets still available for female people to use.

This post is not aimed at you specifically raspberry but it is aimed at all those who seem to not understand what female people do use toilets for. And it is not confined to the cubicle.

What do women do in toilets?

I spent many days, often 2-3 times a week, where I had a stroller or pram jammed in the door because I had no one but myself to do shopping. And I didn’t need the change table so didn’t use the accessible toilet if there was one. That included at period time with flooding periods and hormonal diarrhoea. Particulary after pregnancy. Often with a crying infant.

I have also had to take my wheelchair bound elderly mother to a normal cubicle when there was no accessible toilet available. Where I couldn’t leave her to sit without assistance to remove the wheelchair to lock the door .
I, too, have washed clothing out, and at times had to unbutton shirts to get them dry from baby vomit, or leaking breasts.

I have even had to do this at work when I was stuck in an event for hours and could not leave to express so ended up with significant leakage. More than once. Because breastfeeding women work too.

And got dressed in work toilets for various reasons.

And cried there and comforted others. And hid there from men who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

I know I am not the only one because several times this past year I have come across half stripped women in the toilets while out dealing with similar issues.

The solution is not demanding gender neutral toilets. It is not fully enclosed cubicles. A female taking up a cubicle to wash and dry clothes is putting an undue time demand on those waiting to use that cubicle.

So, who does 'fully enclosed cubicles' actually help? Only those male people who wish to use the female spaces ultimately. Because now the line up for the toilet is longer. And if those cubicles are 'unisex', the male people are now also lining up. What a great solution!

There are many reasons that women do not want males in the toilet.

I often think it must be nice to never have had to deal with just period flooding the number of times I have since being a teenager. But it seems that there are many female people who have never had to deal with this. What a wonderfully privileged position to have been in! Well done those who have had this privilege who lack the understanding of that privilege and are happy to dismiss other's needs to retain female spaces as single sex with no male people.

I realise that I have very heavy periods compared to some people, but it certainly made me very aware of the need for single sex spaces. In fact, now in peri, I am on a menstrual leash. I cannot leave the house some days due to the flooding incidents, which is fine as those days I can work from home.

However, the female toilets have never been used just to ‘pee’. I am always surprised when people either never realised this or never acknowledge it.

I think is indeed interesting to ask. How realiable is this data, how do you know what people understand with tegard to gender, are you expecting people to be truthful when filling this one, doyou really believe that odd transwomen here and there won't skew the outcome?

I have to say it worries me that someone who is so invested in womens healthcare and the impact of hormones has so little regard to biological sex that they are ok with researching the impact of hormones on women and the odd male person here and there. Your data will be fairly unreliable this way.

Btw, what gender do mice have? Or do you actually use sex to classify them?

It really does.

And those who support the conversion of toilet spaces into 'gender neutral' toilets are often those who have no fucking idea that a huge % of female people don't 'just pee' in the toilet. It is like they have this wonderful neat life and they have never seen how others have had to use the toilet.

But they are some of the first to dismiss other women's needs with a breezy, 'I think gender neutral toilets are the best option for everyone' or 'I don't have any problems sharing a toilet space with a male person who identifies as a woman'.

How wonderfully privileged you must be to only use the female toilets for 'pissing'.

I tell you what though, can you explain to us why any policing needs to be done?

Are you saying that some male people, on seeing a sign or knowing that there is a law supporting a particular female only single sex space, will ignore that it is a female single sex space and will enter that space anyway?

Are you really saying this?

And if it cannot be left as it was in the past where male people who respected the needs of female people stayed out of the single sex toilets, would you like to explain what steps society should do about this? Because under the EA2010, there are exceptions provided for single sex spaces.

But are you telling us that simply have this signed clearly on the entrance will be ignored by some male people that we then need to do the testing you hyperbolically describe?

And we do know there are male trans people who do respect female single sex spaces, and they use the male toilets. And they report back via social media that they don't encounter violence or disrespect.

They never answer this question.

The kind of male people who would knowingly ignore a request not to enter a female only space are precisely the ones we most need to keep out of them.

'cis' is a meaningless word.

Based on posts from another thread where a poster assured us that cis women are what we should be talking about when referring to two male boxers who competed in the female category of boxing in the Paris Olympics, I decided that we need as many women who read these threads to understand just what that term means.

The term 'cis' is now meaningless because it also now includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes, ie. a male person with a difference of sex development that have testes or testes tissue. Such as Caster Semenya.

Therefore, female people have no unique words that describe just those female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes.

None.

There is no word left for female people. Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’.

Because 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.

2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis = 1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **

and 3 Any person who has a female body^^

Trans = 2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Do people see the issue here? There is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is now shown to be meaningless.

I am rather concerned that someone who conducts research would ever think that 'cis' was an appropriate word to use for female people. Here is that pic again....

I tell you what though, can you explain to us why any policing needs to be done?
Are you saying that some male people, on seeing a sign or knowing that there is a law supporting a particular female only single sex space, will ignore that it is a female single sex space and will enter that space anyway?

Bizarre. I don’t think any policing needs to be done: you are the people who seem to want to police these spaces, afraid that predatory men might infiltrate them. If you are not- then no problem. You do you.
I am slightly concerned that you might see a gender non-conforming female person , and believing she was a predatory trans woman, respond with hostility (this does happen to butch women in female toilets) and I want no part of this behaviour in my toilets personally.

Blimey.

This post is quite something.

So .... it appears that there is some inkling here that having a transgender identity IS only based on the common experience of having a philosophical belief.

Because if a female person acted in a criminal way towards someone, no victim or society would be using any different pronouns for that female person. That female person would always be referred to as a 'she', even by their victims.

I believe we are getting somewhere here. I think this is an acknowledgment that pronoun usage is only done to please the person who has chosen those pronouns. And I think that anyone reading along should understand just who they are pleasing and ask themselves why? Why are you speaking in a way that is not following established language conventions and distorting your personal language to suit someone's philosophical belief about themselves?

Why? To just be 'nice' and 'kind'?

When it has already been shown to be harmful collectively to female people to comply with these language demands?

Raspberryripple11

Just reposting from before:

I'd be interested to know...
What is it that makes women different from males who claim to be women - from a clinical research point of view - in other words, why are you separating women out?

So all the women in your studies embrace feminine gender stereotypes? Is this important for your research?

A big thing I'm trying to encourage is for both male and female mice to be used, most people just use male and end it there.
How can we tell which are which, and does the same method of distinguishing between them apply to human subjects?

Why does it matter if only male mice are used? Could you not just re-label the cages "female"?