To think that if a man has had bottom surgery they should be put in a woman’s prison?

[Bex5490]

Genuinely interested in this and not trying to goad just want to understand.

When people talk of the threat of a man in women’s spaces, I assume the danger is because of their penis.

So if that’s gone then should they be categorised as a woman?

I’m kind of of the opinion that if you’re willing to put that much effort in (as in penis removal) regardless of your chromosomes, I’m happy for you to be called a woman…is this wrong?

You know that those laws are about people who have sex with children, not about a child giving birth?

A 12 year old isn't prosecuted for having sex or being pregnant.
We don't force a pregnant 12 year old, or a pregnant 50 year old, to have an abortion if she doesn't want to, even if it would be clinically safer for her. In the 12 year old's case it's possible that the courts might be involved to assess her competency if her life was at serious risk - I don't know if that's ever happened.

I can't see your link between laws trying to prevent child abuse and gender identity - what am I missing?

Sure, they have their own spaces, but complete accommodation sections?

Do you see the point people are making?

Now, I think many people will agree that third spaces is a good option. I am not saying that it is not. What I am trying to point out that some of the things that are being said on this thread about discrimination is actually about additional privileges that are in nature discriminatory because other minority and marginalised groups do not get these special treatments.

And it is about philosophical belief about a person's identity. It is not about 'biology'.

A disabled accommodation section would be necessary because it IS needed because of 'biology' if you want to put it that way.

No one is denying that trans people exist. That sentence is not the " gotcha" you think it is.

Well people are saying that we should only create laws based on truths/facts/ biology

No, they're saying truth and facts need to be acknowledged when crafting protective law.

Gender identity isn't a provable objective truth. It's a belief. People absolutely should have the right to believe it and express it like any other religious belief. But they don't have the right to make it override biological truth so that women can no longer form single sex spaces or voice the reality of sex in humans. You can believe in gender identity, but you can't demand that every space on earth affirms it by denying reality.

What if his experience of being trans is not feeling like a man? How can a woman know how that feels to him?

Can you show the evidence to support that a girl's brain at 12/13 because that is your example, is developed enough to consent for sexual activity leading to child birth?

You say it is subjective, I would say that it is no more subjective than the natural growth rate and development of a child. I would say it could be said to be objectively measured, just like sex is objectively measured.

I don't believe that it is philosophical belief that drives the statement that girls of 12/13 do not have the capacity to consent to such life changing and potentially life shortening decisions. It is also not a philosophical belief that they have greater risk of dying or the infant dying at that age. That too is materially real and observable.

No they aren't. We make laws based on a million things.
We're saying we shouldn't make laws based on the exact opposite of truth/facts/biology.

I am arguing that a third space for transgender people is the only option. I think the law should reflect this.

My views here are not in keeping with what most are saying as they believe that the law should only reflect the truth that there are two sexes.

I think the law should reflect people’s beliefs about their gender identity and give them a third space. Do I believe I have a gender identity? No. Do I think it’s a real biological thing? Absolutely not.

But I think the law should protect people with those beliefs by giving them a third space.

I was using the example of the age of consent because it is a law based on a subjective belief not a biological truth. In the US I think the age is 18 and here it’s 16. So it is subjective.

He can't say he doesn't feel like a man, as he is a man, it's not something you feel, it's something you simply are.
It's like me saying I don't feel like a human. You're not going to indulge me by agreeing I must not be human, are you?

He can say that he doesn't feel like he matches the stereotype of a man, but that's an entirely different thing.

But I think there are other components that make someone feel like a woman and yes those are based on gender stereotypes because that is the world we live in.

This point has always interested me. How can you feel like something you are not? What is your frame of reference? How do I know if I "feel" like other women do? I can only feel like myself so if "woman" can be determined by "feeling like" then how can I know I am one?

I can accept that someone might "feel wrong" in their own body but it doesn't mean they are or were meant to be the opposite sex.

You argued that they should be in a women's prison, as you think they are a class of women.. That's not a third space, it's one of two. And that would be basing law on a lie.

I am arguing that a third space for transgender people is the only option. I think the law should reflect this.

I agree and I think most GC do.

Will trans activists accept it?

And what do we do about those who refuse to use third spaces?

And I listened and changed my mind as I would expect anyone reasonable to do in a discussion.

I would hope so. Someone earlier said that there are lots of people like @Runnieknows friend who want to live respectfully but they are rarely involved in the conversation.

The same as would happen with any other law break 🤷🏽‍♀️

Do you think that people who believe they are babies and children should be accommodated in a specially built third space? Again, it is a philosophical belief just as gender is (as per the transgender academics themselves)

I think what people really are trying to do is point out that although it is considered a compassionate option and many agree with it, it is actually discriminatory against others that they cannot have similar additional spaces just for them. Even though they too may be just as vulnerable as the people receiving this special treatment. Because it is not biological at all.

It is philosophical belief.

And the question is why should those people receive such a benefit over others with equally high needs?

And this is really a question that needs to be asked at society level. It is not something I actually expect you, OP, to answer by the way. But ask that you be conscious of this and conscious of the disparity that is also being created for a group's philosophical belief.

Well I agree it should be illegal for men enter female only spaces but a lot of these men who identify as not men are refusing to use a third space as they want access to women's spaces.

I just don’t understand that this is a thing. Is it? Are there people claiming to be babies who want to sneak into nurseries?

Forgetting gender. Do you believe that religious people should have their own spaces?

A lot of trans activists have made it crystal clear that they wouldn't accept third spaces.

Pandora's box has well and truly been opened. It would take a very brave parliament to make it a crime to use single sex spaces for the opposite sex if an alternative is available.

Sorry the thread moves so quick I only just saw the part about it being a societal question - not one for me!

Of course there are. I know a few of them. I can't say I'm close enough to be actual friends with them; we are FB friends, we get on, I shared a stage with a couple of them recently. They're very nice. I wish them their best lives in peace and safety.

They are still male or female (very obviously so in all cases) and at times that will matter and other people's beliefs, feelings, safety and dignity - and reality - will need to be taken into account too.

There are people who believe they are a different age than they actually are, or a different size than they are. There are people that believe themselves to be aliens, cats, a different race.
Why is it only sex that is affirmed and validated? Nobody has ever adequately explained.

I would suggest that it’s because of the demographic of people who do this with the most noise - ie: white men from Western countries.

If enough people from this demographic had decided that being transracial was a thing, it might have grown legs.

"I just don’t understand that this is a thing. Is it?" yes.

"Are there people claiming to be babies who want to sneak into nurseries?" Safeguarding does not allow them to 'sneak into nurseries', do they want to? yes, the want to.

"Do you believe that religious people should have their own spaces?"

For reasonable purposes, yes.

A whole accommodation block built in a prison specifically for them? Not in the UK, no I don't believe they should have a whole accommodation block built specifically for them in a prison based on their philosophical belief. Do you?