Thread 2: Why can't people respect the rules around toilets!?!?

[Underbudget]

Darn it the thread filled and I wanted to ask @tandora a question. Is this within site rules to start another to do this as I don't seem to be able to tag her? Feel free to report/delete if it is.

Previous thread here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5372111-why-cant-people-respect-the-rules-around-toilets?page=1

'Tandora · Today 07:51

Eh? Mental health is everyone’s concern that’s why we have a health system.

No one’s rights come “first”- we need to find solutions that respect everyone’s rights.

There is no “female suffering” involved in respecting and including trans people. It will have virtually no impact on your life whatsoever.'

I wondered @Tandora if you'd read my post earlier on that thread, where in my head, children's rights come first? As the basic premise of child protection?

My post (in response to a different poster) if you missed it, was this:

Underbudget · Today 00:51

Slow to reply and expect thread has moved on, but surely you can empathise with a girl victim of csa feeling terrifed at finding themselves alone with a very male bodied person in a public loo between them and the door? Why does that child's feelings mean less than the adult males?
And what if that particular male bodied person WAS a rapist? That people saw entering from the outside but didn't want to "offend" by challenging them. And a child was born from a child as a result?
Doesn't a child's right to safety and protection come before ANY adult's feelings? Especially when a child can be born from rape as a result? As could ONLY happen to a female?
Fellow survivor of CSA here so I can understand you may have issues in thinking around this. I have spent years in therapy due to being overtrusting because my boundaries were fucked.'

I genuinely want to be in a place where all rights are respected, but I can't personally process this risk in any way that makes sense to me. I simply cannot agree with or process that allowing a male bodied person, unsupervised access to a child victim of CSA in a vulnerable space, whether a real or a perceived risk, does not harm that child. As a male, they are not being discriminated against on the basis of their sex, as ALL males are excluded from that situation, rightfully so. No right minded person believes all males are rapists, just as and no right minded person believes all transwomen are. But some of both ARE and that's a fact. I accept that a trans person may feel excluded from having their social transition recognised by not being allowed in the single sex spaces of the gender of their choosing, but equally, a girl in that situation also feels distressed. Why does that adults discomfort trump the discomfort felt by the child? A trans person deserves somewhere safe to go to the loo, but that's not in the women's loos. If that protects just one single child from reliving horrific trauma or worse, then that's what has to happen.

I would truly like to understand your view, ideally in a way that acknowledges the trauma of a child in this situation.

Bumping

The first one has disappeared

First thread? It's showing for me?

I think everyone mostly went on to another one in Aibu anycase!

Here is some answers

https://sex-matters.org/take-action/know-your-rights-workplace-toilets/

Underbudget
Your first issue will be getting @Tandora to give you a understandable meaning of the words @Tandora uses.

'girl' 'boy' 'woman' 'man' "female' 'male' 'child' 'person' 'sex' 'gender' 'monkey' 'cat' 'dog'
can all be used as interchangeable groupings of terms if one decided one can use them to mean a feeling or a emotion and then insist that others must believe that ones decision to use the words in this way has to be correct.

(To tag copy the name then @ and paste the name)

Hello! thanks for the tag . 🤗

Also a survivor of CSA here <3. I agree that children's rights come first, but I don't view trans people as a threat to children's rights. I see that as moral panic - of the very same nature that people spread in the 80s in response to the increasing visibility of gay people in society.

Moral Panic

A moral panic is a widespread feeling of fear that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society

Well, it isn't a feeling is it, it is a known risk. It's why single sex spaces were invented in the first place.

Men who use spaces designed for females [who don't need urinals but do need sanitary disposal facilities for example] does threaten the value, interest and well being of all the females that use or wanted to use the space but who went elsewhere.

Minimising all the women and girls who have encountered these men [and my first was in the 90s when a man dressed as a woman was on the floor of the backstage ladies toilets at a festival writhing around looking under the doors at the women and older teenage girls using said toilets], and the boundary violations they transgress day after day by accusing them of 'moral panic' is quite disgusting.

A moral panic is a widespread feeling of fear that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society

Yes exactly. It describes the issue exactly.

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that banning trans women from using women's toilets (completely unenforceable anyway) will reduce VAWG. It won't. Attempting to enforce a ban will , however, most certainly increase gender based harassment and violence.

Yes exactly. It describes the issue exactly

That's because it is a 'definition'.

There is zero evidence of men being harassed or having had violence enacted upon them for being men who once said 'I'm a lady' in a mens toilet.

There is evidence of girls being harmed by this odious ideology. So much so, there's a thread called 'it never happens' available on the FWR section of this very forum.

There can be no satisfactory answers here because the conflict arises from a fundamental lack of consensus about what a transwomen is. If you see a transwoman as a man, you will keep asking these questions and remain mystified at the responses.
If you're talking to a person who believes a transwoman is a woman then they will keep answering you as though you're discussing a seperate category of person to whom the usual fears and risks around men do not apply.
There are people who genuinely believe that some men are really women, so when you talk to them about the risks of men in women's spaces, they dont believe transwomen should be included in that risk, because they think they're not men. This is a total impasse and discussions keep going round and round and will never get past it.

I would like to get past it and we ought to be able to.

At the end of the day shouting back at forth at each other "transwomen are women", no "transwomen are men", is just pointless.

What I would like to understand from you is if you accept that there is any difference at all between a "trans woman" and a "man"?

If you answer "no" to this question, then you are essentially refusing to accept that being trans is a real, meaningful category of human existence. You are erasing trans women and their experience. And then of course we are never going to get anywhere with this conversation - how could we? Because I am trying to have a conversation about how we should treat a category of person who you don't think even exist!

If you answer "yes" to this question, then we ought to be able to move forward despite our disagreements about language. We can come up with an alternative , neutral word - a 'safe word' if you like lol - which we can use to describe the category of persons that are trans women, and then we can have a meaningful conversation about how we should deal with this category of person in law and policy.

If you're talking to a person who believes a transwoman is a woman then they will keep answering you as though you're discussing a seperate category of person to whom the usual fears and risks around men do not apply

This is absolutely the issue.

And failing to ever explain why they have placed said men into this category.

What I would like to understand from you is if you accept that there is any difference at all between a "trans woman" and a "man"?

The one difference is that they have said 'I'm a woman'. That's it. One man literally claimed to be a woman because he had glittery wellies.

If you think there is any other difference, then surely because you think they have entered into a new category, it is on you to explain what that difference is.

What I would like to understand from you is if you accept there is any difference at all between a "trans woman" and a "woman"

If you answer "yes" - great! Trans women are not women and should not be in women's spaces, which is all the vast majority of FWR posters care about.

If you answer "no", then we are indeed at an impasse - you consider that to be denying the existence of transwomen, while I consider it to be a scientific fact.

@Tandora these photos show two trans women, one non binary person and one person who identifies as a man.

whats the meaningful difference that makes the trans women “not men”? How is a woman or girl supposed to know when they are naked in the showers in the open plan changing room at my gym which of these individuals is somehow distinctly different to a man and for some reason not a risk to them?

hat I would like to understand from you is if you accept there is any difference at all between a "trans woman" and a "woman"

There are absolutely differences between trans women and (non trans/ cis) women. Nobody sane denies this.

If you answer "yes" - great! Trans women are not women and should not be in women's spaces, which is all the vast majority of FWR posters care about.

I disagree, women's spaces are NOT only for cis women. I cannot use the word I would like to to describe such a perspective as it will get me in trouble with moderation.

Would you like to answer my question now as to whether you are willing to find a word - any word - ANY - that recognises trans women as a distinct and meaningful category of persons?

I didn’t see the initial thread, but my work (uni) have done away with male/female toilets completely, and also staff/student toilets.

I’m female, and a lecturer, and having to line up with male students to use the loos (which are revolting now) is so not the one. I tend to hang on and go to a coffee shop at lunchtime rather than go to the bathroom at work. Utter madness.

There are absolutely differences between trans women and cis women

Such as?

ETA: I often cut and paste due to editing but holy smokes, you edited it to call us 'non trans women or cis women? No, we are women. This word is for adult human females. Not for me. Not 'non-trans'. Not cis. Just women. We are the category of humans that were born girls and reached adulthood.

Trans women are in the category of males that were born boys and reached adulthood.

When did this happen out of curiosity?

Transwomen are male. That is a fact. It is literally the only requirement to be a transwoman.

And because there is no way to tell the difference between a 'safe' male and a predatory male, we need to keep ALL males out of female single sex spaces.

Remember - Good men stay out so that bad men stand out!

Safeguarding 101

What's wrong with "trans women"? I'd be more than happy for trans women to have access to third spaces if they are not men, as you say they are not. Or any other services that they require, distinct from using women's services.

But as you said, that is not acceptable to you, and you consider my view - that women's spaces are for women only - so henious that you fear deletion if you speak freely. But why is that the case, if trans women are not women, as, per your own words, any sane person knows?

A lot of it was a few years ago, some of it is being done over the summer holiday. Interesting when schools are having to change things back! They can get round it by saying there is one single sex staff toilet on campus I think (and I assume management have separate facilities as I can’t imagine the female vice principal queuing up with the lads to do a wee).

Third spaces may in some cases be a solution, where they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The problem with third spaces as a universal policy is a) they aren't always available. b) they risk outing/ othering trans people whenever they use the toilet etc.

It's not proportionate or reasonable to enforce this everywhere - nor could it be enforced without intrusive and discriminatory actions that will have impacts for a broader group of gender non conforming people.

if trans women are not women, as, per your own words

I didn't say "trans women are not women", I said that there are differences between trans women and women (who are not trans). Any sane person knows this.

The question is - are these differences such that it is reasonable and proportionate to exclude trans women from all and every woman's space. How is that justified? What will be the impacts of that? Those are the questions we need to answer.