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.

Can you explain please ?

@Tandora just in case you missed this, since you asked why she hadn't tried to avoid him rather than confront him.

Can anyone remind me , was it Dr U or the TW in the Darlington nurses case who actually asked a woman who was politely waiting until he was gone before undressing why she wasn't getting changed?

No a trans woman is not a “boundary crossing narcissist” and “harassing” people simply for using the women’s facilities.

Darlington. I think it was the nurse who was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse who he berated for not getting undressed

Read tribunal tweets

I will when I get a chance to go through them all thank you.

Any man who goes into facilities marked for women is a boundary trampling problematic narcissist. That includes trans women. As they are men. Dr Beth Upton is flying the flag.

But of course he's the victim

🙄🙄🙄

In your opinion.

In my opinion, any man who believes his inner perception of himself as a mental woman is so important and so authorative that it must be given precedence over a woman's knowledge that she is in a changing room with a biological man cannot help but be a boundary crossing narcissist.

I understand your opinion. It’s very disturbing to me.

Let's not forget that Dr Upton also said that if a woman requested a biological female for a procedure, his view what that he would meet the criteria and would do it.

Women's consent means nothing to these men.

As is yours to me.

As an agender person of female body I find it abhorrent that you believe I should be forced to share intimate spaces, or accept intimate care, from someone with whom I share neither sex nor gender simply to validate that person's claimed self image of being like me in some inner mental way. A self image based on projections about me that I do not recognise and criteria I am not allowed to challenge or even expect him to explain.

It objectifies me. It denies my humanity, self knowledge and autonomy. It forces me to accept his narrative of my reality as having more authority than my own.

It is absolutely reducing me in the way patriarchy has always done to people of female body and I am aghast that you consider it laudable of you to condone this.

It objectifies me. It denies my humanity, self knowledge and autonomy. It forces me to accept his narrative of my reality as having more authority than my own.

Ironically, this is exactly what you are doing to trans people.

It is absolutely reducing me in the way patriarchy has always done to people of female body.

This is what “gender critical feminism“ does- to you and to me! And absolutely I appose it in every way shape and form.

This is what “gender critical feminism“ does- to you and to me! And absolutely I appose it in every way shape and form.

Gender Critical Feminism maintains that sex is real, immutable and sometimes is very important. We support our female sisters. We believe gender is a damaging, externally imposed set of stereotypes and limitations that are reductive and damaging.

What the hell can you "appose" in that?

sex is real, immutable and sometimes is very important, and a complex , multidimensional, developmental variable.

We support our female sisters discriminate against and hold in contempt anyone whose body does not conform to our dogmatic, reductive understanding of sex as a fixed , objective and unitary measure.

gender is a damaging, externally imposed set of stereotypes and limitations that are reductive and damaging. Is the system of knowledge that gives meaning to sexual differences. Gender stereotyping is harmful and has been informed by patriarchy , in ways that have caused violence and oppression, limiting the rights of women, girls and gender non-conforming people. We can change this by recognising diversity, challenging stereotypes, and respecting the full humanity and dignity of all people regardless of their body or identity.

It is immutable. You do more for common sense and for gender critical feminism than you know Tandora. It’s wonderful.

Oh look, the BBC have totally altered their headline.

Biological fact is that trans women are male and, if not most, a large majority of females would rather not have the concern of using single sex spaces with the opposite sex.
We're only in this situation because the law has been misrepresented. It isn't women who created this but were having to fight our corner.
There are many reasons why females don't want to share spaces with males. It isn't because we don't like them, we just want and need to have our own.
I, like most on here, don't actively want trans people to have discomfort in their lives but at the end of the day, toilets for females are just that. Unisex or special trans w and trans m facilities can be made available in a lot of settings. And where there are lockable individual changing/toilets there's no need for anything to change.
We have a right, in law, to single sex facilities and it has to be based on facts.

🙄

Ironically, this is exactly what you are doing to trans people.

Can you explain what you mean here please? I am not denying what trans people may or may not believe about themselves, nor denying that some female people may well define themselves in a way that does align to the way trans women see themselves. I am not even disputing their use of the word "woman" to decribe this thing despite the manifest unfairness and unreasonableness of taking a word that has through hstory simply meant female people and insisting it must now mean someting else. I am simply drawing a boundary at the point that they claim that belief should also define me.

That you think this is unacceptable, unacceptable for me to be allowed to have my own sense of self and draw my own boundaries - well I think you really are showing us who you are.

This is what “gender critical feminism“ does- to you and to me! And absolutely I appose it in every way shape and form.

No @Tandora. You simply betray again that you have no idea whatsoever Gender Critical Feminism is.

Saying I am female is not "reducing me to my body" any more than saying I am 5'10" is "reducing me to my height". It is simply recognising the fact that I have a female body and that will always influence aspects of my life for better and for worse, but that some of that worse is because Patriachy constructed myths about a female (and male) mind and a female (and male) character around the female (and male body) which we now know as Gender.

Gender Critical Feminism simply recognising that this myths are exactly that, so rather than arguing about who gets to embody which myths as if they were something real, doing away with the myths that ones sex determines not only ones body but also ones mind and character, or even that very weird myth that has recently taken hold that these male and female minds and characters are so real that it is actually these, and not the body at all that determines if one is a man or a woman, gives people or female (or male) body the most freedom, options and respect in how they live their lives.

Gender Critical Feminist recognise the sex of the body exists and that means that there are specific differences and sex specific needs that will never go away, but also recognise that most of the differences we currently experience, while having real impact at present, are at heart cultural myths, so while we of course need to mitigate their impact on people today through sex specific supports, we do not need to treat them as instrinsic aspects of being a woman or a man and we can look forward and work towards a day when they are seen as having no more reality than the belief that the touch of a king woudl cure scrofula.

I am simply drawing a boundary at the point that they claim that belief should also define me.

But this is a complete fantasy on your part. Nobody is defining you: you are the one constantly telling trans people who they are; what they think of feel. And not just telling them how they feel- telling them that they are wrong, delusional, ill, narcissistic, lying, pretending etc etc about themselves.

the logic is so twisted.

it is their sense of self; their boundaries that are being destroyed

They are not even permitted to get changed in peace , in the facility agreed with their employer, without being confronted and harassed about how their sense of self and their body is all wrong and suggestions they are a threat, a predator , a pervert and a rapist.

this is a perfect description of what you are doing to every trans woman when you call them a man and insist that they must be excluded from participating in society as women:

It objectifies me. It denies my humanity, self knowledge and autonomy. It forces me to accept [their] narrative of my reality as having more authority than my own.

it is the quintessential example of reversing victim and offender.

Again, you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting the SC ruling. An employer cannot choose to allow males to access a female only facility that's unlawful.

Sigh. Disagree for reasons set out on this thread. I understand you have a different view.

I'm sorry @Tandora but simply DARVO-ing this back to me does not work.

I am not saying TW and self-identifying "cis women" are not "women" by their own lights, I'm simply saying that definition of "woman" is so different to the fact of simply being female bodied that it makes no sense to insist that female-bodied people must agree to it.

As a female bodied person who does not identify as whatever it is that trans women and self-defined cis women identify as, I simply want to be allowed to continue to have spaces, rights and protections that respect the needs of people with female bodies, a political and legal presence and a social voice for people with female bodies, and a name that connects my reality as an embodied female to the social, cultural and political history of female bodied people, which is meaningful and significant.

That is all.

Explain to me why wanting this is so awful for trans people that you consider it abhorrent that I should have it?

Yeah, he’s a boundary crossing, predatory narcissistic man. Fixed that for you