To think that, under the threat of "Let the war begin", there should be specific laws against male's entering female private spaces (and vice versa)

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

After being told they will not be allowed to enter female toilets, changing rooms, clubs and other private sexed spaces, men have vowed to "fight" or be arrested “multiple times”

https://archive.ph/tdkd0

"Let the war begin. Fingers crossed. You need to fight for all of us globally. It’s a war."

I think it is reasonable to have a specific crime for this sort of violation of rights and privacy, rather than Outraging public decency, Voyeurism, Exposure/ indecent exposure.

It seems clear that without firm dealing with, men are going to violate these spaces again and again.

No it wouldn’t , because sex is a complex variable with numerous different components. So if you just say “sex” it’s not clear which components you are referring to unless they are all aligned.

But you are trying to improse this on the whole of society 'by educating us' in your superior worldly wisdom.

But its bollocks. Its trying to confuse.

Its propaganda.

Firehose of falsehood
A propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency.

Framing (social sciences)
Framing is the social construction of a social phenomenon often by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases.

Glittering generalities
Glittering generalities are emotionally appealing words that are applied to a product or idea, but present no concrete argument or analysis. This technique has also been referred to as the PT Barnum effect. (e.g., the advertising campaign slogan "Ford has a better idea!")

Information overload
"Information overload can have the same effect as secrecy and certainly in the short term and for democracies today it might be considered more effective." "When information overload occurs, it is likely that a reduction in decision quality will occur." "The glut of information generated by modern technology [...] threatens to make its receivers passive. Overload prompts disengagement."

Intentional vagueness
Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.

Loaded language
Specific words and phrases with strong emotional implications are used to influence the audience, for example, using the word reforms rather than a more neutral word like changes.

Obfuscation, intentional vagueness, confusion
Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.

Red herring
Presenting data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument.

Straw man
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.

Strangely enough when someone tries it on trying to redefine words or trying to deliberate words together to suit their political agenda, yep I do have a problem with that and yep, I will call it out as propagandic nonsense to decieve.

See this is why “sex” is ambiguous, because when you say “sex is immutable”, I don’t know what you mean.

Chromosomes are immutable (at least with current medical technologies). Hormones are both naturally variable and alterable through therapies. Other sexual and reproductive structures can be altered through surgeries. So when you say “sex is immutable” what do you mean exactly? Precisely? Scientifically?

Gish gallop
Bombarding a political opponent with obnoxiously complex questions in rapid fire during a debate to make the opponent appear to not know what they are talking about.

Not tricky

born male you remain male
born female you remain female

that is what immutable means - your sex will never change

so simple most three year olds get it!

Happily, it will soon be the case that we won’t have to worry about medical professionals being confused about observing its sex when a baby is born as said baby will be DNA tested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo

This is reassuring, given the evidence from a senior doctor (really!) at the Peggie tribunal. Though it’s somewhat mind boggling that an institution that can do this - analyse the genetic code of an individual - employs some medical staff who don’t believe in the reality of biological sex.

This is complete and shameless nonsense.

How many sexes are there?

How many fingers am I holding up Winston?

Genuinely if you answer anything other than 2, you are trying to brainwash like Totalitarian government in 1984. You aren't 'educating', you are at war with EastAsia.

I read the context my darling, it’s a poor analogy that failed.

Although I guess it works a bit better if you are saying that a man’s attempt at a facsimile of ‘woman’ is as convincing as a false leg being presented as a real one, yet they demand to be treated as if they were a real woman or to follow your analogy, as if they had two real legs.

We’ve even got the sliding scale of ‘convincing’ from a Long John Silver style peg leg (say, Isla Bryson) to a carbon fibre blade (M. Bergdorf with all his surgery) .

Is that what you meant?

I am so in awe that Tandora has the patience to engage with this. I do not I’m afraid. Just here to say again I really have no problem with trans women using women’s toilets.

Well done, Inchworms.

And fuck any women who do have a problem with men in women's toilets/dv shelters/prisons/sports/changing rooms, eh? Who care about them anyway. So long as the men are happy.

aw thanks. I just felt bad cos bloody hell it’s a lot to be doing by yourself and it’s not that nobody else agrees with her it’s just that… we’ll, I think you’d admit yourself that the response is… robust

Ah yes there’s that robustness I was talking about

This all goes to prove that additional unisex provision would be workable then. Transwomen, trans ally women wanting shorter queues, transmen who couldn't use urinals, trans ally men and so on could use them. The presence of the trans ally men and women would ensure that using the unisex toilets couldn't possibly be outing.

P.S. I've been at work. Has Tandora, the ruthless empiricist, determined what catheter a hospitalised transwoman (who hasn't had urological surgery) should use? What prevails? The transwoman's insistence that he is female, or the nursing staff's knowledge that using a female length catheter will cause him pain and internal injury?

Ok I have not read all the thread so I missed the catheter section what on earth has been going on here pals

Inchworms, back on page 11, Tandora said that transwomen are female because they "understand themselves" as female.

On page 14, I explained how using catheters designed for female length urethras leads to internal injuries on men, and asked which type was appropriate for transwomen patients.

I've received no answer and our hypothetical patient has been left to soil themselves multiple times over. Personally, I happen to have strong opinions about people being left to soil themselves because staff won't assist the patient, but that's a work rant.

You don't get to give away women's spaces. The most recent polls suggest a majority of the poeple of the UK agree on the importance of women's spaces. The law agrees single sex spaces can exist. Your self-importance however over-rides this and you offer consent on behalf of all women. You make yourself more important than all the women that don't consent.

You make no arguments beyond asserting your right to give other women's rights away. You are demanding the right to violate other women's boundaries - MOST other women's boundaries.

Your arrogance is total and complete.

Its all about toilets.

Obviously.

I mean… I don’t mean this disrespectfully but has it occurred to you that you’ve used a trans person needing catheterisation to try to structure a gotcha.

For what it’s worth (and DO NOT worry, I fully understand that you have many links to hand of trans people doing something weird about medical treatment! Articles! Examples! Up the wazoo or the wazoo they don’t have but wish they did!) in my experience trans people are by definition very aware of what’s going on with them in the area that might need catheterising, and are no more likely to ask for something that’s going to be painful and ineffective than I am. Which is really not very.

Now, the quote above doesn’t say anything about why the female catheters were used in males. Are these instances related to trans people or is this an unrelated discussion about improper catheterisation?

Do you mean it’s not about toilets? If so, fair. OP mentions toilets, changing rooms and clubs. Clubs to me is a no brainer, no problem, anyone can enjoy a club. Changing Rooms and Toilets I would like to state I am happy to share with trans women.

Thank you. That wasn’t my question though.

I asked this:

Can you explain the difference between a philosophical belief and an ‘understanding’ of oneself as something you are materially not? (Which was your previous definition of trans).

Its ok to say if you haven’t got an answer.

That's nice dear.

You realise you don't get to consent on behalf of other women, don't you?

Like my friend, for example, who was brutally raped and would be very triggered by sharing a space where she feels vulnerable with a man.

I've used an example of the many structural differences between male and female humans to illustrate the importance of acknowledging objective reality, and rooted it in a real, every day scenario of basic care. Then I have explained the stakes involved.

I have not asked whether a transwoman patient might request something harmful, as my experience of human beings is that they request things not in their best interest all the fricking time.

So, given that female length catheters lead to internal injuries on men, which type is appropriate for transwomen patients? Nurses up and down the country have to be able to make this decision for any patient. Catheterisation isn't a rare event!