New anti-trans legislation in North Carolina

[SlowFJH]

Of course it's been driven by the religious right wing. But it does aim to achieve what many posters here appear to advocate - namely that biological males can only use men's toilets and changing rooms etc. Biological females must only use women's toilets and changing rooms. Will it gain wider support?

Post, obvs

It's interesting that the argument often thrown at those who do not want to share facilities is so you think there is something wrong with being a transwomen

I don't think anyone on this thread does think there is anything wrong with being a transwomen its not accepting that transwomen are women

It seems to me that transwomen are struggling with accepting who they are (not all) as they want to be accepted as something they are not

I am all for unisex facilities available we have them at our swimming pool along with seperate male and female facilities but that does not cover all female/male spaces refuges and those where those using them are particularly vulnerable like prison need to be separated by sex

how do we seperate those transwomen who pass and those who don't ? We can't so those that feel they do will use facilities and maybe they don't raise suspicions but what about those that think they pass and who most certainly don't. Having worked in a
famous store lingerie department and on the perfume/make up counters I have seen many transwomen who are deluded in thinking they pass as women it's not up to me to say sorry you don't

So unisex facilities being made available along with seperate men/women is the best way forward for everyone and not going along with the dulisional ideas of some

Did the picture actually have names on it? How weird. It was just a picture downloaded from the internet.

I'm imagining now all photos can be reported, I shall seek them out.

Discomfort about transwomen in women's space is the same discomfort as men in women's space. They are not women, they are men biologically speaking.

I don't want to be in a loo somewhere next to a biological male, and I wouldn't want my daughter to either. Discomfort around men is a survival tool and something women have done their entire lives, it's called intuition.

Transwomen and men commit crimes against women at the same rate, so discomfort is damned well good enough to want men and transwomen away from women's spaces.

Did the picture actually have names on it? How weird. It was just a picture downloaded from the internet.

Yes it did Posie Alex Drummond is well enough known to be recognised without a name.

I did not recognise Nina Greenwood but on googling her name she has a considerable online presence as an artist. I said I didn't recognise her but the name was clearly stated.

I don't appreciate being sworn at because you can't be bothered checking what you post on a public forum.

You might also want to consider that anyone familiar with contemporary art may have recognised Nina Greenwood anyway.

the crux of the argument that is going to come up in all these discussions is are transwomen women

if a man could become a woman this would not be discussed

but they can't its that simple

its the acceptanace from all that there are Trans people in our society and they deserve to be treated with respect and not discriminated against as we all should be

Nina Greenwood is not a she, her or a women. Nina now lives as a genetic woman what does that even mean ?

Nina maybe has had surgery and hormons, Nina wears a dress, heels and make up. Nina is not going to be treated as a women, Nina is not going to have to deal with periods or concerns about not having periods, Nina is not going to worry about beinging or not being pregnant, Nina is not going to feel the same concern as I would at feel about being vulnerable to men, Nina will not have the same health issues as I have being a woman because Nina is not a women and never can be

Nina is certainly never ever going to pass as a woman should Nina try to

What's a genetic woman?

"Alex Drummond is well enough known to be recognised without a name."

What seems to be the problem with a well-known public person's photo having their name attached to it, then?

I don't know suburban

I found this on urban dictionary

Many transgender people prefer "cisgender" to "biological", "genetic", or "real" male or female because of the implications of those words. Using the term "biological female" or "genetic female" to describe cisgendered individuals excludes transgendered men, who also fit that description. To call a cisgendered woman a "real woman" is exclusive of transwomen, who are considered within their communities to be "real" women, also

I guess a female born woman

"What's a genetic woman?"

I am guessing that it is a new term invented for adult human females, since transwomen have started calling themselves women just like any other women and we are not allowed to call ourselves real women.

I'm just beginning to learn this Newspeak myself.

As opposed to transwomen, or males who think they are female.

Cote It's on page 29 and 30 between Posie and Lass.

Poise, I also thinks it's in bad taste to question a child's wellbeing due to the appearance of their parent (cross dressing etc.) From another thread that was quite enlightening I thought you took a stance of not vilifying anyone.

From this thread I think most people have agreed that women's space should remain safe - although not sure anything can be guaranteed and that unisex facilities are an addition.

Maybe we don't have to learn the Newspeak. The clue may be In this bit of the Urban dictionary definition:

transwomen, who are considered within their communities to be "real" women [my emphasis]

I'm happy for trans women in the trans community to call themselves real women. However, in common with countless people on this and similar threads, I'm not happy to be told I have to accept that definition.

What seems to be the problem with a well-known public person's photo having their name attached to it, then?

Why don't you ask Posie.

I commented that she had picked 2 people who were in the public domain as examples of persons she would not want her daughter to share a toilet with.

Posie then lambasted me for naming Nina Drummond when Posie herself was the one who posted a photograph of Nina which included Nina's name.

These are public people. I really don't see the problem having their names attached to their photos. It's not like their names are esoteric secrets. It's not like they are being outed on the thread.

I really don't see the problem.

"Maybe we don't have to learn the Newspeak."

I agree - If I use the word"woman", I mean ^adult female human".

I have started to understand what some people mean with these redundant & convoluted phrases, though.

No there really was no issue Cote, especially as the images are public anyway. Bit bizarre that Lass was sworn at for mentioning them by name.

Yes, I'm definitely more au fair with the terminology than before I started reading these threads.

I still struggling with the labelling of lesbians by some TAs as "straight transgendered men" though

I shall stick with using woman for myself and other female born adults

Though interested to learn new terms used so I can understand the arguments being put forward

No need to use biological woman, cis, genetic all meaning the same thing woman it can't mean anything other than what it does mean

EnthusiasmDisturbed Nina is not going to be treated as a women, Nina is not going to have to deal with periods or concerns about not having periods, Nina is not going to worry about beinging or not being pregnant, Nina is not going to feel the same concern as I would at feel about being vulnerable to men, Nina will not have the same health issues as I have being a woman because Nina is not a women and never can be

Some biologically female people will not experience some of the factors you have listed, if they have had parts of themselves removed due to cancer say. Some might never have experienced these things if the parts where removed or otherwise known to be non-functioning before that person became sexually active or was too young.

But that aside, if you take the position that whether one is a man or a woman is determined entirely by their body's biological properties, and what one thinks or feels is irreverent, can you then legitimately argue against another person's claim to be a man or woman due to them not having to feel X or be concerned about Y or experience Z?

Oh hi there, JAPAB. Wondered when you might show up.

I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't argue against anyone's claim to be whatever they want to claim to be.

Asking me to agree with them is something else again.

With JAPAB, MN's cast of men who like to tell women what to think about womanhood is complete on this thread. I think. Are we missing anyone?

"Some biologically female people will not experience some of the factors you have listed,"

This has been answered to you, personally, so many times on MN that it's not funny anymore.

We are faced with the sad but inevitable realization that if you didn't manage to get it by now, you probably never will.

I'm not sure what the issue is with these pictures. It seems we're supposed to pretend that we can't tell MTTs are men and they all pass as women. I don't like that kind of denial.

if you take the position that whether one is a man or a woman is determined entirely by their body's biological properties,

What other position is there to take?

Are we talking about the idea of female penises and male pregnancies, again ?

The English language currently defines the words men and women based on the biological properties of their bodies.

Yes and that is down to medical conditions that I am sure for many would bring them great stress

As i posted having or not having periods etc

Not quote the same as being unhappy because biologically your body does not have periods etc