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?

Enthusiasm - you cannot really justify women only spaces on the basis that you don't like men as much women and you feel they are childish.

Where did I say I don't like men or feel that they are childish?

Given their bigger size, greater muscle power and general weight of evidence that men do tend to be more likely to be violent, it would seem that some fear of men is quite rational.

However, it's not just about fear of men. Women need different services because we are women, not men. If you can't define a woman, how can you effectively provide those services?

Women are also yet to achieve to equality of opportunity with men. This is not because we feel like women but because we are women. lumping us in with with trans women, a group with whom we have little to nothing in common doesn't help to change the situation any more than it would be helpful to lump in people who feel black with people who are black.

I just at times feel more comfortable around women, I am not having to deal with annoyances of sexual remarks, glances at boobs... not having men demand attention because a man has arrived and gives his opinion

Note i didn't say you didn't like men, i said you didn't like them as much as women, as you clearly stated above, unless you also at times feel more comfortable around groups of men because you don't have women rocking up expecting a compliment on their new boden dress or some other such sexist claptrap.

What i am getting at here - is that IMO there is a presentation of womanhood being a state of being whereby one suffers at men for the sole reason they are a woman. Sadly this passes as a "feminist perspective" it breeds fear of men, some women have terrible experiences at the hands of men, but not all of them, none the less it is commonly written on here that suffering abuse from men is one of the defining characteristics of being a woman. I disagree with that.

Yes and i was not falling into that trap of being a women you fear men

I said at times I feel more comfortable around women its not that I prefer one sex over the other but having grown up female this is the sexist crap I have had to deal with and I recognise male privilege a mile off its something that is hard to challenge as its so ingrained in our society it's just there. As for the company of only men well for me that's how it was at work did I enjoy it no not particularly but It was a very sexist environment and not the experience I have had out of work with men in groups . Personally I don't know any woman who would expect compliments for wearing a new boden dress

slugs - saying that men demand attention and demand to be listened (i.e.they are rude and overbearing) because they are men is sexist, sorry you can't see that, presuming that men will stare at your boobs is also questionable unless you have particularly large boobs in which case my experience is that women stare at them as well.

is hardly comparable to "expecting a compliment on their new Boden dress"

it is entirely comparable since it is presuming behavioural characteristics based on sex.

Oh clever minimisation

Used to that too but do carry on

FYI the reason we never have to define "man" is because men are not bothered about women claiming that they are men,

To be fair, some cismen reject transmen also. Although probably more due to conceptional disputes than due to beliefs of some sort of agenda to "erase" men and do down men and so on.

But speaking for myself, it is all just words really. As a man I have never had a single exclusive label to denote those with an XY and no other subgroup of humanity, as in certain contexts the word man refers to us all, all humans.

So if the word squired a new meaning where men can refer to cismen and transmen collectively, well as I say just words.

Only time I would be concerned is if there is a context in which it is relevant and necessary to take in bio-male physiological differences, and this was not being done. Otherwise, in the general scheme of things, call me a a human, a person, a man (biological XY definition), or man (belongs to the group of cis and transmen). But again, speaking only for myself.

saying that men demand attention and demand to be listened (i.e.they are rude and overbearing) because they are men is sexist

Some people do seem to think in terms of gender stereotypes. Maybe they have spent too much time reading academic theory about "classes" and so on, that the individual gets lost in a generalisation.

Another example will be to assume that an individual feels a sense of "entitlement" on no other information than they are male. Or that a woman will be meek and nice and uncomplaining about what is bothering her, because this is the way women are socialised. I know plenty of women who, if displeased about something, they will happily let you know all about it.

In other context such thinking would be called prejudiced.

Maybe they have spent too much time reading academic theory about "classes" and so on

I look forward to the day that male
provildge is recognised but for now it's still very much played down

Privilege .....

"In certain contexts the word man refers to us all"

Lol lol lol - suddenly, a wild sexist appears in the thread

to be fair, when you know the world and everything in it is there for you to dominate, purely by virtue of your sex, maybe you are a bit more laissez-fairs about giving up space?

though, you'd never think so, given how viciously and thoroughly men have sought to block every attempt by women to obtain equal rights under law and liberate themselves from oppression

Only time I would be concerned is if there is a context in which it is relevant and necessary to take in bio-male physiological differences

Such as one where different facilities are needed?

Such as toilets?

Isn't this getting a bit circular?

crappymummy, blimey, it is sexist to know a particular meaning of a particular word?

I know what words like slut and slag mean. Suppose that knowledge further confirms my sexism.

GreenTomatoJam, yes IMO toilets are one such context. Sport is another where physical differences matter.

So if the word squired a new meaning where men can refer to cismen and transmen collectively, well as I say just words

In that case I would have no idea what you meant by 'men' - people who like to wear checked shirts? people with beards? You might as well have a word to describe people with lots of freckles and/or plumbers.

Meanwhile, it's not as though by deciding to call ourselves 'cis women' we could be certain that we would be entitled to any services that excluded non-cis women who identify as women.

It's not just words when a word isn't allowed to have a clear meaning.

Yes, I can think of a few situations where it might be necessary.

Toilets

Prisons

Rape support services

do not mis gender me by including me into the category of man, or by pretending that this word covers all people

It does not, no more than the word woman includes all people

language changes, JAPAB, and this archaicism you are holding on to is sexist and oppressive. There are other words which are used as racial slurs, and yes, while those words have meaning, people who are committed to anti racism do not use them

It is quite telling that you then threw out two classic misogynist slurs in an attempt to minimise your misgenering

you have been asked to stop, if you continue to mis gender me by insisting 'man' refers to all people, I will ask for your posts o be deleted.

out of curiosity, why do you have so much contempt for women- is it your socialisation, or is it innate do you think?