Trans people to be JAILED in Alabama town if they go to "the wrong toilet"

[katmanwho]

Unbelievable. There has been a lot of hate recently in North Carolina with the bathroom bill. But this has got a lot worse. [ www.al.com/news/anniston-gadsden/index.ssf/2016/04/oxford_passes_law_aimed_at_tar.html]

So a transwoman will have to go the male bathroom. A transman in the female one. There's been cases of butch women being hassled already in female toilets.

Oh - and if you're in North Carolina and witness someone who you think is in the wrong bathroom, you can call the hotline.

Meanwhile, a convicted sex offender (who is also Ex Republican House Speaker) is allowed to go the male bathroom with boys.

The only good thing about this bill is that it's made people react to the discrimination and to show that many people think this is discrimination. Just like in the 60s. Apparently trans people are sexual deviants.

This is the real effect of hate.

Eggs quite rightly pointed out that post-off TW have changed. They are not men nor women. They are TW. Still human, but falling in a different box.
Regardless of the whys, TWs are people who have rejected their male sexual organs and the effects of testosterone. And TM the reverse.
Genetically, men and women differ in their copies of the X chromosome and the presence of a tiny Y chromosome with one tiny gene.
Conditions with different genetic arrangements or problems with hormones can present as women or men, and are accepted, regardless of their genetic make up.
A single X still presents as a woman. XXY presents as a man. Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) can have XY and have female sexual organs. It's not that different from a TW except that people with AIS were born with female sexual organs, and were considered as women all their lives, and TW weren't.
So, even sex is not that simple. :)

My main issues regard gender changes.

They aren't though.
They are not women, not having been born women but having no penis they are not men either.

Take for example BB's Nadia - definitely not a bloke.
Chromosonally XY but I wouldn't e.g. put her in a men's prison. I'd put her in the Trans unit that I'd be building.

There is a massive difference between identifying as a woman on the occasiibs you feel like it and having yourself surgically altered. (Not that I necessarily think a rush to be operated on and take hormones for tye rest of your days is a good idea).

The self-identifying (totoally not) women who cannot tell the difference between sex and gender as basically making things difficult for everyone else women, intersex and post-op TW.

Yes I was responding to the previous chat and referring to TW as male having cosmetic surgery, or not (same for women - transmen don't have babies, the female of the species has babies). Previously I'd made clear that I was not referring to intersex as that is not the main issue under discussion here.

So, men have oestrogen in cancer treatment. Those men grow breasts and lose body hair. Doesn't make them a woman. You can't just decide you're a woman and 'Transwoman' is a nonsense term. It's a bloke in a dress.

But I see that many are going to fight for their right to be a woman, even though they can't be a woman, which is nobody's fault.

Haven't I heard that before? Oh yes, Monty Python. Great comedy sketch. Classic.

Or the Trans section? :)

I don't see that there are any major problems with putting a post-op and hormone treated TW in a female prison (e.g. Nadia). Essentially, the differences are not that great except that they can't have children (many women can't) and weren't born with female genitals.

I do agree, though, that TW can't talk from the point of view of women who were born women because they have not during their life time and still aren't subjected to the same treatment by society. In the same way that women who were born women can't speak for TW. It would be madness.

I got the impression that most people do object to putting a pre-op, no hormone treatment, male who says he's a woman in a female prison. That is a more understandable concern for me. (but in relation to which I thought that, given separate treatment and safety measures, it might not necessarily be a huge problem, as explained earlier on and have no will to go back to it :) )

And to be clear, for the most part, I think "gender" is meaningless, but given societal constraints, I can understand why some people prefer to be identified as women or men to make things easier in life.

And you're not a man if you don't have a penis? Have you asked John Wayne Bobbit what he'd think of that? Is that the definition of a man is it? Graft a penis on and there you go? Is that all a man is?

If public toilets in the USA didn't have such bloody big gaps between the door and frame this would be so much less an issue. I don't want to see anyone on the loo or at the urinal.

So, men have oestrogen in cancer treatment. Those men grow breasts and lose body hair. Doesn't make them a woman. You can't just decide you're a woman and 'Transwoman' is a nonsense term. It's a bloke in a dress.

It is not all the same if you change your sex organs (even if not fully functional). Sure, you don't become a woman or a man, but you don't fully remain a man or a woman.

Getting a penis cut off (and then reinserted) is not the same as the process that TW (and TM in reverse) go through.
It doesn't make anyone the opposite sex, but it clearly changes the person.

I'd rather acknowledge that things are not black and white, nor are 100% dichotomous, and, as far as possible, be as accepting as possible.

I agree that the way toilets are built is a significant factor in relation to the issue. Other pps and myself have considered that unisex toilets but with increased safety might be one solution.

You can't change your sex organs.

That is why, as eggs said, trans people can't really be considered as the other sex, but can be considered as different from what sex they were originally.

Which sex organs do you claim you can "change" lweji ?

You can certainly remove a penis but you cannot change it for a vagina?

You can also remove ovaries and uteruses but you cannot change them for testicles.

You can also remove testicles but you cannot change them for ovaries.

You do not need to mutilate your body to be able to "change yourself" but I can tell you living with a man who thinks he is a woman, that certainly change me and my children and not for the good.

You can't change your sex organs.

Actually, and strictly, you can. You can get rid of them.

What you can't (yet) is get a new different set. Or exchange your sex organs.

Cutting a penis off doesn't stop it from being a penis. It certainly kills it if that is what you mean?

most people do object to putting a pre-op, no hormone treatment, male who says he's a woman in a female prison.

If the law changes are people are allowed to self identify it won't matter if most people object, they will be women because they say they are and they will go to women's prison. There crimes will be recorded as crimes committed by women.

Hence why I make the distinction between has penis and does not have penis.

And also hence why this law is an appalling and ludicrous thing.

Has penis they were born with and XY = man
Has vagina they were born with and XX = woman
Xy but had had penis removed and takes hormones = trans.
Xx but has had vagina removed and takes hormones does not = trans.

They are different and they belong in their own group.
They are distinct from people playing dress up and self identifying.

Whether or not it is body dysphoria and such operations except in cases of intersex should not be allowed is another debate.

Bobbit actually still has his penis and apparently makes good use of it. But yes it isn't as simple as if you lose or damage your sexual organs in an accident you automatically become trans - although you may well require hormones to continue to exhibit the characteristics of the sex you were born in of you have lost your testes.

I am on the PERF side of the debate. And I suspect some of the people playing dress up are doing it as part of a paraphilia which is why I really do not want them in women's spaces.

I think people who have gone through transition who live all the time presenting as female are different from men with beards who say they are women whenever they want something women have and who can don their male privilege that they never gave up again with a change of underwear. But they are also different from women.

Maryz, broadly I agree, gender is irrelevant and we should categorise when it matters, by sex and not at all when it doesn't matter. I think people should describe themselves as being any bloody gender they like as long as they are not using the terms man / woman female/ male to describe their gender. Those words describe sex. Preferably they'd forget gender altogether and just be. I don't give a toss what pronouns they use.

But I did categorically say that neither losing nor consciously removing your male sex organs makes you a woman. However I do think that making a conscious choice to do that and to take hormones stops you being a man. I think e.g. that crimes committed by a person in that situation should be recorded as crimes commited by TW and also that TWs should be afforded some protection against discrimmination. I do not however think that refusing to call them women constitutes discrimmination. They are not women.

They are still people and I not going to pour hostility on them. Especially as I think although I am sure they might disagree that they are suffering from body dysphoria and/or they are victims of warped cultural views of gender and gender normalising.

I will however be quite vocal in disagreeing with people who live as men some or all of the time, who are equipped with penises and armed with male privilege, masqueraiding as women to e.g. represent women in politics, art or sport , or to access women's spaces.

I am a bit meh anout the conxept for prizes for women though - separate issue. E.g. why is their a prize for women's literature?

Surely a prize for literature would do. Decided on the quality of writing regardkess of chromosomes.

If a TW (or TM) has a GRC, then their past life is locked away. That was the whole point of the GRA in 2004.

That's partly what pisses me off, actually. Women were thrown under a bus so that men could erase their past. But now, the TAs have no compunction about declaring their trans status, yet want access to women's spaces and erasure of women's lived experiences too. Loudly.

That said, this is about a trans man. Who seems somewhat baffled by what it means to be a man.

E.g. why is their a prize for women's literature?

Because men get all the other prizes because all the judges are male and prefer men's literature.

Decided on the quality of writing regardkess of chromosomes.

Which, sadly, is not what happens. Therefore, prizes for women's literature. It would be nice if they weren't needed anymore somewhen soon, but I don't think we are there yet.

Indeed, Mary, bollocks do seem to play a very large part in all this...

Really and truly though, when was it suddenly decided that toilets would be segregated on the grounds of gender rather than biological sex?

It just seems so... Counter intuitive?
I understood transsexuals, those who wanted to have reassignment surgery and take hormones etc
I cannot understand all the transgender, gender queer blah blah blah.
It seems so stupid to segregate people on something that is 'fluid' Rather than their actual biology.
What about people who feel they have no 'gender identity'?
Or if a 'gender fluid' individuals gender changes mid-piss?

WDNS I think this is the whole crux of the argument really.

The (predominating, toxic element of the) trans movement claims that "innate gender identity" is a real thing, and in fact more real than biological reality. They are saying that they really are women because they identify as women, and mere biology is just a smokescreen hiding the unarguable truth of their womanhood.

They have managed to manoeuvre things so that they seem like the least privileged, most oppressed group of all, and because they have twisted things so fundamentally, the oppression of women - having its roots as it does in our biological reality - is completely discounted. We have the almighty "privilege" of having our "gender identity" and our biological sex align, and that's all anyone could ever ask for, right?

They can talk with a straight face of "AFAB privilege" ["Assigned Female At Birth"] because they have remodelled the worldview to make this the only thing that matters; they have positioned us as the power holders who must be challenged and ultimately stripped of our "unjust" exclusive access to our female only spaces, and in so doing deny the continuing reality of women's oppression, of our real place in the power hierarchy, deny the reality that we have and we need these spaces because we are the LESS powerful group, not because we are the power holders!

I have actually seen trans rights people comparing their demand to use women's facilities to Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus.

And nearly all the people you would think would see right through this have been completely taken in. Despite the fact that there is no real hard scientific evidence to back up this belief in "gender identity", while the biological differences between men and women are a matter of simple fact. Despite the fact that the oppression of women by men is still a universally occurring phenomenon and should be a source of shame and concern for liberal western democracies, and yet it pales into insignificance beside the oppression of trans people by non trans people.

It's the most extraordinary sleight of hand. If we speak up against it, instead of being a vulnerable group trying to protect ourselves, we are transphobic oppressors, bigots who must be shamed and silenced. The absolute denial of biological reality, of the extent of women's oppression in the world we live in - that goes unchallenged.

We're not the white guys stopping Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus! We ARE Rosa Parks, and we're still sitting way, way way at the back of the bus, as this whole situation demonstrates.

Those men, with their testicle-based testimony, are listened to and believed, while we with our untrustworthy, originally-sinning female gonads are treated with contempt and suspicion. Our evidence here doesn't even get accorded the weight of the half a man's evidence that it merits in Sharia law.

And we've got the MRAs saying feminism has gone too far.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA