Paris Lees article on toilets in Guardian today

[OlennasWimple]

Beware: reading this article may be bad for your blood pressure...

Why are nearly all the examples given in the article American? Apart from Caroline Flint's. voyeurism example from a UK university, and the last example about a lesbian woman in Hull (which is disputed by MacDonalds who say she was being disruptive).

What Paris Lees has written is all about the safety of trans individuals in women's toilets. Paris's total argument for why gender neutral toilets are safe for women is because Paris says so.

I couldn't care less if a transwoman uses the women's or the gender neutral toilets. I do care if it becomes enshrined in law that any man who simply self identifies as a woman can legally be in the women's toilets and I would be guilty of a hate crime if I objected.

I am embarrassed for both Lees and The Guardian. Seriously!

The BTL seems to be telling them both where to shove it.

Paris's total argument for why gender neutral toilets are safe for women is because Paris says so

And there is nothing masculine, or reflective of male privilege or centuries of men telling women 'how it is' in that /sarcasm.

Tramswomen are speaking for trans and for women, yet women are not allowed to comment on trans (unless they parrot the transwomen) and we are increasingly not allowed to comment on women either (lest we offend transwomen). But then, women have a long history of being silenced - just think of the shrew's bridle.

This sums it up for me. With apologies to those parents on here struggling with trans identifying children (and I do feel for you) I can't help but think that the vast majority of transwomen don't really get what it is like to be a woman beyond the surface of the body. My feeling is that many TRAs really just want a female form / body to be their own doll to dress up. I wonder that too with actual body dysmorphia. In other words, do those males who look in the mirror and feel horror that they have a male physical form (a mental illness in my view), want a woman's body, or do they want to be / think they are women beyond the body? Someone (a male) put it to me thus 'they have won the genetic lottery, do they understand what it is really like on the other side and do they really, really want this'?

Leaving aside the issue of the impossibility of knowing what it is to be a 'true woman', do these individuals want the baggage that comes with the body, including the vulnerability, sexist assumptions, etc? Do they really identify with women beyond the body in terms of women's histories, issues, etc. Do they really get it? Do they really, really want it, with all of its oppressions and second-class status? Frankly, I've not seen many that do. What I have seen, for the most part, and with a few exceptions, is a bunch of individuals going around in women's clothes actively being part of the problem. They demand access to women's spaces and even women's bodies (cotton ceiling) ... but they don't show any real allegiances with women. In fact, in demanding our silence, they act like men and collude with men (or the patriarchy, if that is less universalising). Put another way, if trans media watch really 'got it', they'd sit back and shut up, because this is what women do and what they expect and want women to do - and they want to be women, right?.

That's because they are better at being women than us, YetAnother, obviously. We have been doing it wrong all this time, and we are only at the bottom of the pecking order because we aren't very good.

I was genuinely confused by PL's example of having her top pulled down in the ladies' loo. Was she trying to say that she was the subject of a transphobic attack? (In which case most women do not face the same risk.) Or was she attacked by women who thought she was a woman, and therefore all women are at risk anyway so we may as well let everyone into the protected space?

That's because they are better at being women than us, YetAnother, obviously. We have been doing it wrong all this time, and we are only at the bottom of the pecking order because we aren't very good.

I think it is much more sinister than that. Men have had the power to define women and they do so, not because it is (so much) about being better than us, but because they want us defined in ways that suit their own ends. Men have historically wanted women to be chaste in public (so that children are 'theirs') and whores in private (to meet their sexual demands) - hence the virgin / whore identity binary. They have defined women as nurturing, sexy, good at housework, etc. because it suits them and their needs. (Please excuse generalisations and culturally specific references in this instance). This is a result of the power of men (patriarchy) and their definitions seek to reproduce patriarchy and their power. Transwomen may appropriate our bodies to the best of their ability, but I don't think many give up the phallus (symbolic representation of the penis) and the power. TRA transwomen want to keep the power to define women / femininity / the condition of being female because they want us to live in their image and for their ends. They want women to be clean-shaven, giggly, sexy and all about the beauty industry because accepting that as a definition of 'woman' puts them in the centre and any dissenting born woman at the periphery - they are 'more female' than us and we are the outsiders. They are demonstrating quite clearly that they have the power to do this because they have never really given up their phallus / make power. If men expect us to suck cock they expect us to suck phallus. Most TRAs don't give a fuck about women beyond seeing us as things to meet their ends / needs / desires. They are a trojan horse, attacking us from inside.

I have recently been reading lots of sights and articles about trans issues ajd feminism and I agree with everyone on here whole heartedly.

I am a scientist and believe sex cannot be changed its a biological aspect and because of that women need to be protected because we are vulnerable and at risk from men.

We have fought hard for these rights and to be equal and treated with respect and to know have a male try to redefine what it is to be a woman and take our safe places away is disgusting and dangerous.

Toilet issue may seem small in the grand scheme of things but it is a slipper slope. If wr allow transwomen with penises into womens toilets (safe space) then where do we draw the line?

Also the silencing of womens opinions on a matter so important is wrong. We have every right if not more right to talk about and discuss what it is to be a woman and what women want and need.

The comments under the article are all saying the same. Taking issue with the casual dismissal of women's concerns.

I see this time after time. No one seems to agree with the trans-ideology.

I don't understand the huge disconnect between what women are thinking and what is happening.

Newspapers are in it for the money. So why risk alienating your readers?

The Trojan horse analogy really hits the nail on the head for me.

I have difficulty articulating my thoughts in writing or speech so I don't post on these threads but I am nodding my head in agreement with you.

Anyway, I am posting today. Having followed Thursday's commons debate, I find PL's articlE sinister. It's a signal to all MPS that they are bring watched by the TRAS and if they dare utter anything that can be (mis)construed as as against trans equality they will ensure your name appears in the national press with a transphobic label slapped on it. It worries me greatly that so few MPS are going to be willing to open that can of worms.

bring = being

Awful article. Comments under it are encouraging though, not least in that they've been allowed to stand! (or maybe the Deleting and Banning employee is late in to work today)

Oh, I think Caroline Flint is well aware that she is being watched stalked, threatened and metaphorically spat at by transactivists.

No one wants trans people to feel unsafe.

Most MtT don't look like women, not even the young ones at my university.

A while back, a young woman was raped in the women's loos at the SU owned nightclub. The rapists were never found. Then a MtT SU rep campaigned to make all loos on campus/at the SU nightclub sex neutral.

Now, the rapists almost certainly weren't trans. Although that's debatable because the "trans umbrella" covers such an enormous range of behaviours now. However, a place where a woman had reported a rape is now open to anyone who wishes to use it. Whether that's for the quite reasonable purpose of a MtT wishing to go for a pee or for a rapist to go and hunt for a victim. What they can't be used for it as a place to get away from the persistent dude who won't stop chatting you up despite you telling him to get lost. Or from the dude on the dance floor who won't keep his hands to himself despite you telling him no, in fact, in the second case, it might be seen as you looking for somewhere more private... The same might even be true for men, although I doubt it.

PL wishes to be seen as more womanly than women. Given India Willoughby's performance on WH and their sadface tweets afterwards, it seems to be contagious.

Both my comments on BTL have been deleted

A lot of the comments were arguing the toss about gender neutral facilities. With people who were sympathetic to the plight of transwomen nonetheless being very concerned over the hoards of men (dubious or otherwise) who would be in there alongside women/children should gender neutral facilities be the norm.
Failing to make the link that if transwomen are allowed in women's facilities, that's exactly what you'll get anyway (trans and fully intact men presenting as male).

Who cares about women? What about ME, ME, ME ?!!

That's pretty much Paris Lees attitude to the whole thing.

If a man identifying as a woman can access previously sex segregated spaces, then surely that makes those spaces less safe for women and transwomen and anyone who identifies as a wo.........Jesus, I am disappearing up my own arse (back hole for anyone who prefers non gender specific genitals)

Exactly. Tranwomen are worried about male violence, so want to inflict it on women. It's a stupid, circular, illogical argument.

And misogynistic.

And loaded with self interest.

And highly dubious.

Trojan horse- yes that is it exactly.

The trouble seems to be that the TRAs don't want to be normal women. They want to be the hot women, the princesses, the 'real housewives of X' women. They don't want to be the ones doing the washing up, or wiping kids/grandparent's bums or sweeping or peeling the spuds and making sure the kids have a packed lunch and clean pants every day.

They want the rights of being a woman, but not the responsibilities.

(and to be clear, I don't think those things should be the sole responsibility of women, but that is the reality for many (I would actually say most) women - and in any case, they should be part of the responsibility of any parent)

They want to be the hot women, the princesses, the 'real housewives of X' women.

Oh yes, in the early days of my eyes opening around this issue, one of the things that stood out a lot for me was receiving private messages on another site from a trans individual telling me that men would want 'her' more than me as my tits are saggy from breastfeeding and my fanny will be looser than a 'wizards sleeve' after delivering 2 babies. I made the mistake of not making a new account to discuss trans issues so had some private life stuff that they obviously trawled for.

Besides how misogynistic this thinking is..it seems fucking deluded to me. Yes I may not be as 'tight' as a surgically constructed hole is (though not knowing the vagina can easily bounce back over time seems a very...manly way of thinking too) but did they really think that the majority of men, given the choice between a tighter inverted penis, and a real vagina would chose the former? Sad really.

I know 2 transwomen IRL and they both found this hilarious, one almost pissed themselves laughing at the audacity of the whole situation. but this is because the two people I know are not those who delude themselves into thinking they actually ARE female, they are not (or do not seem to be) in it for the fetish...they don't claim that people who don't wish to fuck them are transphobic. and above all, they empathize with women over the 'loo/changing room/whatever' issue. They understand how..if the male areas are scary for other males, having males in female spaces is scary for females too. And so on. But these people...never had a problem in loos and such anyway and think the push for obvious blokes in womens areas is hurting trans people as much as women. They are what is cgharmingly named 'truscum' in trans circles. You know, those horrible people who actually do have dysphoria and do not believe in cotton ceiling or wish to keep their dicks and barge into female spaces...

It's really frightening.

I want trans-inclusion. I'm as leftie and liberal as they come, I don't want anyone to be discriminated against.

But, this silencing of womens' valid concerns, lack of debate and railroading of the debate is just sinister.

truscum? As in True Scum? Really?

Did paris's blogfest session ever get put online btw? I can't find the other thread.

Oh yes. Actual transsexual people are looked down upon and called truscum by other 'transgender' people.

Truscum are people who think dysphoria is an essential component of being trans and anyone who doesn't experience it is fake, “appropriating transness”, a “transtrender”, etc. They very often exclude non-binary and agender people as well.

So...truscum are people who believe that 'born in the wrong body' is an essential part of being trans.

I have yet to come across anyone in real life who believes it is possible to be 'trans' without suffering sex-dysphoria. Makes NO sense at all to me.

Oddly enough, I believe the reason there is so much support for 'trans' matters is because the general public still uses this meaning. Yes, we should make those with dysphoria as comfortable as possible. People do not seem to realise that the push for 'trans-acceptance' excludes the very people we should actually be worrying about.