Reconciling competing rights

[GaspingShark]

Let me start by saying I do know what it's like to have my experience disbelieved, invalidated and gaslighted on an large scale, though not as a trans person or a victim of sexual assault. I don't have PTSD but I do know what it's like to have triggerable sources of distress, again, not as a trans person or a victim of sexual assault.

For me, equal rights must include the right to define your own experience, without gatekeepers, and to be very hesitant to consider people delusional.

So I am unsure about this. I would be ashamed of trans friends seeing me saying stuff such as "I err on the side of including them as much as possible", because I don't think that kind of recognition is mine to confer.

OTOH, I don't know if therefore that means I'm not recognising sexual assault survivors distressed by the fear of male people in women-only contexts.

Is this reconcilable, or does it mean one side just has to grin and bear it? I'll read this thread carefully but due to my bad management of a health condition I can't promise to tend it beyond the OP atm.

What’s the benefit to women (51% of the population) of allowing men into our protected spaces?

So you agree that there is a push to reorder society, but you think that that has a "net benefit" to everyone.

Like potplant2, I'd like to know what the benefit is for women.

It's dehumanising to tell a man "no"?

This is what the whole issue comes down to. Not just on this thread, but trans activism is based on the idea that it's dehumanising to say 'no' to a man.

Its not what we are saying 'no' about, it's the fact we are saying 'no' at all.

I don't believe in innate gender identity given that I don't have one and have seen no compelling evidence of it that can't be Occams Razored away.

Your love for Joy Division is only relevant to you and not other people who don't share your subjective position on them. Unlike, say, the Inquisition.

The bottom line is that I don't believe we're reordering society to benefit a minority of people while disadvantaging another protected group. I believe there's a net and indeed overall benefit.

Which is?

Its good to recognise the rights are competing. Common sense would say to test this re-ordering on a small scale, before imposing it on people who's lived experience is that it will be a disaster for them as a group.

No, I don't believe we're reordering society. I believe we're allowing an extra few poor sods to co-exist equally with us.

No, I don't believe we're reordering society. I believe we're allowing an extra few poor sods to co-exist equally with us.

That statement suggests you only believe the changes that are happening only apply to people with dysphoria. Is that the case?

? I was quoting your previous post.

So make a third space or the mens unisex, and you can all show us how safe and workable it is.

That statement suggests you only believe the changes that are happening only apply to people with dysphoria. Is that the case?

Yes, how is it a "net benefit" to society to disadvantage women further by making their sex based oppression invisible and unspeakable, giving positions, awards etc meant to redress the inequality between women and men to male people, not collecting accurate biological data and violating women's boundaries so they can be props in the sexual fetish and power games and dominance displays of cross dressing males, @GaspingShark?

What about women and girls?

Common sense (and typical organisational/legislative process) would have all stakeholder groups properly informed and consulted before even small trials were done.

But women have not been consulted. We haven't been given consideration as a primary stakeholder group on the issue of 'gender recognition' or on the impact of allowing the legal fiction of 'changing sex'.

We are being expected to 'reorder' society and give up our spaces and our opportunities (hard fought for), and even the basic naming of our bodies and our ability to recognise our cultural history of being women under patriarchy is being taken away. Our rights to freedom of association and to organise and speak to each other are all being taken away. But we aren't supposed to notice let alone be consulted on it!

Where is the benefit to women of all this?

It really is jawdroppingly fucking outrageous how little consideration is paid to the rights, feelings, boundaries, concerns, privacy, safety and dignity of women and girls.

And OP is apparently blind to it.

OP in her utter self assured wokeness, is incapable of engaging with my analogy about religious beliefs. I'm sure people thought the Inquisition had a "net benefit" too (to continue my analogy)

I think youre being kind in assuming OP is blinded by wokeness, Ereshkigal. I'm feeling very skeptical about that.

It's dehumanising to tell a man "no"?
This is what the whole issue comes down to. Not just on this thread, but trans activism is based on the idea that it's dehumanising to say 'no' to a man.
Its not what we are saying 'no' about, it's the fact we are saying 'no' at all.
Cor blimey. That's well put.

OP: give us your reason why sex segregated spaces exist in the first place.

No, I don't believe we're reordering society. I believe we're allowing an extra few poor sods to co-exist equally with us.

If this was actually about trans rights I think I'd have gone a different way with it from the start. It's not - it's about conflicting rights and demands. TRA's don't want to 'co-exist equally' - they are scarily vocal about telling us that we're bigots for wanting to centre our reproductive systems in feminism, for one example. There's no 'equal' about it.

I think youre being kind in assuming OP is blinded by wokeness, Ereshkigal. I'm feeling very skeptical about that.

I'm bowing out again for now, I'll try to come back, but no, I started this thread because I had a genuine dilemma, precisely because I wanted to pay consideration to the rights, feelings, boundaries, concerns, privacy, safety and dignity of women and girls, and I wanted to see whether MN could offer some enlightenment. Just as a psych tip re winning people over, if you assume bad faith in everyone who questions you or you just confrontationally bludgeon them then it's not persuasive.

And Ereshkigal you just compared trans rights to the Inquisition and then wondered why I didn't respond to your finally crafted comparison, did you? I knew somebody once who was doing a degree in witchcraft and "majoring in heresy". Unfortunately I was an oik back then and too busy laughing at her to actually enquire into it, I regret that now but I do suspect it might turn out more apt to compare them to the Cathars. And yes I know you think you're the witchhunted people here, I get it.

I think that was a flounced exit - it's all your fault FWR - you are all wrong and you didn't treat me right and I know better than you what you should do and say and you're all mad

witches and bitches in short

I'll flounce off now…flounce flounce

What big eyes you have Grandma...

As a rule, flouncers don't say they'll come back. I consider the possibility I'm wrong. Do you?

And I still don't understand why you think I'm Australian. Or a wolf…

gasping shark: why do sex segregated spaces exist in the first place?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

And Ereshkigal you just compared trans rights to the Inquisition and then wondered why I didn't respond to your finally crafted comparison, did you?

Actually I think I compared the Inquisition to your appreciation of Joy Division? Based on both being founded in a personal belief?

Actually I think I compared the Inquisition to your appreciation of Joy Division? Based on both being founded in a personal belief.

I've been awake for 25 hours so forgive me if I'm not understanding you.

Are you suggesting I'm under the impression that I can kill or torture people if they say they don't like Joy Division? Because by and large I just look at them like they're crazy and leave it at that, really I do.

No. I'm saying that your love of Joy Division is a personal belief, which you deliberately picked to be non offensive. Unlike the Inquisition, an institution founded in some people's personal beliefs, which aimed to reorder society to the detriment of others. For a net benefit to society. As they saw it. Subjectively.

So you are comparing the Inquisition to trans rights.

Clearly we have a situation where I think my approach is less harmful and you think yours is. I've said in previous threads that third spaces are the only way to go for now. I hope we will then find that it's fine and inch towards more integration in the same way as they did with the gays and our biologically nonsensical unprocreative fucking.