Transgender people can be turned away from female only spaces government says

[mammyoftwo]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5880533/amp/Women-allowed-bar-transgender-people-female-changing-rooms-toilets-ministers.html?ico=amp_mostReadNews

Apologies for the source, it's from the daily fail. However, if true it's definitely a victory worth celebrating!!

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/25/no-plans-change-law-single-sex-spaces-uk-transgender

There is also a piece in the Guardian about sex work in the trans community, who are now deemed as working-class, this is blamed on NHS under funding and waiting lists.

Datun

Ah.

So you won't retract or refine your sweeping statement that "Women don't have to regularly dilate their vaginas to prevent them from closing up".

You're happy enough to use those women as a shield to try and excuse your behaviour, but apparently don't care enough about them to amend your statement, regardless of the fact that it has been repeatedly pointed out that needless sweeping statements like yours can only lead to women experiencing more stress, anxiety, and shame at having to need to dilate, through no fault of their own. Likewise you don't wish to address either your implication that real women don't dilate or the statement you made reinforcing and confirming that implication, "But it's also quite obvious, that this is a uniquely transwoman experience, not a woman's."

Yes, I would imagine that the people watching are not particular impressed at a poster on a Feminism board wilfully erasing and belittling women's experiences, and then doubling down on that position when called on it.

How much easier would it have been to have simply stated that you misspoke, and that some women do indeed have to dilate and that there is no shame to it, and it does not make them less or, or not a real, woman.

I can do it.

Happy to do it.

There are an unknown number of women who need to dilate for a variety of health reasons. There is no shame to it, and needing to dilate a vagina does not make anybody less of a woman, and that making an implication or statement that it does is just wrong.

Have they replaced that recently, LangCleg? Or is it the first time you've looked?

Obviously if it's gender that is protected then it's fine.

Sex, different,and what the actual law says.

No impact assessments whatsoever.

But the silver lining to that particular gung ho, woke virtue signalling cloud is that it has opened the door to the legal challenge under the Public Sector Equality Duties.

There is no shame to it, and needing to dilate a vagina does not make anybody less of a woman, and that making an implication or statement that it does is just wrong.

No one has said that a woman dilating due to gynaecological cancer is wrong. Or shameful. At all.

The distinction has been made between the female condition in general and the post surgical maintenance of an implanted facsimile.

Stop appropriating women’s health issues.

Have they replaced that recently, LangCleg? Or is it the first time you've looked?

First time I've looked. But they can't just replace sex (a protected characteristic) with gender just because they feel like it, any more than local authorities can. If they've failed to carry out impact assessments on a protected characteristic, there's a good chance they have acted unlawfully. Hence the potential court challenge. I imagine there are similar circumstances in institutions all over the country.

"The vagina is not an organ which requires dilation. In rare cases due to illness, treatment for illness or psychological reasons it could be required."

How rare? Do we know? Do the actual numbers matter?

In one sentence: vaginas don't require dilation. In the next: vaginas can need dilation. Which is it?

I'm going to go out on a very short limb here and say that some vaginas need dilating, that neo-vaginas regardless of the reason for their creation, can also need dilating. See how difficult that wasn't?

Made a statement, didn't invalidate the lived experiences of women to do it.

I’m amazed they admitted it langcleg

Legal challenge then? And let’s see how it pans out. And then repeat. Every. Single. Time. Every time the rights of women are put last.

The Juno article you posted, Datun, is fascinating.

I agree, I really like Juno. I found this very thought provoking too:

i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/kzxjnw/i-havent-failed-to-pass-as-a-woman-i-want-to-look-transgender

How much easier would it have been to have simply stated that you misspoke, and that some women do indeed have to dilate and that there is no shame to it, and it does not make them less or, or not a real, woman.

You sound very cross. It's a great shame that I don't believe for a single second that you are cross on behalf of the woman who has gynaecological cancer.

Women who have to dilate because they have had gynaecological cancer? Of course there is no shame to that. I don't know why you suggest there would be.

Furthermore, I don't think there is any shame to transwoman such as Juno dilating their neo vagina.

Again, this idea of shame is coming from you, not me.

Transwomen dilating are experiencing something that is unique to being a transwomen.

Women who dilate because of cancer are experiencing something that is unique to women.

It's not complicated, despite you trying to make it so.

"No one has said that a woman dilating due to gynaecological cancer is wrong. Or shameful. At all."

Really? Then explain the following from the poster above:

"Women don't have to regularly dilate their vaginas to prevent them from closing up. . .

. . .But it's also quite obvious, that this is a uniquely transwoman experience, not a woman's."

When we talk about "women" or "men" or "girls" or "boys" we are talking about the general characteristics of a group.

You know this I think.

The practice of pulling in rare or specific examples of people in those groups who do not share some of the general characteristics to invalidate the group as a whole, as being a group at all, is something that is done all the time.

The existence of women who are infertile does not mean that the classification of female as the ones with the capacity to gestate a baby is incorrect.
The existence of girls and women who do not menstruate does not mean it is incorrect to say that female humans are the ones who menstruate.
The existence of intersex people does not negate the fact that humans come in 2 sorts - cocky and cunty - for the minor point of our actual species existing at all. Plus intersex groups have told you to stop it and back off.
Now the statement that "women do not need to dilate their vaginas" is held to be incorrect because some women have cancer.
Is the statement "women have breasts" also incorrect as some women have to have them removed due to cancer?

This approach is all really offensive.

please don't bring very sick women into the conversation, in order to try to prove that men can literally transform into women with a bit of surgery and a lot of positive thinking. It's offensive to women for you to reduce our bodies and their functions this way, especially women who are ill.

Oh dear lord MeetTheNewAccountSameAsTheOld. Are you 12?

I don't have to explain anything to you! .

😂

"I'm going to go out on a very short limb here and say that some vaginas need dilating, that neo-vaginas regardless of the reason for their creation, can also need dilating. See how difficult that wasn't?"

And this proves that men can physically become female how, exactly?

There is also vaginismus which can be treated via inserting things, it can come about due to traumatic sexual experiences, aongst other things.

The existence of this condition also doesn't mean that men can literally become female through surgery.

Legal challenge then? And let’s see how it pans out. And then repeat. Every. Single. Time. Every time the rights of women are put last.

Yes. We need some kind of central set-up - like the Centre for Women's Justice re VAWG - who work out which cases to bring and then set up crowdfunders for each.

I would certainly contribute to every single campaign that forced public sector entities to comply with their equality duties with regard to the protected characteristic of sex.

This reminds me of my teenage sons fondly thinking that "... but you said wash up. I washed up! You didn't explicitly say including the roasting dish!", is an argument that holds any weight whatsoever.

I'm a supersmeller too human, 'tis not bullshit...

Isn't it well known that women have a better sense of smell than men?

And this is the reason given for the whole thing of men and boys wearing way too much aftershave?

Oh and re "penises and vaginas were the same in utero". Go back far enough and everything comes from one of the three germ layers, that's just how mammals are made.

"You sound very cross. It's a great shame that I don't believe for a single second that you are cross on behalf of the woman who has gynaecological cancer."

Cross? No.

Ashamed? Yes. Ashamed that somebody purporting to be a feminist can make a sweeping statement about women that erases their lived experience, and when called on it, doubles down, and when called on that, doubles down again, and still hasn't corrected the statement they made that "Women don't have to regularly dilate their vaginas to prevent them from closing up . . . But it's also quite obvious, that this is a uniquely transwoman experience, not a woman's."

Women can need to dilate their vaginas. It is factually incorrect to state that "women do not need to regularly dilate their vaginas to prevent them from closing up." To stick by that position despite the points raised is utterly inexplicable to me.

"Transwomen dilating are experiencing something that is unique to being a transwomen.

Women who dilate because of cancer are experiencing something that is unique to women."

Really?

You will then, no doubt, be able to elucidate the difference between a dilator being covered in lube and inserted for the purposes of dilation, and a dilator being covered in lube and inserted for the purposes of dilation.

Or do you mean there's some kind of mystic soul thing going on? I mean, if that's what you believe, go for it, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a load of hooey.

Oh no hold on

My mum had a nasty cold a few years back and lost her sense of smell.

This therefore totally invalidates the statement "Isn't it well known that women have a better sense of smell than men?"

And further if my mum heard me make that statement she would naturally assume i was saying she was not a "real woman" (whatever that means).

I would certainly contribute to every single campaign that forced public sector entities to comply with their equality duties with regard to the protected characteristic of sex

so would I

Women can need to dilate their vaginas. It is factually incorrect to state that "women do not need to regularly dilate their vaginas to prevent them from closing up." To stick by that position despite the points raised is utterly inexplicable to me.

Nah it isn't.

I would certainly contribute to every single campaign that forced public sector entities to comply with their equality duties with regard to the protected characteristic of sex
So would I