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!!

We are an the same place we always end up - bad faith semantic bingo land

As it happens I knew a dog who could walk on its hind legs so how is she less human than a baby who crawls eh eh eh eh

and so on.

Oh yes, penises are vaginas, ovaries are testes

And heads are arses, and both indiatibguishable from elbows I expect

Tell us how the existence of this woman with cancer means that men can literally physically become women.

Explain how her cancer logically means that her vagina is the same as one constructed for a transwoman.

One is a vagina, one is not, is the clue.

And I find your graphic descriptions there a bit much.

What you are saying is that there is No Such Thing as a vagina in the sense that it is a specific organ with specific functions that female humans pretty much always have.

You are saying it's the same as a hole cut in someone.

That is pretty offensive to women, can't you see that?
It is pretty offensive to this woman, to say that due to her cancer, there is no physcial differenece between her and a man who IDs as a woman and has had some surgery.

Women's bodies have always been no more than a set of holes and a couple of bouncy bits on the chest to men, anyway. So, suppose if a man says a surgical hole is the same as a woman's cunt, then so it must be.

And furthermore everyone knows that indiatibguishable is the same as indistinguishable just much cooler and with blue hair so don’t even think of accusing my post of having typos in it

have you considered that maybe YOU’RE the typo eh eh eh

SardinesAreYum

And where, exactly, have I said that men can become women on this thread.

I raised the point that the often repeated statement made on this board along the lines of "Women don't have to regularly dilate their vaginas to prevent them from closing up" to be both insulting of, and dismissive of, the lived experiences of women who do need to dilate.

Funny how you can't bring yourself to condemn a blanket statement about women that is factually untrue and merely feeds into the pervasive and shameful myths such women can experience as a result of needing to dilate.

Go on, just condemn the statement. Say it's wrong. Some women do need to dilate, and that dilation is dilation, and that the insistence by some posters on othering such women by claiming, 'oh it's rare that women have to dilate, we don't need to consider the experiences of these women when we make our sweeping statements' is also wrong.

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.

So lots of sympathy from you for other women who have to dilate but not for trans women. That's what's offensive. What should matter to you is the experience of women - here needing to dilate. And that applies equally to trans women who are women.

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

We are the quarter of the population that can sniff out a male with our eyes closed.

I have been lurking as usual.

I just wanted to reassure the GC feminists posting on here that it's patently obvious that the points being made by Meet et al clearly do not stand up to scrutiny and are not worthy of even a primary school debate.

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

AS A GROUP, IN GENERAL THEY DO NOT.

ONLY SOMETIMES, WHEN SOMETHING GOES WRONG.

IT IS NOT STANDARD FOR A WOMAN TO NEED TO DILATE HER VAGINA TO STOP IT CLOSING UP.

OK?

I mean, seriously?

This stuff is really out of order.

The idea is to find an exception to every single thing that forms the group of women and girls together as a group - as a sex.
To say there is no definition that holds across all women and girls, therefore the group that was women and girls can and should contain anyone.
This has been going on for ages and it's boring.
No amount f bad faith deliberate cross purposes talk will change the fact that humans are mammals that reproduce via sexual reproduction with ova from female who gives birth to live young (as opposed to laying an egg, say) feeds with breast milk and the male who produces sperm.

Now clearly the fact that lots of women don't breast feed doesnt' alter the definition of what mammals are, and that humans are mammals.

Or so you'd think, anyway...

We are an the same place we always end up - bad faith semantic bingo land

Well, we are only there if we allow ourselves to be distracted from the topic at hand, which is that the government has signalled its respect for single sex spaces and the exemptions in EqA.

Also, that there is legal recourse when public bodies do not carry out impact assessments on the protected characteristic of sex.

These are very interesting things.

Various derails about surgery outcomes are much less interesting to me, I'm afraid.

We are the quarter of the population that can sniff out a male with our eyes closed.

Many women are highly sensitive to pheromones. The differences between male and female are used in selecting a partner to produce offspring. I remember years ago, I went into Ann Summers and saw they sold synthetic pheromones. I bought a bottle and when my husband was out the room sprayed some around to see what his reaction would be. He walked in and proclaimed "what's that bloody smell?" Ok, those were artificial but it is known women can pick up the scent of male pheromones much more readily than a man picks up a woman's.

I feel sorry for that woman becasue she has cancer, and is having radiotherapy.

My focus isn't entirely on her cunt, and nor should it be. Let alone with imaginary graphic descriptions of what she needs to do, unlike some posters.

The only thing vagina-like about a neovagina is its location. I could decide to have an 8-inch wound made under my armpit. I could use that technique specially developed for puberty-blocked transteens, where some structure is ripped from your abdomen to line the neovagina with (as their penis has insufficient skin).

I would of course need to dilate regularly.

Really though its just a wound, an open wound, a scab that I keep picking which I won't let heal.

None of that post suggested anyone didn't have sympathy for people who were born male but now have had surgery resulting in a wound they need to dilate, Snappity.

It sounds like it might not be much fun at all tbh. Every sympathy to those who have ended up with this outcome of surgery.

Still not women.

"And I find your graphic descriptions there a bit much"

So you find the description of the dilation procedure that a 61 woman has to go through to be "a bit much". Would you find the same description of what happens when a speculum is inserted to be "a bit much"? (although, obviously, a different lubricant is used then, but nonetheless, lube is still used).

& actually yy to LangCleg re derailment attempt! Sorry.

It occurs to me that a fair amount of female experience over the world involves having to habve things that they would rather not have in their cunts, in their cunts.

Women with vagnismus or cancer as discussed
Smears
Remember getting used to using tampons
And of course sexual coercion and rape
I expect some other surgeries and things
Vaginal mesh?

Having things up us that we'd rather not is something that happens quite a lot. That's the way it goes, really.

Ignoring the massive "if you had good enough plastic surgery to make an apple look just like an orange, then the apple would have turned into an orange" derail, may I just take a moment to celebrate the practical implications of this?

If a group of women, who, due to past trauma find biologically male bodies trigger PTSD, want to set up a rape crisis centre or homeless shelter that is for biological women only, they can. (This of course doesn't for a moment mean all rape crisis centres and homeless shelters have to be so - just that there's space for such a place if a group of volunteers identify an need and set it up).

If it turns out that a particular sport can only be played safely and fairly if it is restricted to biologically female bodied players - then it can be so restricted, legally. Which isn't to say there isn't a place for other forms of sport and other events which can be set up to be more broadly inclusive, again, just that it's lawful to set up proportionate restrictions.

It hopefully means that prison governors and prison psychologists have also been listened to when they point out that any transfers between the male and female prison estate should be looked at carefully, and on a case by case basis with gatekeeping in place, not via a blanket policy of transferring anyone who self-IDs regardless of the risk to other prisoners.

I'm reading this as a quite major win. (Hence the desperate "apples are oranges" attempt at a derail.)

Also, that there is legal recourse when public bodies do not carry out impact assessments on the protected characteristic of sex.

I don't know why you are happy. There's little upside for the gender critical view - if the challenge is successful, a slap on the wrist for one local authority. But if the challenge loses, it might establish that gender is the appropriate term.

So yes I mainly feel sorry for her because she has cancer and is having radiotherapy. That is the main thing that hits home really.

The gotcha piece about dilation is crass.

Yes, agree with RogerAllamsFangirl . It's completely obvious what Meet is doing here.

The fact that there are people without legs or whose legs don't work doesn't change the fact that humans are pipedal and not mermaids.

There is a world of difference between a woman whose womb, vagina etc has a problem and a transwlman who ownes a man reproductive system - even if it's been rearranged.

I could one day decide to enlarge one of my nostrils. I could get a dilator, lube it up, and make my nostril big enough to accommodate a dick. This, however, will never mean I have created a 'vagina' on my face. Same goes for any other hole created and maintained by the use of a dilator.

A vagina, using a dilator to maintain original shape, is just that.

SardinesAreYum

"IT IS NOT STANDARD FOR A WOMAN TO NEED TO DILATE HER VAGINA TO STOP IT CLOSING UP."

So women who do have to dilate aren't standard? Can you not see why such sweeping statements are wrong?

Some women need to dilate. They are still, to borrow your words, standard women. The fact that they need to dilate does not mean that they are abnormal or, again your choice of words, not standard.

Is it actually possible to get a dick up your nostril...?

Fuck nose!

Dilated nose reminds me of the stretched ear piercing that ends up with a milk bottle top fitting in the hole.