Debbie Hayton in the Times

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-are-right-to-have-concerns-over-trans-reforms-5kj5k28sd?shareToken=aa090ad90f6f886db629247a0d6ca19b

I don't want my daughter to have to see a penis in female only spaces before she has the right to have someone removed

Fair enough, but you seem to confuse what rights you want for your daughter (and by extension for women) with what policies need to be implied to make those hypothetical rights reailty.

Or are you saying you want all toilets and changing rooms equipped with an electronic ID-card reader system or fingerprint reader that will only allow people with female ID to have access to said spaces?

No deep. Just a policy that keeps ALL males out of women's spaces and mandates the creation of third spaces for transsexual people.

make that 'what policies need to be implementes' in my previous post.

Fair enough, but you seem to confuse what rights you want for your daughter (and by extension for women) with what policies need to be implied to make those hypothetical rights reailty.

Not sure why you feel she is confused?

Or are you saying you want all toilets and changing rooms equipped with an electronic ID-card reader system or fingerprint reader that will only allow people with female ID to have access to said spaces?

Do you realise you're making TRA arguments here?

Surely part of the problem is that the conversation has been neatly manipulated to focus on a tactical implementation, but completely avoided why the tactic is felt to be needed in the first place?

The point is NOT where transwomen should pee. The point is that masculine socialisation tells men that they are allowed to feel uncomfortable and even be violent towards:

• gay men
• GNC men
• women

And they are.

So transwomen are frightened of men and what they might do to them in confined spaces, and with good reason. All of the "literal violence" transphobia stuff really boils down to this, but for some reason the lunatic fringe has decided to avoid that fight and attack laws and regulations that protect females from male violence. "Own goal" doesn't even begin to cover it.

I don't want my daughter to be told which men she can exclude and which men she MUST accept.

I don't want her to be told she's hurtful for excluding a man with no penis. For asserting that she is as different from a penisless man as she is an intact one.

I won't stop fighting until every man accepts he has to stop pushing past her boundaries, that he isn't a special case, and that even if the law allows him, the law gets it wrong sometimes.

I won't stop until men acknowledge, respect and fortify women's right to say no to them.

Sorry Debbie.

No. Not even you.

Exactly this. Great comment, Barracker.

Do you realise you're making TRA arguments here?

No, I am not. Do you not see that in order to make the right for penis free spaces factual reality, you need some tool to keep those people out? As it stands, courtesy policies, women do not dare to call someone with a penis or a beard out and have management throw them out.

So the obvious way (in absence of electronic systems) to give women back their agency is giving them the right to boot out penis people and not be ostracized for calling mamagement to clarify if someone has the right to be there.

How else do you think anyone can enforce the penis free zone? This ain't rocket science, really.

The problem is, we had an honour system that pretty much worked because on a social situation most people want to be seen as decent.

That has gone, and it can't be brought back. In trying to give rights to one group, another group was permission to act out and bully, and they have taken it.

That could have been predicted, if informed people were consulted beforehand. But they weren't.
So we are now left with a row raging which includes such bizarre straw men as having ID readers in public toilets.
This is despite the fact that on this board, many women have predicted that there is a hidden agenda (which includes a loss of rights for transsexual people and the gay community,) and a push towards introducing biometrics.

arranfan
Women disproportionately find themselves on remand for a first offence. When they do go to court (after being remanded) many of them are either found not guilty or there is no subsequent custodial sentence.

a. I wasn't referring to women offenders
b. I was suggesting that if a male prison is so awful for transgender males, then a practical solution is in their own hands, just like it is for anyone else. Don't get yourself into a position where you might get remanded or a custodial sentence in the first place. I doubt gay men have an easy time either, but they're not whinging about alternative spaces.

I think the legal fiction that allows a man to change sex to become a woman needs to be overturned. Even if they have SRS and take hormones they are biologically male and are a trans women.
Why aren’t they legally recognised as transwomen?

Oh dear, that's a nice idea of how the justice system should work, but it doesn't.

Why should anyone have the right to transition into a protected characteristic though?

In this woke new world where trans is encouraged, trans people need to own being trans.

How else do you think anyone can enforce the penis free zone? This ain't rocket science, really.

How is this relevant to women who believe there should be no males in female spaces?

Btw it was you who brought up "penis free zones". Not the poster you were replying to. She quite clearly doesn't believe male transsexuals should be in female spaces. Nor do many people here.

Upstartcrow yes i agree, we have lost the honour system, which means the only way forward seems to push back much harder to protect our sex category.

I'm going to die on the hill of the third unisex space option, and not apologise for that.

Btw it was you who brought up "penis free zones". Not the poster you were replying to. She quite clearly doesn't believe male transsexuals should be in female spaces. Nor do many people here.

Because I made the initial proposal that 'penis free' should be a prerequisite for the GRC and that it is the most straightforward 'marker' to throw somebody out from the changing room.

How is this relevant to women who believe there should be no males in female spaces?

Because they want to see their visions realized, as in reality, maybe?

You just suggested women want biometric ID cards, so don't act like you're Mrs Reasonable here.

We have a perfectly good, usable tool. Lets keep it.

I'm going to die on the hill of the third unisex space option, and not apologise for that.

Me too.

Babysteps!

Debbie usefully acknowledges real safeguarding and other implications. So essentially recognises the need for a civilised debate. Many (most?) women will feel sympathy for the non gender conforming. What is clear is that self-ID proposals have generated a series of pretty fundamental questions, including how you actually define womanhood, lesbianism or female. Its huge.

How do we have this debate? Our politicians and media editors are so cowed that few even dare to question the wokespeak. And battlelines have been drawn between an 'us' and 'them', where the us is half the population and the them are behaving as if they are part of a university student union debate.

Debbie recognises that the us and them is destructive. It is. There will be lots of things to disagree on, but talking is the first step. This should be on the basis that women too have rights and concerns and in some places/circumstances need protection. We should not allow bullies to drown us out, nor should they prevent our elected representatives or our media from contributing honestly, or from hearing a range of voices.

So a great article and great that the Times published it.

FWIW I supect safety in prisons needs to be addressed, at least in part, via prison reform. The immediate issue though is why a small group who clearly don't even represent all transgender people have so much access and influence, when bright sensible women are not being heard or being allowed to speak.

Because I made the initial proposal that 'penis free' should be a prerequisite for the GRC and that it is the most straightforward 'marker' to throw somebody out from the changing room.

Not everyone agrees that you should have to see a penis before you can tell an obvious man to leave.

The Times have just pulled all comments from that article.