Please can someone who thinks that TWAW..

[BertrandRussell]

...explain to me the intellectual process that got you there? I promise -and as far as I can I promise on behalf of other people - not to challenge or argue and only ask clarification questuons. I just want to understand, even if I don't agree.

In these instances all that I can see is that they would be harassed and therefore the statement made by the OP that they do want trans people to live peacefully and unharassed is unrealistic.

Then the answer is to deal with those doing the harassing.

I read this "you can't tell what's in someone's pants" and "are we going to have a genital inspection? " a lot and it bothers me.
In Rats explanation, what it seems to be saying is that people can fool you anyway, so why even try to have safeguards.
So, because a man might succeed in sneaking by into a female place, or tricking women into thinking he is one, there's just no point in differentiating between male/female?
It's a bit..creepy tbh.
It's totally possible I have been in a hospital wards or a changing room with someone who was male and I thought they were female. That doesn't mean that you tear down the basic structure of single sex provision and make every place unisex!
Somebody might have shoplifted from my shop, but I'm not going to leave it unlocked and put up a sign saying help yourself.
As women we have to protect ourselves from men-men in general. Not transmenwomennonbinarywhatsit specifically, just men. We KNOW this.

I feel bad for transpeople who find using their own sex facilities uncomfortable . I'm a nice person. If a transman feels more comfortable in the men's, and they can "get one past" the men in there who "don't know what's in their pants". Fine. But I doubt they are going to want to be sent to a male prison.
And if the transwomen don't feel safe in mens places, that needs addressing. By men. Because making everything unisex is not what women want. It's not what most men want either.

Two things that are entirely unrelated are being lumped together as 'woman'. A woman is defined by biology. Having a feminine gender identity doesn't make you a woman, it makes you feminine.

^^This. Gender is not sex.

@fermatstheorum your 1% post is spot on.

I need to memorise that and say it to my friends who think I'm being anti-trans.

Bertrand I would be fascinated to see the answer you would get to your OP if you asked on Twitter.
Maybe ask stonewall for a start.

@poshme

I agree. I think the biggest issue here is that of self ID. To me it is utterly bizarre that anyone could not see the potential.unintended consequences.

I think a male presenting, testoterone-filled, beardy woman would traumatise women in a rape crisis centre, yes. That is a muddy area.

And this is where the "you can't change your sex. You are your natal sex" argument loses me. While most of the arguments discuss the issue of trans women accessing female spaces I see a problem of trans men accessing female spaces too. Because I don't want a male looking person in the ladies changing room.

Yet following the natal sex argument a trans man is a woman and so therefore I have no argument because you can't change your sex therefore they are a woman????

I chose to only have a female conduct my smear test. In walks "Brian" who used to be Daphne and my argument would be what?

MsBeaujangles

My posts also very rarely get responded to. I think my posts are often more moderate/conciliatory/questioning than most.

I don't think this abusive, I expect they get overlooked because the don't strike a chord or resonate or interest other posters.

My reason for not responding to your posts is often because I am in complete agreement with what you've said and I've nothing more to add. There are lots of reasons for not responding to posts.

I honestly think I am discussing it as "nicely• as I can. I agree with the 99%/1% thing too.
I suppose I want proper answers because if there actually is any proper scientific evidence that transwomen are really women then I will have to compromise on the 1%. If there isn't, then transwomen have to. Because there is absolutely no way of resolving this without compromise.

Thanks Old Crone!

Therefore the argument must follow that a trans man is allowed to work in a woman's refuge or rape crisis centre, because they are female regardless of their exterior appearance. So a person with a beard, who calls themselves Brian can work in a woman's refuge because when they were born they were called Daphne?

They are female but are aping looking male through drugs and possibly surgery. No one has a right to work in a female refuge or rape crises centre as it’s the female victims that are important here and i’d have to wonder at any TM on T with a beard and male sounding voive etc - who kicked up a fuss about the right to work in these places.

Actually these male aping TM who make these arguements about them having to use female loos, etc if it’s sex that’s the clincher really piss me off. They seem to get some kick out of belittling women’s/girl’s understandable discomfort about having to share female spaces with males.

Lass's example of Blair White is a useful one to illustrate that the issue isn't actually one of passing, but of legal right to challenge people entering spaces. (I've watched quite a few of Blair White's videos and she comes across as entertaining and engaging and the sort of person I'd probably be interested to spend an evening with in RL - and I don't have a problem with calling her "she", both out of courtesy and because in interviews I've seen, she seems genuinely interested in, and prepared to listen to women's views).

Because the thing is I wouldn't have a problem with Blair White in the ladies' toilets (in fact, I may well have encountered, without knowing, transwomen who pass). I would however have a huge problem with Pippa Bunce in the open-plan, communal women's changing rooms and showers at my workplace gym.

And self ID legislation, if brought in, would mean that I had no grounds whatsoever on which to object to Pippa's presence.

The "but what about a transman who wants to work in a rape crisis centre" gotcha isn't really a gotcha at all.

A transwoman is ruled out of employment there because of male biology.

A transman may have the pre-requisite biology, but (if bearded and aggressively demanding that they now have the "right" to work there, regardless of the effect that has on the women in need of the services) clearly lacks some of the other qualities needed for the job, in particular empathy and compassion.

Shared biology is a necessary condition for working there, but not a sufficient one.

If that person switches off and refuses to engage because they are upset by your behaviour how has that advanced your cause?

There it is again - women are not the ones with the cause; women are not the ones trying to redefine ourselves or change the law.

People who say that TWAW are the ones with the cause, and they cant even explain their belief in any meaningful way. So how can it be encoded into law?

Afaik no one is forced to volunteer in rape crisis services or work as medical professionals who provide smear tests etc. If you’re an individual who is putting their right to identity as x over other people’s right to have specific, intimate care from someone who identifies as the same sex as them then perhaps it is your responsibility to not go for jobs or positions that put your patients/ clients in that position in the first place.

Sorry who identifies and objectively is the same sex as the people who use the service.

I agree. I think the biggest issue here is that of self ID. To me it is utterly bizarre that anyone could not see the potential.unintended consequences.

What do you think self ID is? I just want to be clear you understand the full situation.

BrownPaperTeddy

Eg in everyday life what facilities (toilets, changing rooms etc) would a trans man or woman use?

Without some form of inclusion they clearly won't be able to dress as they want or live their lives peacefully and unharrassed.

If you're talking about people simply 'dressing as they want', then clearly there should not need to be any discussion - Philip Bunce belongs in the men's even when he's cross dressing as Pippa, because he is a man.

If you're talking about Tara '7 inch surprise' Hudson - Tara belongs in the men's because of Tara's 7 inch surprise, no matter how much Tara would like people to believe that Tara is a woman.

When Eddie Izzard was just a bloke who liked to wear make up and dresses, he presumably had no problem using the men's, because that was what he was. Why should that change just because he's applied a trans label to himself?

Men have been cross dressing since forever. It's only recently that they've started to think that it means they have actually changed sex.

When Eddie Izzard was just a bloke who liked to wear make up and dresses, he presumably had no problem using the men's, because that was what he was. Why should that change just because he's applied a trans label to himself?

There was the infamous incident Izzard himself describes in his autobiography where he went into a women's toilets to fix his makeup (or similar) and a group of girls of about 14 made fun of him. Izzard paints himself as the victim in this situation. Here it is in his own words:

www.vulture.com/2017/06/eddie-izzard-memoir-believe-me.html

No insight at all into the fact that three young teens, confronted with a grown man in a dress in their toilet, who then aggressively questions why they're challenging his presence (remember Izzard is quite a big, obviously masculine, bloke), might scream and run off.

This is the point at which I realised Izzard is in fact a complete twat.

I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but why can a man identify as a woman, but Rachel Dolezal could not identify as African American?

A trans woman should not be allowed to work in a woman's refuge or rape crisis centre because they are male, no matter their exterior appearance.

Therefore the argument must follow that a trans man is allowed to work in a woman's refuge or rape crisis centre, because they are female regardless of their exterior appearance. So a person with a beard, who calls themselves Brian can work in a woman's refuge because when they were born they were called Daphne?

I agree that this is a problem, because men are a danger to women, but women are not a danger to men. Transmen might have to be excluded for the safety and wellbeing of the women involved, as well as transwomen being excluded. Because women are at risk from men, an asymmetry in the rules might be appropriate. Transmen and transwomen (who might also be in danger from men), might need to have a separate service.

There are no simple solutions to this problem, and trying to reduce everything to slogans and sound bites or worse, no debate, helps no one.

Rachel Dolezal is good point. Ethnicity, like Sex/gender, isn’t solely biological either is it. If you were raised as and look and feel White European then find out via dna testing you’re over a quarter Native American would you try to acculturate your way in to those communities?

I just don’t think it’s all quite so polarised as it seems in online discussions, nothing is ever that black and white.

I don’t think acculturate is the right word there but I can’t remember what is

FermatsTheorem

This is the point at which I realised Izzard is in fact a complete twat.

I cannot begin to tell you how bitterly disappointing this was - and still is - to me. I used to love Eddie Izzard. I now despise him and that photo of him (and others) that was Tweeted by the "Labour LGBT" group - containing not a single, actual XX woman - continues to enrage me.

Rachel Dolezal is good point. Ethnicity, like Sex/gender, isn’t solely biological either is it. If you were raised as and look and feel White European then find out via dna testing you’re over a quarter Native American would you try to acculturate your way in to those communities?

There's two separate issues which shouldn't be conflated, in my opinion. The purely physical issue, as it pertains to the transgender debate (but not the trans-racial analogue), namely that men are bigger, stronger, and have penises with which they rape women (the fact that they account for 90% of violent criminals in prison and 98% of sex offenders just is an indisputable fact). That's the argument that applies to the sheer, unadulterated stupidity (not to mention evil intent) of putting Karen White in a women's prison. Then there's the social issue of male socialisation and privilege. That's the argument which shows the absurdity of giving a women in business award to Pippa Bunce.

Only the latter argument, about socialisation, privilege, the weight of history, applies to the Rachel Dolzeal's of this world. If you've grown up thinking you're white, benefiting from white privilege, not being discriminated against, and you do an ancestry DNA test and find that you're 1/4 Native American* then apply for a scholarship intended to get kids from underprivileged backgrounds on reservations into college - you are a total twat for doing so.

(*FWIW my DS is 1/8 BAME by ancestry - but looks white and due to family background will definitely grow up with white middle-class privilege however you cut it. No way would I be encouraging him to take advantage of affirmative action programmes, because this would be utterly shitty of both of us.)

This is the point at which I realised Izzard is in fact a complete twat.

I'd forgotten that story when I wrote about Izzard. He now says that happened a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that up until a year or two ago he never claimed to be trans - just a bloke who liked to wear dresses and make up. And so would have used the men's toilets.