Great blog about being a trans inclusive feminist

[spannablue]

Here: alicenuttallbooks.wordpress.com/2018/11/04/why-i-am-a-trans-inclusive-feminist/

Enjoy!

What’s the key reason you would not want be in the same toilet as a trans person? That poster gave a situation that was only different to a usual situation as the cubicle was open, so the only difference being that a transwoman may see her pee. So obviously I’ve stated they are probably don’t care enough to look anyway.
What’s the reason you cannot bare to share hand washing facilities with a transwoman?

Again I don’t believe a transwomen neccesarily cares if your peeing behind a pushchair or that she’s necessarily looking at you

It's breathtaking. Early, you, consistently, are viewing everything through the eyes of men. Every time.

The disconnect is extraordinary.

I'd be absolutely fine sharing toilets with a transman, who is a trans person. Interesting how you keep defaulting to the idea that "trans person" means "transwoman".

Also, your level of coherency is dropping quite rapidly, as is your SPAG. Just so you're aware.

That poster gave a situation that was only different to a usual situation as the cubicle was open, so the only difference being that a transwoman may see her pee.

By that token, the poster would be happy if the transwoman turned their back!

What don't you understand about the word privacy?

You are all arguing that you don’t know if you don’t know they have a GRC, basically saying the law means nothing as everyone will break it anyway. If that’s the case - what do you want? If any law implemented is so easily disregarded in your eyes, what do you want to happen?

A third mixed sex space. You said a few pages back that you supported that.

I think pushchairs that can’t fit in toilets is an adequate reason to use disabled.

You may think so but the law says otherwise. Disabled facilities of any kind exist for the use of people with disabilities, not as some kind of overflow for the able-bodied facilities. (Forgive the unintentional puns).

Once again, you are suggesting that services disabled people fought long and hard for should be repurposed to accommodate people who do not actually need them.

Say I own a pub and a man in a dress used the ladies, and a woman complains. I have no earthly way of knowing if that man has a GRC or if he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, I can tell him to stop using the ladies. If he does, and I insist that he doesn’t use the ladies, I’m liable to end up in court charged with unlawful discrimination.

So what do I do? I let the man use the ladies of course.

The disconnect is extraordinary.

Mmm.

I just can’t be bothered anymore. Everyone just picks things apart. The actual points I make, people pretend not to see and don’t comment on but anything that can be twisted or turned is hounded on.

I thought I’d try and be as open as possible but it’s clearly no point.

Let’s just settle this now, I’m just a woman hating, man loving TRA. That’s the only reason one could be trans inclusive.

As you were, back to the echo chamber.

I’ve had to use disabled loos before with the buggy.

If you think this thread is harsh, I suggest you don’t mention that elsewhere on MN. I think you would rightly be given a very tough time.

Using a pushchair is not the same as having a disability.

It's breathtaking. Early, you, consistently, are viewing everything through the eyes of men. Every time.

Yes, I've noticed this. Early is quite happy to dismiss women, Muslims, people with disabilities and focus everything on the reactions of transwomen. Even her transman friend doesn't seem to be a priority.

I understand the dictionary perfectly well. I know what ‘denotes’ means.

You completely misunderstood the wording and then tried to use it as a gotcha. You were 100% mistaken. As others also pointed out. But happy not to derail the thread with this.

You haven't made a coherent case at all, you only see things from the POV of other people, and you don't listen to women who explain the problems with making women only spaces mixed sex.
You've repeatedly demonstrated you don't understand the law or how it is applied.
When people try to get a straight answer from you, you throw up your hands and disengage.

Yes, I've noticed this. Early is quite happy to dismiss women, Muslims, people with disabilities and focus everything on the reactions of transwomen. Even her transman friend doesn't seem to be a priority.

YY. Male feelings are everything.

What’s the key reason you would not want be in the same toilet as a trans person?

Not trans person. Transwoman.

Because they are male. Same reason I wouldn’t want to share a toilet with a man I didn’t know. For reasons of privacy, dignity and safety.

In addition, the purpose of female toilets is to allow females to see to their needs. They do not exist to validate identities. I do not consent that my presence becomes part of the validation of someone’s womanly identity. And that’s the mildest suggestion of what might actually be going on.

Unlike transwomen, some disabled people literally can't use any toilets other than the ones specifically designated for them, so why is it OK to push them to the bottom of the priority list? Seems like the priority list goes as follows - transwomen, men who are not all predatory arseholes please note this is very important, transmen maybe, women, disabled people of either sex.

Which is an interesting position to take in multiple ways.

Another teensy point. A person wishing to gain a GRC must show that they have "lived in their chosen gender" whatever the fuck that means for at least two years. Therefore people who wish to gain a GRC must use the facilities set aside for the opposite sex for two years before they gain a GRC.

Not only that, but the moment a person decides they wish to transition to a different sex, they are classed as transgender for the purposes of the EA. Hence us already having de facto self ID in this country.

Moreover, individuals do not have any right to single sex spaces, organisations have the right to exclude people from certain places based on protected characteristics.

I realise that these facts are well known by most, but I thought it might be useful to have them altogether in a single post at this point.

anything that can be twisted or turned is hounded on.

Like you twisted my words and then said that it was my fault and you didn't parse the sentence correctly because I didn't use a "vital" comma. Very disingenuous.

Irrelevantly, I believe that there should have been some clause within the DDA that enforced the use of disabled only facilities (not shared with a baby change or whatever) wherever that was possible, and allowed for some kind of sanction to prevent people who are not disabled from being allowed to use them. I do realise that it would probably have been impossible to enforce, but this idea that "ooh, I don't want to/can't use the facilities I have because they're crowded/poorly designed/reasons" so I'll occupy the facilities for a minority group seems fairly shitty to me. However, I digress.

I have listened to everything you have all said and taken it on board.

The majority of people would be happy with what I would be happy with and have explained. Just not the MN echo chamber.

Half of you make good points, I respond and then only one sentence of a response is listened to and twisted and commented on.

The other half are just constantly agreeing with each other ‘yes yes you’re right she is a fool’ or similar.

It’s exhausting and the reason feminism is probably the most hidden thread here, it’s just an echo chambers of yes that’s outrageous and dismissal of anyone who disagrees.

Early when you write through the male gaze, it leaps off the screen, certainly to me.

When a poster says what do they do with a pushchair and having to leave the door open and your response is a transwoman probs doesn't want to look anyway, it's glaring.

It not only misses the point, it utterly disregards the woman. Ignores her. Writes her out of the scenario altogether.

And when I address your comments with a refutation, you don't respond to that.

You seem to think that having a GRC makes a man conform to female pattern behaviour and criminality.

I asked why you thought that. And your answer was well we don't know.

I said we kind of do, because the only study of its kind use the criteria that would be necessary for a GRC.

And we have pointed to all the well-known transactivists who are post op, none of whom have the slightest respect for women. Plus a sex offending killer who actually blames their gender dysphoria, and another GRC holder who threatens women with the police if they disagree with them.

And these are literally just off the top of my head.

I think you've done well, considering how one-sided this is, to stick around.

But you haven't succeeded in any kind of persuasive argument. Other than you're all being mean.

I agree with the previous poster who said that in your head you see transwomen as something apart. Not as the real life people that we know they are, socialised as male and with little real understanding of what it means to be female.

Let’s just settle this now, I’m just a woman hating, man loving TRA. That’s the only reason one could be trans inclusive.

Literally, and I use that word advisedly, no one has said this about you, apart from you. If you believe this about yourself, then that's very sad, but not even adjacent to reality or what has been said here.

"Why do you meanies keep pointing out the glaring holes in my argument?" isn't a very effective means of changing anyone's mind.

Early when you write through the male gaze, it leaps off the screen, certainly to me.

Because you’re so used to everyone saying the same thing over and over about how dangerous woman are, because woman like myself who don’t agree with that don’t bother commenting because it’s so dismissive over here.

And your answer was well we don't know.
No, my answer was to look back at a study I posted that had looked into it. You saw what you wanted to see.

But you haven't succeeded in any kind of persuasive argument.
That’s fine, I didn’t come here with the intention of changing anyone’s mind. I provided facts, statistics, study’s to back up my point. They were largely ignored because the didn’t fit the narrative.

Women aren't uncomfortable around transwomen in female spaces because they are trans but because they are male.

It's why the 'you don't tar all Muslims with the same brush so don't tar all trans people with the same brush either' argument doesnt work.

We don't have areas where Muslims are not allowed because its recognised that, despite a small minority of Muslim people carrying out crimes, Muslims as a class are not a threat. Men as a class are a threat (note, 'as a class') and we can see this very clearly from statistics, and for this reason we have sex segregated spaces. Women who don't want transwomen in their female spaces feel this way because they don't see transwomen as coming under the class of female (because, at what point does that magically happen?) but as coming under the class of male.

It's not about being trans, it's about being male.