Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

I used the girls' room for the first time today

450 replies

GrinitchSpinach · 09/01/2019 23:44

from reddit mtf:

all comments affirming. They are delighted to have actual women apologizing for being in the 'wrong' place in the women's room. Absolutely no understanding of the fear any woman or girl might feel encountering a male person in a vulnerable, isolated space. Also: "little girls' room" for a 19 y.o. person...

I used the girls' room for the first time today
OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Datun · 10/01/2019 17:04

When asked directly if they were encouraging violence their response was ‘yes I am advocating violence against bigots’. Plain sight.

This is what I mean about dehumanising women, before you can legitimately treat them like animals.

Calling them terfs, bigots, transphobes strips them of their autonomy and humanity. It makes them one dimensional, as a concept. Not a living, breathing, human. Merely a terf. So it's okay to 'put the boot in'.

FWRLurker · 10/01/2019 17:06

I actually believe that these TW do in fact fully believe, having been trained in the echochambera online, that the women do not mind them being there. They simply don’t see women.

I saw a reddit thread once where a pre-everything TW was describing her experience being excluded from a women only aerobics session as they were visibly male and this session included many women who had stated they couldn’t participate for religious reasons.

Was the response of this person empathy and understanding towards these women’s desire for single sex accommodation? Nope, apart from general self pity, they went on to make the argument that them being excluded was illogical and wrong because they aerobics class was mixed anyway since some of these religious women were probably closeted trans men. I kid you not.

R0wantrees · 10/01/2019 17:12

Calling them terfs, bigots, transphobes strips them of their autonomy and humanity. It makes them one dimensional, as a concept. Not a living, breathing, human. Merely a terf. So it's okay to 'put the boot in'.

April 2018 Helen Lewis New Statesman:
'The madness of our gender debate, where feminists defend slapping a 60-year-old woman
It seems swivel-eyed to condemn rhetorical “attacks” and blithely ignore physical ones.'
(extract)
ou would have thought that a feminist getting punched in the face would be reasonably large news – particularly if her attacker had boasted online earlier of wanting to “fuck up” some feminists, comparing them to fascists. But the conviction of the person who attacked 60-year-old Maria MacLachlan at Speakers’ Corner last year didn’t trouble the pages of the Guardian, where I would normally expect to hear about something that veers close to being a hate crime, or the LGBT website Pink News. Why? A clue comes in the fact that MacLachlan was slapped by a 26-year-old transgender woman called Tara Wolf, who explained to the court that MacLachlan was a “TERF” – a term commonly used to stand for “trans exclusionary radical feminist”, ie one who doesn’t believe that trans women are “real” women, but which Wolf defined as a “trans exterminatory radical feminist”.

The implication was that MacLachlan, now 61, wants all transgender people dead – something that seems absolutely barking until you realise this is quite a common accusation in activist spaces. The feminist group Sisters Uncut, which has done great work protesting the closure of domestic violence services, somehow looked at the case and decided that Wolf was the real victim. It used a hashtag – #freetheshewolf – and called for a protest outside Hendon Magistrates’ Court, asking for support for a “trans woman targeted… and harassed by TERFs, transmisogynists and cops”, adding: “Attacks on trans lives will not be tolerated.”

While I have no doubt that Wolf has faced prejudice and bullying due to being trans, it seems swivel-eyed to condemn rhetorical “attacks” and blithely ignore physical ones. (continues)

The Wolf affair also demonstrates another alarming phenomenon: the left getting high on its own supply of self-righteousness. “Some feminists have a different conception of gender to me” gets smudged into “some feminists talk about me in ways that I find offensive” and on to “some feminists are basically Hitler, trying to eradicate people like me”.

Once you reach the last statement, then of course you can slap a woman and still think of yourself as a good person. She wants to kill you; a mere punch is self-defence. (I’m not exaggerating about the language. The Edinburgh branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted the day after the attack: “Punching TERFs is the same as punching Nazis. Fascism must be smashed with the greatest violence to ensure our collective liberation from it.”) continues

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/04/madness-our-gender-debate-where-feminists-defend-slapping-60-year-old

chickaletta2020 · 10/01/2019 17:16

@Iverunoutofideas totally agree.. if we just had single cubicles, for whoever wanted to use them none of this would be an issue!!

Datun · 10/01/2019 17:19

I actually believe that these TW do in fact fully believe, having been trained in the echochambera online, that the women do not mind them being there. They simply don’t see women.

This is part of how learning about the misogyny involved in the trans ideology changes you.

The rocksolid realisation that men have absolutely zero idea of the way women navigate the world with violence in it, is very lowering.

When those same men then demand access to women's spaces, it's infuriating.

We have had several transwomen on here who, quite sincerely, said women didn't mind them being there. Even when it was pointed out that yes they probably did, and we did, they genuinely couldn't believe it.

To them, the women would simply turn around and say so, if they were uncomfortable. They could not accept the idea that women wouldn't do this.

terryleather · 10/01/2019 17:20

That word inclusive again.

Not all inclusion is good, desirable or fair.

As nauticant says, should a Year 2 class be inclusive of Stefonknee?

Should a BLM group be inclusive of members of the KKK?

Should those fighting for disabled rights be inclusive of the Transabled?

Women and girls are being told not only that they must be inclusive of males that feel they are woman but that they are those men's cis oppressors and must centre those men's demands at all times.

Every time males are included in a female space to which they don't belong there are women who have a legitimate right to be there who will be excluded.

Fuck that.

R0wantrees · 10/01/2019 17:24

They simply don’t see women.

Narcissists (of both sexes) do not see others.

Controlling men (see Lundy Bancroft) do not see (eg have empathy) for the women who are the targets of their abuse

R0wantrees · 10/01/2019 17:26

totally agree.. if we just had single cubicles, for whoever wanted to use them none of this would be an issue!!

There is an emerging story about the issues in a Bath swimming pool with individual cubicals.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3473965-Bath-Leisure-Centre-naked-men-in-changing-village

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 10/01/2019 17:59

totally agree.. if we just had single cubicles, for whoever wanted to use them none of this would be an issue!!

But that doesn't solve the problem for single sex provision in hospitals, prisons and refuges.

OdeToDiazepam · 10/01/2019 17:59

On a trans health website, someone admits to lying to three psychiatrists as their friends have done, in order to get surgery

I used the girls' room for the first time today
FlyingOink · 10/01/2019 18:06

terryleather
Agreed. Inclusivity isn't a positive in itself, it's a neutral concept. It's become charged with positivity as a response to discriminatory segregation. That discriminatory segregation can be dismantled without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There aren't separate facilities for black and white people in the US any more, but a middle aged man still can't go to school as a young child, and I can't identify as disabled to get a closer parking space at Tesco.
To be fully inclusive of everyone at all times is pretty impossible, especially if you don't accept the criteria being given as discriminatory. For example, if I'm standing outside a concert venue, the staff aren't going to accept that my lack of a ticket is economic discrimination, and let me in. I just don't have a ticket.
The DWP aren't going to accept that my not receiving a pension is age discrimination. I'm just not old enough.
I could argue that not getting into the gig or getting a free bus pass makes me really really sad, and I could threaten to commit suicide, and I could call out my nasty oppressors, dox them and threaten them too.
I'd still be wrong.
And what happens if MRAs decide that letting transwomen into women's spaces is discriminatory towards other men? They could equally argue that all men should be allowed into women's spaces, because NAMALT and because the transwomen in women's spaces are biologically male, often with no chemical or surgical change.
Confused

terryleather · 10/01/2019 18:17

To be fully inclusive of everyone at all times is pretty impossible, especially if you don't accept the criteria being given as discriminatory.

This is very true Flying, I just wish that those identifying as progressive would look beyond the easy virtue signalling and see what the consequences of their mindless desire for inclusion might be.

Earlywalker · 10/01/2019 18:20

These are called facts. They're good, you should get some

You do realise you just repeated all of the facts I just made, almost word for word and then told me to get facts? Grin

RomanticFatigue · 10/01/2019 18:32

I'm wondering if anyone has any examples of TW having reported violence in the gents toilets? They're very outspoken about the risks incurred by them but I can't find any evidence.

nauticant · 10/01/2019 18:32

There aren't separate facilities for black and white people in the US any more, but a middle aged man still can't go to school as a young child, and I can't identify as disabled to get a closer parking space at Tesco.

O brave new world. That has such people in 't!

R0wantrees · 10/01/2019 18:43

You do realise you just repeated all of the facts I just made, almost word for word and then told me to get facts?

You're in agreement with statement below? excellent!

"Really?? By who?
All I have read is that mens violence needs addressing ( by men ) and that noone should feel threatened.
Young men ARE more likely to be violently assaulted (i.e punched) by a stranger. Weaker men ARE at risk ( from other men), In toilets, on public transport, in prison.
I worry about my son lots and have always, for example, told him to never use public toilets in a park.
None of that has anything to do with "feelings". And none of it is relevant to protecting spaces for women.
It's a seperate issue. Otherwise we have a situation where all but the most neanderthal men are crammed into the ladies because those other men are dangerous..
Women ARE SAFER when men are not allowed into their intimate spaces.
Again, not feelings.
I don't "feel" less safe alone in a changing room with a man. I AM less safe.
These are called facts. They're good, you should get some."

men=adult human males

Earlywalker · 10/01/2019 18:44

I think on a self reported survey, 2 in 5 trans people were victims of hate crimes within the last 12 months. I don’t think it would be a huge leap to suggest atleast a large majority of these were committed by men.

This was the first article that came up online, although this was a transwoman assaulted by woman. It was published yesterday.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carolina-trans-sexual-assault-raleigh-bathroom-bill-women-charged-a8718796.html%3famp

I guess as I said earlier, no where is ‘safe’

EJennings · 10/01/2019 18:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Earlywalker · 10/01/2019 18:50

Yes I gave the statement about violence to men, obviously this is mainly committed by men.
I don’t agree that it’s only up to men to sort it out. I think if we only sorted out issues which directly affected us, the world would be a dark place.

The feelings aspect comes in whereby a woman is completely entitled to feel threatened by a man being close to her, this is obviously backed up by facts and statistics that men can and do assault woman. However a transwoman is equally entitled to feel threatened by multiple men being close to her, and again is backed up by facts and statistics that men assault men and particularly those who do not conform to gender stereotypes.

Everyone is entitled to there feelings and none is more or less valid. This was in response to datuns post, who was responding to me saying both sides have feelings within the situation. Her post read:

Discomfort because a member of the cohort who regularly beat, rape and kill women is demanding to stand next to you when you're vulnerable is a very valid feeling. A man wanting validation because he's wearing a frock, not so much.

EJennings · 10/01/2019 19:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HumberElla · 10/01/2019 19:06

So, ok then. Everyone is entitled to their feelings. They are valid to the person feeling them, as I said up thread.
So what is your point Early ? I’m still not clear. How do you suggest we tackle the problem of competing and equally valid (individually) feelings in society? What measure or weighting would we apply?

Earlywalker · 10/01/2019 19:17

My personal opinion? I think you should have to hold a GRC to use the toilet of your ‘new’ sex. If you don’t, and using your current ones would put you in harm and/or affect your mental health then unisex/disabled facilities. This would only work if we made It legal and normal to request to see a GRC.
My point was based on the regular emphasis that woman’s feelings are important (which obviously I agree with) but there does seem to be a continuous dismissal for transgender people’s feelings.

I agree with sex segregation for toilets, but (and I know it’s irrelevant but thought I’d address your point!) my understanding of it is that woman wanted restrooms solely because the ones they currently had were exclusively designed and used by men, they needed some for them. So the campaigns were for them to have somewhere to go so they could leave the house and have a toilet, Rather than avoid sharing with men. I believe originally, it was men that didn’t want woman in their spaces. (What a shock!) so woman had to campaign for anywhere to use the facilities.

R0wantrees · 10/01/2019 19:18

On a trans health website, someone admits to lying to three psychiatrists as their friends have done, in order to get surgery

OdeToDiazepam
This aspect really needs to be taken more seriously.

There is also so much information shared on the internet which coaches young people about what to say to be prescribed hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones.

The protocols which can enable GPs to issue 'bridging hormones' prior to fuller comprehensive assessment at GIDS are shared.

Given the serious implications of taking cross sex hormones long term and drastic surgical interventions those charities and organisations challenging the neccessary safeguards are risking the health and well-being of those they claim to advocate for.

EJennings · 10/01/2019 19:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

R0wantrees · 10/01/2019 19:26

my understanding of it is that woman wanted restrooms solely because the ones they currently had were exclusively designed and used by men, they needed some for them. So the campaigns were for them to have somewhere to go so they could leave the house and have a toilet, Rather than avoid sharing with men. I believe originally, it was men that didn’t want woman in their spaces. (What a shock!) so woman had to campaign for anywhere to use the facilities.

You must have missed the links I provided previously to academic research?

I think there is a wider issue that yes people are entitled to have feelings and opinions and these matter however facts, research and knowledge have a specific value.

Here is an interesting piece of historical study:
'Sexism in the "Bathroom Debates": How Bathrooms Really Became Separated By Sex'
Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2018
by W. Burlette Carter

Abstract
This article challenges two widely-embraced theories about how public intimate spaces (e.g., toilets, locker rooms, showers, etc. hereinafter called “bathrooms”) first became separated by sex. The first challenged theory claims that the very first instance of sex-separation in public bathrooms occurred in 1739 at a ball held in a restaurant in Paris. Under this first view, sex-separation first emerged as a sign of upper-class gentility and elitism. The second challenged theory argues that a consistent practice of differentiating bathrooms by sex did not emerge until the late nineteenth century. According to this view, bathroom sex-separation was imposed when authorities overreacted to the notion of the intermingling of the sexes as women entered the workplace during the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the second view holds that bathroom sex-separation is rooted in sexism, paternalism and outdated Victorian notions of modesty.

This article provides evidence to show that, while widely embraced by media, both of these theories are wrong. The author traces the 1739 Paris ball to its origins (a ball celebrating the wedding of the daughter of Louis XV), and demonstrates that scholars misinterpreted that event. Moreover, she demonstrates that bathrooms have long been separated by sex, and that the primary reason for that separation was securing safety for women and children in an atmosphere of harassment. Indeed, the sex-separation laws that emerged during the nineteenth century labor movement were among the earliest anti-sexual harassment laws in the nation. They did not fail because they sought to protect women; they failed because they did not secure similar protections for male-bodied victims. At the same time, the author argues that some lower and middle class sexual minorities and others sometimes wanted or needed different rules. She theorizes that a common "safe space" was the masquerade balls. But even when they created such spaces by consent, and adopted intimate space approaches to suit their needs, authorities later forced them to abandon these approaches. Seeking to preserve their power positions, upper class sexual minorities may have cooperated in these suppression efforts.

Historians erred in recounting the history of bathrooms because they misunderstood the language of earlier eras, they failed to sufficiently consider women's history and they ignored the condition of the poor. Thus, as they propose an explanation of sex-separation that advances the interests of some sexual minorities, they offer a narrative that oppresses women and the female-bodied generally, especially those in the middle and lower classes. Such histories erase evidence of women's historic struggles with sexual assault and sexual harassment. They similarly ignore the struggles of the poor for safe intimate spaces.

Women and others must push back on approaches that contort women’s history. They are rooted in sexism and patriarchy, even when they may be intended to advance freedom for other groups."

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311184

and a very informative speech about toilet design by a UK expert:
Professor Clara Greed, WPUK Bath, 1st November 2018
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD92aLqgtTA

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3427591-WPUK-Bath-fascinating-important-speech-by-Clara-Greed-Professor-of-Inclusive-Urban-Planning-specialist-in-toilet-provision-with-particular-emphasis-upon-womens-needs