Even when they get what they want....

[BoxOfBabyCheeses]

....they still scream "transphobia!"

UCLA have said that they will install a number of unisex bathrooms throughout campus. These will have floor to ceiling partitions to protect privacy. Now students are claiming that this is transphobia as it implies that trans people are all peeping toms. They get what they claim they want, but they want it on their terms not ours.

Muststopfaffing
The toilet stalls that UCLA intend to install are mandatory for mixed sex toilets in the UK, except ours must also include a sink...

I wasn’t aware of this. So the cases where we’ve heard from women that the ladies loos where they work have suddenly become “gender neutral” don’t meet UK legal requirements? Or do they get away with it by saying “gender neutral” rather than unisex?

They get away with breaking the law because women are socialised to be nice, to not complain, to put up with it, and because activists and organisations are working to spread information about the law.

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 state under Regulation 20 that employers need to provide separate rooms containing toilets for men and women.

Toilets used by women must also be provided with facilities for disposing of sanitary towels.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20/made

Women must complain.

Page 37 - 40;
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l24.pdf

Also;

''separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.''
www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/toilets.htm

I know, right MangoesAreMyFavourite

Suddenly, when things aren't taken in isolation, the motives become clearer. Dominance and control start to seem obvious.

Advocating for female safety is now considered transphobic because these fools, lacking any knowledge of feminist history, believe that feminists are only now concerned about male predation and violence because our concerns are really a screen for our hateful wish to exclude transwomen from female spaces.

Because the statistic in common narrative, at least in the US, is that 75% of rapes are committed by men known to the victim, those shouting “transphobia” feel justified ignoring the other 25%, and of course “known to” covers pretty wide territory and doesn’t mean, as it’s often read, in intimate relationship with. My bus driver, after all, is “known to me.”

Since the younger generation has been conditioned to believe “privacy rights” are antiquated, in the age of data-harvesting and selfies, they don’t see voyeurism as a crime. In the age of dick-pics, they don’t regard exposure as a crime. It’s just the water we swim in and only prudes, idealists, or right-wing Christians complain about it.

In the blink of an eye, “metoo” on campuses has been erased and replaced with “only transphobes talk about male predation.”

These fools believe the only men women ever have to worry about are men they are dating, living with, or married to. That’s why they have no qualms about surrendering female public space.

It’s quite obvious who benefits here.

I have just seen a news story where a ‘woman’ was charged with sexually assaulting a child.

Now she may have just had a naturally hairy face. Or maybe she was male. Either way the crime will be recorded as a woman paedophile.

I don't need people to have the same beliefs as me

if only that were true. Enforcing beliefs, without consultation, about what constitutes a real woman is central to the trans agenda.

I find it really interesting that I'm being attacked purely for believe in a trans woman's right to be treats as any other woman should be

If that were true then their rights and feelings would be completely side-lined, rather than taking centre stage.

I thought feminism was about equality amongst all? By saying a trans woman isn't a real woman you take away many of her rights

Actually, feminism is about valuing women and not continually subjecting them to a male enforced set of values or rules.

Men cannot become women no matter what they feel. And the insistence on invading women's spaces, in spite of the obvious discomfort that women feel about this, does not suggest much empathy with women or their material situation, either.

A trans woman is a trans woman. If they weren’t originally a male then there would be no need for the word ‘trans’. Therefore they are what they are.

We were polite and asked very simple questions. No pile on

If you knowingly come on to a forum that you know that people have joined because of their views on a certain issue, then it would be foolish to expect anything other than disagreement; and lots of it. As it happens, I think people have been exceedingly tolerant..given the content of a lot of the posts.

For goodness sake, there are a lot of educated and intelligent people here......the level of debate can be appalling at times.

......the level of debate, that is, that is put forward by the occasional venturer onto the site. There is some great debate here, otherwise.

It's why you're left with an echo chamber in here and hardly hear any other views

That's right! People come here for collaboration and discussion of this issue- but from a gender critical viewpoint. That is not going to change. Surely you knew that?There is precious little space elsewhere for people to unite and discuss in this way.

I thought feminism was about equality amongst all? By saying a trans woman isn't a real woman you take away many of her rights

What is a 'real woman' for pete's sake. You know, I know, we all know, you mean adult human female. No, males are males, their choice of identity doesn't change that.

By saying a male who identifies as trans should be counted as if they were adult human females takes away many if not all the rights of everyone born with that biology. You are more worried about the rights of that male than you are about anyone on the planet who is female.

Spot the internalised misogyny.

I think most people here have done far more research and reading into the Trans ideology/Queer theory etc than even most trans allies. We're not stupid. You can't effectively debate something of which you have little awareness or real grasp. Having done that the general consensus here is that we think it is a load of purposefully dense post-modern nonsense. We come here for support, information, collaboration, organisation and dialogue.

Many of us here were originally trans allies, we've reviewed the arguments from both viewpoints before arriving here so it's a nonsense to say we''be not been open to debate. I reviewed my twitter likes recently and realised I was actively liking pro Trans tweets right up until the Cancer research cervix-haters farce even though Tara wood had shocked me when I realised how violent they and other vocal trans prisoners were and I'd had a bad experience sharing a toilet with a TW from my twitter feed it was Cancer Research that finally peak transed me

By saying a trans woman isn't a real woman you take away many of her rights

Which specific rights are those?

Transwomen have the same rights as any other man. They are among the least oppressed people in history.

Tara Wood peaked me. I remember posting on a mumsnet thread before that not understanding why so many were 'so transphobic' and not getting it at all because all I knew was my one transwoman friend. Then Speakers Corner happened and once you see the first crack all the other cracks appear.

But this toilet issue really shows a massive fucking crack - being in the same toilets isn't enough, not if they're carefully designed for privacy and safety because that's not what is wanted.

I’ve generally been of the opinion that the toilet issue was about affirmation rather than voyeurism but it’s getting increasingly hard to maintain that theory.

Agreed AlwaysComingHome
The creep factor amongst the most vociferous people demanding access to women and girls in toilets and changing rooms is exceptionally high.

Even when " they get what they want" there can never be satiation and satisfaction, it seems. There will always be some additional thing which is required in order to feel validated. Apart from ever greater incursions into women's spaces, and violation of boundaries: cultural; linguistic and physical, we can only imagine where and what next?

I've read of TRAs demanding that Pride marches ban drag queens - because they are 'offensive' to trans women ( never mind actual women), for example. I bet that didn't go down well.

The truth is that nothing can really offer security & validation to someone in an essentially insecure & invalid position. When you have a black hole of neediness then nothing can ever fill it up. It is bottomless. If you keep giving in to a powerful toddler, they become tyrants.

Boundaries are required. The necessity to face limitation and a measure of restriction.

Like a toddler - if you give them one chocolate button they want the whole pack.

If you've seriously reversed belief to go back to trans ideology because GC women's manners aren't pretty enough then you never got the issues with trans ideology in the first place.

Indeed. Makes no sense at all the few who claim they were GC but now are not because a few women said something they think is mean, or whatever.

This 'pile on' nonsense when a few people disagree is odd. I post opinions sometimes where the huge majority disagree and say so, I don't class that as a pile on, nor 'being silenced'..that only ever seems to be used when talking about gender stuff? AIBU is literally full of hundred post long threads of near all posters disagreeing with the OP. Thats not classed as trying to silence or anything. So WHY is that always used here?

It honestly seems sometimes like people expect FWR posters to not reply to any dissenting opinion, if someone else has replied to it. So only one person is involved in the debate, else 'pile on' Different standards for the women of FWR, as always.