Feminists only claim to care about lesbians in order to justify transphobia

[emerencesometimeshopeful]

Came across this article today. Posted by a friend (ex-friend maybe) who I know would identify with the author.

I fundamentally disagree that the brave new world gives more options than the old one. I'm not even convinced that the numbers of people identifying themselves for statistical purposes as lgbtq+ is useful given the myriad of ways one can identify and fall under stonewall's umbrella.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/lesbians-trans-women-gender-issues-erasure-lgbt-rights-a9005151.html

Field but how do you know they were a man and not a TW? Genuine question. If TW like Danielle Muscato and JY use the female toilets (as they do), how can you tell by looking at someone?

I suppose I don’t for sure but assume that would have been mentioned when it was discussed. You’ve got to admit people don’t hesitate to discuss a trans offender story on here. Usually in detail.

I think most people would consider toilet use reasonable.

Depends what you mean by "trans woman". It's quite a broad term. Please define your terms. Because actually the majority of people don't consider it reasonable, when you spell out that you often mean a male person who has not had genital surgery.

Fieldofgreycorn

Exactly what point is it that you are trying to make in this thread, please? I'm a bit confused about what you are trying to say here.

You seem to have gaps in your knowledge about the UK law that is the Equality Act 2010 plus its relationship with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

[Do you live in the UK?]

Yeah that Julie Bindel. Fucking hates lesbians, I heard. Bloody feminists.

Exactly what point is it that you are trying to make in this thread, please? I'm a bit confused about what you are trying to say here.

I’ve just read the thread & I’m not sure either.

I think the point is "Lesbians? I don't believe the ones saying this is a problem. So shut up."

With a side order of "Boundaries? Ha! You're not allowed them, tough shit."

I think the point is "Lesbians? I don't believe the ones saying this is a problem. So shut up."

One of those.

Depends what you mean by "trans woman". It's quite a broad term. Please define your terms. Because actually the majority of people don't consider it reasonable, when you spell out that you often mean a male person who has not had genital surgery.

For toilet purposes you can’t start specifying exact genitalia. If someone presents as a man, with a beard etc and starts claiming or I-Ding as a ‘woman’ and using female toilets I don’t think society will accept that at all. Such a person would still be challenged following a girl into toilet.

That isn’t what the GRA or EQ act is about, it’s not taking it in the spirit intended. Neither is trying to ban all TW from female toilets.

#LwiththeT

#LwiththeT

What is a lesbian?

Can you give a definition please?

If someone presents as a man, with a beard etc and starts claiming or I-Ding as a ‘woman’ and using female toilets I don’t think society will accept that at all.

What, like Alex Drummond? What defines ‘presenting as a man’?

Oooh, how transphobic to suggest that someone is presenting as a man if they have a beard.

And a hashtag. Tres progressive. Devastatingly effective point.

like the restaurant recently mentioned on FWR where a teen girl was protected from rape by the staff enforcing toilet sex segregation against her attacker who had followed her into the loos)

That was a man, presenting as a man. Not a TW and nothing to do with trans people. I think it’s pretty unpleasant to conflate.

Alex Drummond is a bearded trans lesbian who wears typical male clothing. How are we to tell the difference between Drummond and a would-be rapist? We can't. So yes, it is relevant to how bystanders see trans people.

I will go through the likely thought process of the bystander and staff in the restaurant case.

NOW, IN RESTAURANT:

1. Clearly male-bodied person making no attempt to pass follows teen girl into ladies' loos
2. Bystander sees this and thinks "that's not right" and gets staff
3. Staff intervene
4. Male-bodied person is interrupted by staff mid-grope before he rapes the girl

NOW, IN UNIVERSITIES:

1. Clearly male-bodied person making no attempt to pass follows teen girl into ladies' loos
2. Bystander sees this and thinks "that's not right" and gets staff
3. Staff say "sorry, we can't stop males from entering the women's loos, it's against policy and we like not being fired"
4. Male-bodied person is not interrupted and rapes teen girl

IN FIVE YEARS TIME OR LESS, EVERYWHERE, UNLESS WE STOP THIS NONSENSE NOW:

1. Clearly male-bodied person making no attempt to pass follows teen girl into ladies' loos
2. Bystander sees this and thinks "that's not right"
3. Bystander then thinks "hang on, that might be one of those bearded trans lesbians I've read about in the paper, I'd bettee stay quiet because being accused of transphobia could cost me my job and get me doxxed"
4. Bystander does nothing
5. Male-bodied person is not interrupted and rapes teen girl

This is why women are scared, we can see how this works. Entitled selfish males like Alex Drummond, who are in appearance and attitude are identical to all other entitled males, have caused this fear by creating an environment where we cannot tell a transwoman from a man and will be censured for trying to, even as part of a good-faith attempt to make protect women and girls

This is why I, a university employee, am seriously looking to quit the sector even though I love my job and am proud of my work in STEM education. I one day may have to choose between safeguarding women and girls and having a job, because I am not supposed to challenge a male in the loos even if I see one of our primary aged outreach girls walk into the loo followed by a male making no attempt to pass as a transwoman. It hasn't happened yet but I think it's only a matter of time. I hope that when it does happen, I will have the courage to do the right thing.

If someone presents as a man, with a beard etc and starts claiming or I-Ding as a ‘woman’ and using female toilets I don’t think society will accept that at all. Such a person would still be challenged following a girl into toilet.

Self-ID enshrined in law will mean that no, such a person will not be challenged because to do so puts the challenger at risk of being charged with a hate crime. For the rest, you're basically saying 'this will never happen' which is not much of an argument given that there are depressingly high numbers of threads on here showing how often it does happen - again and again and again.

Either you truly are as ill-informed as your posts seem to suggest or you are being deliberately obtuse.

Yes, that, wacademia. Very clearly explained.

I mean, literally, that UWE poster said "don't challenge". It doesn't give a list of exemptions when we can challenge. It doesn't say "don't challenge, unless the person is a beardy bloke in a three-piece suit and tie using the ladies". It doesn't say "don't challenge, unless a dodgy bloke with a tampon fetish has followed a ten-year-old girl into the loo". That poster is literally placing the feelz of males above the safety of females.

For toilet purposes you can’t start specifying exact genitalia.

Why not? You piss with your genitals.

If someone presents as a man, with a beard etc and starts claiming or I-Ding as a ‘woman’ and using female toilets I don’t think society will accept that at all.

Danielle Muscato obtained a place in a women's homeless shelter, with a beard. Canadian social is being forced to accept that by Canadian law. The same will happen if the law is changed here.

Such a person would still be challenged following a girl into toilet.

Did you read the UWE poster?

canadian social

I meant canadian society.

These posters. The very clear message being ‘Women, you don’t matter so suck it up & be nice.’

See Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, section 27 [single sex services]; subsection 6:

(6) The condition is that—

(a) the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and

(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7/crossheading/singlesex-services

This legal provision provides the legal right for any female to object to any person perceived to be of the opposite sex in their single sex space [eg: female only communal toilets, that is toilets used by more than one female at the same time ].

So, we females always have the legal right to have excluded from our single sex spaces anyone who is male. The possession of a GRC does not supersede this basic legal right.

See Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, section 27 [single sex services] and section 28 [gender reassignment]:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

Good find, Jacky.

Of course, the reason why Stonewall and Gires etc want into schools is to teach girl children not to object to male presence before they have a chance to learn their rights. I see these tactics clearly.

Note that the possession of a GRC only confers rights to the person possessing that GRC in relation to relevant legal statutes.

See GRA 2004, Section 9 [General] subsection 3:

"Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

This means that the granting of a GRC is restricted to the provisions contained within the GRA 2004 [marriage plus access to pension and social security benefits] plus relevant law such as the Equality Act 2010 specific provisions related to Gender Reassignment as a protected characteristic.

The granting of a GRC to a natural male is not a licence for legal access to "all things female" or for a natural female to have legal access to "all things male".

The GRA is explicit about this about this in sections 12 [Parenthood]; 15 [Succession]; 16 [Peerages]; 19 [Sport]; 20 [Gender specific offences]

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

Of course, the reason why Stonewall and Gires etc want into schools is to teach girl children not to object to male presence before they have a chance to learn their rights. I see these tactics clearly.

Schools are required, by law, to provide sex-segregated toilet and washing facilities for all children aged 8 years and over.

School changing rooms and showers must, by law, be sex segregated for children aged 11 years and above.

See section 4: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1943/made

Stonewall, GIRES and the rest of the LGBT / Trans Lobby have no knowledge or understanding of UK law and have been misinforming all UK schools.