Center Parcs upholding single sex spaces?

[gcnotterf1]

www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/30/center-parcs-trans-woman-changing-rooms-equalities-act-victoria-hodges/

You can push and push but in the end no government, of any persuasion, can realistically give you what you want.

The thing is, bronners, it's perfectly legal to exclude men, however they identify, from women's spaces. Proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

And it's threads like these, and attitudes like yours which will make that happen more and more.

See how a drunken man tries to get in his car at the pub, and how public opprobrium will immediately ignite to prevent him. With a chorus of not cool mate, not cool.

It's not that long ago that a drunken man trying to drive home would have made not a ripple.

So attitudes like yours will ensure businesses invoke the equality act, and the exemptions which were deliberately built in, in order to protect women.

That's why threads like these are more useful than anything any feminist says.

You seem to think that's a gotcha question, Bronners, but every time you repeat it you make yourself sound worse.

People like Bronners have no idea how they come across to the average person who respects others' boundaries and right to privacy and dignity.

I also tell my kids 'identify' means 'not really a'! It's a running family joke, if one of us gets something muddled up "well maybe the coffee you made me identifies as a cup of tea?!"

People like Bronners have no idea how they come across to the average person who respects others' boundaries and right to privacy and dignity.

Clearly.

It's a bit weird.

I also tell my kids 'identify' means 'not really a'!

It's how most people see it. My colleagues make those kind of jokes.

Yes, 'identify as' is huge in teenage parlance.

I get 'but mum I identify as having taken the dog out this morning. Yeah I know my sister actually did it, but I definitely identify as....'

Shark. Jumped.

I dislike the narrative that we should automatically accept as female those who have 'tried hard enough' by going under the knife. It herds TW towards life changing surgery which cannot make them female.

Totally agree. Being female is not 'earned'. It is also totally immoral to tell somebody that they can only have something if they harm themselves. There's a word for that.

It’s only common decency, a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human biology that will “police” toilet entry, Bronners. No doubt you can continue to leverage female socialisation and fear as you have done so far, and you’re right, no one is going to arrest you.

Judge you, yes. This is Mumsnet after all, home of judgement you should be offended if people didn’t! But arrest you? No.

ner ner ner, you can’t make me is such a lame argument, though. It takes a particular personality to read what women hear have posted about fear, distress and discomfort and respond with a “yeah, whatever”, so thank you for sharing that with us, it’s very informative.

I would happily be categorised as a uterus haver if facilities were split into Uterus haver and penis haver. This would be combined with heavy penalties for anyone making someone uncomfortable/harassing them in the space designated for their category or for trying to gain entry to the category they didn't belong to.

I would happily be categorised as a uterus haver if facilities were split into Uterus haver and penis haver.

Careful now....someone will be along with the ‘Are you saying women who have had hysterectomies aren’t welcome?’ argument.

Boldly apologies- should have said UHAB or PHAB. (UH at birth, PH at birth)

@Bananabixfloof I've heard transmen say they can't use any loos out at all unless unisex, for obvious reasons. That troubles me a lot.

I do hear what you say. As I think my posts show, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the issues. But I have two autistic kids. Almost every adult autistic woman I know says she's so glad she wasn't a teenager when this was happening, because they would have thought they were trans, and horribly regretted it. Autistic teenage girls face exponentially tougher adolescences than others. And autism means liking definite answers, and researching things and obsessing about it. I think we're going to see a lot of detransitioing ASD girls in future, but for those who don't, I would like them to have safer provision.

Absolutely no reason you should have to campaign at all though. That's not your responsibility - we need better disabled provision too, and better prisons, and elderly care, and school funding - Lord knows there are plenty of other issues to address, and this is not, in point of fact, everyone's primary responsibility, though you would never know that from the present rhetoric. But I also think this has got incredibly bitter and while I absolutely recognise why, I do worry about the kids caught up in it, and brainwashed, who in future will need support and provision - especially the young female transitioners. They're not responsible for males aggressively insisting on sharing communal changing areas which are supposedly single sex, and personally I think most are being sold a fantasy that will solve none of their primary difficulties at all.

Almost every adult autistic woman I know says she's so glad she wasn't a teenager when this was happening
I was one, I thought for two years I was a boy. I (earnestly cos I was a teen) thought I had to be a boy. For all the usual reasons, plus I have a deep voice, then one day I thought fuck it, I'm just an odd female. And have been forever since. I would certainly have been transed now.

But we can speak all we want about third spaces. They have zero interest in this. So 🤷‍♀️ it's a pointless circle of words.

Yeah, it chills me. My daughter is very girly in many ways; loves fashion and fairies and unicorns and so on, so maybe that will protect her? But how shit, that I'm relieved my daughter is gender conforming just so she has a little more protection against this bollocks.

I'm not sure transmen don't want third spaces, tbh. I mean, mens loos aren't safe, and to use women's loos acknowledges the elephant in the room. But when you get the likes of Vicky and Bronners coming and posting very, very obvious male entitlement, and absolute contempt for the idea that women are human beings with needs and feelings and inner lives of their own, it's hard to be particularly sympathetic, isn't it?

I think part of the problem is that nobody is actually being challenged properly on any of it, thanks to the aggressive no-platforming of women trying to discuss the impact on us; as soon as you do start to pull at the numerous flaws, the whole thing is so incoherent it falls apart. Which is, of course, precisely why NO DEBATE is ever allowed. It means almost every woman I've talked to thinks she's alone in feeling this way. But it's the majority opinion, and by a large margin. Which is why it's so essential that Maya wins her appeal. At that point, women can finally speak up.

Crikey, yes. I got 'You're basically a lad/nerd/bloke/boy in a girl's body, aren't you?' directed at me from all sides as a teenager, even in my very nerdy grammar school and from my own friends, sibs and grandparents, because of my taste for maths and muck rather than makeup, as far as I can see.

Girl Culture was just baffling, even in the more laissez-faire bits of the 80s. I've managed to pretend a bit better as I've got older.

(Yes, possibly autistic. Certainly my kids are diagnosed as such.)

I also grew out of the feeling that because the things girls were expected to do were shit, that girls themselves were a bit shit.

Maturity is quite useful. I'd hate to live with all my own teenage mistakes and opinions lifelong.

Wouldn't mind the teenage body and energy levels though...

You can push and push but in the end no government, of any persuasion, can realistically give you what you want.

This is the best example of projection I've ever seen. It's like some sort of platonic ideal of no self awareness.

I'm still trying to get my head round the idea that we should only have rules/laws that can physically be enforced. What on earth kind of society do we want to be where people have to be physically prevented from doing things in order to stop them?

The biggest deterrent for many rules/laws/expected behaviours is the social one. Most people don't think there's a police officer round every corner watching their every move, therefore they have to behave themselves. Most people don't break laws or rules or behave outside a conventionally accepted manner because they know it's the right and respectful thing to do, and because they fear disapproval from other people.

This whole notion that a rule can't possibly be put in place/shouldn't be put in place unless it is possible to literally physically enforce it is desperately sad. Extrapolate that to every other law/rule we encounter every day and just imagine what kind of society we'd be living in.

This whole notion that a rule can't possibly be put in place/shouldn't be put in place unless it is possible to literally physically enforce it is desperately sad.

And only appears to be directed from male bodied people towards female bodied people.

I don't suppose you would see Bronners, or anyone like them, taunting, I don't know, a bunch of male football fans, that they can't be stopped and there's nothing they can do.

I dislike the narrative that we should automatically accept as female those who have 'tried hard enough' by going under the knife. It herds TW towards life changing surgery which cannot make them female.

I also agree but I would add that it's often those who've had that surgery pushing that narrative hardest. A full psychological analysis of the reasons for that would no doubt be insta-deleted so I'll just say that everyone reading arguments from transwomen against self-ID but that are either curiously silent about the issue of transwomen who've had surgery or that present the view that those who've had surgery should be given access to women's spaces should pause for a moment and consider the self-interest behind those arguments.

I'll just say that everyone reading arguments from transwomen against self-ID but that are either curiously silent about the issue of transwomen who've had surgery or that present the view that those who've had surgery should be given access to women's spaces should pause for a moment and consider the self-interest behind those arguments.

Also the Safeguarding consequences which are impacting children & vulnerable adults, especially girls & women who have the fewest resources / already been impacted by male abuse etc

it's often those who've had that surgery pushing that narrative hardest

I have noted that too, Kittens. It's irresponsible on so many levels.

I've had a response and it's not good. Will push for clarity.

Am I right in understanding that the spa is open to 14+?

So essentially we are talking about possible public indecency around minors?