Alexandra Heminsley book

[eyebrowshame]

Has anyone seen the blurb to this? It looks like it might be...interesting

www.penguin.co.uk/authors/1069406/alexandra-heminsley

Hi Eep, you got me again. There was that JKR reference higher up the thread, 08/06/2020 08:12, two months before you responded to it
I’m on my phone and clearly bad on my English comprehension.,.

EEP
With respect, I think you have misunderstood the point being made by JKR in your quote. My interpretation of that sentence is that she is saying that women are potentially more at risk from men, not transwomen, by relaxing the requirements around self ID. As men with bad intentions will misuse any vulnerability to get to women they wish to abuse or attack.

Eep, could you answer the questions for your English audience?
By the way, the “cis” word isn’t normally used here. If you look at the pinned rules at the top of the board, you will see if can get you banned.

Hey Eep

Would you be able to share your understanding of the definition of the terms you've used in the sentence " Cis women and transgender women are mostly at risk from cis men."

Because what I understand from many trans lobbying groups here in the UK 'transgender women' certainly does include 'any man who believes or feels he’s a woman' as JKR states.

And those who identify as transgender women don't even have to feel like they're a woman on every day of the week (see Pips Bunce).

And as transgender women are, by dint of the very definition, males, at what stage do they transition from being in the 'high risk to women as cis men' group, to 'at high risk from cis men' group?

Is it their verbal declaration of being 'not cis'?

Is it something they wear?

Something they do?

I'm intrigued to know this transitioning stage, so us women can know the difference between cis men and transgender women.

And 'cis woman'? Does that mean any woman who strays outside the gender stereotypes expected of a 'woman' is less likely to be at risk from 'cis men'?

Thought id look again at the essay, found this

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection

So this makes JKR transphobic…yeah?

(On my keyboard it has a key for … how awesome is that!)

Don’t worry about my post eep it’s rhetorical really

I know saying that doesn’t make her transphobic

Bathroom fears have also been used against other civil rights causes, in the fight to end segregation of white and black people and in the divert for gender equality.

It's more than a little racist to bring people of colour into this. It trivialises what black people went through (and still go through) to compare the civil rights movement to this absurd quest for "gender equality."
Except here's the thing, toilets are sex segregated, not by gender - gender is irrelevant.
Black people were campaigning for equal rights. Not extra rights - which is what you are saying men should have by arguing they should be able to use women's toilets.

In her essay she spoke about women being at risk from trans women in bathrooms. This isn’t a thing. It’s an anti trans trope.

Tell that to the little girl who was sexually assaulted by a transwomen in a toilet in Scotland.

To continue the massive detail about toilets...

Men are a threat to women (and to other men). Single sex spaces allow women space away from men. This helps lesson the possibility of assault (e.g. there is significantly more sexual assault in mixed sex changing villages than in single sex changing rooms), but perhaps more importantly when it comes to toilets (in the UK at least) single sex toilets provide an everyday single sex space where women can be sure (or should be able to be sure) that men are not present, allowing them to maintain privacy and dignity when they are vulnerable because of their physical body.

This thread is good on toilets: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3203454-What-do-you-use-the-womens-toilets-for

Clara Greed is also good on toilets.

Of course their are plenty of places in the world where women really are at risk of sexual assault by men just because they are going to the toilet, which is why the UN
advocates for single sex toilets for women, prescribing their layout down to setting out how entrances should be oriented in order to reduce the risks to women.

Unpleasant behaviour by men towards women doesn't have to amount to sexual assault to be very negative for women - voyeurism, harassment, intimidation for example (think of the epidemic of cameras in loos in South Korea just for kick off), but much of it is difficult prove, many women would feel silly about being bothered by it and most women would just get out of there as soon as possible. Just the presence of a man in a woman's space could be a red flag, On the basis that that man clearly doesn't understand boundaries.

The question for me that really need answering are, why do we have single sex loos in the first place and what advantage is there to women in opening up their loos to any man ho wishes to use them?

I work in research. We look at research done globally.

“Done globally”?

PaleBlueMoonlight that’s a really useful synopsis on toilets, thank you. Perhaps eep will find it helpful too.