Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Accessible Toilets

999 replies

WarOnWomen · 03/10/2020 13:28

I've just seen this thread by Fair Play for Women regarding their stance on toilets. Maya F is also on the thread clarifying the issue.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1312062467191734273?s=21

They are saying that everyone should be comfortable choosing the toilets they want to without being forced to share with opposite sex. Yup. Trans people should also not have to share with people designated at birth. Yup, also agree. Have a mix sex category for people who don't mind and trans people. Sure.

They are saying these facilities already exist. Accessible toilets. This is where I feel lost and let down. These toilets are for disabled people. People worked hard to get these accessible toilets. I don't want my mum having to share these toilets with trans women, anymore than I want them in female spaces. It's just wrong. And don't disabled people have a say as part of the EA2010?

Please tell me I have the wrong end of the stick.

Accessible Toilets
OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
jj1968 · 06/10/2020 14:25

[quote 334bu]AesopfableGrin

Some information on Eric Joyce below
www.womenarehuman.com/ex-member-of-parliament-a-transgender-ally-is-spared-prison-for-sex-abuse-images-of-small-children/[/quote]
Like many politicians Joyce attempted to court both sides of this debate. But his sympathy for gender critical views has nothing to do with the crime he was convicted of, and neither does his qualified support for trans people.

OldCrone · 06/10/2020 14:26

If someone is going round espousing the views of someone like Ben Shapiro who wants to ban all abortions even in the event of rape, opposes equal pay, thinks gays and lesbians are mentally ill and has called for the forced expulsion of all Palestians from the occupied territories then it is not a slur to call them extreme right, it is a fact.

Are you suggesting that if I agree with someone on one issue, I have to agree with them about everything else?

jj1968 · 06/10/2020 14:33

@ErrolTheDragon

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few more on the 'this never happens' threads, who claim to be women.

But apart from them, there are various child sex abuse apologists - excusing, normalising sex with children. Tatchell is the most (in)famous, there's that Dr Christian bloke off the top of my head.

Don't forget Ray Blanchard and James Canton who have promoted the idea of paedophilia as a sexuality (and in Cantor's case that it should be part of the LGBT movement). Or Sulasmith Firestone's call to liberate child sexuality and end the incest tabboo. Or Germaine Greer's Beautiful Boy. Or the founder of hands Across the Aisle who had sex with a minor she had previously had pastoral responsibility for. Two can play at this game.

But let's not because it's ridiculous to attempt to take archaic, foolish and unpleasant views or criminal behaviour by a tiny minority of often fringe individuals to smear either trans rights, feminism or the gender critical movement.

jj1968 · 06/10/2020 14:39

@OldCrone

Are you suggesting that if I agree with someone on one issue, I have to agree with them about everything else?

No.

334bu · 06/10/2020 14:41

Equally I don't believe , just because some proponents of the mantra TWAW and TMAM behave in an abhorrent way, that all people who genuinely hold to the belief that people can change their sex are in anyway like them. I may consider their beliefs irrational and against all scientific fact but they are just as entitled to that belief as any religious group. However, they are not entitled to force me to share that belief nor accuse me of bigotry when I point out that their belief might impact on my rights as a female.

RedDogsBeg · 06/10/2020 14:41

jj1968, so if agreeing with Ben Shapiro that Trans women ae NOT women means you automatically support and agree with everything he says then agreeing with Peter Tatchell that Trans women are women means you automatically support and agree with everything he says, that's how it works is it? So I assume you agree with his stance on 9 year olds enjoying sex with adults, his lavish praise for one of the founders of PIE, his campaign for the reduction in the age of consent, his campaign to introduce masturbation lessons in schools, glad we've cleared that up.

OldCrone · 06/10/2020 14:43

[quote jj1968]@OldCrone

Are you suggesting that if I agree with someone on one issue, I have to agree with them about everything else?

No.[/quote]
So if I agree with a right wing person about transgender ideology, that doesn't make me right wing, does it?

merrymouse · 06/10/2020 14:47

It's also true that people can vote for the same thing (e.g. for and against Brexit) for left wing and right wing reasons.

jj1968 · 06/10/2020 14:48

No, and I never said it did. It also doesn't make the right wong person a feminist because their agenda is to stoke fears of a devious and degenerate other to encourage women to seek the protection of patriarchy. As Dworkin observed very eloquently in the quote I posted.

OldCrone · 06/10/2020 14:50

@jj1968

No, and I never said it did. It also doesn't make the right wong person a feminist because their agenda is to stoke fears of a devious and degenerate other to encourage women to seek the protection of patriarchy. As Dworkin observed very eloquently in the quote I posted.
I don't think anyone's suggested that any of these right wing male commentators are feminists. Where on earth did you get that idea from?
CharlieParley · 06/10/2020 15:01

The term identity politics was first used by the The Combahee River Collective to describe black women's struggle,

Thank you jj1968, I'm very familiar with the Combahee River Collective (and how various trans rights activists like to misrepresent their 1977 statement).

If you'd read a little further on the Identity politics Wikipedia page, you'd have found that it has been employed in myriad cases with radically different connotations dependent upon the term's context.

What the Black women of the Collective argued for (an intersectional analysis of the oppression of black women and the right to build a movement that derives from and builds on this analysis) and what is argued today in aid of identity politics are not the same thing. At all.

and feminists were attacked relentlessly by socialist men for placing 'identity politics' over class struggle.

I don't know why you think this statement here refutes my argument. Socialist men attacked socialist women for arguing for women's rights at the same time as they were also arguing for worker's rights over 170 years ago. A long long long time before before the term identity politics ever made it into the lexicon.

These women weren't even prioritising women's rights over and above worker's rights and were attacked for it. Clara Zetkin, for instance, one of the best known socialist politicians and women's rights campaigners had publicly agreed with her male colleagues, had famously denounced the movement for voting and property rights for women in 1889 and declared that women's rights must wait until after the revolution. Life - as a woman and single mother - changed her mind on that though. And in 1910, despite her credentials as an indefatigable campaigner for worker's rights, she was still publicly attacked by her male colleagues for championing an International Women's Day.

Women's labour - back then and today - must be devoted to just one cause, apparently. And it's not feminism.

The conflict inherent in all civil rights movements is that the women within movements other than feminism have historically been expected to prioritise "the cause" above women's rights. Not even a contemporaneous campaign efforts were approved of. Later. We'll help you fight for your rights later. A later which, as generations of women keep on finding out, never happens.

Have a look at the Scottish independence movement where this is playing out again right now, for all of us to see. Later. Later. Just do it later. Help us with this first.

Which has nothing to do with the concept of identity politics as it is used today, but with the fact that men on the right and the left of the political spectrum, whatever rights they were fighting for, saw, and largely continue to see women's rights as a trivial concern.

RedDogsBeg · 06/10/2020 15:01

You really are tying yourself up in knots here jj1968:

Your argument boils down to this:

Right wing and religious people agree with your GC view, but they are horrible people and if they agree with you on this one area then you are horrible people too, other people will think your horrible and that you agree with everything they say and/or do.

Left wing people who do not agree with your GC view are the good guys even though a lot of them are actually very bad guys but just because they are bad and do and say bad things it doesn't mean anyone thinks you agree with everything they say and/or do.

You cannot possibly be Left politically if the Right agree with you on something.

Ladies, the left wing oppression of you is good oppression because it's done by the good guys as well as the bad guys - rejoice.

jj1968 · 06/10/2020 15:04

I've hear plenty of comments from GC activists that Douglas Murray really gets it, or that David Davies is the only man in parliament who supports women. They don't. And neither do the evangelicals that people like WoLF have cosied up to. They are anti-feminists and their role in this conflict has been to disrupt, stoke fears and recruit as I said. Which is why it's so depressing when GC feminists turn to Quillette, The Spectator, or at worst Breibart to bolster the cause.

334bu · 06/10/2020 15:08

" The conflict inherent in all civil rights movements is that the women within movements other than feminism have historically been expected to prioritise "the cause" above women's rights. Not even a contemporaneous campaign efforts were approved of. Later. We'll help you fight for your rights later. A later which, as generations of women keep on finding out, never happens"

So true!!!!!

highame · 06/10/2020 15:10

So, the Guardian, which used to be a really good newspaper, is the go to place? You wont find ay balance there, which is why they are laying off staff.

Go Woke, Go Broke

jj you sound very churlish, is the debate having lots of nasty sunlight poured onto it

jj1968 · 06/10/2020 15:11

@CharlieParley

If you'd read a little further on the Identity politics Wikipedia page, you'd have found that it has been employed in myriad cases with radically different connotations dependent upon the term's context.

Indeed it has to the point it is virtually meaningless now other than as a slur to be used against political factions you don't like. There is nothing in the rest of your post I disagree with btw.

CharlieParley · 06/10/2020 15:12

No-one had even heard of Challenor before his conviction.

This is complete nonsense. Challenor was championed within and by the Green Party in England and Wales to such an extent that he advised the UK government on child safeguarding, as well as Girl Guides and Stonewall. He was a well-known and powerful figure in the left. So much so that his conviction for animal cruelty was completely ignored by the Green Party. So much so that Aimee Challenor was put forward as deputy party leader despite having no experience, talent, skills or even history as an environmental activist.

merrymouse · 06/10/2020 15:15

Which is why it's so depressing when GC feminists turn to Quillette, The Spectator, or at worst Breibart to bolster the cause.

And sometimes I disagree with those feminists (although the Spectator has always published articles by a wider variety of writers, and there is no reason why a feminist shouldn't be right wing).

It's not clear what your point is - I find it depressing when the Guardian publishes articles by misogynists, but they also publish Hadley Freeman. By your logic, we shouldn't read Hadley Freeman because she writes in the Guardian.

I think you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that people can hold a range of different views and that many different people with many different views post on MN.

ListeningQuietly · 06/10/2020 15:17

FWIW the Economist is now GC and its not exactly left wing Grin

334bu · 06/10/2020 15:23

So what is the role of the David Challenors of this world in your campaign? What are they getting from it? Why did David Challenor and Aimee Challoner have such influence in the Green Party? Before the "s...t" hit the fan Aimee and her dad David were the darlings of the party.
What do you think the motivation of these people is? Could it possibly be to use the trans agenda to promulgate hatred against women and to sweep away the few rights that women have managed to wrest from the patriarchy?

jj1968 · 06/10/2020 15:25

He was a well-known and powerful figure in the left.

Did you type this with a straight face? He was so influential in the Green Party that they didn't even know he was a member when he was charged. No-one had ever heard of him on the left, and there's no evidence I've seen that he advised Stonewall, the Girl Guides or the government.

jj1968 · 06/10/2020 15:34

@merrymouse

I hope you will agree there is a world of difference between The Guardian, Hadley Freeman and the likes of Breitbart and Ben Shapiro.

merrymouse · 06/10/2020 15:48

And I hope you will agree that there is a world of difference between Breitbart and the Spectator.

334bu · 06/10/2020 15:49

Look we get it............! All the baddies and nasty bigoted anti women men are on the GC side and by sharing their opinions women are just like them and are too stupid to realise it. Any miscreants on the transgender side were insignificant, no-marks who if trans weren't really trans and if "c.s" and really bad weren't important and have had no impact anyway and if they had who cares.

It is obvious that jj cannot conceive that the natural conclusion of TWAW means the erasure of women as a discrete group made up only of female humans. Their belief is absolute and no amount of evidence will convince them. The possible conflict with women's rights has to be ignored as it conflicts with their belief that males can be women and females can be male. Any evidence of conflict between opposing rights presented will be either ignored or minimised.
So I am bowing out. Enjoy the rest of your day.

merrymouse · 06/10/2020 15:58

Anyway, neither Ben Shapiro nor Amy Challenor are, for different reasons, currently closely involved in UK politics at a high level.

I am more concerned about the people in the UK Labour Party who are encouraging or turning a blind eye to attacks on Rosie Duffied, and the idiots in the Lib Dems who wrote a definition of transphobia that copied and pasted from the IHRA and effectively banned discussion of women's rights in the party.

Yes, 'trans women are women' presents right wing idiots with an open goal, but I didn't come up with the slogan.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.