Accessible Toilets

[WarOnWomen]

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.

Its all got a bit confusing hasn't it I mean even mermaids now say its not the wring body.
It's not stereotypes

And now the political class relies on being perceived to have a make or female gender but no one can define what that is.

Yet asking is a problem.

Why can't we just have a straight answer I mean it would solve all the problems wouldn't it. All the discrimination cos we would know. We would know what to look fir to make our perception correct.

Sexuality is self-declared, as is religion, but they can be verified in fairly normal ways.

I don't think someone would get far in a discrimination case if they were refused entry to somewhere if they claimed it was because they were a lesbian when they were in a relationship with a man.

And someone claiming to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion would be expected to demonstrate some aspect of that religion.

But you know this really.

@testing987654321

You are incorrect I'm afraid. Discrimination law is based on the perception of others, not the identity of the individual. So a straight woman who was discriminated against because for some reason she was perceived to be a lesbian would be protected under the Equality Act regardless of her actual sexuality.

And how do you verify someone's sexuality is fairly normal ways?

World health organisation says

'Genderrefers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman man girl or boy'

But WHO also say gender identity is different from gender, at which point I got very lost. How is it different? Gender is socially constructed stereotypes; the only way I can see this stuff making sense is if we are using the idea of a gendered soul or inner essence. That fine, but I am not religious and don't share this belief.

Aaah so it is stereotypes then.

Who knew.

As I said, outwith stereotypes the only other possibility is some mystical soul based idea, as far as I can tell.

Well we can't see souls unless you are layla moran of course

So doesn't that render the whole "perceived to have a male/female gender" part of the given definition meaningless?

I was talking about the kind of case where someone is stating why they think they were discriminated against. If they say they are a lesbian in the case but the defendant in the case says "I refused them for some other reason and I had met their partner, it was a man called Stan" and others also had met Stan and knew him to be the woman's partner, I don't think she'd get far with a claim based on her being a lesbian.

That's what I mean by "verify".

If she had no partner but had said she was a lesbian to friends and colleagues and felt she had been discriminated against on that basis then that would make sense.

Funny how women, who have a vested interest in the definition of woman being clear, are willing to explain, argue and defend this for as long as necessary.

Reminds me of old school trots endlessly debating in back rooms who qualifies as working class whilst actual working class people were out on the front line fighting for their rights.

Think carefully now, jj. Which group of people do you see as the 'trots' debating about the working class, and which group are the 'actual working class' fighting for their rights?

Reminds me of old school trots endlessly debating in back rooms who qualifies as working class whilst actual working class people were out on the front line fighting for their rights.

Well, someone here reminds me of that.

@jj1968

*You want us to base laws on something that could apply to anyone, just on their say so?

That's not how laws or definitions work.*

Oh yes it is. Sexuality, religion and gender reassignment are all self defined in law for a start, how could they be anything else.

There is a difference between these different characteristics.

People who are LGB are not trying to redefine what it means to be heterosexual.

Christians and Muslims are not trying to redefine each others' religions or what it means to be an atheist.

But the pc of gender reassignment opens the door for some men to redefine themselves as women. That is why we have conflict.

@OldCrone

Funny how women, who have a vested interest in the definition of woman being clear, are willing to explain, argue and defend this for as long as necessary.

Reminds me of old school trots endlessly debating in back rooms who qualifies as working class whilst actual working class people were out on the front line fighting for their rights.

Think carefully now, jj. Which group of people do you see as the 'trots' debating about the working class, and which group are the 'actual working class' fighting for their rights?

Well it seems to me to be trans inclusive feminists out on the streets, protesting cuts to women's services and benefits, fighting racism as part of BLM, or climate change as part of XR, or organising and unionising VAWG workers. People prepared to give real commitment, get arrested, face real consequences and in some cases even go to jail for what they believe.

Well if you don't know what a woman is you cant fight for womens services .

Most womens services now exclude most the women who need them. They refuse to name them in their literature or give them a female only space.

And we are trans inclusive. We include transmen. Biologically female who may well need what we are fighting fir one day even if they don't know it or thank us fir it right now.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Well if you don't know what a woman is you cant fight for womens services

How convenient.

How convenient.

No, just logic.

It's bloody inconvenient that there are people who claim not to know what a woman is, in any meaningful sense.

Well it seems to me to be trans inclusive feminists out on the streets, protesting cuts to women's services and benefits, fighting racism as part of BLM, or climate change as part of XR, or organising and unionising VAWG workers. People prepared to give real commitment, get arrested, face real consequences and in some cases even go to jail for what they believe.

On what basis to you assume the women doing those things are all, or even majority, 'trans inclusive feminists'? Oddly enough, women are capable of engaging with more than one axis of oppression at once. We've had millennia of practice. Sure, it would be great to not have to deal with an extra one.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

How convenient.

No, just logic.

Imagine being someone evicted from her home and socially cleansed from the city her and her kids live in due to misogynist welfare cuts and hearing middle class feminists say sorry, we'd like to help but nobody knows what a woman is anymore so we can't. We'd like to fight to keep the local VAWG project open, but they don't know what a woman is either so I'm afraid your services will have to go as well. Sorry, but what a shower.

You can imagine that if you've got a creative imagination, I suppose.

We know what a woman is. The definition is only lost to those who seek to allow those born male to become included within it. Thays when it becomes something apparently so undefinable.....which serves no one except those who wish to shut everything that requires defining us down.

@OldCrone

Funny how women, who have a vested interest in the definition of woman being clear, are willing to explain, argue and defend this for as long as necessary.

Reminds me of old school trots endlessly debating in back rooms who qualifies as working class whilst actual working class people were out on the front line fighting for their rights.

Think carefully now, jj. Which group of people do you see as the 'trots' debating about the working class, and which group are the 'actual working class' fighting for their rights?

The lack of self-awareness is quite mind blowing, isn't it?

On what basis to you assume the women doing those things are all, or even majority, 'trans inclusive feminists'? Oddly enough, women are capable of engaging with more than one axis of oppression at once. We've had millennia of practice. Sure, it would be great to not have to deal with an extra one.

In many cases I know them personally. And both XR and BLM are clearly trans inclusive but middle class gender critical activists appear to be scared of them because they have actual radical feminist goals like ending capitalism and destroying the nuclear family. The only specific union for VAWG workers, set up by working class women is very outspokenly trans inclusive as well.

When housing benefit cuts were announced in the early part of the decade that threatened to close every single women's refuge in the UK not one of the high profile names currently involved in GC activism even seemed to notice.

If only I was a proper feminist, I can only aspire to be like jj.

Imagine being someone evicted from her home and socially cleansed from the city her and her kids live in due to misogynist welfare cuts and hearing middle class feminists say sorry, we'd like to help but nobody knows what a woman is anymore so we can't. We'd like to fight to keep the local VAWG project open, but they don't know what a woman is either so I'm afraid your services will have to go as well. Sorry, but what a shower.

That really isn't how it works. Feminist women support women's projects, but they are being expected to centre males. Lots of radical feminist women are active in the Labour movement, for instance, but they are being shut out by misogynists.

Women started up the refuges...

Activists in Canada mamaged to get their state funding removed if they refused to include those born male.

Do not come onto a feminists board and decide we all let it go to pot until the proper wonen showed up