Have things gone too far?

[Okbussitout]

I saw a tiktok comment thread saying that if you wouldn't have sex with a trans person you're transphobic. My thinking on this is sexuality is quite complex. But for example I've had gay friends say to me they feel really grossed out by the opposite sex genitals) both gay men and women) so if someone has a penis but presents as a woman (this isn't an argument about passing) then it's transphobic not to be attracted to them because they have genitals of the opposite sex that you are attracted to. Primarily I'd say I'm straight and a big part of that is my enjoyment of my partner's penis. (sorry that statement is tmi and redic to type)

This got me thinking about gc argument on here. For the first time I was thinking this doesn't make logical sense. You can dress how you want, call yourself what you want, use the spaces you want, as actually I don't think most trans people are a threat. I'm happy for trans women to be women. But I feel trying to dictate who people have sex is too much.

I'm sort of musing, but also wonder if actually on both sides there is such adversity that there's no going back? With increasingly wild arguments on both sides. So how would there be a way forward from here?

I'm wondering if trans people are angry because they feel their bodies don't match their gender in their head. I've had on and of mental health issues so can imagine this feels awful. I'm also fat so know what it's like to be discriminated against. Maybe gc women are angry because they already feel ver discriminated against and are now told the rights we have are not needed. So yeah I just wonder if this debate is at a point with no way forward reasonable way forward. I'd like to know people's views on this.

I didn't say aggressive I said adversarial it's really different. The phrase put on big girl pants is patronising BTW. It feels like you're looking for conflict in my posts where there is none. I'm more than happy to disagree with people or I wouldn't have posted.

Actually I'm not sure on the you you're talking about. As in a pp yiu seemed to impky I was attacking trans activists by saying

Sorry OP. I'm brain dead today through lack of sleep. I wasn't quoting you - I was quoting another poster and didn't think to cut and paste their name for clarity.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Sorry, in hindsight I should have been clearer.

What I meant to say, is that while discussing GRA reform with a GC friend, that assertion was put to me as if my view on GRA necessitates me being in agreement with the proposition that women who would not accept a 'woman' partner with a penis are bigots.

I am not, and never have been in agreement with that point, and I'm baffled as to the assumption that I would be. I've never actually come across another person who is in favour of GRA reform and is of that view either, hence my bewilderment.

I'd be interested in you answering tinsel angel's question. It's not posed in an aggressive manner and does get to the crux of the matter.

Ok, people are disagreeing with you. They feel strongly about female spaces. Semantics aside you must be able to see that surely? Many women have been assaulted by men, and this makes them anxious about someone who may well still have a penis using a female toilet? Surely you get that, even if you don't feel that way?

Op toilets are often a bit of a red herring. Money and a third option can sort that.

It's other spaces that are women only which are being eliminated. Like lesbian on-line dating, sports, rape refuges, women specific political representation, requesting a female HCP, prisons, etc.

It's not at all extreme to expect sex segregation under certain circumstances. Indeed it's written into equality law.

Trying to roll back these rights and protocols is what women are against.

You can dress how you want, call yourself what you want, use the spaces you want, as actually I don't think most trans people are a threat

So, do you think that because most men aren't a threat to women, all spaces should be mixed sex?

That is, hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, toilets?

Also interested to hear what you think are the 'wild' arguments on the gc side?

I think 'there are two sexes and sometimes women need single sex spaces' is about as wild as it gets, no?

women who would not accept a 'woman' partner with a penis are bigots. I am not, and never have been in agreement with that point, and I'm baffled as to the assumption that I would be.

Can we dial it back a notch? Remove the "bigots"?

Is it permissable for women to say that they would not accept a "woman" partner with a penis? Should women be allowed to say "female-only" on a dating profile?

It appears to be quite a mainstream view, at least in the "LGBTQ" sites that cater to lesbians, that that is not permissible, and is indeed a bannable offence.

Do you agree with that going on? And if it is bannable, what actually is the "offence" supposed to be here? If not an accusation of "bigotry", then what? Hate?

OP, what's your response to the Staniland question? I'd pose it here but I can't remember whether we're allowed to or not. Just google it.

Simple yes or no answer is all that's required.

When I encounter women saying they don't mind using mixed sex loos and facilities all I can say is that's fine for them, but I do mind and I have tradition and the law on my side. What's so special about about that you think you can go giving away my rights?

It appears to be quite a mainstream view, at least in the "LGBTQ" sites that cater to lesbians

(I don't think this is a mainstream view in the general public - most people would think the idea that lesbians should accept penis is preposterous. The problem is it's "mainstream" in the spaces that are supposed to be accepting of lesbians. Lesbians would apparently be more accepted in general spaces.)

XDown ...

What I meant to say, is that while discussing GRA reform with a GC friend, that assertion was put to me as if my view on GRA necessitates me being in agreement with the proposition that women who would not accept a 'woman' partner with a penis are bigots

I do see that this would have been frustrating. However, that's one friend. By your initial 'you' statement I assumed you were talking about 'us' as if we were all like your friend - and we really are not.

OP, just a question. There's a thread currently active in here where Muslim women can't use mixed sex (sometimes called gender neutral) toilets at work. Have you thought about this in terms of the 'just want to pee' arguement? Is it ok to exclude some women on the basis that some people born male want to use women's toilets? What about victims of male violence, are you happy to make them less comfortable in every day life?

Women are socialised to put the demands of others first, do you think that might play any part in your thinking? I regularly examine my thoughts to see if I feel the same about the situation with different people. So if women wanted to use the men's toilets and that excluded male Muslims would you still think that was reasonable?

I also remember reading that “your love is not unconditional if the genitals aren’t those you expected” (or words to that effect) - my love for someone isn’t unconditional anyway, there are lots of things I might find out that would be a dealbreaker!

What a load of crap (the quote, not your opinion).
Love isn't unconditional for anybody (apart from those odd women who "stand behind" their cheating/paedophile/etc. husbands).
There's thousands of reasons for not fancying someone - I like skinny guys and a big, muscly dude wouldn't attract me and there are women who think vice versa. There are men who like curvy women and men who prefer slimmer.
Genital preference shouldn't be seen as a phobia any more than other preferences.

Also, if anyone expects men to sleep with women with penises, they'll be laughed out of town. I can't imagine many straight men going for that.

There are a large proportion of people promoting special trans privileges who haven't thought through that their arguments have led to lesbian spaces being pushed underground because of the amount of ladycocks we are being expected to 'at least consider, and if you don't want it, don't say why, it's mean of you'.

Being told that the blissful ignorance of those trans rights people means that lesbians being cross about this state of affairs is an 'extreme position' is likely to make me a bit touchy, yes.

Is 'No' an extreme position? I mean, I know why this gets framed like this. Seen it enough to understand this.

If women say 'no, we want to keep all our spaces and our rights' this is only viewed as a reasonable position if we then promise to find a way to make those who are arguing to take our rights away happy.

Well, guess what? A lot of us were trying that a couple of years ago, but we just get told 'third spaces are like apartheid' so tbh, I think I will save my limited energy to campaigning for women. Extremist that I am, and not everyone's mum.

@SpongeBobJudgeyPants

Ok, people are disagreeing with you. They feel strongly about female spaces. Semantics aside you must be able to see that surely? Many women have been assaulted by men, and this makes them anxious about someone who may well still have a penis using a female toilet? Surely you get that, even if you don't feel that way?

I absolutely understand the strong feelings. As an example I have very heavy periods. Unfortunately I'll imagine some of you know what that's like. In public loos (when we used them in old times!) I often would end up washing blood from my hands because I'm bleeding a lot and in the changing process that happens. Its awful its embarrassing even though I know I shouldn't be embarrassed. It reminds me that I'm not getting the medical care I need for my periods. So yeah I do want a space for that grim reality of being a woman.

Also re sexual assault. I do think there is a position wher ethe needs are directly conflicted. So the need of a survivor to not be near anyone with a penis. Totally acceptable. Then the need for a trans person to go to a toilet where they feel safe. Again needing to be safe is totally acceptable.

I just don't know how both can be supported? But anyway my op was about feeling like there is no room for common ground because. Rather than a goady. You're all awful. The comments on tiktok made me think about where the argument has come from and ended up.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Absolutely.

It was an example of a situation whereby someone has ascribed what, in my experience, is a fringe view to an entire group, which is what I was replying to the OP about in terms of it being unhelpful and only serving to polarise and antagonise.

@NecessaryScene1

Of course I don't agree with it going on, as I've already said, I view sexual attraction as something entirely personal and at the whim of the individual, and not something that anyone else can make blanket assertions or assumptions about regarding what is right or proper.

When you look at the sticking points from women's side, it's about trying to retain even our most basic boundaries, rights and protections.
If you look through this board and what women are angry about, it's things like refuges being defunded in the name of 'gender equality' and anti-FGM campaigners like Hibo Wardere being piled on for not prioritising trans women.
Because we're vocal about objecting to those things, we get called bigoted and we're angry about that too.
I've never seen women picketing or trying to get a trans shelter defunded for example. Its simply not a both sides situation.
If the trans movement moves to a point where they stop trying to remove women's boundaries and rights, I genuinely wouldn't be in the least bit interested in arguing with them.
I will always support gender non conformity and the right of people to express gender however they fancy. I will also fight against the removal of women's rights.
I would like trans activists to do the same and stop framing women's rights as transphobic.

I'm sort of musing, but also wonder if actually on both sides there is such adversity that there's no going back? With increasingly wild arguments on both sides. So how would there be a way forward from here?

It's not about the adversity. It's about a compromise that can never happen when the demands are so patently divorced from reality, as the scenario in your original post shows. This increasing wild arguments on both sides is disingenuous double speak used by people to imply that both sides are equally unreasonable, and both sides have equal validity to their arguments. It was most recently employed by Keir Starmer with his "Both sides tearing lumps out of each other" But both sides are not balanced in the fundamental reality of their demands and arguments.

We have seen this before. I am black. If a racist supremacist group started spouting that white people are intrinsically better than black people, and black people shouldn't exist or have the right to refer to themselves as 'people' would their argument be grounded anywhere in reality? No. Would an argument in contradiction be extreme? No. Arguing against it cannot be extreme since it would only uphold reality. Same applies here.

I'm wondering if trans people are angry because they feel their bodies don't match their gender in their head. I've had on and off mental health issues so can imagine this feels awful

Interesting that your lived experience means you try to imagine how others feel. It feels awful to have experienced domestic violence, being sexually abused, raped, or molested, unsafe or forced into a marriage you don't want. Many women feel lots of mental trauma and anger from such experiences and many don't want to see men in places where they may feel physically vulnerable and bring a return of those feelings. Interesting though, that instead of relating to this, men are insisting they be able to enter womens spaces because their 'right to pee' as you put it, transcends all that.

There are two sexes. Women and men. Male and Female.

Women (and men) are entitled IN LAW to single-sex spaces.

@NoToast

OP, just a question. There's a thread currently active in here where Muslim women can't use mixed sex (sometimes called gender neutral) toilets at work. Have you thought about this in terms of the 'just want to pee' arguement? Is it ok to exclude some women on the basis that some people born male want to use women's toilets? What about victims of male violence, are you happy to make them less comfortable in every day life?

Women are socialised to put the demands of others first, do you think that might play any part in your thinking? I regularly examine my thoughts to see if I feel the same about the situation with different people. So if women wanted to use the men's toilets and that excluded male Muslims would you still think that was reasonable?

Yes I read that thread and felt like I didn't have an answer. But what I felt most strongly and probably feel on most of these issues. Is its interesting or telling that its always women being asked to compromise.

I regularly go to an orthodox Jewish shop as there is a big community where I live. The man who sometimes serves me is really careful not to touch me. Even before covid. I wonder in the opposite way round how it would be viewed, if I with my female body wanted to use mens only spaces segregated for religious purposes in that community just because I felt like a man. I suspect the community wouldn't be happy.

It is another example of needs seeming to conflict.

People have the right to refuse to consider others as a sexual partner on whatever grounds they like. We all have the right to set our own boundaries. I don't see why that's even in dispute. How could it possibly be the case that compelling lesbians to consider men as sexual partners is a reasonable or progressive position?

As for extremists on both sides, there is nothing at all extreme about wanting to protect women's single-sex spaces and activities. It is not extreme for women to say that men should not be allowed in women's prisons, women's domestic abuse centres, women's sports.

It is extreme, however, to threaten a female politician with rape or death, it is extreme to hang another female politician in effigy, it is extreme to take a sword into a women's toilets and then post a photograph of yourself on social media with a threatening message, it is extreme to gather outside meetings of women and shout abuse at them and intimidate them, it is extreme to phone up venues where women gather and issue bomb threats, it is extreme to harass and threaten a female academic to the extent that she has to have security to accompany her to lectures.

Okbussitout

Keep working this through, you are in the same place many of the women whom you think are a bit too strident now were a little while back.

And tbh, it's not like I'm eager for you to see the reality of all this, because once you do, it's a no-going-back thing, and I wish women didn't have to face it. Ignorance is bliss sometimes.

Op there is already a way forward in current law. We have legislation that allows people to legally change their gender and that also protects single sex spaces in certain circumstances.

The arguments began because of lobbying to change that legislation. The lobbying did not come from GC feminists.

If the trans movement moves to a point where they stop trying to remove women's boundaries and rights, I genuinely wouldn't be in the least bit interested in arguing with them.

I believe that. The vast majority opposing the trans movement, at least in the UK, are doing so in good faith, and in response to the boundary violations. It the boundary violations stopped, so would 95% of the pushback, and all that would be left is real bigotry, and it would have no traction, and women would be allies.

Glinner put this up recently: Eddie and Graham: How to be responsible male lesbians.

If transwomen would follow those guidelines, there would be no fight! I think he's fairly represented what the demands are from this side, and I don't see how they're particularly outlandish.

Indeed, they're a behaviour code that I assumed transwomen were following, prior to the mid 2010s. And I think a lot of the public still thinks they do, hence not understanding the pushback.