Deleted/censorship on mumsnet now!

[HermioneKipper]

My thread asking about transwomen/transitioning/penises has been deleted.

Why are we not allowed to discuss this? It’s a genuine question and extremely relevant to the debate about transwomen entering female spaces.

There was no abuse of trans people that I could see aside from a few people attempting to derail by saying that they couldn’t see why women might be concerned about having to share their space!

This isn’t right

This gets so tedious.

Women who don’t care or do not see how or why it matters do not get to give away other women’s safe spaces. Consent is given by each woman. If a small number wish to invite penises into their specific space, that’s fine. They don’t get to erode our, and those of the vast majority of women, boundaries with it.

We say No. And No, surprise surprise, means a hard No.

But they are not women's bounderies. They are your bounderies. You cannot speak for all women. There are women's refuges run by women who would disagree with you for a start.

They are at liberty to run a mixed sex refuge.

As are other women to run a single sex refuge - without censure.

I have realised things that I had never even thought about before. I now find myself joining the fight although it seems I'm not particularly welcome.

That may be because it is always evident that the interests your 'fight' is for, are your own and not female people's. Understandably; long term readers here have seen other transsexual people (HQ I'm using their own preferred term) do the same, including Debbie Hayton. But Hayton has made clear (find and read the threads) that however women feel or however they are affected, Hayton still feels entitled to rather paternally tell them what they can and can't have, where male people will permit the line to be, and which female people will just have to be excluded because male needs matter more.

Women are a bit past the stage now of being up for all this. Yes, it is sad that this has been pushed until all good will and flexibility is gone, but women didn't start this. LGB people are very likely going to suffer too when the pendulum starts to swing back.

And your point about the refuges works against your argument, not for it.

The women who run some refuges might think penises are fine and hunky dory. The women needing to access that safe space probably feel very differently indeed. Just because they’re too frightened and cowed to say anything in the current climate really doesn’t mean they’re okay with it.

There is no consensus and you know it. There is no agreement on the definition of man. Some GC say no penis = allowed in.

There are millions of females in the UK. Are you expecting every female to have the same level of need, and to agree to the same level of need. As is said repeatedly. The decision needs to take into account the females with the highest priority needs. That is where so called 'consensus' should be.

Perhaps you are mixing up women's personal tolerance levels for who they are comfortable with in allowing into female single sex spaces, for what the legislation around safeguarding needs to be.

@Datun

But they are not women's bounderies. They are your bounderies. You cannot speak for all women. There are women's refuges run by women who would disagree with you for a start.

They are at liberty to run a mixed sex refuge.

As are other women to run a single sex refuge - without censure.

The women who would disagree - are they the women who sat through a meeting where women users passionately tried to explain their concerns and barriers and many reached the point of tears, and afterwards it was denied the meeting ever happened or women had ever mentioned any kind of issue or problem with mixed sex refuges?

Or the TW in a powerful place in women's refuges who laughed when asked about provision for women who cannot access mixed sex refuges?

Or the woman who spoke on radio last week from a rape crisis centre about having two current users she is supporting who will not come to any resources or safe spaces because they are not female only?

These women exist. There's no sense denying it. Forced mixed sex women's spaces just excludes some women. It's not an answer, is it?

Sorry datun that was to the poster you quoted.

But they are not women's bounderies. They are your bounderies. You cannot speak for all women. There are women's refuges run by women who would disagree with you for a start.

I am very sceptical about the motives and training of some of the women running women's refuges. They are not the service users. There are many service users (a majority) whose boundaries are not simply an abstract concept but a trauma response to being in a space with male people. Many of them have said this. There is a poster on here who has been homeless for a long time because she is too scared to go to a "women's" refuge for this reason. Someone who has done a Gender Studies MA or has been trained by Stonewall and strolls into a job running a women's refuge is not the arbiter of women's boundaries, not do they have a right to make women lower theirs or face denial of services.

I now find myself joining the fight although it seems I'm not particularly welcome.

I don't think there is a fight that we are on the same side of.

If you are getting (polite) short shrift here it is because many other posters of a similar background and viewpoint to yourself have come on here already to do what you are trying to do. We've seen it before and each time it's expected that we're being graciously provided with a new viewpoint.

We know where the arguments are headed and it's not in the direction of women's rights (and certainly not trans widows rights).

But they are not women's bounderies. They are your bounderies. You cannot speak for all women. There are women's refuges run by women who would disagree with you for a start.

But that’s not the point. And if transwomen had any respect for women at all, they’d understand that. You don’t know how many women, for whatever reason, are quietly giving up a space because it’s not single sex any longer and they either feel unable to say no or weren’t consulted in the first place.

@Jorrris

The trust is gone. The ship has sailed. That's an ex parrot.

Yep.

Another yep

Ive been very middle of the road and still, personally, wouldn’t have a problem with old school trans people

However, i did go away and educate myself and i see that its been forced so far with people attempting to take away all boundries that its too late

And thats a real shame

The women who run some refuges might think penises are fine and hunky dory. The women needing to access that safe space probably feel very differently indeed. Just because they’re too frightened and cowed to say anything in the current climate really doesn’t mean they’re okay with it.

This Ninkanink.

It seems so bizarre that people posting about women's refuges haven't worked out that those who need those refuges are self excluding or if they actually use them, will absolutely not voice any complaint through fear. And surprisingly, abused women tend to also never want to draw attention to themselves by complaining publicly afterwards either.

I am absolutely sure if a completely anonymous and independent study was done ethically about this, the resounding message would match the message we get from those who speak privately amongst us. That it is NOT ok. It is putting females and children in danger by prioritising males above the needs of females and children.

Presumably, no women's refuge can be single sex according to the transgenderists on this thread?

Is that the case?

Is every female victim of male sexual violence to be used as validation?

Basic rule of thumb: Always doubt the good intentions of anyone who wants to dismiss firm and clear boundaries.

@Ninkanink

And your point about the refuges works against your argument, not for it.

The women who run some refuges might think penises are fine and hunky dory. The women needing to access that safe space probably feel very differently indeed. Just because they’re too frightened and cowed to say anything in the current climate really doesn’t mean they’re okay with it.

So are you in the "no penises are fine" camp. Or the blanket NO biological males camp. This is what I mean by no consensus

There is not a hive mind. This isn't a political party.

This is about the needs and rights of all women to have access to resources, facilities and public spaces they can use. Yes, that probably does mean it's going to have to be two women's spaces: one for women who do not mind and can used mixed sex facilities, and one for women that recognises having sex based needs is not a hate crime. And that it is wrong to punish female people for not putting aside their own needs and identities to prioritise the identities of male people.

Gottalife

There are already mixed sex refuges.

Can you confirm whether you are of the opinion that there should be no single sex refuges for women only? Or is that not the case?

I now find myself joining the fight although it seems I'm not particularly welcome.

If someone continually tries to join a group and finds that they are "not particularly welcome" it can show several things: they can't or won't accept boundaries (which is a huge red flag), it's not their "fight" or they need to take a different approach.

This is really not difficult to understand.

You talked about consensus by GC women.

There very much is a consensus. No men in women’s spaces. No penises; no people who have or had penises. No means NO.

It isn’t difficult to understand. The fact that you can’t grasp it is on you.

I lean towards single sex meaning no penises. But would be open to negotiation on a case by case basis.

@Ninkanink

This is really not difficult to understand.

You talked about consensus by GC women.

There very much is a consensus. No men in women’s spaces. No penises; no people who have or had penises. No means NO.

It isn’t difficult to understand. The fact that you can’t grasp it is on you.

You don't get veto power on trans people's presence in public spaces. You don't get to say "no" on things that don't concern you specifically.

It does concern me specifically. It also concerns my daughters.

We do not consent to men in our rightful spaces.

This has nothing to do with trans people in public spaces.

This has to do with women’s and children protections and rights.

@Gottalife

I lean towards single sex meaning no penises. But would be open to negotiation on a case by case basis.

You mean I can decide my husband is a nice man so I should be allowed to bring him into the communual showers with me?

You don't get to say "no" on things that don't concern you specifically.

..... any female person excluded from female spaces to enable male people's feelings and needs and choices to have greater priority is absolutely my personal, specific concern. That's called women's rights. And God knows we're knee deep in those female people right now, with major issues, who desperately need support and to be heard.

You don't get veto power on trans people's presence in public spaces. You don't get to say "no" on things that don't concern you specifically

You don't get to decide on who uses female sex spaces. You don't get to decide things that don't concern you specifically