Disagreement with husband about trans debate

[HermioneKipper]

Had people around for dinner and somehow got on to the topic of women’s spaces, being gender critical, the current debate around JKR.

After they left was discussing further with my husband and it turns out he thinks my views are extreme and I’ve “gone too far.”

He agrees that trans women who haven’t had surgery have no place in women’s spaces but thinks that if they’ve had gender reassignment surgery then they should be allowed into women’s spaces and called women.

I disagree with this and think that people cannot change sex and no male born people should be allowed into women’s spaces under any circumstances.

He said he thinks I’m too radical and shouldn’t think this way about a marginalised group 😡

I can’t believe we disagree so fundamentally on this and I’m so upset about it.

I don't get the /gen thing, but I suppose that's because I presume everyone is posting genuinely unless they specify otherwise.

Every so often I realise how naïve I am!

@ErynIsTrans

I guess some people just find it easier to make themselves clear from the start. Its also just politeness :]

You could do that by adding "I'm genuinely asking", rather than defaulting to the forum culture of your usual internet stomping grounds, while posting on a completely different site.

Hardly making yourself clear or being polite, was it?

Are you usually so inattentive to your surroundings?

DeckardK

I find the argument, which is used frequently,

That there's no probs with males accessing any and all previously single sex spaces,

Because it's a fact that penis people are going to sexually attack/rape bodies with vaginas anyway, and nothing can change that...

A bizarre way to attempt to convince females whatever their age of anything.

It's not actually supposed to do that is it.

Obviously.

It's about reminding vagina people of their vulnerability to sexual violence from testicle types.
About reminding us that MVAWG is incredibly common, and that very little in practice is done about it.

It's about reminding us that males can do what they want, including rape, torture, abduction and so on. And we can't stop them.

It's saying males are in charge. Don't forget that. If they want to violate you, whether you're 5, 15, 35 or 85 then they will so why the fuck do you keep whining on. It's your lot in life. Put up and shut up.

I mean no one surely thinks telling us that our small children, teens, us, our mothers are totally vulnerable to sexually motivated dodgy behaviour/ crime committed by males and that's that. Is a winning argument!

Do you take the same it's inevitable so why even think about what can be done angle with male/male crime like-

Racist attacks
Homophobic attacks
Men being raped by men
Young men being stabbed to death
Men being arrested imprisoned flogged etc in some countries for vocally fighting oppressive governments?

If you get a kicking, or are raped, or are mugged at gunpoint by blokes.

Do you shrug and think. That's life what can anyone do?

The same with burglary - some houses are going to get broken into, so don't bother locking the door, a locked door won't stop a determined burglar. It's a strange argument.

@CheeseMmmm you've reminded me of a comment made earlier in the thread by a poster who, in response to a comment about women being at greater risk of violence if males are allowed to enter women's single sex spaces (toilets in this instance), said something like 'if you get attacked in the toilets, you can report it same as you would if anyone of any gender attacked you in the toilet'. What are rape convictions like at the moment? Isn't it sitting at something like 1%? But we're being told that it's kinder to just to get attacked and trust that some sort of justice will happen afterwards.

Oh hohoho... Yep!
Can't those who think women need to stop being so silly come up with new arguments?

I suppose the one this relates to is fairly new, but v popular-

'I am incredibly sorry that this happened to you and you are still feeling the effects, he is/was awful. I think honestly we should close debate because I don't want to bring up past trauma for anyone else'

1. Some women/girls having experienced sexual abuse/ sex assaults etc (some? Come off it!) of course have issues around it, but that's no reason to exclude a whole group of people from using the right spaces for them!

1. Women weaponising their trauma is an underhand move. (See responses to jkr).

1. The thing to do is to get women/ girls to 'reframe' their trauma (copyright CEO Edinburgh rape crisis).

It's a fact that males sexually attacking females is inevitable. The issue to be tackled is the prejudice that so many women and girls have after these events negatively impacting males. It makes them feel variously sad, angry, otherered, excluded, and it's just downright not fair.
They need to stop being so emotional and irrational about it.

[quote Waitwhat23]@CheeseMmmm you've reminded me of a comment made earlier in the thread by a poster who, in response to a comment about women being at greater risk of violence if males are allowed to enter women's single sex spaces (toilets in this instance), said something like 'if you get attacked in the toilets, you can report it same as you would if anyone of any gender attacked you in the toilet'. What are rape convictions like at the moment? Isn't it sitting at something like 1%? But we're being told that it's kinder to just to get attacked and trust that some sort of justice will happen afterwards.[/quote]
Why don't they suggest the same advice to males?

Males can use male single-sex spaces, and if attacked, they can report it!

Hardly anyone here male or female bothers reporting sexually motivated appalling shit done by males. Any of it.

And stable door...
It's all just fun rubbing our noses in our situation. That's all.

@CheeseMmmm

DeckardK

I find the argument, which is used frequently,

That there's no probs with males accessing any and all previously single sex spaces,

Because it's a fact that penis people are going to sexually attack/rape bodies with vaginas anyway, and nothing can change that...

A bizarre way to attempt to convince females whatever their age of anything.

It's not actually supposed to do that is it.

Obviously.

It's about reminding vagina people of their vulnerability to sexual violence from testicle types.
About reminding us that MVAWG is incredibly common, and that very little in practice is done about it.

It's about reminding us that males can do what they want, including rape, torture, abduction and so on. And we can't stop them.

It's saying males are in charge. Don't forget that. If they want to violate you, whether you're 5, 15, 35 or 85 then they will so why the fuck do you keep whining on. It's your lot in life. Put up and shut up.

I mean no one surely thinks telling us that our small children, teens, us, our mothers are totally vulnerable to sexually motivated dodgy behaviour/ crime committed by males and that's that. Is a winning argument!

I always find myself thinking reading these threads…with all of the awareness raising, there is no LGB without the T, gazillion different genders etc. that is everywhere now - schools, the work place, TV - what exactly is so wrong about just being a transwoman in these modern times of acceptance.

Transwomen are the bravest people who walk the earth if you believe the fawning that goes on, even by some women on this board towards trans posters. Why the need to disown it and claim womanhood? What is it actually about?

In the end.

Anyone who asserts that sex is irrelevant to prisons, sports, risks, crime prevalence etc
That females (lesbians!) are as much risk to the population as males, when it comes to violence/ sex crime.
And etc etc etc.

Is simply telling porkies. A few may believe it. But given that even the most fervent TWAW people constantly reveal that they don't believe it at all, by using women/girls meaning female when they feel like it.

Cowardly hypocritical behaviour demonstrating extreme misogyny.

*Hardly making yourself clear or being polite, was it?

Are you usually so inattentive to your surroundings?*

As you said, this isn't the site i normally post on, so I thought it would be polite to account for all types of people that may post here. Even if it is not helpful to most other people, it is helpful to some so I'm not going to change my language to be less inclusive. If you don't need/use tone indicators, thats also fine, but it wont affect you if i use them for anyone who may need them /gen /lh /npa /srs

@ErynIsTrans I posted earlier but would like to know why the trans perspective should trump the majority perspective, why women must lose regular language because of Stonewall interventions?

Apologies I think I asked that in a parallel thread.

Okay, so you're saying you're going to come into a space that you don't usually use, and ignore the social norms of the place. Then when told you aren't following our conventions (if we think there is a chance of misunderstandings, we type out our words in full), you just announce your intention to carry on doing what you like here!

Well, doesn't your post just encapsulate this debate and why we don't want men in our hospital wards or other places we feel vulnerable.

Thanks for illustrating it all so clearly to the lurkers.

Because it is about inclusion. And you can still use terms like "woman" and "man", "male" and "female". It isn't taking away any terms, rather it is adding new ones or alternatives. You can still use all the same terms if you are unwilling to change. Our language is evolving just like it always has. (for example, we don't use thee anymore when meaning you)

You will find many people agree with me here, and from what I understand, this site is somewhat of a bubble and it can be difficult to see just how many people agree that these changes are for good causes.

The other MASSIVE OBVIOUS REVEALING PROBLEM with the single sex spaces always single gender so why the fuss types.

Is the incredible way that these arguments always focus on 'Western' countries.

I find it just so blatent, and illustrative of attitudes to our sex, that the global situation is just not... Even worth a thought.

Eg.
Female only bogs, seeing as that's invariably the situation discussed.

Activism for female only spaces especially toilets by global huge orgs...

UNESCO
'Single-sex toilets needed to overcome girls' barriers to education,' says Unesco'

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html

United Nations
'With one out of three women worldwide lacking access to safe toilets, it is a moral imperative to end open defecation to ensure women and girls are not at risk of assault and rape simply because they lack a sanitation facility, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged today on World Toilet Day.'

news.un.org/en/story/2014/11/484042-ensuring-womens-access-safe-toilets-moral-imperative-says-ban-marking-world-day

And on it goes that's just a couple first links came up Google.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Okay, so you're saying you're going to come into a space that you don't usually use, and ignore the social norms of the place. Then when told you aren't following our conventions (if we think there is a chance of misunderstandings, we type out our words in full), you just announce your intention to carry on doing what you like here!

Well, doesn't your post just encapsulate this debate and why we don't want men in our hospital wards or other places we feel vulnerable.

Thanks for illustrating it all so clearly to the lurkers.

What do you mean by lurkers? /genuine question I am new and I would like to learn /genuine

I will still use tone indicators, but if you don't understand what I mean by them, I am willing to type out my words in full /genuine /light hearted /not passive aggressive

@ErynIsTrans thanks for permitting the majority to use the language we already use. The real bubble can be seen in distinct groups on Twitter.

The 'tone' words make my skin crawl.

Lurker- person lurking. As in the silent audience reading along without actively participating in discussion

I don't really like twitter for that exact reason. People can often believe that they hold the only opinions in the world there, which is unhealthy in my opinion. /light hearted

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Lurker- person lurking. As in the silent audience reading along without actively participating in discussion

Okay thank you! that makes sense /genuine

But if those terms aren't used here and people don't know them, even those who would find them helpful won't know what you're talking about. It's the same with many acronyms on here - people often ask 'what does DH mean?' or 'what does TAAT mean?' and those are terms which are used commonly on the site.

You've listed these with no explanation - /gen /lh /npa /srs. I picked up /gen from context but can't even guess at the rest. If you use language which isn't in common use on a site and just expect people on that site to somehow know what those terms mean, you're not being inclusive. Exclusive if anything.