Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Is MH just an echo chamber on FWR?

275 replies

NarcissasMumintheDoghouse · 08/04/2022 11:58

Article in the New Statesman shows women's rights not a voter priority (and elsewhere in the publication they predict Labour would get more votes that the Tories).
sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/03/sotn-what-issues-matter-most-to-voters/

OP posts:
TedMullins · 09/04/2022 00:29

Trans specific spaces would be mixed, so they’re not really comparable are they? The people in the trans specific space would have both penises and vaginas which I thought was what you’re opposed to, so it would be no different from trans women in a woman’s space, except that everyone there would be trans. Look, if you want to campaign for a space that only admits people with vaginas that are not trans (so no trans men either, because if they look like men surely they could be a traumatising presence as well) please do. I’m not stopping anyone wanting that. I just don’t think that trans women are taking anything away from the current provisions we have by accessing them, or trans men accessing men’s spaces. I do not personally care to have services segregated by genitalia, because I don’t think it mitigates risk any better unless you’re literally putting bouncers on the door and pulling people’s trousers down as they enter.

TedMullins · 09/04/2022 00:34

@Waitwhat23

But exemptions are being denied or ignored. HR managers of NHS Trusts are on record declaring that they will ignore the EQA2010 and EHRC guidelines and not provide single sex spaces. Single sex services (like my example earlier in the thread) are being targeted and harassed by 'trans inclusive feminists'.

So why are single sex services being so targeted? If single sex services are not allowed then why are trans specific services? Presumably, if it is unacceptable for single sex services to not include males, it is equally unacceptable for trans specific services to not include non trans people.

Ok, in that particular instance I think they got it wrong. I do think the starting point should be to admit trans people but alternatives should be available for people who request extra provisions. If there were enough trans specific services all over the country, like gyms, hospital wards, trans prison wings etc, then the landscape and this whole argument would be totally different, but that’s not what we’ve got. I don’t personally want to abolish the exemption clause, I think it is the only way at the moment to cater to everyone.
Waitwhat23 · 09/04/2022 00:35

I do not personally care to have services segregated by genitalia, because I don’t think it mitigates risk any better unless you’re literally putting bouncers on the door and pulling people’s trousers down as they enter.

So no, you do not think that women should be entitled to the single sex services and spaces which are allowed to them under the Equality Act 2010. Thanks for clarifying.

This is why 'intersectional feminism', 'trans inclusive feminism' and all that 'right side of history' nonsense is so laughable in its hypocrisy. It's not about being inclusive - it's about excluding women.

No, thank you.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 09/04/2022 00:40

@TedMullins

Trans specific spaces would be mixed, so they’re not really comparable are they? The people in the trans specific space would have both penises and vaginas which I thought was what you’re opposed to, so it would be no different from trans women in a woman’s space, except that everyone there would be trans. Look, if you want to campaign for a space that only admits people with vaginas that are not trans (so no trans men either, because if they look like men surely they could be a traumatising presence as well) please do. I’m not stopping anyone wanting that. I just don’t think that trans women are taking anything away from the current provisions we have by accessing them, or trans men accessing men’s spaces. I do not personally care to have services segregated by genitalia, because I don’t think it mitigates risk any better unless you’re literally putting bouncers on the door and pulling people’s trousers down as they enter.
That doesn't answer the question. What justification is there for segregated spaces for anyone in your world vision? It's a bit silly to say TW aren't taking anything away from female spaces when the very fact they're in them makes them not female spaces. Also q bit silly ton describe them as segrevated by genitalia and suggests you don't have a basic understanding of oppression. Are positive discriminations attempting to redress the unlevel playing field people of colour face just segregation by melatonin levels then?
BitOutOfPractice · 09/04/2022 00:47

In answer to your question in the title op, yes, yes it is.

BitOutOfPractice · 09/04/2022 00:50

And I notice no one else is actually answering that question but going on to answer their own questions on the issue. Which absolutely goes to prove the point that yes MN is an echo chamber and no, most voters aren’t engaged with this issue at the ballot box.

LK1972 · 09/04/2022 00:55

Sure sure, BitOut, you'd better start working out what may explain Labour showing in May, as it's surely not Labour looking ridiculous in answer to 'What's a woman'. Last election result seemed to be a bit of a shock to Labour, they clearly learned nothing in the last 3 years.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 09/04/2022 00:56

Don't be daft. People are saying it's not an echo chamber and that the complete lack of meaningful responses from TRAs mean that coherence in opinion between most people on MN is not evidence that it's an echo chamber - just evidence that most people have not lost their critical thinking abilities.

OldCrone · 09/04/2022 01:11

And we agree that trans men are at risk from men India, and that male violence happens on a scale we don’t have to contend with in the UK, hence why the approach to mixed spaces would be different… that’s not really such a gotcha is it?

No idea what the statistics are for India, but in the UK, about 600,000 women are raped or sexually assaulted every year (618,000 in the year ending March 2020 according to the ONS).

Are you saying this is such a tiny number that it doesn't matter?

FemaleAndLearning · 09/04/2022 01:13

I know you have been busy answering questions Ted, but you've still not answered mine from a few pages back. It was your suggestion I am responding to and you did complain noone was responding to that proposal.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 09/04/2022 01:14

Oldcrone -that is a tiny percentage of the actual assaults surely? Statistics like that are always hampered by massive under-reporting. Partly because misogyny in our justice system puts people off reporting sexual crimes.

OldCrone · 09/04/2022 01:23

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Oldcrone -that is a tiny percentage of the actual assaults surely? Statistics like that are always hampered by massive under-reporting. Partly because misogyny in our justice system puts people off reporting sexual crimes.
The figures are from the Crime Survey for England and Wales. The ONS say:

“The number of offences recorded by the police remains well below the number of victims estimated by the survey, with fewer than one in six victims of rape or assault by penetration reporting the crime to the police.”

The number of sexual offences recorded by the police for the same period is about 162,000.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2020

Just to correct my earlier post, these figures are for England and Wales, not the UK.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2022 02:15

I don't think trans women are the same as men or that allowing them into female spaces is throwing away rights. I accept some women have a problem with it, and I think they're wrong.

I on the other hand, think they are the same, it is throwing away women's rights, and that you are wrong.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2022 02:17

If there were enough trans specific services all over the country, like gyms, hospital wards, trans prison wings etc, then the landscape and this whole argument would be totally different, but that’s not what we’ve got.

Why don't we have that, do you think?

Iknowitisheresomewhere · 09/04/2022 07:31

I don’t care ‘why’ he has said it. Presumably to gain votes. That is fine by me. But because he has said it, many others in his party have said similar things, all, including him, with plausible reasons around safety and fairness. This brings debate into the open and makes it much harder for any political party to pretend a self-id policy would not bring harm.

I believe this issue is SO important that I cannot vote for anyone who would bring in self-id.

Politics is about difficult decisions. Any party that is for self-id is choosing to prioritise feelings over fairness, safety and scientific reason. This means it is very difficult to reason them out of that position, because reason isn’t a basis for choosing it.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2022 07:40

And I don't agree that the reason for this is that the majority opinion (on here) is the only informed one.

Please do feel free to challenge any specific statement. You may find people disagree, somewhat robustly, and expect you to back up your argument. That's online debate.

OldCrone · 09/04/2022 08:05

Any party that is for self-id is choosing to prioritise feelings over fairness, safety and scientific reason. This means it is very difficult to reason them out of that position, because reason isn’t a basis for choosing it.

That's because it's a faith based position, like a religious belief. If someone believes that a man is a woman just because he says he is, that is based on faith not reason. They seem reluctant to admit that this is a quasi religious belief though, and try to convince us that their beliefs are based on something other than faith.

So we get contradictory claims like the one that women in India need single sex toilets because they are at risk from men otherwise, but women in the UK should be fine with mixed sex. The reasoning is not clear. Perhaps that poster thinks British men are more 'civilised' than their Indian counterparts (which sounds pretty racist), so this is dressed up as women here having more rights than Indian women, therefore single sex anything is unnecessary (which makes no logical sense at all). You can't argue logically for a faith based position.

Anyone choosing faith over science on this issue is going to find it impossible to answer questions with anything that looks like a rational answer. Because ultimately all they have is 'because I believe it is true'. People who believe TWAW should start admitting that this is a belief based on faith, not science. At the moment they just sound idiotic and dishonest.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2022 08:10

That's because it's a faith based position, like a religious belief. If someone believes that a man is a woman just because he says he is, that is based on faith not reason. They seem reluctant to admit that this is a quasi religious belief though, and try to convince us that their beliefs are based on something other than faith.

Exactly. It's like someone trying to reason with someone who believes god built the earth in 7 days, even while waving a dinosaur bone at them.

AlisonDonut · 09/04/2022 08:10

I'm also, I have to admit, gobsmacked by the number of women on MN who seem willing to believe--based, I guess on the statement of a man who has lied and reversed so many times no one even bothers keeping track any more

I am gobsmacked by the number of people who seem willing to believe - based I guess on the statements of men who lie - that these men have changed into vulnerable women.

Seealie · 09/04/2022 09:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

DomesticatedZombie · 09/04/2022 09:21

@BitOutOfPractice

And I notice no one else is actually answering that question but going on to answer their own questions on the issue. Which absolutely goes to prove the point that yes MN is an echo chamber and no, most voters aren’t engaged with this issue at the ballot box.
But we have a few people here on this thread with different views. How is that an echo chamber?
WelcomeMarch · 09/04/2022 09:29

no trans men either, because if they look like men surely they could be a traumatising presence as well

I do actually agree that this could be a problem. Some transmen look quite male after the effects of testosterone. (And nearly all adult male transitioners continue to look quite male for similar reasons.) A husky, broken voice and a beard at least tend to suggest ‘teenage boy’.

I don’t suppose we could go back to ‘nobody pretending to be the opposite sex’, could we? No cross-sex hormones? Just a thought.

AlisonDonut · 09/04/2022 09:32

People can come on here and state that they believe unconditionally every word that a man utters and let these guys into previously 'single sex spaces' on our behalf, we have the right to ask questions surely?

The fact is all they do is say they believe these men without question, and without explaining how they actually changed into women. And we are supposed to pipe down and let them also run roughshod over all our rights without question, just to avoid being called an 'echo chamber'?

Why don't the people that are giving away our rights actually ever tell us how men change into women? All they do is burble burble men can do what they want burble burble just be kind. What sort of response is that?

And then because there is no actual evidence, they flounce and call us an echo chamber and on it goes.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 09/04/2022 09:47

I'm also, I have to admit, gobsmacked by the number of women on MN who seem willing to believebased, I guess on the statement of a man who has lied and reversed so many times no one even bothers keeping track any morethat the political party that had to literally be shamed into feeding hungry children by a 22-year-old footballer actually gives one shit about women.

I don't. But I believe that keeping a language to describe actual real women is so important that sadly this will swing my vote. If people had redefined children to include adults, how do you think that conversation about hungry children would have gone? Do you think it would have been more or less likely that those children would have got dinner?

Aspiringmatriarch · 09/04/2022 12:58

I believe that keeping a language to describe actual real women is so important

I agree with this. Women and trans women works ok for me. Although I think a lot of people are confused by the terminology and think a trans woman is a biological female who is transitioning, which doesn't help.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread