Grey area on trans rights

[Spyrothedragon23]

Reasonably new and learning about be trans issues / community. Happy to learn more but my request as it’s a hot topic for people to keep it adult and polite.

Just wondering if it possible to be a bit grey on the area rather than black and white? Alot of people on these boards feel very strongly about the movement and in some ways I understand.

This is where I am a bit grey:

I don’t agree with anyone with the sex they are born with being in the opposite sex sports / jails etc it’s just wrong and not fair. There’s a biological advantage if some is male and moves to female for sports.

However I don’t have an issue with someone wanting to be the opposite gender if it makes them happy. As long as it doesn’t affect or
impact others (see above statement about sports / jails etc). If it was a friend I would happily call them by a different pronouns or name.

Is there another area of this movement I’m missing? Are some people a little more grey rather than black and white?

Very well said.

I have a question actually, what’s peoples view points on toilets? I don’t have an issue if someone is in the opposite sex toilets but thinks they are that sex if they are going about their business. It really wouldn’t bother me.

Like this person @Spyrothedragon23 ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11907547/Transgender-woman-54-jailed-nine-years-stabbing-trans-woman.html

If not, why not?

If ONE woman says 'No' to men, any fucking men, whatever they are wearing, whatever they believe themselves to be, then it is NO across the board - no ifs, buts or maybes.

Exactly.

Consent cannot be decided by committee.

One woman’s No is a total veto.

We aren’t having a vote over which men can come in the ladies lavvy.

The answer is none of them.

And women must not be asked to justify that NO, ever. Accept it, the end.

Absolutely.

The gall of some of them!

Who the hell do they think they are, strolling into women’s spaces like they belong.

This better not be recorded as a female committing a crime against a female person.

How the fuck do these cases keep coming? Seems like there is a new case of a trans person being convicted for violent or sex offences every fortnight?

Lovely picture of that violent female rapist. I bloody hope he isn't being sent to a women's prison.

For the PPs arguing over sports cheats: a friend just shared this. Informative.

A grey area to me: how one individual can be a they/them. I just refuse that terminology. Another: to refer to me as anything other than a female/mother. The whole identify at birth or birthing person takes away from my femininity.

Absolutely. Hitchens's razor applies:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Are you saying that Katie Dolatowski isn't a genuine transwoman? https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/politics/sex-offender-stayed-in-leeds-womens-refuge-for-71-days-as-campaigners-protest-leeds-council-over-scandal-3920683

Just for clarity, @Spyrothedragon23 , the emojis weren't in the version that Mews published - Boiled is sparing our eyes and minds from the bleaching that would otherwise be required. Mews didn't do the same courtesy for those viewing his social media accounts.

I don't even think I have ever met a transwoman in the ladies. I'm sure I have. I just never noticed.

Is that even relevant? Women have seen TW in the ladies - most TW look like the men they are. I've never been put in prison - doesn't mean others haven't. You not having noticed might mean either that 1) there have been no TW in the ladies you've been in 2) there have been TW in the ladies you've been in but they're of the rare 'actually looking like a woman' type or perhaps 3) you are a TW and have chosen to believe that blokes who identify with their individualised iternalised construct of 'woman gender' actually really are women. Whichever it is, does not lead to an argument to remove all protections and dignity which single-sex spaces provide.

Oops! Not for the first time, I'm late to the thread and have reached the end only to find my comments all bunched together at the end, and their contents expressed better by others already. Sorry!

Some threads you can resist the urge to post until you get to the end. Some threads the urge to respond just takes over!

Surely being attacked in a toilet is because the person is insane nor because they are trans?
I don't like mixed toilets because I dont like the seat being left up and piss everywhere, but I don't care if a man dressed as a woman wants to use the same cubicle as me. If a man is going to attack me, he doesn't need to be dressed up to do it.

Your comment somehow seems to be ableist, anti women’s rights and transphobic all at once?

I don't get it, how am I transphobic?? What ableist? Genuinely confused!

I’m a free speech absolutist so as far as I’m concerned you can say whatever you want, regardless of whether or not it offends me or anyone else. I was just a bit taken aback that your comment is likely offensive to a number of people on both sides of the rights clash!

As you asked, here’s how your comment might cause offence (direct copy and paste quote, my additions in bold)

“Surely being attacked in a toilet is because the person is insane (ableist - mental illness is not an excuse for male violence and people can be mentally Ill and not commit any crimes at all ever, certainly not sexual or violent crimes) nor because they are trans?
I don't like mixed toilets because I dont like the seat being left up and piss everywhere, but I don't care if a man dressed as a woman (transphobic - trans people repeatedly state they are not cross dressers, although Stonewall does include cross dressers under their trans umbrella) wants to use the same cubicle as me.
If a man is going to attack me he doesn't need to be dressed up to do it”

and the whole second paragraph is anti Women’s Rights because your personal disinterest in the dignity, privacy & safety of single sex spaces is irrelevant when it comes to the dignity, privacy and safety of other women.

Other women say no to males in female spaces, and one No has to be a total veto - consent can’t be decided by committee 🤷‍♀️

"Other women say no to males in female spaces, and one No has to be a total veto - consent can’t be decided by committee"

That isn't how the world works, even if you think it should.

I personally think one "No" should be enough to stop fluoridation in the public water supply, as it's medication without consent; but in reality these questions are just decided by politicians regardless of what the majority thinks, let alone what any one person thinks.

?

You seem a bit confused. I’m talking about women having female only spaces when they are undressing, toileting and sleeping.

Not fluoride in water.

Ah ok. I meant insane, as in you would have to have something wrong with you to attack anyone not anything against mental illness. Did not realise that about cross dressing at all, I actually thought that was a lot of the issues that people seemed to have on mumsnet, men being in the toilets because they might attack you, which doesn't seem fair as I feel if a man/woman is in the toilet it is because they want to go to the toilet, and if they were going to attack you they would regardless of gender. Points taken though, thanks! I guess that's one of my things, I really don't like unisex toilets, but because they tend to be "gross" nothing to do with the man using it, I don't feel threatened by men, unless they're threatening. Although I can see that some other women might feel like this. I do wonder if they'd even know. I've only noticed it once in a nightclub.

It's an example. The world works the same in both cases. There is no "veto".

They aren’t even slightly comparable!

I’m talking about giving males access to FEMALE ONLY spaces.

You can’t consent for any woman’s naked body to be viewed by a man but your own.

The one and only time I used a ‘mix sex changing village’ a man lay on the floor and stuck his head under the side of my cubicle.

Since then I stick to female-only spaces. It’s not an infallible tactic but good men stay out so bad men stand out!

I'm talking about MEDICATION WITHOUT CONSENT!

You can't consent for someone else to take medication. (Normal adults anyway.)

So I don't see a problem with the example.

But even if there was, the point is still: that isn't how the world works on a political level. Maybe it should. But it doesn't.