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?

I still don’t see it.

A government’s dodgy as fuck public health policy and a BeKinder inviting her male-friend-with-gender-feelz into the women’s locker room are completely different in terms of power differentials.

The government was elected for starters, no one voted for the BeKinder to decide for the entire yoga class.

I have a question. If males with a trans identity are in danger in male spaces, won’t making all spaces mixed sex mean they are still in danger? Surely a better solution would be to work out why these males felt unsafe and mitigate that. Why would they be safer in mixed sex spaces than in male spaces?

That would be because the problem men wish to address is not lack of safety in men's facilities.

Usually you start with the problem (unsafe men) and work on to the possible solutions and it all makes sense.

In this case, the pre determined end goal is to be in female spaces with females. (All. And no females escaping into a no-access male zone, because that defeats the purpose.)

Therefore the never ending, illogical flailing around of all possible excuses and problems that can be grabbed on to, is to try to justify this predetermined end. It's starting with the desired solution and working backwards trying to find a general public palatable problem it is the answer to without bloody women saying 'but this doesn't work for us'.

This is why the fact that none of these 'reasons' add up, and that many contradict each other, are irrelevant. They all are serving the same purpose.

In terms of consent, yes. Yes it does.

Other cool women who are glad to get their kit off in front of strange men are more than welcome to do so. They are not however entitled to require that Other Women (not their sort) must either do so or lose access to public spaces altogether because men wanting to be with undressed women matters and the women's needs don't.

Because that takes ignorant prejudice, social naivety, male supremacism and discrimination into whole new realms.

And governments absolutely certainly do not get to compel and control which women must get undressed or suffer intimate contact with men against their consent. Hence the revolution of women currently explaining to the government the very bleak path they are staggering down under a rainbow flag, and saying fuck this, because it is not going to fucking happen.

There are words for people who provide non consenting female bodies to men. It IS that ugly.

Thank you for summing this up so eloquently.

A superb post. It's stark when it's all laid out that what governments are trying to do is compel unconsenting women. Ugly indeed.

And governments absolutely certainly do not get to compel and control which women must get undressed or suffer intimate contact with men against their consent.

But they are, they do. I believe Nicola Sturgeon got to listen to a paralysed young woman who wants intimate care from female carers only.... and that didn't change the First Minister's mind about anything. No sign that anything was going to stop her being cared for by a self identfied woman.

Question is: if we can't get agreement even on what seem like the most obvious black and white areas, then what's the point of talking about the grey areas?

Could someone please explain to me why you think that female only spaces are somehow wrong? Just think about it, why are you so keen to open up those spaces to just anyone? Please.

It's the cult of double speak.

Of course female only spaces aren't wrong.

But TWAW. Therefore still 'female only', nothing to see here, move along.

The logic is broken.

If female’s spaces, jobs etc should be open to transwomen, they could also be open to ordinary gay men too as far as I can see and the gay men would be much less likely to be agp.

As for all women short lists, any that allow transwomen, are just allowing privilege to a certain sort of man but are other wise simply all sex short lists.

I just can't get my head round why some women are so keen to roll over! Maybe it's because I am old and have seen some pretty horrendous things in my time. I don't know, but I do worry where the apathy will lead us.

Have you seen what happens when you go up against the mob?

They think they are protected by the mob, until one day they will say something completely innoculously and they will be targeted by the mob.

Fight or flight, freeze or fawn.

There is a lot of ‘fawning’ about.

I try not to judge too much, it’s a type of survival mechanism, probably a subconscious one most of the time.

I reserve my judgement for the ‘Do it to Julia’ types - there is safety in numbers and we need to try to resist the urge to throw a woman to the wolves because she gets on our nerves or has been photographed standing beside someone icky.

If a man is going to attack me, he doesn't need to be dressed up to do it.

Ah the old they are going to attack you anyway trope - should we just make it easier then? Do you apply this logic to anything else? If someone wants to steal your car they will so may as well leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition?

Why not be truthful and say what you really mean @Whenharrymetsmelly ? women you are not allowed boundaries, you must share your private single sex spaces with any man who wishes to be there and if you are uncomfortable, tough, you are not entitled to the slightest consideration, your safety, privacy and dignity is irrelevant.

I despair at how women are viewed by posters like you.

Also if someone will attack you whatever toilet you are in why do Tranwomens not use male toilets? If the sex of the toilet is irrelevant why is it such an issue for people to use the correct sex toilet. Another incoherent argument.

Also if someone will attack you whatever toilet you are in why do Tranwomens not use male toilets? If the sex of the toilet is irrelevant why is it such an issue for people to use the correct sex toilet. Another incoherent argument.

There is zero evidence that the male toilets are a dangerous place for TW. Women are told they can just call the Police if they are attacked in the female toilets, the Police who are so steeped in misogyny, the Police that fail to investigate crimes of rape, and of course the woman attacked is just collateral damage for the greater good of inclusion. However, when the same option is given to TW to call the Police if they are attacked when using the male toilets then oh dear me no, that's equivalent to literal genocide or something.

It's not just incoherent it is an argument that clearly states who matters and it is not women.

And look what happened to her career. And look at the voters getting increasingly pissed off, and women here getting steadily louder and angrier.

Rolling over to this is not happening, and it never will happen, because it is ethically and morally wrong.

The fluoridation issue affects everyone. The men in female spaces affects women only. That's a clear difference to start with

And look what happened to her career. And look at the voters getting increasingly pissed off, and women here getting steadily louder and angrier.

Yes, that's the trouble. Refusing to listen, refusing accept that bad things happen and need to be prevented, polarises everyone. If people say "here's how we can do self-id and protect women" then I'll listen. But people never seem to say that - it's always "you're only saying that because you don't want self-id" or "self id isn't the real problem so just give us self id anyway"

When the Scottish parliament equality and human rights committee discussed self id they agreed that in prisons it shouldn't matter whether someone had a GRC or not, the accommodation rules would need to be the same regardless. But I had no sense that agreement ever left the room.

Totally. But if I see a man in the ladies, I run. I use another. If TW are allowed in the ladies then there is no where to run to and no one to report to. It is authorised transgression of my boundaries.

If TW are allowed in the ladies then there is no where to run to and no one to report to

It's slightly worse than that. The old rule presumed that a male shouldn't be there, and that was sufficent reason to "report" his presence if his presence or behaviour made you uncomfortable. Now if you "report" you're at risk of trouble for transphobia. The transwoman is presumed innocent and you made a poor vulnerable transwoman feel unwelcome. It's your word against hers that anything untoward happened and complaining puts you at risk.

True. It makes me think about the woman who was attacked in hospital and then persecuted for reporting it.

It makes me think about the woman who was attacked in hospital and then persecuted for reporting it.

And the women in prisons who risk being put on report for misgendering male prisoners who threaten and harrass them sexually.

The idea that if someone behaves badly you can just complain, well no. you can't complain til after they've behaved badly and even then you might not be believed.

If their presence just makes you uncomfortable well your discomfort might not be the priority compared to theirs. Even rape victims who are made uncomfortable by sharing their experience in the presence of transwomen have been told they're bigoted and need to get over it.

It makes vulnerable women so much more vulnerable. And I really don't see a way round that. if anyone else does then I'm listening.

the real issue for TW isn't about safety - most of them could probably handle themselves against males anyway - it's about validation.

To be fair - I don't think validation is the real issue for all transwomen. But it gets conveniently blurred in with safety, so that arguments slide from one to the other and back, and we have to be on the alert. "You're killing us" - oh we're putting you in danger - how? "Denying our very existence". Well that is about validation not safety.

But when special TW mention it, suddenly it's horrifying and should be a reason to give in to their demands. Go figure.

I reckon that argument has a special appeal for women too, because we empathise about living with physical danger from men.