Transmen

[Questioningfolke]

Lots of people generally think that people should use the toilets/facilities of their biological sex.
This would mean transmen using the women's bathroom. Lots of transmen 'pass' as men, which means if they're in the women's toilets then people will fell unsafe and uncomfortable with a 'man' in the women's toilets. You wouldn't know if they had a penis or not. They're just a man in the women's bathroom.

Lots of time you really can't tell a transman is trans not just a man if they've taken hormones.

Birth certs and GRCs and genitals aren't checked when you enter a public space.

This could prompt men claiming theyre transmen to enter women's spaces too, no?

Oh do go and tell that to Katie Dowalskis 10 year old victim. Attacked by a male with a trans identity in a toilet. How many women and girls is it ok in your eyes to be harmed before you decide it’s a problem? 10? 20? 100? No males in female spaces solves that problem doesn’t it?

The likelihood of being attacked by a trans woman in a public toilet is so incredibly unlikely and rare you could argue it’s not something women ‘need to be especially concerned about’.

But women feel safer in single sex spaces. They have a right to a safe place, especially when using the toilets. Males are not welcome, regardless of what they're wearing or how they are presenting themselves.

How many women and girls is it ok in your eyes to be harmed before you decide it’s a problem?

How many people is it ok in your eyes to be harmed on the roads before you decide it’s a problem? None of this is ok. You’re using a type of logical fallacy so there’s no point in this continuing.

But on a road where the road is identified as having played a part in injuries and fatalities, yes, actions are taken to reduce the risk. Speed limits. Traffic calming measures. Additional lanes.

It is only in this situation that women are told that to accept the risk of harm is for the greater good.

Considering the outpouring of rage regarding the EHCR's belief that reserving spaces for women that are for biological women only, and that while additional spaces should be provided (see her article in the Times this morning) there must be a need for single sex provided spaces to be respected by male people, and that being for the greater good?

It is not a reciprocal thing at all. Like most of the demands of the activist lobby on women.

Women are entitled to consideration of privacy, dignity and safety equal to the consideration provided to male people of TQ+ identities. And sacrificing women's rights and needs and access for the better freedom of males? It's been a disaster because of attitudes such as:

it'll probably never happen
NAMALT
you can tell the police if you get raped
reframe your trauma.

All of which work equally well to explain to a male person that they should use the men's facilities, but again... reciprocation not a feature of this movement.

Another analogy:

I have a box of 50 chocolates. 48 are delicious. One will injure you badly and will probably leave you with a lifetime impact. One will kill you.

But the other 48 are great, so go on, help yourself.

Ooh...I'll have the....

Like fuck!

Thanks for the offer but I'll pass!

Just like I'll pass on the demand I accept men in my spaces!

It's a recycled anti-Islam meme from 9 years ago.

The not-so-subtle difference being that the vast majority of people haven't experienced violence or abuse from Muslim people, while the vast majority of women have experienced violence or abuse from male people.

So while the analogy didn't work in the first version (you'd need something like 10 bad chocolates in a million, which most people would be OK with risking), it does work in the second where 1 bad chocolate in 50 is almost certainly (a) too risky for most, and (b) massively underestimates the proportion of men who are violent or abusive to women, let alone those who don't knowingly hurt us but still unconsciously encroach upon and sideline us, which single sex spaces (physical and mental) provide respite from also.

And more fundamentally, there is no argument that stands for trans women in female spaces that doesn't stand equally well for other men. Either there's an argument to exclude all* males based on male behaviour or there isn't an argument to exclude any.

* other than known men doing a job under appropriate supervision and controls, before someone tries to claim that the existence of male cleaners means there's no point in single-sex spaces

🙄
Got it. Sooooo, genital inspections then? Quick flash of the vulva for the door guard? Otherwise trans women who do, in fact, pass could slip in molest you with their neovagina or something.

Hmm, except nobody's actually said that have they @Squanchhouse

Did you actually read and understand the post you quoted?

Got it. Sooooo, genital inspections then?

Lol, why are anti-women activists always going on about “genital inspections”. Where does this idea come from?

It's because their friends all tell them they totally pass, and no one could ever tell.

Thus "genital inspections" would be the only possible way...

They think it's such a gotcha.

What they're actually saying is transpeople would have no problem breaking the law.

Sounds pretty transphobic to label transpeople lawbreakers like that.

Lol, why are anti-women activists always going on about “genital inspections”. Where does this idea come from?

Because they are sex obsessed men?

The only people suggesting genital inspections are TRAs...

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/11/if-the-equalities-act-changes-i-could-be-forced-to-use-mens-loos-18592590/

"In order to enforce this in practice, would they have to start stationing guards at every single space that carry out genital inspections and chromosome tests, just to make sure no pesky trans people are using the wrong facilities?"

It's DARVO all the way.

The side crying "Fascist" is the side that deploys informants, public shaming, threats to family and work, and media censorship to impose authoritarian controls on what thoughts people can share

The side crying "they want us to stop existing" is the side appropriating and redefining the name of an existing social group so that group can no longer assert its political and social rights or existence

The side crying "literal violence" is the one sharing violent imagery and rhetoric, now escalating to physical attacks on peaceful demonstrations

The side crying "human rights" is the side that thinks anyone opposing its aims doesn't deserve human rights

The side crying "freedom to be yourself" is the side waving banners and flags and wearing masks

The side that claims it wants to free us from gender stereotypes is the one that thinks masculine girls must really be boys and vice versa

Those who rabbit on about genital inspections are the ones who believe that being 6 feet tall and in grave need of a shave doesn't diminish their ability to "pass". There may be transwomen appear credibly female but they will still give themselves away by riding up to the loo on a unicorn.

Not sure how I'm an "anti-women activist" whatever that is.

I'm looking for clarification. if you can't tell, but you still want them out of there, and "an upset woman will have the law on her side", I'm just curious how that actually plays out in reality.

Say some highly passable trans woman walks in. No one bats an eye. But one woman isn't so sure she's a "real enough" woman and starts screeching and harassing her. How's the "law" resolving this dispute in real time?

Surely non-passing transwomen will respect the law and stay out?

But who decides whether they pass or not? They may look in the mirror that morning and be like 'yup! I pass today' so go to use the woman's toilets. Only allowing 'passing' transwomen in the women's toilets isn't really an option in reality.

The same for transmen in the men's toilets!

Not sure how I'm an "anti-women activist" whatever that is.

In this instance it's making the hyperbolic suggestion that the only solution to women's concerns about sharing intimate spaces with men would be to carry out "genital inspections".

I'm looking for clarification. if you can't tell, but you still want them out of there, and "an upset woman will have the law on her side", I'm just curious how that actually plays out in reality.

Well presumably in the same way it always played out until about 5 years ago. You make a statement that a service is for a certain group of people and then you rely on people's integrity to not use that service when it is clearly not intended for them. Obviously you will always get people who will want to take something that is not for them. There's probably not a lot we can do about those people in reality but that's on them. I think the best thing to do would be to offer additional unisex options and I would hope that most TW with an ounce of integrity would use that option instead of invading women's spaces.

"Screeching". But not anti-woman. Just so steeped in everyday misogyny you don’t even notice.

How does it work? Like every other law/rule.

Most people are decent and respectful and comply because they want to.
Some don’t really want to comply but do so anyway out of social conformity.
A handful don’t comply.
Some will be caught in the act because they were obviously in the wrong and asked to leave.
Some won't be caught at first but their behaviour betrays them.
Some will never be caught.

I don't understand why the people who want to deny women the right to single sex spaces seem to think that means women are responsible for enforcing it, and if we can't do that 100% we don't get to have them at all.

We don't scrap speed limits because some people get away with breaking them.
We don't legalise shoplifting because some people get away with it
I'm not going to elaborate on DV or rape because fucking hell the conviction rates make me furious but at least we don't go as far as actually legalising it

We accept imperfect delivery of a perfect ideal because better than nothing is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

So why should single sex spaces be different?

This.

Why is this theoretical male devoid of respect or care for females and trying to deceive their way into a space?

And why is it then the fault of the females for noticing the deceit rather than the deceiver? It's almost like males have no responsibility for their actions and females are supposed to just be excluded and harmed quietly.

Males in all female only spaces doesn't work for females. Yes, some males like it a lot and prefer having choices. But that leaves many females with nothing at all.

Excluding females to benefit males and give them more options is fundamentally not equality. Equality would be accessible options for all. If you're into male supremacism, then it's an opinion, you do you. But own it.