Genuinely willing to discuss in good faith

[beachcitygirl]

Hello.

This is a thread for those who are uncomfortable with black and white and less than civil discourse around self id.

I welcome those with different views but I don't on this thread welcome those who only want to state their firm settled opinion without nuance or discussion that self id is absolutely wrong.

It's my view that there is no point in discussion if mind firmly made up.
I'll respect your legal right to that view but there's not much point chatting about it and pissing each other off.

There are plenty threads of gc women hoping to create more gc women and that's fine.

I'd like this to be a different space. A place for anyone with genuine questions, discussion points and where we all try to be civil and attempt to answer each other in good faith. Anyone who is unsure, let's talk:

My views are that trans women should be treated in every aspect as women and they are our natural allies against misogyny and the patriarchy and that women are more than their biology.

...Rocket science 🤪

But the study doesn't record discomfort, distress that women suffer or self exclusion by women.

No it doesn't record that for transwomen or transmen, or men either 🤷‍♂️

Because they are men if ever there was proof needed that this ideology is for men by men this is it.

Why should I take the time to review one more study you post when the last ones you refused to engage with?

if you haven’t accessed the study, admit it.

Have you accessed the study and reviewed the data? Yes or no?

So crime is the only metric that counts?
If 100% of trans women and 100% of trans men are upset by being denied access to opposite sex facilities and say a pretty low 10% of women and 1% of men are upset by finding people of the opposite sex in their spaces that would equal approximately 0.5% of the population upset by exclusion and 6% upset by inclusion. Why does the 0.5% trump the 6%? (And I suspect the figures are actually way, way higher for women who don't want male bodies in female spaces). Why doesn't female dignity, comfort and freedom count at all? What percentage of women need to say I'm not happy with this for it to stop?

Why don't you contact them yourself and get the study:

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ma-public-accommodations/

And then you can analyse it to your heart's content. The onus is not on me to challenge research that supports a position I hold, it is on you.

A matched pair analysis is a very strong approach when considering this issue and they are fortunate that the state had a set up of varying legislature by locality that allowed them to analyse similar localities on this issue.

I think I know where some of it comes from.

And apologies my head isn't working right today so this might not make sense.

For a while in the 70s, and 80s even into the 90s those women who chose to go into the 'male ' fields of work were in a difficult position.

In an era of being accused of taking men's jobs, that we should be at home with the kids, that women are frail little things, in order to prove women deserved those jobs just as much as men we had to do what the men did.

So we carried full hods of bricks up ladders, we used tools and equipment designed solely for men, we knackered our bodies whilst not complaining but stating we were just as good as men and just as capable.

For some of us having women in these fields be seen as normal was more important than the safety aspects. We couldn't complain about the working conditions, and we put up with a lot of shit that we shouldn't have had to in order for the next generation to have an easier time of things.

At the same time there was another load of women coming at it from a different angle trying to ensure the women in the workplace weren't injured due to differences in our bodies that meant we weren't actually able to do everything in exactly the same way as men did.

It took a while for all this to merge into accepting that women can do all the jobs that men do, but that we aren't actually men from a physical point of view.

So there were women shouting loudly that men and women are exactly the same. I was one of them. Of course i didn't believe it, but I had to say it and act it as that was my part in the march to equality. I was the female doing the man's job, and doing it just as well as he did. My body has paid the price.

I think younger women may see the past more as a straight line of women got this right then and that right later etc. But so much was going on at the same time. And women had to do a lot of things that we really shouldn't have had to go get to where we are today. Literal blood sweat and tears.

Of course right now I can't help but wonder why I bloody bothered!

I think there is a fair bit of cherry picking going on in MRAs mind as to how women came to have supposed equality in the work place.

Not to mention who is measuring (and how) the women excluded from women's spaces to permit male people more freedom of choice and personal actualisation?

What do we do with those women? They may be a small percentage of females, but in number they are likely to be much greater (excluded) than the male people wishing to use those spaces.

What are we going to provide for these excluded women?

If we're actually interested in accessibility, inclusion and kindness that is, as opposed to just ensuring male people get what they want regardless of impact, on a sex based, binary basis that male matters in ways that female doesn't?

(Which would make a nonsense really of stating these male people have become women, which would seem rather counter productive.)

Sometimes think must be very hard to make things fit a narrative of reality you want to be true but is materially not true

That is at the crux of this conflict. When you are holding steadfast to an ideology or a to utopian theory you don't want to have to acknowledge material, practical concerns or the boundaries of known reality and human behaviour.

Are you going to respond to any of my direct responses to your posts?

If not., I have to wonder why, and most likely conclude is because to do so, in good faith - in the spirit of the discussion, would contravene your faith based position.

What is it about TW that means their wants should trump the needs of vulnerable women?.

Sorry to repeat myself, but elsewhere on this board Suggsy has posted that they think that being a woman is something that men aspire to be and that women should be pleased about that. That answers this question. Suggsy believes that women should be pleased to welcome men who want to be women. It's a compliment. Like wolf-whistling and 'Great tits, darlin'.

Quite why SP1 is posting here, on a feminism board when they're clearly not a feminist I don't know. Or perhaps I do.

@GailBlancheViola you know that, I know that but presumably those who think it's OK must have a different view. They never say, after years of asking I've never had an actual answer as to why TWs wants trump women's needs. One day I will either get a valid different answer or a TRA will have to admit out loud that it's because they think men are more important than us mere support humans. Then I can tell my mum that her distress is worthless and my Muslim and Jewish friends that their beliefs don't count and my friend who was raped that she just needs to get a grip but until someone gives me an answer I won't cause the people I love that hurt and will continue to hope that there is another reason that I just can't think of.

Well, I've been out to the supermarket and done some housework since last I posted, but you seem to have found the time to post, again, at some length - yet still without addresing any of the questions posed to you earlier.

And the subtext of 'women should revolve around the inner lives of men at all times and provide nurture, support, appreciation and facilitation for males who wish to use their spaces' is:

women who don't are bad.

women who say they cannot use mixed sex spaces do not have reasons that men care about, or are affected by, so those reasons don't matter. (Men being the sole qualified arbiter of this.)

women now excluded from having anything so that men can have preferred choices from everything, are bad, are being silly, are therefore subhuman, and deserve their punishment of exclusion and loss.

Until they get with the programme and learn to serve men.

This is pretty much Izzard's explanation of things. And Izzard has always in Izzard's shows referred to Izzardsself as 'cool' and 'groovy'.

Yes, holding steadfast to an ideology that can not bear to look at massive international data showing self ID policies existing in countries which are at the very top of the table for gender equality and outcomes for women on areas of education, economics health and politics measures.

Why do people hold steadfast in the face of this information, rather than pondering why countries that are performing so well for women, and have done for so long (much better than the UK) are happy to introduce policies of self ID?

Why do you just keep re stating your belief and ignoring the information and posts people have given you multiple times on multiple threads that this is just not true?

(And why when banging on about 'best things for women' are you flatly refusing to listen to the actual voices of actual women talking about their experience of this?)

Inquiring minds want to know.

But, like I say, I don't have endless hours to spend on here to endlessly hash over points that people are entrenched upon anyway. 🤷‍♂️

An irony, surely!

I think in future you are best ignored unless you show willing to enage., in good faith, and not just on your own terms.

And then you can analyse it to your heart's content. The onus is not on me to challenge research that supports a position I hold, it is on you.

Those of us who have done any research know this is a poor position to hold. Good researchers (or those using research to back up statements) should always challenge all the research and do so with an awareness of their own biases, background and experiences.

To take research unquestioned is to be a poor researcher.

Can you point out what is not true about the 4 countries at the top of the table for gender equality (and many in the top 20, which the UK is not) introducing policies of self ID?

I hear you and agree with every word.

As I said in another thread, in Spain where some things were introduced in the past to better protect women, violence against women has not decreased, indeed, now women have to protect themselves against the trans lobby which means they can now incur huge fines, and the sentences for some convicted rapists and abusers have been reduced. Trafficked women are still prostituted so not a lot of improvement there.

I have personally responded to such claims with alternative perspectives and ways of looking at the issue - but you have ignored completely.

Such 'equality'meausre do not reveal most of the picture for women - they reveal a cherry picked slice, it seems, largely as it relates to pay.

You really don't care about women, do you. They are incidental to your vision of equality