Page 8 | Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

Catiette · 2023-04-30T10:43:40+00:00

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:33

I see. How can you tell the difference between a transwoman and a 'cis' man?

There are lots of people who, when you look at them, could be a cis women, a cis man, a trans women, or a trans man. Unless you expect all people to be gender conforming, there are times when it is simply impossible to tell from looking at people what genitals they are born with or which gender they would claim today. Some women are tall, heavy, muscular, have slim hips or virtually no breasts, some have facial hair, sharp jaws and prominent facial features, some have deep voices and masculine mannerisms. Some men are short with higher pitched voices and soft features.

Of course there are people that when you look at them you just know, but it's simply true that there are many people that when you look at them, you just don't know.

I do not believe that people who look different from the gender-based norms should be required to exit facilities that they have a right to be in simply because other people are afraid of them.

We used to be in a situation where black women, or lesbians, were not welcome in women's facilities because people were afraid of them and would cause harm. It wasn't right to exclude them now, and it's not right to exclude people now.

It's not just about how this affects trans people, either. This idea of judging people based on their appearance hurts cis women, too. In fact, it's statistically more likely to hurt cis women. I've even been a victim of it myself. I'm not trans. I'm short with long hair and when I'm wearing makeup, you'd never question that I was a woman. Yet if I'm wearing a hat (e.g. in winter), no makeup and a nerdy t-shirt, I could be either a woman or a boy. I walked into a Tesco toilet once and had a woman yell at me that boys aren't welcome here.

When we enable a situation that it's okay for people to judge people based on what they look like, and that people's eligibility for facilities should depend on whether other people might be afraid of them based on what they look like, this hurts everybody.

OttersMayHaveShiftedInTransit · 01/05/2023 10:34

(NB, as far as I know no trans sex offenders in female prisons are ever supposed to be mixing with other prisoners and are always on separate wings and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting they ever should be mixed)

@Echobelly

https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/11/04/transgender-prison-policy-women-prisoners-speak-out/

TW admitted to the female estate are not being kept in solitary confinement (if they were why couldn't this be done in the male estate?). Even if they were kept away from the other prisoners they are still interacting with female prison officers. Why should women who have agreed to work in a female prison be expected to have to search male bodies?

Transgender prison policy: Women prisoners speak out - Woman's Place UK

Women prisoners speak out about the imprisonment of male sex offenders in women's prisons under the transgender prison policy

https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/11/04/transgender-prison-policy-women-prisoners-speak-out

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 10:34

SpookyFBI · 01/05/2023 05:03

I would draw a distinction between things like self harm and anorexia, and things like hormone therapy or transition. People who engage in self harm, and people who suffer from anorexia, would be the first to tell you that these conditions are not enhancing their lives, and are in fact greatly reducing their quality of life. By contrast, the vast majority of people who undergo transition report that it has greatly enhanced their quality of life compared to before they transitioned. On this basis I would place hormone therapy and surgical transition in the same category as someone dying their hair, or getting a tattoo or a piercing, or getting a tubal ligation or a vasectomy to prevent pregnancy. Yes, it’s a more extreme form of modification, but I don’t think that necessarily means that it’s harmful.

Show quote history

I've just finished reading Hadley Freeman's book 'Good Girls about her experiences with anorexia ( and latterly drug addiction) - and have to say there are aspects of euphoria about it too - just as with post transition 'gender eurphoria'. but euphoria, like dysphoria is not a permanent state - but a liminal state that is predicated on intense emotion.

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 10:35

If this was then changed, so that trans women had to use men's toilets and trans men had to use women's facilities, it would be easier for cis men to access women's facilities. They would not have to pretend to be trans women anymore, they could just pretend to be trans men.

Okay. Well, that's a theoretical argument, but luckily we can look at statistics to see if its borne out by evidence.

99% of sexual assaults are carried out by men. (I can dig out the ONS data on that if you like, but it's a fairly well known statistic).

Now, there is no evidence that shows that wearing different clothing or claiming a 'trans' identity changes the likelihood of males offending.

Indeed, statistics from prisons show that a large number of men identifying as trans are sex offenders.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

An anonymous female prison officer locks a door at Wormwood Scrubs

How many transgender inmates are there?

Reality Check looks at claims around transgender prisoners and their convictions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

Helleofabore · 01/05/2023 10:36

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:12

The thing that bothers me about forcing people to go into the service based on what was between their legs the day they was born was that for the most part, it's going to make women more unsafe*.

Right now we're arguing that men could pretend to be women, put on a dress and a wig and go into women's services and say "oh it's okay for me to be here, I'm a trans women".

If we force people to go into the service based on their birth genitals, men will be able to walk into women's services and say "oh it's okay for me to be here, I had a vagina when I was born". No requirement to pretend to be a woman or change how he dresses. He can just do it anyway.

There's no indication that trans people want to hurt anybody, so this whole idea of hurting trans people to make it harder for cis men to commit harm - which then enables cis men to commit harm more easily - is abhorrent to me.

I do not see transgender people and feminists as enemies, I see us as allies with a common enemy - cis guys.

*talking about services that are voluntary, i.e. you choose whether to walk into them.

And you are forgetting something else there too.

Before we were told to accept everyone into the women’s toilets, changing rooms etc, if someone we noted was male, we could ask security or call the police or even, you know, just ask them to leave.

That is what we did in the past. That is what we cannot do now. Even asking becomes a major issue.

Interestingly, there are also the masculine presenting women who have been used as a ‘gotcha’ here. They seem to fall in two groups, the ones who view questioning as other women looking out for the women and children using the toilets. They answer respectfully, some even thank the woman for asking because that now is a brave woman attempting to make the toilet safe.

The other group are those who take the activist approach and get angry at being asked. Because they have been told it is all fueled on hate and phobia.

So far, I have seen more of the first group on social media than the second group.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:36

Okay. Well, that's a theoretical argument, but luckily we can look at statistics to see if its borne out by evidence.

So, then, you'd agree with me that changing it so that people are required to use the facilities of their birth genitals would therefore increase the likelihood of cis men using the facilities to cause harm, and thus is dangerous.

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 10:36

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:33

I see. How can you tell the difference between a transwoman and a 'cis' man?

There are lots of people who, when you look at them, could be a cis women, a cis man, a trans women, or a trans man. Unless you expect all people to be gender conforming, there are times when it is simply impossible to tell from looking at people what genitals they are born with or which gender they would claim today. Some women are tall, heavy, muscular, have slim hips or virtually no breasts, some have facial hair, sharp jaws and prominent facial features, some have deep voices and masculine mannerisms. Some men are short with higher pitched voices and soft features.

Of course there are people that when you look at them you just know, but it's simply true that there are many people that when you look at them, you just don't know.

I do not believe that people who look different from the gender-based norms should be required to exit facilities that they have a right to be in simply because other people are afraid of them.

We used to be in a situation where black women, or lesbians, were not welcome in women's facilities because people were afraid of them and would cause harm. It wasn't right to exclude them now, and it's not right to exclude people now.

It's not just about how this affects trans people, either. This idea of judging people based on their appearance hurts cis women, too. In fact, it's statistically more likely to hurt cis women. I've even been a victim of it myself. I'm not trans. I'm short with long hair and when I'm wearing makeup, you'd never question that I was a woman. Yet if I'm wearing a hat (e.g. in winter), no makeup and a nerdy t-shirt, I could be either a woman or a boy. I walked into a Tesco toilet once and had a woman yell at me that boys aren't welcome here.

When we enable a situation that it's okay for people to judge people based on what they look like, and that people's eligibility for facilities should depend on whether other people might be afraid of them based on what they look like, this hurts everybody.

Okay. So your suggestion would be that all facilities should be mixed sex, and that there should be no sex segregation?

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:37

Before we were told to accept everyone into the women’s toilets, changing rooms etc, if someone we noted was male, we could ask security or call the police or even, you know, just ask them to leave.

It's never been the law that people have to use the facilities based on their gender. When did this happen? I'm not young and I have no recollection of everything of the sort.

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 10:38

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:36

Okay. Well, that's a theoretical argument, but luckily we can look at statistics to see if its borne out by evidence.

So, then, you'd agree with me that changing it so that people are required to use the facilities of their birth genitals would therefore increase the likelihood of cis men using the facilities to cause harm, and thus is dangerous.

No. I then used statistics to question your argument, if you read the rest of my post.

people [are] required to use the facilities of their birth genitals would therefore increase the likelihood of cis men using the facilities to cause harm

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 10:39

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:37

Before we were told to accept everyone into the women’s toilets, changing rooms etc, if someone we noted was male, we could ask security or call the police or even, you know, just ask them to leave.

It's never been the law that people have to use the facilities based on their gender. When did this happen? I'm not young and I have no recollection of everything of the sort.

Up until around ... what, ten years ago? It was widely understood that 'woman' meant 'woman' and did not include 'men who identify as women'.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 10:41

SpookyFBI · 01/05/2023 08:51

I wholeheartedly agree that clarity in the law is vitally important and that all terms must be clearly defined, and to not do so can be potentially dangerous. If the word woman is used when making laws then I agree the word should be strictly defined. I personally think it would be better to word a law without using the word woman. For example, in Australia the parental leave policy uses the term ‘primary carer’. I think this is better that using the word ‘woman’ because it opens the door for families to decide that the father can be the primary carer, thus making it more socially acceptable for fathers to take on more childcare responsibility and ease the load of mothers, which I think ultimately is better for women.

I’m unsure if there is a legal definition of the word woman in Australia but if there is in your country and there are laws which rely on that definition then I agree that definition should not be changed without careful considerations of the ramifications. Are there any specific laws you’re concerned about? Because that’s certainly something that should be getting more attention.

Show quote history

I think, on the contrary, once you start to de-sex language in such a way across the board it will be women who end up getting erased and disappearing. ( I actually feel this is the subliminal goal of much equality type feminism)

De-sexing references to maternity, parenting and so on, may, in the short term, boost the idealistic aim of encouraging both sexes performing all things 'domestic' and childcare in an equal way - but odds on it will still end up being women who do the bulk of this - but that fact will now be obscured by the gender neutral language.

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 10:42

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:37

Before we were told to accept everyone into the women’s toilets, changing rooms etc, if someone we noted was male, we could ask security or call the police or even, you know, just ask them to leave.

It's never been the law that people have to use the facilities based on their gender. When did this happen? I'm not young and I have no recollection of everything of the sort.

Here's a look at the 'urinary leash', it's quite interesting history.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

The History of Women's Public Toilets in Britain - Historic UK

In Victorian Britain, most public toilets were designed for men and there were very few women's toilets available. Therefore women could never travel far, only to family and friends. This restriction of women's movements is often referred to as the ‘ur...

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:42

Okay. So your suggestion would be that all facilities should be mixed sex, and that there should be no sex segregation?

I did not suggest that. You're twisting my words. I have absolutely zero interest in getting into a Helen P style debate about what is gender, what is a woman and what is sex. It's not relevant and it's a red herring.

You've got three choices:

Everything goes unisex, one facility for everyone. I'm not promoting this.
Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their gender (the way it currently is). This means cis women & trans women together, and cis men & trans men together. This is what a small minority of people currently want to change.
Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their birth genitals, so trans men & cis women are together, and trans women & cis men are together.

My argument is that on the whole, #3 is significantly more dangerous than #2 for numerous reasons:

If people are "afraid" of looking at men, then that will increase significantly with option #3, when trans men who have transitioned, are hairy and tall and muscular and have penises are forced to share facilities with cis women.
Cis men who want to cause harm can simply use the women's facilities and claim to be trans men.
Trans women, particularly those who have transitioned and e.g. are small, have female genitalia & look like a stereotypical woman, are forced to share facilities with cis men.

I don't deny that some people are uncomfortable with option #2 but my point is that any change you make will be significantly more dangerous and significantly more fearful for the people who are already afraid.

Helleofabore · 01/05/2023 10:42

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:37

Before we were told to accept everyone into the women’s toilets, changing rooms etc, if someone we noted was male, we could ask security or call the police or even, you know, just ask them to leave.

It's never been the law that people have to use the facilities based on their gender. When did this happen? I'm not young and I have no recollection of everything of the sort.

Police and security could have always been called. And the person entering the toilets or changing rooms would be questioned about why they were there to establish if a law has been broken.

Why would a man enter the women’s toilet normally? Your ‘it was never against the law’ doesn’t hold water. It was always an option available to people.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:45

people [are] required to use the facilities of their birth genitals would therefore increase the likelihood of cis men using the facilities to cause harm

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

Isn't it obvious? If a cis man wants to hurt someone, which do you think he'd rather do:

Put on a dress and a wig and claim to be a woman
Stay as he is and continue looking like a man

Most men who cause harm do so as a power play, and most of them are misogynists. While I don't deny that there are some sexual fetishists who get off on pretending to be women when they're not, they are a very very small minority of the people who commit rape. The man who rape women are generally not sexual fetishists and they do not generally dress or want to dress as women. Indeed, many would find it an insult.

If you think more men would rather pretend to be women when committing rape than do it as a man, I don't even know what to say to you.

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 10:46

Okay, can I assure you I'm not trying to twist your words! I'm trying to understand what you're saying. You're arguing:

'Everyone has to use the facilities that aligns with their gender (the way it currently is). This means cis women & trans women together, and cis men & trans men together. This is what a small minority of people currently want to change.'

But how do you know Jamie Wallis is a 'transwoman'?

ArabeIIaScott · 01/05/2023 10:47

Jamie Wallis, first transwoman MP, presents just as he always has done. The only clue that he (he still uses 'he/him') is a transwoman is because he claims this identity.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4766/contact

Should Jamie use the women's loos?

Helleofabore · 01/05/2023 10:47

”I do not believe that people who look different from the gender-based norms should be required to exit facilities that they have a right to be in simply because other people are afraid of them.”

People are not being asked to not use a toilet that is designated as a single sex space for their sex though based on ‘non-conformity’. They are being asked based on their sex. And only on their sex.

Which apparently no trans person is denying according to Stonewall and other activist groups.

“We used to be in a situation where black women, or lesbians, were not welcome in women's facilities because people were afraid of them and would cause harm. It wasn't right to exclude them now, and it's not right to exclude people now.”

The use of female single sex spaces is not racist or homophobic as your example here is. And it is a weak and offensive argument to use.

These are male people, and according to the law, these males can be excluded from spaces using exceptions under the law.

Your framing here shows that you are falling back on emotional manipulation to attempt to get your point across.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 10:49

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:12

The thing that bothers me about forcing people to go into the service based on what was between their legs the day they was born was that for the most part, it's going to make women more unsafe*.

Right now we're arguing that men could pretend to be women, put on a dress and a wig and go into women's services and say "oh it's okay for me to be here, I'm a trans women".

If we force people to go into the service based on their birth genitals, men will be able to walk into women's services and say "oh it's okay for me to be here, I had a vagina when I was born". No requirement to pretend to be a woman or change how he dresses. He can just do it anyway.

There's no indication that trans people want to hurt anybody, so this whole idea of hurting trans people to make it harder for cis men to commit harm - which then enables cis men to commit harm more easily - is abhorrent to me.

I do not see transgender people and feminists as enemies, I see us as allies with a common enemy - cis guys.

*talking about services that are voluntary, i.e. you choose whether to walk into them.

Men are not my enemy. I love and admire many men. I don't hate men.

Women don't need single sex spaces because they hate men - but because, primarily, there is a vulnerability in females ( predicated on biology) that seeks privacy and dignity ( as well as safety) in certain types of intimate situation.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:49

But how do you know Jamie Wallis is a 'transwoman'?

You don't know whether anyone is cis or trans. That's my point. Sometimes you might think it's obvious but sometimes it really isn't. Sometimes you'll see a cis woman and think they're a trans man; sometimes you'll see a trans women and think they're a cis woman. You don't know.

I'm arguing that judging people based on what they look like, and then using your fear based on what they look like to decide which facilities they use is wrong, and it's more likely to hurt women than help them. Many women are not gender non-conforming; many cis women will have features that cause people to think they're men.

I do not support a system where people are excluded from facilities based on their appearance.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:50

These are male people, and according to the law, these males can be excluded from spaces using exceptions under the law.

In rare and proportional circumstances. Not as a matter of course.

Your framing here shows that you are falling back on emotional manipulation to attempt to get your point across.

Incorrect, and I do not appreciate you attempting to reframe my comments in such a way. Please refrain from doing that again. I have every right to disagree with you without being accused of manipulation. Note that I have provided you with that same courtesy.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 10:52

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:24

I'm trying to grasp this. You're saying that currently a man has to put on a dress, but if it wasn't for trans ideas being accepted, he wouldn't need to put a dress on?

No. I'm saying that I see a lot of arguments that with trans women being allowed to use women's facilities, cis men might pretend to be trans women to hurt cis women.

If this was then changed, so that trans women had to use men's toilets and trans men had to use women's facilities, it would be easier for cis men to access women's facilities. They would not have to pretend to be trans women anymore, they could just pretend to be trans men.

The idea that forcing people to use the facility matching their birth genitals will therefore reduce the level of safety.

Transwomen and 'cis' men have one important thing in common - they are both male.

We have single sex spaces that arec predicated not on personal identity, dress, preference - but on sex. this is especially important for women and girls.

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:56

Transwomen and 'cis' men have one important thing in common - they are both male.

We have single sex spaces that arec predicated not on personal identity, dress, preference - but on sex. this is especially important for women and girls.

So you think that women & girls would feel no fear whatsoever at sharing a facility with someone who is tall, muscular, has no breasts, has a penis, facial hair, & wears stereotypically men's clothes?

I don't believe this idea that women & girls wouldn't feel any fear at sharing facilities with a trans man who had medically transitioned. I think they'd accuse that person of being a cis man and expect him to be excluded from the service.

OttersMayHaveShiftedInTransit · 01/05/2023 10:57

The current law is not that people have to use the facilities that match their 'gender'. It currently (if you decide the permissible exception don't apply) allows people to use either facilities. There are plenty of trans people who don't use opposite to their 'birth sex' facilities.

Oh and loads of people like me who don't have a gender therefore wouldn't be allowed into anywhere if we had to match our gender.

NotHavingIt · 01/05/2023 10:58

Deiji · 01/05/2023 10:36

Okay. Well, that's a theoretical argument, but luckily we can look at statistics to see if its borne out by evidence.

So, then, you'd agree with me that changing it so that people are required to use the facilities of their birth genitals would therefore increase the likelihood of cis men using the facilities to cause harm, and thus is dangerous.

This type of 'inclusive' type of feminsim in which it is only 'cis' men and 'patriarchy' that are the enemies - is very rudimentary and incredibly politically naive, in my view.