How do we find a middle ground?

[Namechange2468109]

How do we find a place where it’s ok to say we believe their are transsexual people (in my lifetime it’s always been around and as far as I am aware not particularly fought against/prevented people accessing services/given equal rights) generally these people (who I totally support and would advocate for) appeared to me to want to go under the radar and just live their lives. I’d have NO issues sharing a bathroom with these people.

What shifted? Why is it now a case that we are bullied into accepting a man (with a beard who in every way looks and acts like a man) as a woman?

I thought in the 90s we accepted that what you wear, your hobbies, who you slept with and career choice did not define you. I was never girlie, wore boys jeans but at no point did I think I was a boy or prevented progressing my life.

We now have men that define themselves as women by going backwards in stereotypes, basically the clothes define the man.

The levels of irony baffle me ‘sex doesn’t exist, but if I wear heels I’m a woman’ ‘don’t assume or judge, but if you don’t assume correctly I’ll punch you’ and my favourite ‘I’m a non-binary lesbian’

The ironic thing is (and sorry if this offends anyone) I never coined myself as a feminist. I genuinely thought the previous amazing women had won the war, I earned equally or out earned my male counterparts, I never felt being a women provided me different opportunities to my brother, if anything maybe a tiny advantage.

But now I feel that all that has been pointless and at 41 I’ve become a feminist because I NEED too. Is this not such a rewind in society. I was genuinely a little nervous today at taking a book to the counter (material girls) a bloody (amazing) book, but a book.

How do we rationalise this?

Sorry for the long post but I am genuinely lost at the next steps to take.

Lol.

I thought you were bored with goading the women on mumsnet?

It's a pathetic past time, truly.

So, you have said that less than 100 minor offences a year and you would consider that to be sufficient in YOUR mind for a special group of males to be excluded along with all other males from female toilets.

Based on what, by the way?

Do you have any evidence that males at ANY stage in their transition are less likely to commit sexual offences than ALL males in the UK population?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST s/he actually said the quiet part out loud!

No.

WOMEN should not have to pay the cost of ensuring the freedom of male people who believe they identify as women to access WOMEN's spaces which exist for WOMEN's safety, privacy and dignity.

If you're a trans woman and you don't want to be locked up in a men's prison, don't commit crimes and don't get sent to prison.

Simples.

I know margot!

It doesn't take long for masks to drop.

I am waiting to hear that confirmed.

Because I cannot believe that a female would EVER say such a thing.

These hundred minor offences - do you count them by perpetrator or by victim? Because some of the exhibitionists could easily rack up 100 flashes in a week. Ditto voyeurs (including the auditory voyeurism of listen to women urinating).

As for recording what goes on in women's private spaces and then posting that online - a man could reach the quota in minutes if you count views.

I was under the impression that there's no data on offending for post op because data collection is thought to be reductive / intrusive/ discriminatory and it was ruled by the ECHR that you couldn't discriminate between transwomen on the basis of their gentiles because of the high levels of medical complications which made surgery unattractive / unsuitable for many.

Or some crap like that.

But basically they aren't prepared to do a pants check. So they treat all transwomen the same in legal terms.

Now if post op transwomen want to collectively get together and make a point of this and go for a study, I would be interested to know.

But it still doesn't stop them being potentially triggering for women - because of their physicality and because women don't know about the lack of anything in their pants.

And it still doesn't stop women feeling a lost of privacy and dignity (loss of privacy and dignity being the main argument for transwomen to use female facilities - why does this trump women's feelings on this matter). Nor does it negate the issues of religion and self exclusion that it creates for women (again self exclusion is used a stick to beat women with to force the inclusion of transwomen). Nor does this exclude the issue of voyeuristic behaviour still being possible and women still being concerned about it.

Gender is ultimately a religion that I don't believe in. So why is it being forced on me? Sex exists and remains real regardless of your belief in gender.

Why are these points somehow irrelevant? You keep ignoring this Godess? Why is it a point that you don't want to engage with.

Why are the concerns of males more important than the concerns of women?

Why is this being forced on so many without their consent? How is men and other women saying they are ok with it, alright? Noone else should be able to consent on behalf of others? There is no consensus on this. There has been no proper consultation on this - indeed women's groups have been repeatedly deliberately shut out of conversations on this.

This is a key point that isn't one that should be swept under the carpet because it's irrelevant.

Voyeurism is still voyeurism even when unrecorded on criminal data bases.

We are just collateral damage in the lives of arrogant self absorbed men. Thanks for confirming @GodessOfThunder

Lol me neither

That up to 100 WOMEN AND GIRLS are acceptable to be harmed before any society moves to treat male people like other male people and create a specific law to prevent them from coming into female single sex spaces.

100

What is it Sweary Godmother used to call women like that? Ball cuppers? Dick panderers?

i'm sure it was something more creative than that.

Because a lot of men, regardless of trans status ( but including those who are trans identified) are heavily addicted to pornography, presumably.
Pornography warps men's desires and shapes their preferences.

100 GIRLS AND WOMEN ARE ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL FOR MALE PEOPLE TO ACCESS FEMALE SINGLE SEX SPACES!

*per year

You fucking WHAT?

Harm to women isn't EVER acceptable.

Women are not there to be collateral damage to accommodate THE DESIRES of men.

Desires. Yes. That's the word.

Women are not there to facilitate THE FANTASY of a male that they are female.

And the word fantasy should be in capitals for a reason.

Why don't women matter? Why doesn't how they feel matter? Why is it second to the DESIRES and FANTASIES of males?

Hmmm let me think about this for a second.

There's no sexism going on here at all. And there's absolutely no sexual undertones going on. Really?

Fuck off.

I can't believe that a rational human being would say that.

So a man can go into a female only changing room, and get his cock out in front of women, teens and little girls, 100 times, before thunder thinks there is a problem?

Nice work if you can get it, eh thunder?

100 GIRLS AND WOMEN ARE TO BE HARMED EACH YEAR BEFORE SOCIETY CONSIDERS THEIR SAFETY, PRIVACY AND DIGNITY IMPORTANT ENOUGH!

Yes... that means that a trend has to be established so conservatively that would be a trend over 5 years... so that means what ... about 500 girls and women in the UK have to harmed first.

You heard it first on MN FWR!

You were linked to a thread of such incidents yesterday. Did you even bother to look at it?

That’s interesting @GodessOfThunder . Is that 100 what you call minor offences in the Uk in total?

Amd how many rapes and sexual assaults? What’s your number for children and for women ?

Yes... I just realised that.

Per year. And a trend has to be established so really that means at least 500 if not more if some years don't quite make it to 100. Fuck!

Readers, this is supposedly the right side of history.