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.

Datun, I am in absolute agreement with you that many men who want to wear women's clothing in public want to do so for sexual reasons. This is something that everyone knew about until five minutes ago, when suddenly everyone began to pretend 'this never happens'.

I don't think any kind of obviously sexual behaviour in the presence of unconsenting strangers is ok. Our societal boundaries seem to have become ridiculously blurred over this, and we now have men in gimp masks going to the theatre. We need more kink shaming.

I don't think it's feasible or necessary to stop men wearing 'women's' clothing though. We could be less tolerant of over sexualised/revealing clothing in inappropriate situations (nobody, male or female, should be wearing giant prosthetic breasts to work as a teacher for example). And it would certainly put a dampener on their fun if they knew they would be challenged every time they tried to get other people to play along with their 'woman' fantasy.

I hope you find it interesting. A lot of us were innocent of the sexual & misogynistic aspects of this type of male behaviour because it was hidden behind the adoption by these men of liberal feminist slogans as well as claims of non-conforming to masculine stereotypes.

Boundary violation by a certain type of male has increased substantially in the last 20 years, this has been facilitated by the ease of access to extreme porn, the ability to find like minds in online forums, and the concurrent 'originated-on-the-internet' push for our culture not to kink shame or decry aberrant behaviour.

@Datun
Stonewall say [blah blah blag] ... am I not allowed to think for myself anymore and disagree or disregard things I don't agree with? I don't accept that definiton

Anyways, the tone you struck, that any man who doesn't conform to your expectations is probably getting off it and maybe a rapist made me feel a little sick & upset. Accept you feel that way, but I'm uncomfortable talking to you and unfollowing the thread

Feasible? No. Necessary? Not unless you know the reason. Which makes it...infeasible (that's the right word, I checked!)

Grayson Perry said he wore wide skirted dresses to hide his erection.

He is your archetypal example of a man who gets a thrill out of cross dressing (as a little girl, no less), but who is accepted because he's not overt. Or aggressive. Or 'obvious'.

Nonetheless, he goes into schools and enjoys children, and teachers, treating him as female.

he's written about it - loads.

I genuinely believe there is some kind of collective blindness when it comes to male paraphilias.

A lot of us were innocent of the sexual & misogynistic aspects of this type of male behaviour because it was hidden behind the adoption by these men of liberal feminist slogans as well as claims of non-conforming to masculine stereotypes.

and being charming, or likeable, or a fucking national institution

Any man who doesn't conform to my expectations is a rapist?

Nope!

Isla Bryson is a rapist.

A serial rapist.

A man that the Scottish government wanted to be housed in a woman's prison. Until mainstream media posted pictures of him wearing pink leggings showing the outline of his penis.

What don't you get about the term gender critical?

Men who rape and want to be housed in an institution where there are more victims, aren't, what I would call, 'bucking their gender'.

Quite the opposite 🙄

Men who demand entry into women's sex segregated spaces, despite the lack of consent?

Not exactly 'gender nonconforming'

it's trite, but true, good men stay out, so bad men stand out.

Also, I have to say, it's no surprise to me, or I'm guessing, anyone else that you have no actual argument.

On the, massive off chance, that you're genuine, this is not about men with gender dysphoria. This is about an ideology that allows men to dominate women, when those women are exceptionally vulnerable. Including serial sex offenders.

And, as a rider, many men with gender dysphoria, are still operating on the basis of sexism. Albeit as victims of it.

They want to perpetrate it, in order to mitigate the results of being a victim of it.

So it's still a no from me, in terms of women's spaces. Why would I, a woman, collaborate in the perpetuation of sexism?

So you've learned about Grayson Perry's true reason for crossdressing, about men who wank in women's toilets and various other unsavoury habits of some males who either crossdress or who 'identify as women' and your response is to blame one of the posters who has been educating you about this and to leave the thread.

Pretending this isn't happening won't solve anything.

Stonewall say [blah blah blag] ... am I not allowed to think for myself anymore and disagree or disregard things I don't agree with? I don't accept that definiton

@spookehtooth What you are missing is that Stonewall are driving this ideology they are embedded in pretty much all public institutions - NHS, schools, Government departments, the Police plus many private institutions too. They are the ones lobbying Government and the Opposition parties, they are the ones with influence, they are the ones trying to enforce this ideology and have it encoded in Statute so their definition is important. Even though they have not yet succeeded many public and private institutions are dancing to their tune and behaving as if Stonewall Law is the Law. That is why the definition matters and why Datun explained it to you.

Yes you can disagree with it as many of us do but once it is on the Statute Books what are you going to do? Disregard it? How?

The immediate reaction is fingers in ears. V frustrating.

What if they’ve had their male genitals chopped off by a surgeons knife?

Unless you want to do genital inspections on toilet doors, this is irrelevant.

Still male. Chopping off a cock doesn’t remove all the other many male cues in a male body. Their presence still can cause distress and harm.

Do you have any evidence that chopping off cocks lowers the risk of that male committing sexual offenses?

Do you believe that extreme body modification means that male is not discernible as still male somehow? And what does it matter? The use of toilets was always based on a social contract. Respectful male people did and still stay out of female single sex spaces. Those who seek to remove the protective boundaries of women and girls use female single sex spaces, they do so knowing it could cause distress yet do it anyway.

What type of person does that? The type who should not be in those spaces.

Well it reduces the chances of them committing rape to zero. But they can still commit other sexual offences.

Small consolation really.

Then they’re still a man. A man who’s chosen to have some surgery? Which wouldn’t be obvious to anyone either way when using a women’s toilet.

The typical male height and build is as always an instant give away though. Women just want to be able to use the facilities built for them in the peace and the relative security of other women’s company. Men have the men’s toilets available to them whatever their genitals . That’s fine. No man should be making women feel uncomfortable or fearful and make them actually at greater statistical risk of harm by using the women’s toilets. All gender expressions can still be just as expressed in the toilet of your own sex. Use your own.

I what's changed is the ready availability of online porn. It's blown sexual fetishism wide open for the crowd that gets turned on by seeing themselves dressed as a woman and it's increased background misogyny.

For women and girls, the same triggers have had the opposite effect: they want to get as far away from stereotypical female clothing/behaviour as possible.

(Sorry, I pressed post too early) and decide to check out of being a woman completely.

Meet me in the middle said the unjust man

I stepped forward

He stepped back

Meet me in the middle said the unjust man

yep, that is exactly the point for me. Gender Stereotypes are unhelpful for EVERYONE.

what do you men? that you don't agree with Stonewall's descriptions or definitions of what "trans" is?

You're a GC Terf then.

You may have disagreement, but as long as what Stonewall says goes (with the police, with the NHS, with employers, with universities) you have to accept THEIR definition of trans. Not make up your own and then whine about people corrupting that.

What if they’ve had their male genitals chopped off by a surgeons knife?

Eh? Presumably they would use the men's toilets or the disabled ones if they needed to empty a bag of their urine.

Why would they use the women's?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any man who is gender non conforming is doing so for sexual reasons. The problem is that we know a minority are doing it for sexual reasons and there isn't a way of distinguishing between the ones who are doing it for sexual reasons and the ones who aren't.

Either you don't let any male people into women's spaces for any reason at all or you have to allow access to any male person who wants it.

That's the problem. And that's what the "be kind" brigade either can't see or are refusing to acknowledge. Yes, I'm sure a lot of trans people are completely harmless and genuinely vulnerable.

The problem is that there is no way to include these people in women's spaces without also including people who represent a danger to women and children.

The reason that the "be kind" brigade refuse to confront this issue is because there is no solution to it. Either you abandon any pretence at safeguarding for women and children, or you tell trans people "I'm very sorry, but you can't have what you want".

They don't want to do the latter so they are doing the former and pretending that there is no safeguarding issue and that the people who say there is a safeguarding issue are just being bigoted.

You're a GC Terf then.

I hope you aren't suggesting that's a bad thing.

So you are saying that if an individual has “male cues” (your words) that might make a 10 year old girl feel “uncomfortable” then that person should be barred from a women’s toilets.

OK, but what if said individual was a butch GC lesbian who had not shaved their upper lip, was wearing traditionally masculine clothing and had “scary” facial tattoos and other most modifications?

By your definition they should be in the toilet space. Which is why your point is bollocks.