Anyone in the middle?

[piesforever]

All I see on here is GC rants. I am in the middle, I support trans people but do agree they shouldn't take part in gender specific sport, and there needs to be more caution in "changing gender" for sure, especially hormones and surgery for young people. I do agree some are troubled or young people, who are hating puberty or have had some trauma. Let's support them overall though, it must be horrible whatever the outcome. Anyone else feel a bit of sympathy to both "sides"? In fact, why are there sides, we need to find common ground and help each other!! Instead of being furious all the time. It's not healthy.

No decent man uses women's spaces, because they know and understand very well that it will cause alarm and distress for women.

@AlphaTransWoman it's fine to be gay, but it really doesn't mean you are a woman. Just leaving this here for you and any actual women as its a pleasure to behold

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xDmaPIKrC-A

I have attempted to state my views in good faith and without insulting others.

If that was what you set out to do then you've failed miserably. You've done nothing but insult women with your sexist nonsense about ladybrains.

No, I've not read the AMA thread yet but I will. I'm expecting to be just as angry as everyone else about what's being said about "femaleness".

I was interested in two things:

1. That we often do about male behaviours. I agree with what was said above (I think it might have been you Helle?) that what we perceive as male traits are a product of cultural expectations and limitations. The greater tendancy to think about sex is logically also linked to testosterone. I listened to a couple of really interesting Benjamin Boyce interviews on this a while ago, including one with Helena (detransitioner) who said she was incredibly sexually charged when she was using it.
2. That a transwoman would support the idea that transwomen shouldn't be in women's spaces.

If there aren't gender-neutral (separate single facilities, in addition to single sex facilities) toilets available then unfortunately the only option that should be acceptable is for a transwoman to use the men's. I say unfortunately because I have an empathy with the transwoman that this could be very difficult and that they may experience harrassment or worse. However, my empathy doesn't mean I'll accommodate transwomen in the women's toilets. No, I haven't seen the posts where Alpha talks about using women's toilets. I fundamentally disagree with this but that doesn't mean I need to stop the conversation with Alpha. It just means that we've bumped up against a hard line boundary. Alpha's that Alpha will use the women's, mine that this is not acceptable. At this point we can either stop talking (no debate) or continue the conversation to find a workable solution. The only workable solution is for additional gender-neutral toilets to be readily available. I fully back this and it sounds like Alpha does too, including not pandering to Malaga Airport transwomen who refuse to use them. My post above the Malaga Airport one also said that I would make it unlawful, an arrestable offence, for anyone to be in the single sex spaces that was for members of the opposite sex. No exceptions (for anyone over the age of 8).

Alpha is free to believe in gender identity, including any version of womanness that is part of this belief. I don't believe in any of it.

I believe that from the moment I was born, choices were laid out for me (and limitations were put in place for me) because people saw that I was female. I've spent my whole life embracing or rejecting all of this and that is a large part of what has shaped who I am as a person. Yes, I'm "stereotypically female" in some ways but also very much not so in others. That's not a gender identity as far as I'm concerned. There are men who are stereotypically male too (and transwomen who show these traits - India Willoughby is a great example).

A middle ground between obsessive navel gazers playing fancy dress games (most of them teenage and very young women, or men with dark psychological motivations) and people who just want to get on with doing life stuff?

Nah. I had it up there with the anorexics and self-dramatising cutters decades ago, even further up to there with the flashers and peeping toms and clothesline thieves. I'm not going to waste hours reading their half-baked manifestos now. I have more interesting things to get on with.

'The only workable solution is for additional gender-neutral toilets to be readily available'

I've yet to see evidence that males are at risk from other males.

Anecdata is not enough to remodel society.

First of all, if the sign on the door just says "men" or "women", without specifying biological sex, then I should use the women's. Because that's what the sign says I should do, since I identify as a woman.

But it doesn't say "People who identify as women". It says woman = adult human female.

Having said this, I avoid gendered toilets whenever possible, because I feel like an unwanted intruder in either.

Questionable, but in one you definitely are and in the other the other members of your sex do in many instances feel threatened by one of them being feminine.

To address the specific question, I agree that a male toilet at work is unlikely to be physically dangerous for me unlike, say, a male toilet in a pub. But it would still be demeaning and embarrassing for me and any men I encountered there.

Why? And why more demeaning and embarrassing than when you enter a female toilet?

The big issue is urinals. Unlike in a women's toilet, you've got people standing there with their genitalia exposed. I think it's not appropriate for me to be in that situation while presenting as female. Cubicles aren't ideal but are a lot more private.

Quite. Hence why gender neutral toilets are a terrible idea. Either they have urinals or they don't, neither of which is good.

For avoidance of doubt, I simply can't use gendered changing rooms full stop. So I would need there to be a unisex alternative in order to be able to use, say, a gym or swimming pool.

Why?

But yes, no qualms with adding unisex toilets. The problem is turning female ones into them, while leaving male ones male.

Toilets aren't all gender-neutral.....

I wonder if this post being detached from my main comment is confusing?
The only reason I separated it off was in case it got deleted.

I'm advocating for additional gender-neutral (I use the word gender here to refer to the many genders that are listed under gender identity belief) single occupancy rooms with sinks, alongside single-sex toilets that have multiple cubicles in them.

I'm happy for public money to be spent on this because it addresses a problem that exists: there are transwomen using women's toilets. Many (but not all) have a belief that they are women but I don't have that belief and I won't accommodate it by endorsing them using women's toilets because they may feel unsafe in the men's. I would far rather men addressed their own prejudices (not all men are prejudiced of course) and accepted that some people in the men's toilets will wear dresses. However, I'm also realistic and.... back to stereotypes.... there will always be men who want to verbally or physically attack anyone who wears a dress who isn't a woman. There will always be women who would rather solve this issue by being kind and letting transwomen in to women's toilets. I'm not one of those women and I refuse to do this. But.... still on stereotypes... there will always be more Be Kind women than there are men who are open-minded enough to welcome transwomen in to the men's.

I hear you and fundamentally agree with you. I am merely pointing out that alpha is not here for the discussion they keep claiming they are here for. It is clear by now it is performative signalling. And I suggest that even then it is in keeping with their desire to fit within those listed stereotypes they aspire to be and that they belief are the epitome of womanliness.

I agree that we can keep trying to post well thought out posts and that we should.

But the reality is this poster, as others (or all the same poster, who knows) have the same position. Superficially they signal they understand. However, as layers of discussion are exposed there is no understanding, just narcissistic (in a theoretical sense but maybe also in a personal attribute sense) demands about that individual.

When I read the AMA contributions from this poster, it was clear their hard boundaries were that we compromise, they are not prepared to and they came to this board not prepared to. Most of us agree with third spaces. But the demand that without those spaces, we compromise is also based on this claim of violence against male trans people which is amplified but not based on evidence in the UK.

I get your point.

But the "remodelling" (providing extra facilities) also helps others too e.g. there may be autistic people who are overwhelmed by the noise in multi-cubicle toilets.
Having a small number of additional gender-neutral toilets, proportionate to the number of people who use the venue, next to the main set of single sex facilities seems like a reasonable accommodation that would help with lots of additional needs.

Yes, there would be people who abuse the system but there could be guardrails in place. For example, the Sunflower lanyard scheme (autism) is now very widely used in the UK. It's particularly helpful in airports for having access to a faster security queue and a quiet lounge area. When it was first introduced, nobody needed to prove that they were autistic. I'm sure some people will have taken advantage. Now, a diagnosis letter is needed. Likewise, there is already a key system for disabled loos.

This all makes a lot of sense.
I'm holding out on reading the AMA thread for now but my expectations have been set.

Most people post in good faith, some don't. Some will come here to be performative. That's the reality of the internet and I'm not going to fight it.

Where there is substance to talk about, I'll engage in conversation and I'll accept that the person I'm talking to may or may not share the same "core values" as me. I'm playing the ball, not the player. As long as the other person is doing that too when I speak to them that's good enough for me. So far in my own interactions with Alpha, this is what I have had. I don't expect conversations to be easy or that I'll agree on every point, especially when there is a fundamental difference in beliefs (gender identity vs sex immutability).

It's far worse on Twitter than it is here. When it starts getting shouty, I make a decision on whether to carry on or just walk away from the conversation. Solely based on whether there is any substance worth discussing.

The best analogy that I can offer here is that if I were Scott Newgent, I would take part in "What is a Woman?" just as Scott did. I think Matt Walsh speaks very clearly and is an important voice in the harms being done to children and young people because of gender identity belief. If Scott had decided to spend time arguing points of reference on gay relationships or the role of men and women in the family unit, I can't imagine that the powerful collaboration (on a specific point) would have happened. To clarify, I'm not talking about the film itself as I've not seen it. I'm talking about the incredible press conference that Scott did, where she called out those who label Matt as a bigot and told them to focus instead on the real issues. I'd like to watch the film at some point but I'm not going to pay a subscription to the Daily Wire just to do so.

It's impossible to defend my assertion that I'm not naive without getting closer to doxxing myself than I want to. I still intend to speak out publicly on all of this at some point but ideally, not until I'm ready. If it happens before then, so be it. But I won't hasten it. Until then, what I am doing IRL and how I contribute publicly online will remain separate. But I'm consistent in both.

Interesting...

First and foremost, terminology. I understand why Alpha is using the phrase "gendered toilets" because it's clear that Alpha believes in gender identity. I don't use the word gender here because I don't have that belief. I say single-sex. I use the phrase "gender-neutral" because for the people for whom this would matter do believe in gender identity. Perhaps going forward I'll say unisex instead. I suspect it depends on the context. Anyway, I accept that I'm reading Alpha's post through the lens of having a gender identity belief. Much as I listen to church weddings and funerals through the lens of someone who believes in God, even though I don't.

So point 1 from Alpha... That's a firm no from me. I don't have a belief in gender identity and I won't accept someone using their own belief to cross my boundaries. But I will work with someone who holds a different belief to create a workable solution for all, hence gender-neutral/unisex additional facilities.

Other than that, everything else that is quoted from Alpha makes sense to me. It all points to additional spaces being available, to accommodate safety and dignity for all.

The big issue is urinals. Unlike in a women's toilet, you've got people standing there with their genitalia exposed. I think it's not appropriate for me to be in that situation while presenting as female. Cubicles aren't ideal but are a lot more private.

I have, in the past (80s nightclubs anyone?) used the men's toilets when the queue for the ladies was miles long. We generally negotiated with the men, who agreed for us to use them if we let men in at the front of the queue since it was their loo, and off we all went. I have walked past many urinals due to this.

I also go to a lot of football matches, and between the car-park and the stadium (my home ground) there is a bit of scrubland with trees etc. And there are so many men with pea sized bladders who can't wait, who pee up against the trees.

And in all that time, unless i would literally walk over and peer over their shoulder i have never seen a penis*

*i have never done this

**the temptation to shout "hey, look! it's just like a penis but very tiny" would be great (but I'm not into body shaming so i wouldn't do it even in the hypothetical situation)

I agree that a male toilet at work is unlikely to be physically dangerous for me unlike, say, a male toilet in a pub.

I'm wondering what sort of pubs Alpha frequents that they think the toilets are all so dangerous. Presumably if the toilets there are so dangerous because the other men in that pub are so violent, Alpha would also be at risk just drinking in there, or when they leave.

Toilets are segregated by sex and not gender so they are gender neutral. Your basic premise here is wrong. E.g. in the ladies loos, women of all 100 gender identities or no such identity are all welcome. We should not obscure that fact much as aggressors like Alpha want us to.

@Brefugee @OldCrone I get your points, but have you ever been a transwoman going to the men's toilets?

If I imagine myself in that situation, it's very different from how I would feel as a woman in that situation.

I've seen plenty of men tell women that toilets can't possibly be any more dangerous than the whole pub.

Yep, I get what you're saying. All toilets are gender neutral for anyone who doesn't have a belief in gender identity.

That's why I may start using the term unisex instead of gender-neutral to clarify what I mean. That way I'm not mixing up my terminology, which may lead to my words being confusing, I'm sticking with my own in relation to sex immutability.

I'm pretty sure the men's toilets are the only part of the pub where you're allowed to get your cock out.

BonfireLady

If you're short on time, you can just read Alpha's posts only on the AMA.

It's pretty clear almost immediately that 'compromise' isn't a concept that Alpha understands, nor desires.

It's all performative, staggeringly sexist claptrap.

Given that private venues are at liberty to decide whether or not transwomen can use their facilities or not, I’ve often pondered whether we should have a system whereby the dress/trousers pictograms refer to toilets split by gender identity and either the circle signs or Male/Female should refer to toilets segregated by sex. It would make it much clearer to all what to expect and what choices to make.

Can use women’s facilities, I mean. Of course transwomen should be able to use facilities in one shape or another (though with some consideration in small feminine clothes shops with only one changing room).

Having read the AMA (2 hours of my life that I will never get back) and Alpha's posts on this thread, I think that Alpha has the wrong username. It should be AlphaGenderPerson.

I think we are being trolled, and that this is deliberate bait to wind everyone up.

Agreed 😂
I'm just empathising with the idea that they could feel like a dangerous environment for a transwoman.

I'm going to read all of it at some point when I can give it some time. But I might do that first to get a head start.
I already have an expectation that it's going to make me cross where sex-based stereotypes are used to explain gender identity.