Women with alopecia harassed in woman's toilets at airport

[Christinapple]

https://x.com/lindSAYhanNAH3/status/1844696180887794159

I've said it several times, the gender critical movement harms all women. Any women who doesn't meet the criteria of what a woman "should look like" is at risk of being wrongly accused of being trans.

Also makes me wonder about that other thread about FWSSport. If a woman with alopecia plays sport with other women are people who are gender critical going to mistake her as a man and report her to FWSSport who will store data on her?

#thingsthatdidnthappen

I have alopecia areata and have had super short hairstyles and don't wear make up 90% of the time. I dont need to enhance my faetures for people to tell me apart from a man. Calling bullshit on the faux concern for women with alopecia. Btw, it is a one of the easiest conditions to live with. No threat to life, a bit of a hit to one's vanity initially but it makes character and therefore is a net blessing.

Alopecia areata and alopecia universalis/totalis affect both sexes. It is not a women's condition.

I think most people can correctly sex gnc people. Rain Dove is interesting as looking close I would see she is probably female, but without knowing I might have taken her for a man.
I'm studying history at the moment, and I'm currently doing some research into Mathilde de Morny, a 19th century French aristocrat who liked trad male clothes & pursuits, and dated women, including Colette. According to accounts, some people, including men, took her for a man when they first saw her. I wonder if this was bc her clothing and behaviour were v unusual for French women of the time, so there was cognitive dissonance, bc in the picture below her face seems obviously female to me.

Sorry, here's the pic.

That's interesting! I would actually think she was a man. Her features seem masculine to me.

It is much harder to sex people from photos.

For a start, our brains need to interpret skeletal proportions and facial proportions. Hips, and then movement. And voice will all be assessed by our brain.

But even from photos things like brow and forehead and the slant of a person’s eyes the space between nose and lip can be seen.

This would not have happened if women felt safe in singe-sex spaces.

I’m surprised at the number of people refusing to believe a woman on this thread. I can completely believe it. I have relatives with visible disabilities who have been abused, been told they are a disgrace, been told they shouldn’t be seen in public because they’ll ‘frighten the kiddies’. I can fully believe that a woman with such a visible condition as alopecia would attract abuse.

Why? Rigorously enforcing single sex spaces will do nothing to stop those with visible medical conditions suffering abuse. They do it in places like toilets because they know they can get away with it and are less likely to be called out by passers-by.

@WhosPink I agree the scepticism is unnecessary.

However OP used the post to disingenuously further their own agenda.

As they always do. Disingenuous and bigoted. And as usual, using someone with a condition to further their own anti-woman agenda, and make false claims. With the help of some equally disingenuous "allies" and much DARVO.

Despite the (scientific evidence) that, as shown previously, the vast majority of people can easily identify the sex of most people, almost 100% of the time.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "GC" women, the view that men aren't actually women on their say so, nor why we should all agree that some men should be allowed into women's spaces. Which of course, goes way beyond toilets.

That's awful, of course it is.

But you're describing a different scenario from one that allegedly took place here.

The OP hasn't said they're a man, where are you getting that from? 😕

A frequent visitor who id's as a transwoman. Only men can be transwomen, Tofu. Come on, let's not be disingenuous and pretend we don't understand facts.

I expect you'll be claiming to be "bemused" next. Nice touch with the sad emojis though.

What I don't get is why the shouty woman in the story is being called "gender critical". People who are gender critical know that there is no clothing or hairstyle or behaviour that affects whether someone is male or female. Bald women witn alopecia, hirsute women with Polycysric Ovary Syndrome, butch lesbians etc etc are all just as much women and there are no standards or criteria of what a woman "should look like". Any such standards or criteria eould be sexism, which we reject. Which is why there's nothing a man can do to become accepted as female.

A woman who challenges another woman for not being feminine enough to use female facilities is not Gender Critical.

People often say GC when what they mean is sex realist.

Although as others have said, it sounds like this particular woman was just being an utter arse.

What I don't get is why the shouty woman in the story is being called "gender critical"

The shouty woman is being called "gender critical" by the OP because it is the OP's well-recognised tactic to disparage gender critical women at any opportunity. Even if the situation doesn't actually involve GC women.

See also: the OP's use of the word "trans". The OP wrote:
"Any women [sic] who doesn't meet the criteria of what a woman "should look like" is at risk of being wrongly accused of being trans."

But at no point in the quoted tweet has anyone accused anyone of "being trans".

It's an agenda.

@DustyAmuseAlien Lindsay hasn't accused the woman who abused her of being GC - that's down to the OP on this thread who has re-purposed her twitter post. I think Lindsay in justified in being pissed off at being accused of being a man. And apparently it's not the first time.

I think that posters who assure us that people can 100% accurately sex others in milliseconds are living in cloud cuckoo land. You would be surprised at the number of people, usually people with either eyesight problems, mental illness, learning difficulties, or dementia, or just plain hard of thinking, who use hair length and clothing as an indicator of sex. My (now departed) DGM was certain that DS was a girl simply due to his long hair, and nothing would convince her otherwise.

I didn't know the OP had previously on other threads had said they're trans, which you say they have so ok. That's why I was asking where people were getting that from.
That was a confused emoji , btw 😕
Not a sad one ☹️
They do look similar though to be fair!

Honestly, even if I believed this (and I don't - I've known tons of women who shaved their heads and they still dont get mistaken for men), while I'd condemn it, it's pretty weaksauce stuff as a justification for condemning the whole gender critical movement.

I mean, I could write a list here as long as your arm of transwomen with criminal convictions for violent assault, multiple rapes, child abuse and murder, and end the list with the statement that "the gender ideology movement harms all women". Nobody should be mean to women in women's loos, and I do suppose its possible that someone made a mistake, but it really hardly stacks up against the list of major crimes from the transactivist side, does it?

I'm basing that on (numerous, repeated) scientific studies which show MOST people can, which is not surprising really, as it's one of the first things we learn how to do cognitively. So no, it's really not "cloud cuckoo land", nor is it just a personal opinion. Of course, there will be occasional outliers, but the majority of people CAN easily identify of the sex of others.

Conservatively sexist people out in the wild, mind you, may indeed base it on things like hair and clothes.

You would be surprised at the number of people, usually people with either eyesight problems, mental illness, learning difficulties, or dementia, or just plain hard of thinking, who use hair length and clothing as an indicator of sex.

I agree with you on the above, @WhosPink

Which is why I think it was contemptible of the OP to jump on this incident and immediately try to portray it as someone being gender critical.

Not to mention the despicable attempt to use someone's medical condition (alopecia) to score points. It's just utterly vile.

Did these studies include the nutters, drunks, and coked-up dickheads that make up a substantial proportion of the public toilet-using public? I wouldn't trust their judgement to identify an elephant at 20 metres.