Trans women are still women 2nd thread

[beetr00]

So very important for all sides.

Just wanted to continue this interesting and somewhat "provocative" debate

You. Don’t. Own. Public. Spaces.

I apologise if that’s blunt, but you don’t. That’s not your space, it’s a space. Your house, is not a communal space. A hospital, changing room, gym, wherever - is.

I was violently bullied by girls as a teenager, received the same death threats you all get upset over, but from biological females. I don’t want to be around women, because they make me feel unsafe - where are you gonna go?

Nowhere, because that’s something I would have resolve for myself and work out when I’m in public.

I just don't understand your position here @SleeplessInWherever - you don't appear to agree that men, as a sex class, are a greater risk to women (as a sex class) than other women. Are you not aware of the amount of women who are killed each week by men, are you not aware of the surveys that suggest men would rape if they thought they'd get away with it, are you not aware of teh sexual harrasment that begins for young girls at an astonshingly early age, are you not aware of the reported levels of sexual violence including rape in schools (including primary)

If you are aware of all of the above, I am baffled and sad that you think there is no need to take action to minimise the opportunities men (as a sex class) to attach women (as a sex class). You'd rather what, a hunger games free for all?

Happy to explain.

I am aware that some men are dangerous. I have met them, I have lived with them.

I don’t believe that means we have to make universal decisions about all men. I also don’t believe that makes it proportionate to just avoid them all in public. I actively refuse to live my life on edge or in fear because of the actions of a group of men.

I know the “not all men” thing doesn’t go down well here. But really, not all men.

Which brings me back to the spaces point, from the safety aspect. If I’m not wandering the streets avoiding men “just incase,” I also don’t care if they’re in my space.

We. Didn't. Write. The. Judgement.

The supreme court made this judgement,.and the Labour government of 2010 wrote the Equality Act.

Stop blaming us for a decision we didn't make. You're here all 'why are you all so mean calling all men predators and throwing out harmless transwomen'. We're not doing that, the law is. Lobby parliament if you want to change it. Though you may want to brush up your case cos it's not very coherent.

Absolutely this.

Enforced compliance should not be confused with consent.

Women have paid dire consequences when they have said no to these men.

It bothers me that people, women, think it’s acceptable to make unilateral arguments and selfish decisions that harm others, yeah.
I think it’s a shitty way to behave.

Right back at ya.

I think your position harms women. I care about women and girls.

One thing I really hate is being used as a silent, accepting resource by these men and their supporters, and gaslighted about why I’m wrong to have perfectly reasonable boundaries around men.

I care about people. Of all sexes, genders, sexualities, whatever.

I honestly would have loved to believe that we didn’t need to focus exclusively on women, because we were past that.

No you don't, if you did you would not try to enforce consent on women who don't give it.

This

i think i have read that some trans organisations think that changing the law is the next logical step

Before they do this someone ought to point out that the constant barraging on various internet platforms, the protests and marches, the placards etc show a group/pack mentality and thats bad

It bothers me that some women think they can unilaterally tell men they are welcome in women’s spaces. It’s a selfish, thoughtless way to behave, yes.

You do not have my consent to open up women’s spaces to your male friends.

If women’s rights isn’t your thing, you’re not in any way forced to read about it or join in. But other women will, and it’s a hard won success for amazing grassroots campaigning, as pp have said.

The thing is it is not just about safety from violence, it is about the privacy and dignity of one's sex. This is an instinctive recognition, and it doesn't matter how nice or lovely the man is.

In private situations you can choose which men you want to invite into your space, but in public you cannot. Public spaces in which women and girls are undressed or occupied with their body and/or biological function are single sex because this is the most effective safeguarding measure.

If you are happy with mixed sex facilities you are free to use them, but you cannot consent on behalf of other women.

Don't be so disingenuous and naive.I imagine, though, that you are someone who still goes on about 'male violence against women and girls' and how oppressed women are.

You are living in a purposefully constructed fantasy land in which everyone is lovely and there are no differences between men and women.

We live in civil society, in which human behaviours and relationships are moderated by the state. The aim is to regulate human affairs so that everything can work smoothly, and with minimum destructive impact for all parties.

Our state has decreed that women and girls are deserving of the protection that is afforded by single sex facilities, services and categories in certain types of circumstance. This has been arrived at after careful consideration and much campaigning by women and their supporters.

You don't personally own or get to dictate about spaces which has been set aside for members of the female sex. That which affords them integrity, privacy and safety - and which permits them to be involved in public life with dignity.

If you don't like female people then you campaign for spaces in which you don't have to be around them.

So why have safeguarding practices at all then @SleeplessInWherever - lets do away with DBS checks in schools, or other places working with children or other vulnerable people? And before you say, 'DBS applies to all' - yes, it does but often the greatest risk vector is men - however they identify.

You are entitled to a view, of course, but you are not entitled to consent to male people in female-only spaces on behalf of other women. That’s not how consent works.

No.

I was banned off another social media site when I discovered at my old place of work that there were plans to ensure only the background of a trans person in their new gender would be examined for safeguarding purposes, ie nothing in their "dead name".

I pointed out, what if that person had done something that barred them from working in a school under their old name - it was like saying that if I changed my name by deed poll because I hated my birth name or if ai married that my previous name-identity could not be checked and I could have done outrageous things.

There were howls and threats and a swift ban.

I know the plans were not discussed after a time but I also know they've not been dropped, so DBS checks might not be the safeguards everyone thinks they are.

Clothes are not gendered. Anyone can wear anything.

It is crappy to tell someone they must believe what you believe. They can believe what they want to believe but I have a right to believe different.

I don't go around talking about gender and sex so it wouldn't come up unless someone trans decided to talk about it.

I declared I was a boy at 3 years old. Was I? Was I fuck. I screamed blue murder that I was for a few years. It was bullshit. I never was nor could I ever be. It was escapism from being a female. I wanted the same opportunities as boys and thought that was the only way to get them. It was the beginning of feminism for me not beginning of being trans.