Some strange contradictory arguments from the TRA side

[transdimensional]

Claim 1: That it's unfair for TW to go in men's toilets because they're less safe there.

It's probably true that they're less safe there, but how does the conclusion follow? What about a gender-nonconforming male who identifies as a man (not as a woman)? He would still have to go into the gents' even if admission to toilets was on the basis of gender identity. Should he also go to the ladies' to be safe? What about various other vulnerable groups? Young boys, elderly men who may be frail without being disabled, or ethnic minority males in an area where a white racist movement is strong - maybe they would all be safer in the ladies'? But it doesn't mean that's the answer!

Claim 2: That there is no use banning self-identified TW from the ladies' on the basis they might represent a risk, because genuinely dangerous males won't care whether they're allowed in or not.
This implies that the ladies' toilet is no safer than the gents', and therefore it completely contradicts the first point!

Claim 3: That having rules about who can and can't enter the toilets will lead to a surge in TM and others being wrongly accused of being in the wrong toilets.

But even under the EHRC's and Scottish government's understanding of the law, there were theoretical limitations on who could enter which toilets (in theory you would have needed a GRC). So there have always been rules about who can enter. Does anyone recall a huge problem of false accusations before 2010 or before 2004? If not, why should it start now?

Yup.

Oh man. You’re right there too. Head hanging, shame everywhere.

I’ll sweep up, don’t worry @ArabellaScott…

Oh lord. Just come back to this post-coffee and realise I've caused chaos.

To be fair, I think a lot of us [me!] should have come back post-coffee, rather than before 😬

I read Memento's post as a support for biological reality and mine was meant to agree with Memento.

So embarrassing. I should really hand my PhD back after this debacle 🤣

Mine too

For a short time, I was worried I'd got the wrong end of the stick, went back and re-read to check!

Fuck me, I didn’t even take science as an option in 4th form secondary school and even I know that people with DSDs are all either Male or Female.

TW as a concept is contradictory, it hadn't really occurred to me until I saw a (sane) TW being interviewed after the Ruling
He said that of course he was a man because to be a TW one HAD to be a man, it was the whole definition of a TW.

I'm really sorry, I confused you with the Mordant poster. In my defence, it was early, no coffee had been taken, and both your usernames do start with the letter M.

(Science qualifications from Sesame Street)

Oh I thought of another one.

Now: we haven't been allowed to participate in debate

Previously: #nodebate and we won't share a platform with transphobes

To be fair my half-blind dog can tell the difference between a man and a woman and he failed all his science exams.

Claim 1: That it's unfair for TW to go in men's toilets because they're less safe there.

Under this argument need for TW to use female toilets is based on safety, so presumably the TRAs fear than men will attack them if they use men's spaces. Do they protest etc about men making them feel scared in this way and excluding them from men's spaces? No. Do they photograph themselves wearing dresses etc in the men's toilets to show that they can't be pushed out? Of course not.
At the same time, TRAs argue that 'TERFs' objecting to them being in female spaces is 'literal violence' and a threat to their very existence. 'TERFs' definitely consider themselves to be women and will definitely use female spaces but the TRA reaction to this perceived threat is to go in to their spaces anyway.
So from a TRA perspective- men's spaces may have men in that might hurt me, better keep out and no reason to make a fuss. Women's spaces will have women in there that we claim are our biggest threat- let's go in there anyway, threaten them with violence if they challenge us and try to have get them cancelled/sacked etc.

See also, everyone should 'be kind', and anyone who isn't 'kind' will be threatened until they are.

Joking aside that is actually a good point about "passing"
My dog knows what sex someone is, even from a distance (prefers women)

It's transphobic to not allow trans people to use facilities of their gender.

It's not transphobic to only have male and female facilities, all the other genders will have to put up with it.

Women are not at risk if men are allowed in as they can lock the door of their cubicle and report any assault to the police afterwards.

Transwomen are not safe in the gents by locking the cubicle door and calling the police afterwards is not acceptable as the vulnerable transwoman has already been harmed.

I believe it’s quite common with rescue dogs who have been mistreated by a previous owner, that they’re wary of the sex who abused them.

My cousin had a really sweet good-natured dog who appeared to love all humans, but went absolutely bananas if he saw a tall man with red hair.

To me, if you've had the op and no longer have a nob then I don't care if you're in the toilets or changing rooms.

I know people won't like this but least having the op shows me that you are wanting to be a woman by taking it seriously.

Don't give me this crap about someone who has a penis can tell me they are a woman. When I was growing up, people who identified as women got the ops to reflect the outside to match their inside. I actually felt sorry for them.

What I don't want is people with their nobs out in like changing rooms and stuff. Tbf I wouldn't want to see a women's box out either but I definitely don't want a nob in a woman's space.

I will definitely accept you more if you have the op.

I still don't believe biological males should be allowed to compete in female sports though due to accumulation of male strength and build plus previous hormones. Anywhere else I don't care about.

You do know only about 2% have actually had that op don't you.

Also not everyone can choose to have the operation(s).

Agree, terms like "transwoman" are inherently misleading/biased - it has the effect of making it sound like a subcategory of women is under discussion - it makes "TW are women" sound like a statement of the obvious or axiomatic. Of course, the nature of the word "trans" is that this isn't the case - it's more like modifiers such as "pretend", "fake", "toy" in that respect - is a toy car a car? Not really. Nevertheless it's been a big terminological victory (and therefore ideological victory) by their side.

We don't need to counter-protest about the SC ruling. FWS won, end of story.

‘Women, men will hurt you anyway, stop trying to make it harder for them’ is an argument underpinned by appalling misogyny.

This is worth reposting.

that we all have gender-neutral toilets at home

Which are single-occupant and only available to residents and guests of the house, unlike public loos.

I agree. It's a very strange position for them to take but there it is.

multi-thread word-salad-tosser

Saving that for later use.

We don't know if someone male still has a penis and it would be appallingly invasive and dehumanising to ask. Therefore, anyone male must be presumed to still have his penis and treated accordingly. This is the only option that protects women's safety and trans people's medical privacy.