"We have always been here"

[DiamondThrone]

Been noticing this a lot. It seems to be the new #TWAW #nodebate #bekind, after those didn't work.

I mean - lots of things have "always been here". Like women, for instance 😄

Just interested in new terms that arise, and how they are used to try and shut down comment.

There was nothing to indicate the women were lesbians. Straight women pee too.

Mate you spend all your time insisting men are women

so in your case women could mean a man or a woman couldn’t it

It might have been a male cleaner pretending to be a transman

I personally have never felt uncomfortable with a transwomen in the toilets and quite happy they use them rather than the men's. My female friends all feel similar - we are women

Do they feel similar?
Or are they just going along with it when brought up, because they don't want to be booted out of the friendship group(s)?

I'm a young adult, so every trans person I know has always felt different.

Can I let you into a secret...EVERYONE feels different to everyone else.
We just don't feel the need to keep bleating on about it and expecting the world to revolve around us and our uniqueness.

I think the reason us old biddies are so adamant that facilitating men's claims to be women is the wrong way to go is that we also thought the young men we knew in our youth were going to be better than the older generations were, and we have all as we proceeded through life had the experience of turning round and realising that had not in fact happened, and that the men were all for feminism when it meant they could expect no strings attached sex and women with their own money but not so much when it meant doing half the childcare or asking yourself whether you really deserve that promotion over the woman whose work enabled it or sharing assets and childcare fairly after a divorce.

So I know the young #BeKind women look at me thinking "I'm so glad her generation was the last that had to deal with that type of sexism, but I just wish she'd realise men aren't like that any more and it's ok to let those old barriers go" and it breaks my heart because I know that's what I thought as well.

You appear to be advocating for spaces split by "My behaviour is not a risk to others" and "My behaviour is a risk to others" - on a self id basis. How do you think that will work?

BTW, you can absolutely still have that mixed sex happy friends toilet hangout feelings space - something like a unisex power room with single occupant enclosed cubicles opening off it would be totally compliant and honestly probably way nicer than the current setup, and I'm absolutely sure no one would object to LGBT clubs in particular deciding that is a more suitable style for them than single sex shared facility spaces. (With acknowledgement to the additional risks created by enclosed toilets especially combined with alcohol and drugs - maybe with safety features like a flashing light if it's not opened within a certain time...)

I've seen news articles saying that recent surveys suggest young women are trending left and young men are trending right. If that's so, disillusionment with men of their generation is very likely to be a problem.

We're also approaching, if Americans student surveys are anything to go by, 50% of left leaning young women identifying as something other than heterosexual. This is statistically impossible and suggests that some social trend, I'm not sure what, is overdue a crash.

In that case, surely the men’s would be safer for you?

No it's not. These days the lefty youngsters don't want to be "straight". Doesn't mean they aren't.

We older people really to catch on to the idea that identifying as "queer" doesn't mean you actually are, in our money. It just means you identify with the alphabet.

I think we still have to get used to the "queer" movement being a political label instead of a description of people with a same-sex orientation.

Wes Streeting is gay, but it's pretty clear lots of activists don't consider him "queer". On the other hand, "queer" does seem to include heterosexuals who like whacking each other with bits of leather, and for social credit reasons want to position themselves as gay-adjacent.

That's funny, I have just noted something similar on another thread ("Women in STEM).

"Queer" does not mean what it used to mean. I think many younger people identify themselves as queer to say they don't identify with the white, straight, rightest consensus.

Yep - it's all about "which label most expresses my self image, and fucknuts to anyone that might have already been using that name for something a bit more significant than me ensuring proper display of my shifting ego"

After all...

I think there's a couple of things in play here.

One is that the gay scene (let's be honest, the gay male scene) has a history of being accepting of unconventional sexuality.

The other is that heterosexual fetishes, when they aren't seen as creepy, are almost universally seen as very silly. I think that's why, when straight people talk about "kink shaming", they like to imply that it's something to do with leather and whips, something you can construe as glamorous. I've never seen a straight male pundit oppose "kink shaming" on the basis that he's really into wearing nappies.

There's an awful lot of really weird stuff hanging out under the Q+ bit of the acronym, and it's obscured by young women who think "queer" means blue hair and a nose ring.

Wes Streeting is gay

Until I read that I had no idea. Not that it matters a jot. It's hardly the most important thing about him.

Or am I doing politics wrong ?

I had a similar "Oh, really ?" moment when I had chance to meet Andy Street, (former mayor of the West Midlands) when he was mayor.

When I met Andy Street, I must confess I didn't think about him being gay. I confess with shame that my first thought was "he looks like a scale model of himself".

Very nice chap though. It was an event with several politicos, and Andy stood out by being the only one who made an effort to go around and talk to everybody.

Yes, he came across very well (DM would have said "pint pot" 😀) despite being a Tory.

Be outing to mention the event beyond it was celebrating youth achievement, but it was clear he was very sincere and genuinely wanted to promote young talent.

Sometimes, you really can't help but feel people are in the wrong party.

Anyway, we digress. On with the podcast thread

Boris, Trump and possibly Rees Mogg aside, I may proundly disagree with many politicians but I don't think many of them are in it for the wrong reasons, not least because there are easier ways to be evil. I think most of them do think they can make things better for the electorate, or at least better for enough of the elecrorate to be worthwhile doing.

I encounter politicians from time to time and, regardless of where I may disagree with them on policy grounds, I always take note of how they interact with people further down the food chain. There are some who just don't notice you if you're not in a position to do anything for them.

The ones who seem to be genuinely interested in people might surprise you. It doesn't map onto left-right at all. You can't tell someone's personality from their ideology.

I think you can tell something of this from the politicians who've come on MN over the years. The ones who do well are the ones who treat their audience with respect. And there are those you might expect to have a sympathetic audience but just bomb.

I think this is becoming clearer and clearer over time to many people. The over reach is making people really reconsider what they do know and understand what they don’t know.

There is enough discourse on social media now though, where people have declared that they don’t feel ‘ordinary’ so therefore they chose their identity accordingly. Or tried on each one til they found the one they preferred.

Like the man, Jack, who wrote into the Guardian and complained about the Koko club. I can imagine that there were quite a number of people emailing Jack saying that Jack should remove Jack’s content because it showed that Jack was not following the right script.

People will have different views on other people's feelings, as there's an infinite range of feelings for an infinity of reasons. I personally wouldn't dismiss your apprehension at being followed into the toilet by a woman. I imagine that could be creepy or intimidating.

However, these feelings don't really have much to do with our concerns.

Our concerns are that males - including transwomen - commit 98% of sexual crime and have up to 150% greater punching power than females.

So -
There are women's toilets, men's toilets, accessible toilets, and in some cases unisex toilets.

Women's toilets are designated for biological females, men's toilets for biological males, accessible toilets for people with disabilities, and unisex toilets may be used by anybody.

There are women [and, coincidentally, the Supreme court of the United Kingdom] who want to keep women's toilets single sex and are uncomfortable with men of any kind using them.

There are women like you who are not uncomfortable sharing a toilet with men.

The obvious solution, which does not dismiss your feelings, is to leave the women's toilet for women who want the women's to be women-only, and women like you who don't want to keep the women's women-only, and feel comfortable sharing toilets with men can use the men's toilet, or the unisex toilet.
Or the women's toilet of course.

It's behaviours that are problematic.
I agree.
Transwomen who insist on using women's spaces although they know they are not wanted there [cf the women who want to keep single-sex spaces single-sex] and although they know they are not entitled to be there [cf the SC ruling] are displaying problematic, disrespectful behaviour.

'queer' is attached to queering the world, the curriculum in schools and universities. The main agenda is to break down all barriers.