Single sex spaces

[piloswi]

I’m confused with single sex spaces and trans people and what people want.

My understanding is everyone must use the single sex space of their biological sex (I might be wrong). This is only spoken about in terms of trans women now having to use men’s toilets, etc. But this means trans men must use women’s toilets. So someone who looks like a man but biologically isn’t but mostly (imo) you can’t really tell with trans men whereas you often can with trans women.

Is this what the majority want? Surely if people are worried about ‘predatory men’ pretending to be a trans woman to use single sex spaces then they could equally claim to be a trans man as you can’t really ask them to prove it can you?

I guess I’m just wondering if I’m missing the point the point? Are the majority happy with this? I’ve seen posts of people being very happy with the ruling but only have spoken about trans women.

I don’t want this to be a trans bashing thread. Just would like to know what people would like to see as their ideal for single sex spaces while still respecting people

Helleofabore
Can you please state the 'function' of a cavity that has been inserted into a male body?

I'll have a stab at that, since it clearly is not going to get an answer from the person you are asking.

The function of a cavity (this particular sort of cavity, anyway; there may be others) inserted into a male body is to bolster the mistaken belief of a male person that he can pretend to be a female person with even the slightest degree of credibility – at least, he can do so among the credulous.

Why not remove the prostate at the same time though?

It would make sense, wouldn't it. Since only men have those, so a Women (let's give the poor chap a capital initial: he needs all the help he can get) doesn't need one.

actually and seriously, is this done? removing the prostate as part of attempted resexing, I mean?

Edited to add; the answer seems to be "sometimes, but by no means always". Hmmmm.

Would that be because of its role in male arousal, perchance?

Seems unlikely, given that a Woman wouldn't need male arousal, would she.

The Supreme Court has spoken. So shut the fuck up now you mangina maniacal linguistical gymnast.

Oh. Look. Here is the full interaction that has been twisted out of context.

ByTealFish • Today 16:03

No? It's not a 'fuckhole', and it's also not an open wound as some have said, it's no more of a wound than any other vagina. It's a body cavity lined by epithelial tissue. It's not a gaping hole into your abdominal cavity.

Dilation simply helps the muscles around it stay open and stops scars from causing it to contract.

Cis women who undergo certain types of vaginal surgery have to dilate too for the same reasons.

Non-inversion vaginoplasty is also performed on cis women who require reconstruction after severe injury and the like. It's a vagina, not a gaping wound.

And my answer.

Today 16:12

What is the purpose of this inserted cavity again?

There is NO purpose other than to be a fuckhole or to represent a fuckhole if it is even usable. Do you understand what we are saying? Or are you programmed to believe in falsehoods.

Just because a female person might have a similar process doesn’t make it a ‘vagina’ when inserted into male body. A female person’s reconstructive surgery is just that, replacing a body part. Not creating a false one. A female reconstruction has other body mechanisms to support it including a vulva and a cervix and a uterus etc.

I happened to have it open on another device so I copied and posted it.

The context is as I said it was. I was only replying to the poster who was doubling down on female vaginas and reconstructed vaginas being directly comparative with a cavity inserted in a male groin. I was very clear that female vaginas are not comparable. In fact, I said this quite clearly:

“A female person’s reconstructive surgery is just that, replacing a body part. Not creating a false one.”

It is quite something to see the fuckwittery attempted on this thread.

I believe the serious answer here (alongside the male arousal reason already given) is because the removal of the prostate is high risk of causing male urinary incontinence.

(aka even more proof that humans cannot change sex)

And this was in answer to

“I don't know if you've seen a vagina after surgery, but unless something goes wrong it absolutely is indistinguishable. There is photo evidence on it. Can we just agree to disagree?”

’Labia’ fashioned out of an old scrotum is definitely distinguishable from actual, real labia!

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime @TheUnusuallyQuerulentMxLauraBrown

It does seem that it is not common. You would think that removal of the prostate would be 'gender affirming'. I get that there are risks, but the whole penile-inversion surgery is a big risk anyway and radical prostatectomy is a well-practised procedure for cancer.

Is it because it adds to sexual pleasure and that this is more important than removing male organs?
Is it because SRS is only focussed on visible signs of sex; the 'dysphoria' is only skin deep?
Is it because the surgeons gatekeep this procedure?

Different reasons for different men sheltering under the trans umbrella perhaps?

Edit for spag

I suppose it’s an unnecessary additional risk for the surgeons and for the surgical recipient a combo of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ (no cosmetic benefit) and wanting to retain as much (male) sexual and urological function as possible?

Some male trans people opt to keep their penis and have an additional ‘neovagina’ created (‘phallus preserving vaginoplasty’ or PPV - wouldn’t recommend a Google image search without eyebleach handy!) so it’s clearly not necessary to remove all male organs to adequately affirm an ‘acquired gender’

I just read about another nullification surgery which maintains the penis but removes the testicles for a ‘smooth’ effect.

These are elective surgeries where male people are putting their future health at risk to fit into their own personalised version of a philosophical belief about their sex class that has no basis in material reality.

It needs to be very clearly understood by any person undergoing surgeries of this kind, for identity affirmation, that changing unique sexed body parts doesn’t change that person’s sex and when sex matters they will not be treated other than the sex class that they are rejecting.

There is no kindness in allowing people to think that extreme body modifications change people’s sex class and ensure that that person is treated by society as the opposite sex class to what they materially are.

What they said.

I just read about another nullification surgery which maintains the penis but removes the testicles for a ‘smooth’ effect.
These are elective surgeries where male people are putting their future health at risk to fit into their own personalised version of a philosophical belief about their sex class that has no basis in material reality.

I'm not even sure that such a man would be claiming to have changed to the opposite sex class. It seems more like an extreme modification of someone still claiming to be male. But who knows with these troubled and troubling men?

I was just curious what people thought regarding trans men as I’ve not seen it mentioned

I doubt that you are 'curious' and I also doubt that you've 'not seen it mentioned' because it has cropped up as a disingenuous attempt at a Gotcha here a few times a month for about 9 years.

Transmen are women. Whether or not they've taken testosterone and grown facial hair, whether they've gone full E. Paige and had cosmetic surgery on their torsos. They are still shorter, with narrower frames, with wide hips and angled thighs, with lower grip strength and punch power.

They are welcome in women's spaces because changing sex isn't possible. If they prefer to use men's facilities and men don't mind, that's fine. But our gender-

This doesn’t make sense to me. Some trans men have penises, are you okay with that? But you have an issue with trans women who might not? This also opens the door for predatory cis men to walk into our bathrooms, not even dressing like a woman, just claiming to be trans men definitely not "easy peasy.” This whole thing seems a very reactionary and not very well thought out.

Im not sure you can call a fake arm skin tube a penis. They need artificial inflation to become erect and are in no way comparable to the real thing

Whatever you wanna call it, I don't want it near me.

Trans men don't belong in the ladies is all i'm saying. Doesn't seem safe.

“Some trans men have penises, are you okay with that? But you have an issue with trans women who might not”

Female people’s crime patterns don’t seem to have seen a significant change in the UK at any stage of transition. Ie. There isn’t an increase in their crime pattern toward male statistics.

The same can be said for male pattern criminality - the prisoner statistics for male people at any stage of transition don’t show that that group’s pattern approaching female statistics. Those male people retain their male pattern of crime.

Therefore, the lack of a penis doesn’t impact male patterns of crime. And the presence of an inflatable tube removed from an arm and sewn onto a female groin doesn’t show a deviation from female crime patterns - in rate or type.

It is understood though that the changes to faces including facial hair and voice may cause some female people distress so the SC judgement has made a provision for those instances.

The only way a transman can have a penis is if she cut it off a biological male and stored it in a jar.

I wouldn’t want a pickled peen near me either but I’m not afraid of a transman assaulting me with it.

I suppose Tupperware could work too?

This is the problem when you have people demand that descriptors for body parts are unused for attempts to implant replicas that are not those body parts onto bodies of the opposite sex which do not have those body parts naturally.

It is like the fallacious HRT. No the hormones being added to the male body are not replacing depleted naturally produced hormones that would be typical or were typical for that body. It is hormone therapy but it is not replacement therapy as meant by the term.

The appropriation of these terms is a dishonest attempt to normalise those bodies even receiving these novel (ie not meant for the sexed body) procedures.

That would be safer, the assault with a jar could be painful.