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

oh I see. So, we are now on semantics.

What is the difference between purpose and function when discussing body parts?

And why is it relevant to the topic under discussion?

@Helleofabore
There is nothing inherently misogynistic and sexist in understanding female bodies and what they can and cannot do

Absolutely always misogynistic to give women's bodies a purpose based on its function. Especially if you're trying to make a point that someone else's is a "fuck hole"? Pretty gross thing to say when you're essentially boiling vaginas down to...a fuck and birthing hole as it's "purpose"?

What is the difference between purpose and function when discussing body parts?

And why is it relevant to the topic under discussion?

I believe that I was very specific in what I was calling a 'fuck hole' and it was not a vagina.

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

Oooo look I can argue about petty points of grammar because they are being mean and they won't talk to me about vaginas.

Sorry for expecting you to speak precisely and in absolutes when you're arguing in absolutes.

It's the difference between why and how. Giving women's body parts a (always historically misogynistic) why is something you should be conscious of.

It's relevant because you're equating vaginas to having different "purposes" in a way that's derogatory to biological females who can't serve your imagine "purpose" because they don't function in a way that makes that "purpose" a reality in any way ever. None of which disqualifies them from accessing female loos.

Basically, if you're gonna argue about female bodies in such absolutes at least do some basic research.

Is it petty when it translates into real world misogyny? I don't think so but you do do.

So a biological female who has a blind vagina has a "fuck hole"? That's not very nice.

I think we're back to looking for offence where no offence is intended.

It's a lot easier to not intend or appear to intend to offend when you're not describing women's bodies in a way as crude as "fuck holes" because they don't serve a different purpose, one that hasn't been specified?

No, it's really not very nice of you to suggest that. A congenital abnormality is not something to be laughed at. A surgical "neovagina" is a deliberate attempt to imitate something a man cannot have.

GIVE ME ATTENTION AND TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I DEMAND IT.

Hmm. No.

So perhaps don't define the bodies and the treatments biological women have to do as so inherently gross and crude as fuck holes and unnatural purely because someone with a "neovagina" or whatever has something similar and does similar treatments.

Huh? No one's forcing you to reply mate, I'm not demanding it. In fact I'd prefer you didn't seen as you don't want to actually engage except for immature replies 👍🏾

Well, I disagree there @Yelleryeller

Almost all our body parts have a purpose, with the exception of maybe tonsils, and the appendix? (And we can do ok with only one kidney).

Our heart pumps blood. Our lungs oxygenate our blood. Our legs are for walking. Our kidneys clean our blood. Our hands are for picking things up, with our opposable thumbs. Our teeth are for chewing. Our eyes are for seeing, our ears are for hearing sounds, our nose is for smelling things. Our stomach is for digesting food. And so on. This is all true even if someone’s eyes/ears/legs/hands don’t work properly because of illness or medical condition.

The vagina is the human birth canal. It is self-lubricating and very expandable. It is a passageway that allows sperm to find the eggs, and allows new humans to be born. It connects the womb to the outside world.

A woman with a blind vagina has a medical condition; this does not negate the “purpose of the vagina” in general terms just as someone being born blind does not negate the purpose of the eyes in the human race in general.

A vagina is not an artificially created fuck-hole. Although from a male perspective, that is often the limited and ignorant view of what a vagina is. Women know better.

Really? That is what you have come back with?

Please explain in detail what the difference between function and purpose? Because it seems like you are imbuing purpose with some personal philosophical meaning.

Here we go from the Cambridge Dictionary:

why you do something or why something exists
to have a use

Oxford dictionary

aim or function of something; the thing that something is supposed to achieve

So, if the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries use the term to describe why something exists / what that thing is supposed to achieve, why are you now attributing misogyny and sexism to its use?

"Basically, if you're gonna argue about female bodies in such absolutes at least do some basic research."

umm.... I am not the one arguing about female bodies in absolutes. But crack on trying to frame my posts that way.

That's the function of all those parts, most of them necessary not optional in the case of most of the organs. Are you pretending there's no relevant context and precedence for speaking about and assigning womens reproductive body parts a purpose rather than an (optional!) function?

I wonder what all the tilting at bunbury’s windmills is about? Is something afoot or just the same old same old sweaty bollocks?

Nice attempt at twisting my words. No. I did not in any way say that female people who have a vagina that is not connected to a cervix / uterus has a 'fuck hole'. I was very specifically talking about what happens when a male person's inserted cavity is called a 'vagina'. Calling it a 'vagina' reduces female body parts to that single 'function'.

Maybe you can answer this:

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

Because it seems like you are imbuing purpose with some personal philosophical meaning

Are you also ignoring that there's no context or precedence (and danger) to talking about women's body parts with a purpose rather than an optional function?

And you still didn't answer if you do accept that there are biological females born with blind vaginas and no reproductive organs? And that it's not very nice to describe their body parts and the treatments they do as maintaining "fuckholes"?

Fake things are never the same as naturally occurring things. Cos reality.

A faulty thing is still the same thing, just faulty. It can't be compared with something that is faked. Cos its still a fake.

A ripped Michael Angelo doesn't cease to be a Michaelangelo. If you scrawled 'a work by Postman Pat' across the bottom it'd still be a Michaelangelo just like all the other Michaelangelos.

And yet, no one described female vaginas as 'fuck holes' except the inference of the person who was using the word 'vagina' to describe a cavity inserted into a male body.

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

There is NO purpose other than to be a fuckhole or to represent a fuckhole if it is even usable

Why is it different? If they don't have this "purpose" you won't describe, are you saying women with these vaginas can't call them vaginas?

I am rejecting your attempt to twist words that have specific meanings into fitting your personal interpretation.

"And you still didn't answer if you do accept that there are biological females born with blind vaginas and no reproductive organs?"

Have you missed the numerous references to just those female people that I have made?

"And that it's not very nice to describe their body parts and the treatments they do as maintaining "fuckholes"?"

And yet, it is only by someone claiming that male people with cavities inserted into their groin have 'vaginas' that someone is reducing female body parts to 'fuckholes'.

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