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

Errr ummmmm. That’s the most batshit thing I’ve heard all day. Each and every body part has a purpose. Like the head has the purpose if pumping blood around the body. The liver and kidneys have the purpose of filtering waste.

Whilst I agree that a lot more trans men pass as men than trans women pass as women…I don’t think men would A. Notice or B. Care if trans men used their toilets, as they’re no threat.
Trans women going in women’s toilets is a different thing altogether.
I have every confidence that I can spot a trans identifying male a mile off - and I think the point is that if they keep going in the women’s toilets, they can get into trouble for it. Organisations will have to make sure if they offer single sex spaces they don’t turn a blind eye to trans identifying males going in the ladies.

Convenient.

This argument almost looks set up doesn't it Helleofabore?

There's biological females that have to do this, it sounds like your knowledge on different people's anatomy's is the one lacking.

"A purpose in the way you describe, absolutely can and has."

In your usage of the word.

"The only possible function of a blind vagina on a biological female would be this same crude "purpose" then?"

Why are you leveraging female medical conditions to force the acceptance of using the words for female body parts for a male person's extreme body modification?

I really think your telling people they are supporting misogyny is both hypocritical and projection.

It most certainly does RTB.

No...no... apparently Annoyed, we must only assume a definition that reflect determination rather than the equally common usage of 'functionality'.

It is the very epitome of bad faith argument and all to leverage people through emotional coercion into accepting the label 'vagina' for a male person's extreme body modification where they have an inserted cavity in their groin.

Humans no longer have tails.

What's the function of it in bio females with this anatomy? Given you're saying the function makes it's a fuckhole because it can't serve this other purpose you won't describe that would make it a vagina?

Some of the context that you seem to have ignored:

Today 15:54

It is incredible that some people have been led to believe that calling a blind cavity surgically inserted into a male groin is in any way a ‘vagina’.
That is seriously misogynistic. It dismisses the functions of a vagina except for one. It reduces a vagina to a fuckable hole.

Imagine posting supporting that vaginas are just fuckable holes on a feminist board.

Today 15:59

Do you understand for instance how misogynistic it is to call a cavity inserted into male person’s groin a vagina when it only serves the purpose of being or resembling a fuckhole ? You are posting on a feminist board, do you think you can address the misogynistic view you just posted?

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.

Ah! Now your posts about women with blind vaginas that need dilation to stay open make sense. You're talking about trans women.

I don’t feel any threat whatsoever from Trans men and as far as I am concerned they are welcome in women’s single sex spaces.

I might well not notice a fairly convincingly passing transman, but I can assure you that I would notice some transmen! And I would be, I think, somewhat uncomfortable if I was using a urinal, but not frightened.

I think it is time you answered the question.

I have spend considerable time answering your questions and addressing your fuckwittery.

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

And then maybe you can answer what Teal refused to answer. Why is a male person's extreme body modification relevant to their access into female single sex spaces?

Let's discuss it in relation to the actual topic at hand.

It absolutely is. There are many reasons why a woman would be infertile, but it doesn't change what a vagina is.

Similarly people who are completely deaf have ears for exactly the same reason as people with perfect hearing.

Am I leveraging it or am I calling you out for talking about women's bodies in a really crude (and misogynistic?) way while describing calling their anatomy and their treatments a vagina as inherently misogynistic?

Transmen are not a threat to men, as they are female, honestly most are clearly identifiable as female irl just as most transwomen are identifiable as male irl.

The main issue to me is that males who identify as women stick to the spaces of their own biological space i.e. the male toilets, changing rooms and so on. This is because women (real women) require single sex spaces an the basis of their biology, the needs and vulnerabilities that only females have.

Its very clear, its going to be illegal for males who identify as women to use women's single sex spaces, from now on they need to use the male spaces as they are indeed male.

You tell me. You were the one who started with this fuckwittery.

You might be happy at this point in time to share single sex spaces with the opposite sex, but their might come a time in your life when actually you don't feel comfortable with it.

Either as you age, not quite so sure of your body as you are now or you see someone being a bit 'shady' around your kids.

The laws are there for a reason. There are reasons why we dont have unisex hospital wards, prisons, army barracks, changing rooms.

People who are deaf have ears you're right. Being born without a uterus, cervix or ovaries definitely means you don't have a reproductive system.

Are you saying that a woman who has had reconstructive surgery because of a problem with her vagina has the same anatomy as a man who has had a penile inversion, or a neovagina constructed from colon material? I've certainly never heard of a woman with a prostate, for example.

And here it is again:

Some of the context that you seem to have ignored:

Today 15:54

It is incredible that some people have been led to believe that calling a blind cavity surgically inserted into a male groin is in any way a ‘vagina’.
That is seriously misogynistic. It dismisses the functions of a vagina except for one. It reduces a vagina to a fuckable hole.

Imagine posting supporting that vaginas are just fuckable holes on a feminist board.

Today 15:59

Do you understand for instance how misogynistic it is to call a cavity inserted into male person’s groin a vagina when it only serves the purpose of being or resembling a fuckhole ? You are posting on a feminist board, do you think you can address the misogynistic view you just posted?

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.

And what a shame that the posts that I was replying to where the poster was calling the cavities inserted into male people's groins 'vaginas' have been deleted.

I can tell you that women whose vaginas aren’t attached to a cervix are no more likely to need to dilate than women whose vagina is attached to a cervix.

I think you’re absolutely disgusting to try to use women like me as a way to argue that men should be allowed to access provision intended for women.

edit: for editing’s sake

.

You can have ears but a non-functioning auditory system.
Women can have a vagina but a non-functioning reproductive system.

Men cannot have a vagina. They can have a blind hole. There are quite a few online calling it a fuckhole