A little piece of insight

[Tandora]

Into a topic so woefully misunderstood.

Why is my distress to be disregarded in favour of the distress of the trans woman?

Because they know exactly who the women are, and your role as a woman is to be a prop and support service to men, no matter what it takes from you. Frequently, your trauma is also something to be fetishised and weaponised against you.

Because they know who the women are.

This is perfectly articulated.

You thanked a poster who acknowledged that some trans are in distress. Yet you never yourself listen to the women on here who tell you they will not accept men in women’s spaces because of the distress it causes women.

You never acknowledge the distress parents feel about their daughters having to use changing rooms with men in dresses being allowed into what is supposed to be one of the safe places girls have to undress in.

Frankly any empathy I might have ever had for trans distress has evaporated after all I’ve seen the trans and trans activists actions. The vile abuse online, the sexual comments made to women like KJ Kean or JK Rowling, the banning of women in Scottish pubs, the physical attacks on women by men in black masks, the teacher in Canada with fake breasts the size of football boots. The disabled woman arrested over innocuous stickers. The defence of a male pervert with penis in the Wi Spa. The women arrested over a picture of a ribbon on a tree, with a threat of having her children taken off her. The silencing of women. The theft of women’s sporting glory. Rapists in women’s prisons….

Those incidents cause me distress, they each are chilling to me, and not just for me, for my sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces, all women.

To quote a man: “Tandora, you need to reframe your trauma.”

'To impose explanations on other people's experience that contradict how those people understand their own experience is almost always dangerous and wrong headed'

What's the proposal for treating anorexics, Tandora? Paranoid schizophrenia?

That’s very sad. Very very sad. But they don’t get to use the women’s, instead.

Because that’s for women. And not for men. The depth and amount of that sadness is completely irrelevant. They could be a bit sad, “my dog died” sad, or entirely fucking suicidal. It doesn’t matter. It’s not for them. Stay out!

Are you starting to understand yet?

Again it's very simple-

Because being anorexic is completely incompatible with life- if you don't cure anorexia, people die. Thats why we try to cure it (although it can't always be cured).

Being trans is completely different. There is nothing inherently bad or dangerous or harmful or wrong about being trans . Gender dysphoria is causes significant harm to the person- being trans does not. the best way to "treat" gender dysphoria is to recognise/ affirm a person's experience of gender.

@Tandora
What does "affirm a person's experience of gender" mean?

You were asked before but chose to ignore the question

I understand what you are saying , I just cannot agree that it's acceptable / reasonable to impose policies across society that cause profound harm to some individuals - even if they are minorities/
different to the majority . We need to organise things/ make accommodations so that the basic dignity/ wellbeing of all people is protected, whether they are disabled, or autistic or gay or trans or female or left handed or etc, etc.

It is to recognise their experience of gender as real (because it is), legitimate, valid, and allow them to live out their life in a manner that is compatible/ tolerable from the standpoint of that experience.

The opposite is to tell a trans person that they are "wrong", "delusional" , etc, etc, because I say so.

But don't you see that some ways in which they want to live out their lives will not be compatible with others?

It's not right to present that expectation as achievable.

I don't believe gender is a thing that anyone has, mainly because no-one even pretended it did until the last couple of decades. All those millennia of human existence with no gender, but now we supposed to pretend it's real.

Here's an actual psychologist for you to denounce:

https://x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1808825717204922755

Do you not understand that If staying out of the women’s bathroom is something that causes “profound harm” to a man, the man is suffering a mental illness?

And that women are not there to provide relief to that man?

Women are not support animals and those men must find another way to alleviate the “profound harm” of not using women’s single sex spaces.

No. I do not agree that allowing trans people to be trans will harm society.
That idea is a construction rooted in transphobia ; it has become very politically popular in the UK at the present time.

I lived in an African country for a while where there were frequent articles in the paper about how the western ideology of homosexuality was spreading across the country and the terrible things it would do to society- to kids etc. I see what's happening right now in the UK, and the narratives about the dangers of "trans ideology" in just the same way as I saw those articles when I read them at the time.

Reading along, up to p11, and don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The ironies and inconsistencies are comically maddening.

Taupe challenges another poster, who’s simply arguing for a universal law to be upheld, of claiming to be the personal “moral arbiter” of who can and can’t use a single sex space…

…while arguing that each individual transwoman should assess the external signs of distress already exhibited in each individual woman in their presence, before himself (misgendering is necessary here for clarity, as the singular is key & “themself” doesn’t permit it) deciding whether to remain in, or leave, a single sex space.

I mean, where do you even start with this?

The failure to acknowledge the law that exists precisely to prevent the need for so-called individual “moral arbiters”?

The irony of (mistakenly) condemning a woman for claiming the role of “moral arbiter”… while gifting each individual trans woman with precisely that role?

The astonishing arrogance of the declaration that that these transwomen can make their decision based on their perception of a woman’s internal state (feelings of distress)?

The remarkable assumption that each omniscient transwoman will be able to read internal distress, judge degree of internal distress, assess that state in multiple women simultaneously in seconds, and act accordingly?

The unquestioning acceptance of some women already be experiencing significant, visible distress for this assessment even to be possible?

The lack of acknowledgement that distress can be very well hidden - and, fundamentally, typically is by women in this very context, as we feel unsafe showing it?

I’m wary of saying that some of those supporting this ideology don’t see women as fully human, but this really does seem to be the case here. In this proposal, the transwoman is omniscient judge, jury and executioner, and the multiple women present in the space, merely objects with little internal agency or reality, there to to be briefly assessed and dismissed on the basis of superficial external appearance.

I don’t know what’s more remarkable - the logical inconsistency, or the disregard for women as autonomous beings. I can only conclude that, for anyone arguing this, that the latter - denying women’s agency‘s - enables the former.

It’s no longer logically inconsistent if the only valid perception of reality and experience of emotion existing in that single-sex space is that of the transwoman.

@Tandora Except that was patently wrong because homosexuality doesn't affect others. So please don't use being gay as a comparison. It's lazy and wrong.

There’s at least one person on this thread who has repeatedly told you how they will be profoundly harmed if males, and that includes transwomen, are allowed in female spaces. She’s far from being alone. Why do you not care about that? Why are transwomen more important than vulnerable women?

"Gender" is simply terminology that was invented in the field of psychology to describe trans experience- it's been around since the 1950s. It's terminology the same way that "autism" - now known as ASD - is terminology (around since circa 1910). It doesn't mean that people with autism or trans people didn't exist before that time.

“Trans women” are still men, the Supreme Court agrees, and women and girls also have rights, whatever fascinating thoughts you have on the subject.

“Gender” had a long history in English of being a synonym for sex long before this. Perhaps the people responsible for the ‘invention’ in the 1950s should have actually ‘invented’ a term that wasn’t already in established language.

I would like you to respond to arguments of the psychologist who says that gender dysphoria does not exist, not ignore her very well set-out points.

x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1808825717204922755

Again, why do trans identified men need women's rights to live their lives? They have the same human rights as everyone else, and they have their additional rights on the basis of gender reassignment under the EA.
Why do they need women's rights? They can argue, with all the confidence and entitlement of their male privilege, and all the money raised by the likes of Stonewall and the GLP, and all the support of their handmaids, for third spaces.
Why do they argue that they need our spaces?
Their alleged sadness can be dealt with in a way which doesnt impinge on women's rights. Their current demands to female spaces and prizes does. If they want to impinge on my and my DD's rights, I don't care one jot how sad it makes them if I say no.

Not that 'gender' for sex was anything other than a coy slang term viewed as inappropriate in any serious, or even popular writing. I recently watched a 2017 episode of NCIS where there was repeated speculation as to an expected child's sex. No gender mentioned.

The lack of words for transgenderism in language outside clinical coinage is a clue to the fact that it was rare to the point of non-existence, unlike homosexuality.

I think tbh this thread is a stereotype busting non binary triumph. Here we are, women, being told about how sad men will be if we don’t fall into line. So very very sad. We’re being asked not to put ourselves first. Just look at how sad these men are! But we don’t care how sad they are, it’s still no.

I don't care whether trans has always existed or not. Or whether it exists at all. Each to their own. I'm agnostic, I suppose. Its existence or otherwise though is utterly irrelevant to the fact that sex does and has always existed, and matters sometimes in terms of how society works.
So none of the 'but they're so sad' or 'but you just don't understand' or 'but they've always existed' is of any relevance whatsoever to the fact that males need to keep out of female spaces, whether that involves sticking to male spaces, or having 3rd spaces.