TRA Trolls - can we just say NO?

[BlueEyedBogWitch]

A full thread of NO’s might be more powerful than trying to reason with someone who is not interested in reason.

Just one ‘NO’ each, until they get bored and go away. Every time.

After all, it sums up our arguments very succinctly.

An unfortunate omission for such an experienced academic in this area.

GC Feminists have the moral right to fight for the voices, needs, rights, empowerment and recognition of female people. Female bodied people.

Because however you define trans women, however you define woman even, nevertheless we exist in our own right.

And we matter as well.

So if you want a world where being a "woman" is nothing to do with the female body, fine. In that case, whatever trans women may or may not need, it is nothing to do with people who have female bodies, so frankly they can get the fuck out of our lane.

We exist entirely separately from whatever it is that trans women experience themselves to be, with needs trans women will never have, facing risks and challenges and frustrations trans women will never face, with a history that trans women didn't live. So by taking the female body out of womanhood, all you are doing is creating a vacancy for the social movement that stands up for the people who do have a female body.

You cannot win here. You cannot make womanhood mean men as well without making womanhood irrelevent to women.

What Flirts said.

Except obviously not, because the facilities you're requiring is forced access to non consenting women in a state of undress. 'Throwing them out' is neither rational nor actual, it's about permitting non consenting women one space and consenting women and men another.

Your solution leaves women without any facilities or resources at all if they don't submit to this, and there is no way that is ever going to be something people just accept and go along with, is it?

There has to be useable facilities for everyone. How are you seeing that working out?

Back-to-basics modernist anxiety segueing gleefully into post-modern chaos.
Maybe misunderstood, definitely oversimplified. But...

Isn't it kind of a paradox to say that 1) truth is subjective, nebulous 😁, fluid etc., but 2) that you're wrong if you say it isn't! Not dissimilar to: if you only understood my interpretation of (more irony) this group's understanding of themselves and their needs, then you'd reformulate your own understanding of yourselves and your needs!

So much of what we post above could be reworked by Tandora to suit their perspective. And vice versa. It's like a hall of mirrors. I mean, we all care about a particular vulnerable group. We all care about their right to define themselves as they wish, to perceive reality as they do and to set their boundaries accordingly.

But these boundaries clash. To deny this is to undermine any pretence at all to respect individual experience and vulnerable groups.

So it honestly is, to some degree, with distressing inescapability, down to a kind of oppression Top Trumps. It's an icky, belittling (deleted disrespectful, as didn't mean to imply any posters themselves were) phrase, but it's really apt as shorthand. Rights as a pie, a balancing of rights, whatever; the thing is, most posters here acknowledge this, and argue accordingly: facts, stats, research, logic, personal experience, suggested approaches, and, yes, contrasting subjective realities...

The thing is, it can't only be about the subjective realities side. Cos we all have these and - guess what? - they differ!

Like Flirts says, You cannot win here. You cannot make womanhood mean men as well without making womanhood irrelevent to women.

Like ol' Pete says, There has to be useable facilities for everyone. How are you seeing that working out?

Pleeeeeease can you answer posters' questions about provision for the majority of females that surveys suggest favour single-sex spaces?

It is a bit mad that after years and years of women trying to negotiate and discuss and having eventually force it all the way through court to the top to have the law confirmed against 'no debate' all the way - now the law is confirmed suddenly activists would love to discuss. It's a bit late for that.

The starting point has to be that no one can be left without an accessible space. No one.

The SC judgment is compassionate and equal in consideration to all; it just insists that women's rights and protections cannot be removed in favour of allowing other rights primacy over theirs. Equality.

The whole schtik about 'it's only a few they don't matter' (there's less TQ identified people than women affected), 'they're old and will be dead soon' - no, there's always going to be women needing single sex spaces 'their religions should't be allowed' - no, religious intolerance and suppression isn't an answer either and is the premise of the extreme political wings, not a great idea -

these women need spaces too. How are you going to make this work? All men need to do is tolerate women only spaces existing alongside mixed sex ones. That's all.

I really do want the laugh emoji back....

Or are we agreeing that the only possible solution for activists is achieving forced compulsion for women that they must undress and provide their bodies for the varied wishes and needs of men? Or be excluded from society and the resources and services they pay tax for?

How do you see that going in a human rights court?

I have mildly poked Tandora with a stick when she has not answered questions. And called out her weaponising women's distress.

She has floated around answering questions like a fart in a spacesuit, while claiming academic credibility that a 5 year old would scoff at.

Exactly. Women’s and girls’ needs have never been considered in terms of human rights law regarding this issue.

I quite hope the Good Law project take it there. I think women's right to not have to provide their body for men's use is probably going to come a bit higher than a man's right to require women are not permitted to refuse his use of them. However much he feels he needs them, sincerely believes his needs justify it, and what paperwork he possess.

It's so ludicrous. Always has been.

These people can't genuinely believe they stand a chance of getting courts to rule homosexuality doesn't exist and women have no right to private spaces to undress.

And it's perfectly obvious that after every post, they are turning people off, not on.

So I can only conclude, like others, that it's attention seeking, or narcissism.

Particularly when you really look at the meaning of 'private spaces to undress' which in fact means a space where a man cannot be present to experience that woman undressing as he wishes to. Or in many situations, because this goes FAR further than just toilets and changing rooms, a right not to be intimately handled by a man to create his desired experience of being permitted to do something to her that other men aren't.

It is always about his benefit and gratification of using her body to meet his needs.

With the repeated question - there are women who consent. Why is the target the non consenting women?

Maslow's helped me.

I know it's not straightforwardly applicable - like, Tandora would categorise trans people's needs to access opposite-sex spaces as physiological (bottom tier) or safety (next one up) needs.

But in the pyramid, these are inarguably physical demands: female bodily functions; female physical weakness: female hygiene needs (including the cleaner floors and seats of female toilets).

Imposing on them new post-modern reinterpretations on these (eg. of safety as psychological) is itself as sign of upper-tier privilege (we're lucky to have the facilities to wash our hands and wash our long trousers if need be after using a uni-sex space!)

Going right back to fundamentals, females don't have the privilege of escaping their physical vulnerabilities. It would (will?! does) become so very, very clear in the event of large-scale humanitarian catastrophe and apocalypse stripping away what we currently enjoy.

Love, belonging and self-actualisation are important, but come later. It's wonderful that our society is privileged enough to focus on accommodating these too - but it shouldn't be at the expense of the fundamentals.

https://share.google/images/TPm9vv6Vd5USCXGhX

The consenting women aren't sport. It's the winning over the non consenting that gives the thrill.

Because the only way to prove they are real women is to be accepted by all women.

Tandora, that's not to diminish the appalling suffering of gender dysphoria. It's just to, again, try to offer a hypothetical concrete, if clumsy, approach to an impossible dilemma. Like with my post above, I'm now wanting to type a page of worried qualifying analysis, as I know Maslow's flawed and totally inadequate to the needs of the genuinely dysphoric etc... but I'm trying to resist in the name of staying specific!

Absolutely this. Reminds me of that meme where there’s a women’s changing room with all just trans women and they’re pissed off. Or something like that.

Or that masters swimming race that was categorised as open, and none of them turned up.

Agree. It’s a power trip, and there are sometimes more unsavoury reasons.

I’m not convinced that a lot of them actually believe they are women or want to be “women” in the true sense. They’ve built up this mysticism about being “trans” as if it’s some higher plane of existence. Which would be fine if they left women out of it.

I now have an ear worm of Josh Wink's 'higher state of consciousness', so thanks for that 🤣

Yeah, this exclusive absolutism is the thinking that really nails it for me (there's maybe some term in logic for it?!)...

We're suggesting an additive approach: creating additional, if imperfect, third or fourth spaces for trans people, while respecting sex and sexual orientation alongside gender identity and trans identification. Tan seems to be suggesting whatever the opposite of additive is - negating something a group currently enjoys the use of, while replacing sex and sexual orientation with gender identity.

In one scenario, everyone has something, even if they're really not happy with it. In the other, certain groups have nothing: no spaces, no word even, of their own.

Neither's perfect - but one's arguably the lesser evil.

It’s mad, and people are either too self interested, scared or both to say no to trans rights activists. But I maintain that it will ultimately be the issue which causes a problem for all the left leaning political parties.

@Ereshkigalangcleg absolutely. I want them to all go to the Greens so LD might actually recognise 51% of the population again. I refuse to vote for them if they are gender blind just as much as I wouldn't vote for any politician or party stuck in the Victorian era where women don't get the vote. You'd never be guaranteed a real woman in the party ever again. I don't want a man who won't use the word cervix deciding female medical policy for example.