A space for respectful dialogue about sex, gender and diversity

[Tandora]

This is a thread for posters who want to talk and share a diverse range of opinions about sex, gender, being gender non-conforming and/or trans, and public policy. It is to learn from each other; to engage in a productive exchange, and to hear different sides of the story.

It is not a space for bullying and insults. Please do not join if your intention is to control the conversation and undermine those who disagree with you.

I agree. Especially as it clearly doesn't change anyone's mind.

Maybe that's why Tandora left, though. Because it was pointless.

It's certainly why a lot of other TRAs leave.

Yes.

It's interesting when you say okay, I hear what you're saying, but what's in it for women?

Even the question will sometimes not compute

The categories changed though. The previous ones listed “women only toilets for survivors of SA or those with other trauma or acceptable reasons” (my summary because I can’t be bothered right now to go back and find it.

that made me so angry.

a trans person is allowed in because of something that is internal cognition, but a woman has justify her inclusion by an externally - set list of criteria.

'bit woman' not sure why ive put the word but in there!

I meant being a woman!

Was twenty years confirmed? I asked if that meant qualifications started pre 2005 but I saw no reply.

Was it confirmed?

I ask because expertise has been something the poster has claimed for around two years but recently I noticed it was being quantified as this ‘two decades’. What universities were offering courses focused on studying gender identity where male people were claiming to be female prior to 2005? Or is there sone fudging happening to flesh out the qualifications claims to appear to have greater authority so people stop disagreeing?

Reminder.

What percentage of women have been sexually assaulted?

Given this number is ridiculously high we should call these the default women's toilet due to the sheer demand...

To be clear his/her description of a transWOMAN was "a person with some male sex characteristics who thinks they're female", which could apply equally to transmen and transwomen.

I'm not sure I read anything about qualifications.

Just two decades of intense study.

Well frankly, I feel like I've done a decade of intense study!

The difference being, of course, that I haven't come up with a definition of transwomen that could apply to both men and women 😁

I asked about the some. Some means not all so what are the some obstacle sex characteristics that trans women have and what ones don’t they have. Or words to that effect.

I didn’t get an answer.

It was "decades of academic experience", which I believe should really imply 25, 30, 40 years or more.

PPs interpreted "decades" as "20" on the basis that it has to be at least two to be a plural, and deep cynicism that it was more.

Yes, it felt as though T suddenly realised they were on hiding to nothing by stating categorically that women who have been raped must share their private spaces with men.

So concessions started to creep in.

Don’t expect those concessions to remain on the next thread.

It made me angry too.

Reminded me of that ridiculous video, years back now, of that Riley lad- Dennis was it? - who made the video explaining it was the duty of lesbians to provide sex to men with gender identity of lesbian, and that he would permit them a short sick leave to recover if they had been a victim of sexual assault, but they then needed to get back on duty asap. He felt this was being the soul of modern and progressive feminism.

This total inability to see women as anything other than parts being inconveniently gatekept from use by men in need is the foundation of it all. The endless threads trying to talk the turkeys into organising Christmas dinner because poor diners, needing them.

Red I loved the phrase about many FWR posters naturally being a ''bit woman'. Yes. Pro women. For women. About women. Starting from them being people and humans with lives in their own rights as opposed to are they properly respecting and servicing male interests as their priority.

I think there are a bunch of different potential vested interests. Obviously with parents, there's the split between those who say "oh shit, my DC is going down a path that will damage their health" and those who say "oh shit, my DC is a suicide risk if I don't immediately affirm them".

We have the first group here of course. The second group will often turn up saying "I'm a cis woman and I think you're all being really mean", and then it turns out they have a close family member or close friend with a trans identity. They get particularly upset about mentions of AGP - and I've come to believe almost all trans-identifying males, even the gay ones, have some element of AGP - because naturally no mother wants to think of her son as having a weird sexual fetish.

With some of the fanatical TRAs I know, it's not a familial or financial vested interest. They're people from the left activist world who have developed an ideological vested interest. Often they're youngish women from very privileged backgrounds who will identify an certain demographic - in this case "the TIM", in other contexts it might be "the Palestinian" or something else - and put them on a pedestal and treat them as some combination of holy oracle and purse puppy. It's all a bit like Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic with its portrait of posh white socialites fawning over the Black Panthers.

With those people it often leads to a kind of brittle fanaticism.

Those who do that Dungeon Master thing of "I'm going to police how you are allowed to have a discussion" - well, it's very reminiscent of Reddit mods, isn't it? The desire for control can be quite a vested interest of its own.

They are only on this thread to try and keep the pretence of the concept of 'respectful' up.

It's utter superficial, disingenuous bullshit just like the use of the word 'respectful' throughout the thread.

Knowing how your predictions almost always come true, I'm groaning a bit at that

The fact that you have received no answers to any of your reasonable questions is well noted.

I think that Tandora meant to imply that TW are women who have more than one male characteristic (perhaps a penis, perhaps they are rather tall, perhaps they have broad shoulders). She was trying to obscure the fact that all characteristics on males are male characteristics.

The problem is that the paragraph starting with 'a person's identity' is an artificial contruct. It simply doesn't exist in a concrete way. It's more of an philosophical explanation invented by people who claim to have it.

It can't be quantified or tested in any way as it is not a physically or scientific observable thing. There is no evidence yet that it exists.

So there is little agreement because real woman simply don't feel this. It's not seperate from their body. It sounds invented or artificial or a delusion simply to fit an agenda for trans identifying men.

Unless we find a way of finding this concept and observing or testing it we are stuck at this disagreement.

The fascinating thing looking at the photos of the protesters outside Filia was the universal keffiyeh fashion accessories...

@Tandora I had a theory the other day and I would love to be able to see if it is something that has legs or if it is a complete red herring so this will sound completely bizarre (and obviously this being the internet I would have no way of knowing if any answer you give is true or not) but are you fairly average height (with a couple of inches either side of 5'4"), above average or below average?

I’m going to start every controversial post where I’m seeking to control the narrative with “respectfully” and see how long it takes before some of you lot tell me to wise the fuck and stop being a dork, respectfully

Tandora clarified two decades.

If I remember correctly, and Datun might also remember, the concession was made quite a while ago that women who needed single sex spaces should have their own space. That was the ‘third’ space suggested at one time. Although, maybe it was ‘for those with GC beliefs’ and that was the phrasing.

I don’t remember it was phrased as being ‘a single sex space for female people who needed single sex provision’ at all.

I was just thinking that.

It was quite illustrative watching this poster start popping up on threads (on AIBU too) about 6 months ago, then progress to positioning themselves as an expert, then starting threads that were just plausible enough, and finally spinning into yesterday's whirlwind of controlling behaviour before finally imploding.

I haven't really got fully formed thoughts on it but the bit in the middle interested me most, it reminded me of that Roald Dahl story, Royal Jelly somehow.