Talking to non GC people

[Sausagenbacon]

I've been chatting to a few people recently about gender issues, and their opinion runs roughly like this ' we should all listen to each other, and not be so unpleasant. But of course, men shouldn't be in women's sports'
Which begs the question that, if GC people hadn't been 'unpleasant' men would have been firmly in women's sports.
So, should I be pleased that public opinion has shifted slightly, or should I be banging my head against the wall?

But you failed to appreciate in your post about trans men that it was your error because you can’t seem to keep on top of your own arguments or logic.

You can’t even make it clear what makes someone a woman based on your logic, so a mastectomy makes just as much sense as a mammoplasty.

Using "looks feminine enough to pass " as the criterion for letting men into women's spaces is not practical.

If nothing else, there would be an endless stream of discrimination lawsuits from other transwomen who were considered not to pass and denied access. Especially ones who had been through the full works of hormones and surgery etc but were just too ruggedly built to feminise successfully. That really would be discrimination.

If passing = fooling all of the people all of the time, it would only take one rather more observant new service user or staff member and you would no longer pass. If passing just = fooling some of the people some of the time, then how many? How often? And what about the people who aren't fooled and know fine well that there's a man in their space? Don't they matter?

And finally: looking feminine is no guarantee that you won't think and act like a male chauvinist pig. It isn't all about rape and testosterone.

I am actually doing other things at the same time as writing on here.

I am certain they would not raise an eye in a woman’s toilet, but I would be worried for them in a men’s.

Why would you be worried for them in the men's? There has never been one case of a transwoman or even 'nonbinary' person being attacked in the men's. In fact, many transwomen say they have no problems using the mens, even made up fully as a woman. The worst they get, apparently, is a smirk. They're not in any danger. Actually there is a transwoman on twitter who has videos of them entering the mens, even at the urinals. No problemo!! None at all. Proving it can be done. Men pee, shake and go. They don't even look at others in there.

And, when you consider effeminate gay men have used the mens for decades, and never once complained about it or tried to use the ladies, the argument that transwomen are not safe in the mens or for some reason can't use them, falls completely apart.

Lastly, that women duck into the mens when the queue for the ladies is so long, and have no problems, show there is no danger.

I suspect they use individual toilets whenever they can, because they are very adverse to any form of attention or conflict.

Sorry, but anyone with a constantly shifting definition, does it for attention. That's what it's all about. Someone not out for attention picks one and sticks with it and blends in with it. 'Non binary' has been taken up by they/thems for a need to feel special and stand out. It's all attention-seeking, and nothing else.

Posted this on another thread:

I think there's a workable middle-ground solution. Anyone who doesn't pass should have to produce a gender cert if challenged, and the certs shouldn't be issued until they have undergone a medical, social, and psychological transition - including a full course of hormone treatment, if not surgery.
In practice, it's self-regulating because post-transition trans women look just like women (like the ones I posted upthread here too), are no danger to anyone, and no one bats an eyelid. And anyone who is clearly a regular man should be - and is - kept out.

Maybe it's not 100 percent a perfect solution, but you can't please everyone, and I think this is the most fair. At least imo.

Sure, that’s the reason you can’t logically explain what a woman is🙄

You have a very strange definition of 'hate'.

It is not 'hate' to say males should not enter female only intimate safe single sex spaces. We don't hate males (though the male sex class gives us every reason to hate them). We just don't want them in our spaces. It is disingenuous, manipulative and gaslighting to call females needing female only spaces as 'hating males'.

Males are 50% of the population. They are the predator and oppressor sex class. Males are the ruling class. They are not any kind of 'minority'.

It is not 'hate' for women to have spaces to get UNDRESSED away from males. It is HATE to say women and girls don't get to have rights to safety, privacy and dignity. That, THAT, is TRUE HATE.

And, MEN are not a minority!!!

The truly fair solution would be third spaces for feminised men who don't feel comfortable with other men. Whether some trans women pass or they've spent a certain amount of time on hormones is neither here nor there. There are plenty of women, particularly women who have suffered trauma at the hands of men, who need spaces, especially where they will be particularly vulnerable or in a state of undress, with the assurance that there will be NO males around. No matter how much those males have prettified themselves. Why don't you care about those women? This btw is an interview with the person you keep posting.

Maybe to you this person looks completely indistinguishable from a real woman, but to me they don't, and I think most people would at least do a double take. I don't want some particularly vulnerable women excluding themselves from society because a certain subset of men have been given a legal right to be in women's spaces.

We've been over this. Taking hormones does NOT feminise men in any way. There is evidence of this, such as sports and strength tests. Also hormones do not change the male skull. So no, it does not 'feminise' them, so I don't know why you lie about this. And you say "if not surgery". If they still have a penis then they have no business being where RAPE SURVIVORS LIKE ME are. Who should not have to be "tolerant" of fully intact males in our change rooms and toilets just because they inject 'hormones'. You may end up convincing yourself, but you won't convince those with eyeballs and those with education.

Also posting photoshopped pictures does not help you agenda. It's clear you refuse to educate yourself and learn from those of us who know what we're talking about, you'd rather remain blissfully ignorant to serve your agenda of hatred of women.

I lost time to edit my reply to you. I add on to say that taking hormones is not 'proof' they are 'genuine' trans. Transwomen themselves call Estrogen "titty skittles", they take it to grow boobs, which they say they enjoy playing with and getting aroused doing so (I can furnish you with screencaps from trans sites where they admit this very thing). It's a SEXUAL FETISH. It is not proof they are 'genuine' trans, you are so naive. They take hormones to grow 'titties' to play with, their own words. That's all. It's a sexual fetish for many, not proof they are genuine trans. You underestimate the lengths pornified men will go to, to satisfy a fetish. Men will go to ANY lengths. Nothing is far too much or far too great for them. Having boobs they can play with one hand while they jerk their cock with the other (yes, they've outlined this in the MtF trans reddit threads, I have proof) is their dream come true. It does not mean they are 'genuine transwomen'.

Lastly I see you still haven't learned when you were corrected yesterday. Transwomen are not at any risk in the mens. There has never been one case of a transwoman or even 'nonbinary' person being attacked in the men's. In fact, many transwomen say they have no problems using the mens, even made up fully as a woman. The worst they get, apparently, is a smirk. They're not in any danger. Actually there is a transwoman on twitter who has videos of them entering the mens, even at the urinals. No problemo!! None at all. Proving it can be done. Men pee, shake and go. They don't even look at others in there.

And, when you consider effeminate gay men have used the mens for decades, and never once complained about it or tried to use the ladies, the argument that transwomen are not safe in the mens or for some reason can't use them, falls completely apart.

Lastly, that women duck into the mens when the queue for the ladies is so long, and have no problems, show there is no danger.

So your 'passing' transwomen are in danger in the mens argument FALLS APART.

And even if it were true, ( which as I PROVED, it isn't) women are NOT HUMAN SHIELDS for men in a dress. They can advocate for third spaces, which is what we have suggested for a DECADE! If it were really about safety, they'd eagerly embrace a safe space of their own. But it never was about safety, and you know it. It's only about validation. You don't get to come on here, tell us a fox with some feathers stuck on him is 'unsafe' with other foxes, so you are putting him in the hen house. Women say NO to that. They accept a third space, or nothing at all. Women are not, and NEVER WILL BE human shields for the male species. Not now, NOT EVER! Understand?!?

Oh yes you most certainly do! All of your arguments are extremist, as well as hateful and sexist.

Mastectomy is removal of the breasts. Men who identify as women have breast IMPLANTS. Not 'removal'.

This whole topic is about MALE vs FEMALE. Not 'trans'.

The male sex are not a 'minority' in any one's language. They are the ruling rapey, predator and oppressor sex class. That does not change because 1% of that sex class puts on a dress instead of a suit and tie. Men, are not a minority.
HTH

The topic is not about trans men. They are irrelevant. They are completely and utterly irrelevant to the entire topic. And no threat to us. The topic is about males who pose/identify as women e.g transwomen. Transwomen have breast implants. Not breast reductions.

We know she only looked up the word for breast implants after her mistake was pointed out to her...

And even then, the term is Breast Augmentation. Not Mammoplasty.

because post-transition trans women look just like women

Lol, no they most certainly do not! They may take 'titty skittles' and grow 'tits', but they will still have male jawbone, adams apple and male voice. As well as male gait (which means walk, and stance/way of standing) because of the position of the male pelvic bone which affects movement.

This has already been explained to you, and faked photos really don't prove your point.

Still men. Also wondering about the use of filters.

Hello Clever Clogs giving it the 'the GC are being dicks because they don't accept x'.

I do not agree with self-ID and I think that a completed transition should be required to get a GC. By that I mostly mean a completed hormonal and social transition. Doesn't have to be surgery.

Well it's tough shit what you think on this, because courts have ruled that you can't make a distinction like this - you can't make transition dependant on medicalisation so that argument there is stone cold dead. It's irrelevant. It's regarded as a human rights related issue. So instead of complaining that GC women are the problem, actually know and understand why we are at where we are.

The GC lobby won't have it, but the hormone treatment turns men effectively into women for all practical purposes like safety.

The GC lobby won't have made up nonsense that has no scientific basis. 'All practical purposes' my arse. That's a definition that's doing some heavy lifting. It's not what the data says. Who says what 'all practical purposes' means anyway. Frankly it's not going to change shit relating to dignity and privacy related issues for starters. Now one of the practical reasons I've wanted to have access to single sex provision has been related to outdoor sport. As part of this there was a group I was interested in which focused on the barriers women faced and what was putting them off.

They had a talk and it was about how the socialisation of men in outdoor sport was so off-putting. They are more macho and want to take more risks whereas women are more cooperative and collaborative and like to learn at a different pace. One of the reasons for this isn't to do with aggression. It's to do with physical size and strength - for example, women have to learn skills much more than rely on brute strength. Taking hormones doesn't stop a man still being 6'1 and all the equipment being designed for them nor does it stop their reach and ability to paddle in a different way to women. It doesn't make it harder to carry a boat by yourself...

Then there's the other issues. Child care and periods and menopause. All of which create unique barriers that women have that men don't. The talk went on at length about the impact of this and how women didn't feel comfortable talking about these issues around men and how it affected confidence. There's a lot of elements regarding bodily dignity and privacy here as the subject is highly personal to many women in terms of their lives experience of this. No hormones change your inner biology and make men have periods or go through menopause and how this affects muscle strength and bone strength in women. Frankly a man in this conversation is an intruder and an observer with the best will and the most amazing drugs on offer.

And of course at the end of this talk along came a man to demonstrate how he'd completely missed the point of the majority of points covered in the previous 30 mins by declaring "can transwomen join", which killed off all other questions and made everyone listening disappear at speed. It was fascinating to watch.

So in terms of 'all practical reasons' the fact that this is being defined by individuals who place no value on any of this, and dismiss it as not a practical reason for the purposes of their argument really says a lot about who is making those judgements. It's not women.

What you see in these conversations is the repeated pivot by trans activists to safety together with a blackmail element.

So we talk about toilets and TRAs throw a hissy fit about how very dare you talk about safety because that's not fair to my gentle mate, who wouldn't hurt a fly. Thus a) dismissing the lived experience of any women with trauma around men and lived experience of any woman who has had a negative experience with a transwoman relating to safety (which we know is happening and we know isn't being reported for various reasons) and b) choses to ignore the dignity and privacy elements for women.

TRAs DO NOT want to talk about b. They have the argument that it breeches the privacy and dignity of transwomen to force them to use the mens, but they do not want to reflect on the impact to privacy and dignity of women caused by males entering their spaces. It's a one sided conversation in a debate which is about equality and how everyone has a right to privacy and dignity.

In these conversations, you see it time and again. Whenever this is pointed out and women start talking about the importance of b, you see a deliberate pivot by TRAs to return to 'how very dare you talk about how transwomen are a threat to safety', because it shifts the conversation. It's a deflection and distraction technique.

Women should be making decisions about what is important to them and what the weasel phrase 'all practical reasons' means, because it's reflective of their lives experience and how it differs from what males see and value.

Every single time I have the conversation about 'well why do women need single sex stuff' and I talk about how it's been useful and really beneficial to me, every single person who has gruffly and indignantly tried to trip me up with it, has gone "you know what you actually have a point there, that's fair and worthwhile" and this is what pisses me off. They don't think about it and it's not something they'd us but it's something of value to others and they get benefits from it. Once they know and have visibility of this, they shift in opinion. But they are happy to throw away stuff they don't know about because it's not on their radar. Worst still they often don't want to have conversations that reveal this type of women's stakeholder position because those conversations in themselves they've already prejudged to be 'transphobic' rather than merely woman centric, because they are a bunch of dicks - often literally a bunch of dicks.

So perhaps for once, get off the pot and actually LISTEN to women rather than trying to blame women for legal issues that are nothing to do with them and to reasons why 'for all practical reasons' is a weasel phrase defined by men for men and not reflective of the world of lived experiences that women have.

You see nothing reductive in a definition and opinion made by YOU, which is deliberately ignoring all the difference points of reference and experiences of a bunch of women on this thread who you are actively telling have opinions that don't count and definitions you don't agree with and present evidence you have don't like...

... and you think you aren't being reductive.

Oh dear, the irony klaxon just broke.

Again, the law fucking sucks mate. This as a 'workable solution' has been defined as a none starter. What you think is bloody irrelevant.

And it's not about 'pleasing' anyone. It's about lawful protections you aren't allowed to pick and choose because it suits a trans agenda. Women have legal rights to protection from harm and to their dignity and privacy.

Until these are recognised and considered in any strategy then women will continue to say 'fuck this shit', not because they are 'anti trans' but because their legal rights and protections are being ignored and ridden over rough shot to please males.

It's not about being nice. It's about the fucking law.

“the hormone treatment turns men effectively into women for all practical purposes like safety. It dampens sex drive and gets rid of much muscle, replacing it with fat. (This is according to the "Feminising Therapy" page of The Mayo Clinic, which is the world's no. 1 hospital.)”

This is egregious misinformation and it should be removed from that site. We know from the sports studies and the sports testing regimen, plus from reading reports from clinicians that testosterone suppression effects (without removing the testes) is unreliable. Even on a regular consistent dosage.

And we also know other things from the sports studies.

Firstly, even the weakest 25% of male people have more strength than 90% of female people. Therefore, they most definitely are a significant risk to female people.

Secondly, that the loss of muscle mass is only from male people who deliberately stop any activity that will sustain their muscle mass. It is a deliberate act. Muscle mass can also be retained with training if that male person wanted to. And regained. So no, a male person choosing to change his physical profile is not evidence that reducing testosterone ‘weakens’ male people. It simply proves that male people can use different methods of changing their body’s appearance.

It is also why the international sporting organisations have now excluded male people with suppressed testosterone competing as female people. The science was conclusive and that wrong decision by those sporting federations has been reversed. Sadly, there are people still spreading these out dated theories.

Thirdly, weakened male people still have significant other physical advantages that will never be removed and are based on their male physiology. So weakened muscle mass becomes somewhat irrelevant.

Leverage from skeletal differences, bone density, twitch muscle proportions, hand size, hip alignment and posture are just some of the other advantages that will contribute to male person being able to overpower a female person. These are also noticeable in boys vs girls from 6 or 7 years old.

The sports evidence thread upthread has these studies and papers linked up on it. The science is already proven. This information you have written about muscle mass is false. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Testosterone suppression does not mean a male person is committing sex offences. Sexual abuse and sexual assaults do not require a working penis. A poster once posted a study that also showed that castrated men still were very capable of sexual violence, sometimes due to frustration, I will see if I can find it.

We know though that male people even have eunuch fetishes and fantasies and there are people actively discussing doing surgeries on themselves or on each other. This is one of the known male paraphilias and there have been at least one eunuch fetishist involve at senior advisory level with WPATH.

So no, fewer erections and weakening themselves does not make them women. It also has fuck all effect in reducing safety issues.

Also, how can redistributing fat and reducing testosterone be considered changing sex? Being male is hard coded into every cell and is unchangable. Dr Robert Winston stated this very clearly on UK national TV. Many other medical experts have said the same thing.

If those were definitive changes, an ill male person who is undergoing treatment for disease where testosterone is suppressed would be eligible to be considered a female person.

Thanks though, your points also highlight the inherent and significant misogyny in those who consider these aspects as changing sex. Because you have described female people as just weakened, suppressed testosterone male people amongst other things. Such as female people also having a low male libido and male sexual intercourse behaviour- without prostrate and penis.

This means the female aex category that is not unique, but accessible to the entire world population if they chose these methods. The very opposite of unique and distinct. And the very opposite of definable.

This is misogyny in action.

Please stop spreading misinformation, even information being wrongly given by sites with seeming medical authority.

I do not want to get undressed in front of a man I'm not in a sexual relationship with. Any male. Even a man I've previously had a relationship with or my son; men I trust and respect.

There are men in my life who identify as trans. One in particular that I know, I do think is lovely. I know he wouldn't harm me. I've known him since he was ten. We helped him with various things as he grew up into a 6'3" strapping bloke.

And that's just it. I will never be able to put my past knowledge aside and see him as female, with all the kindness and love and best intentions in the world. Simply because he's a male. And will be no matter how many hormones or how much surgery he has. Because I know, and it still matters to me in terms of my own privacy and dignity.

The idea of having to share a changing room and get dressed in front of him is horrendous. I feel embarrassed and shamed and undignified because he's male and I'm female. If there were other women in the room, how would I feel about staying silent about it? I wouldnt feel happy. I'd feel like I'd violated them and withheld information which would change their consent if they knew.

And I will always know this. This isn't bigoted. This is a natural instinct designed to protect us combined with socialisation. Asking us to override these feelings and distress us in the process is not ok. I'm sorry but you can't switch this off. More so if you have had a traumatic sex related experience.

There are plenty of situations where women and girls are being asked to put aside this knowledge and get their kit off. There is absolutely no way to stealth hide your sexed body in these scenarios. All this guff about passing is fucking irrelevant in these cases. The court cases we are seeing ALL have people who are openly trans. So why do we persist with this idea that somehow transwomen are people unknown to you and you don't know their trans status?!

Faked photoshopped pics with filters are at best a shit argument. At worse they are a dishonest representation to, once again, deflect from the points that women make about their actual lives and lived experience.

This isn't a theoretical lesson in morality and ideological purity. This is about (oh shit the irony klaxon just got fixed and is going off) practical every day scenarios which women have to deal with in their actual lives. God forbid women get to actually talk about this and have it recognised.

Photos on the internet are not real life. Notice the way how many of them have to pose in unnatural positions in an attempt to hide their male body cues for a start.

In uncurated and software adjustable real life, there will be female people who will correctly identify the sex of even the male who has undergone the most extreme body modification. Even from puberty.

In addition, as those male people age, their genetics will change their bodies using their genetic coding and so their features will change with age following that coding. Meaning they will likely have to have further surgeries if that is possible.

putting up photos of male people in this way is meaningless. They are male people still. Likely with extreme body modification to achieve a particular appearance.