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?

I would tell you all but then I would have to…

Honestly politicians and toilets have long history from William Bankes MP to Colin Smyth MSP. There’s lots of stories.

In summary they are the location used for having sex so are a problem then for blackmail. Certain politicians have been warned by security services not to use toilets the way they have done in the past for reasons of national security.

Newer enclosed private toilets with sinks, ventilation vents, smoke alarms, hand dryers give people a false sense of security but also the opportunity to spend time putting hidden cameras up without them or the cameras being noticed.

Politicians don’t seem to be able to stop doing activities that could later lead to blackmail. A few of politicians argued against making having sex in a public toilet a specific offence in the Sexual Offences Act - the argument being it was discriminatory towards men - they lost. Therefore they can be encouraged to behave well and within the law by providing a toilet design that discourages the behaviour in the first place.

I’m not a trans activist. Never have been. Never been remotely tempted to be. And much closer to being the opposite if I had to choose (I could quite possibly be completely converted with one calm, respectful conversation if anybody bothered). My post was free of sarcasm (and sneer). I stated explicitly that I was muddled, and moving in my views, and included numerous statements of belief that are much more aligned with most people on this thread.

Maybe I lack empathy, but I simply cannot see how one can see that women deserve rights (eg sport) whilst also saying that women don't deserve all rights - the right to privacy in a theatre toilet is not reasonable, nor is the right of an orthodox jewish woman to go to a theatre reasonable (too bad she can't go because there's no single sex toilet for her to use).

"As I said, this has not been the issue I’ve engaged on greatly"

Men can be women, therefore women have no rights separate from men. Men cannot be women and women therefore have rights. Pick a side, you really don't need to spend much time or effort engaging!!!

"on the other side, would be having female only streets after 7pm. or female only hotels"

Surely the starting point is that in 2015 women had rights to single sex spaces in terms of toilets, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis etc etc. No-one has ever explained why women should have fewer rights (men wanting them does not count), so the starting point is "lets defend women's rights".

The following point, a totally different point which can only follow once basic women's rights are re-affirmed, is "should women have more rights? Would women only streets or women-only hotels give women a genuine benefit, and if so can it be done in a way that does not unreasonably harm men?"

For what it's worth I think women only hotels make a lot of sense. I think they could be popular, and I think they could be provided without destroying men's right to a hotel room. I think women only streets makes a lot of sense too, but it is much harder to imagine it being enacted without unreasonable restrictions on men. [I suspect women might find it easier to imagine that unreasonable restrictions on men via the law is no worse than unreasonable restrictions on women via their self-protection mechanism than I do]

No. A lot of what you have posted here does not make sense.

Perhaps you are also assuming sarcasm and accusation where there was none? For instance, I pointed out that a particular situation where people have not experienced something as being 'privileged' and you have now stated that you were accused of being 'privileged'. I guess the only come back would be to ask, are you?

But you have already said you support female single sex toilets and you understand the points that I was making because you have had some experience with the issues... so, that wouldn't indicate to me that you would in the privileged position that I referred to generally.

I am now genuinely confused as to what you are saying about why some people dismiss women's concerns about the toilet issue. Are you making statements about what other people have said why they dismiss the discussion that are no reflection of your personal opinion? If so, how do you know that your statements about what they think is true?

I could quite possibly be completely converted with one calm, respectful conversation if anybody bothered

I'm afraid you are going to have to put in the hard graft yourself, like we all did, if you consider that the existence of the sex-class of women is worth defending. There is a wealth of information on these threads and plenty of books we could recommend to you.

As a PP stated, you might benefit from considering:

Are there provisions which are currently female-only which you think should also include any men who say they are women?
If so, why wouldn't you just include all men in those provisons, rather than just a sub-set of men?

I think the point about spectrum is that either a space is single sex or it isn't.

I'm perfectly happy for people to argue that the WI should be mixed sex but it seems very regressive to argue that a man who likes making jam and talks on local wildlife should be excluded unless he claims to identify as a woman.

Conversely, as I said before, I don't have as instinctively strong feelings about single sex spaces as many on this board, although I understand the logic and I support women's rights to set boundaries. What does seems mad is to make the argument for single sex spaces and to then argue that I should be wary of this man but not that man.

Being told that one person was assaulted in a specific place and circumstance by a specific type of person will certainly horrify me, but is not the same kind information and can be misused to stoke emotion.

I think these examples are often used to rebut 'this never happens' claims. However, we have another problem in that the police have not been recording data accurately, so sometimes a lack of evidence is an intrinsic part of the problem.

I would also make another point - we shouldn't have to wait for the figures showing that women have been assaulted to take steps to prevent assault. If we agree that this is one of the reasons that we have single sex spaces, why weaken boundaries?

It does make me think of the safety of spacious disabled facilities, which are closed but aided with an alarm and big enough to have companions in together if desired….

@financialcareerstuff I am glad you are thinking about design and how it affects the outcome. Of course alarms aren’t foolproof and often are out of reach by being tied up. Disabled toilets should be the most monitored and clean toilets. The problems are known.

"What I am saying is that for me at least, a factual aggregation of problems is far more convincing than individual horror stories in deciding the right position on an issue."

Many threads have both and discuss both. They have the prisoner statistics which is the only statistics that is reliably gathered and reported by sex and shows, as confirmed by professors in criminology and in sociological research, that that specific group of male people does not show they are less likely to commit sexual offences than any other male group of people. And they then will drill down when other posters demand examples of crimes being committed by male people with transgender identities specifically in toilets.

What more can women do than present both macro level discussion and specific discussion when that is demanded as proof of the macro level pattern? And if you have not seen it, would you like us to link up the threads where this happens?

And this is not sarcasm, this is a genuine question.

"I could quite possibly be completely converted with one calm, respectful conversation if anybody bothered"

We are right here! If you what people to be have that respectful conversation, can I recommend that you take advantage of the fact we are here and are engaging with you? There is no better time.

For me the main point is that you can't even have the conversation about which facilities should be single sex if we can't be honest about which facilities are single sex.

I dont think that's true at all. I'm not gender critical. You've misrepresented the argument haven't you? Its about how you classify a woman. Obviously there's a difference in what you would accept regarding someone entering into womens sports. So from their perspective gender critical people have not prevented men from entering womens sports, they've prevented some women from entering womens sports.

"I'm perfectly happy for people to argue that the WI should be mixed sex but it seems very regressive to argue that a man who likes making jam and talks on local wildlife should be excluded unless he claims to identify as a woman."

I think there should be groups for this. But don't call it the 'Women's' Institute if it includes men. Rename it and move on if the membership agrees. Or start a generic one that is fully mixed sex.

Sorry, who are you replying too?

as confirmed by professors in criminology and in sociological research, that that specific group of male people does not show they are less likely to commit sexual offences than any other male group of people.

It could also show that some men (disproportionately those who have committed sexual offences) have cottoned on to the idea that they will have an easier time in prison/have better access to their targets if they claim a trans identity. However, this also demonstrates that the authorities have no desire or ability to distinguish between one man who says he is a woman and another.

Hence it is sometimes a very good idea to use sex categories if clarity and accuracy is needed.

They are female sports categories because they will also be often divided into sub categories by age and include girls. They don't and should not include male people at all if it is a female category.

Yet I’ve been greeted with quite a few accusations that I think obnoxious things I don’t, been interpreted as sneering, as dictating or deciding other women’s needs don’t matter, a fake feminist etc….. I feel that I’ve been told if I don’t agree with everything, right now, even if I am clear I’m not fixed in my beliefs, then I am to be condemned and my points to be misrepresented and obliterated at speed.

I can understand why you saw things this way. I honestly think this is firstly an example of how difficult it is to use language precisely (so different posters read different things into the same words) and secondly just a simple personality clash – not necessarily a permanent or big clash, but a matter of different ways of thinking. So Helleofabore for example values precise logical thinking and has (in my humble opinion, which may be wrong) some degree of impatience with people who haven't yet thought things through. I think I would be correct in remembering that BonfireLady found the level of pushback, as she experienced it, difficult when her empathy towards trans people was causing her to be cautious about GC views. She was very patient in engaging in debate with someone who had been dismissed/sussed as an activist by others.

My own journey has been from a socially conservative background, to acceptance of same sex relationships, to an assumption that trans matters were similar, to a sudden discovery that I didn't actually accept trans ideology because of concern about its effects on people close to me (including my son who says he is trans), and then a process (perhaps even an obsession) of working out whose worldview made sense. I knew very little about the effects of the genderism movement on women and had some misconceptions to be disabused of, but I can see the logic of the Supreme Court FWS ruling and am horrified at the reluctance of politicians and organisations to act on it. Politically and legally, things seem quite clear to me, but personally, in terms of how interact with the people in my life who claim a trans identify and their allies, it's still very complicated.

Yes but the issue is how you are defining male and female can be very different. Some sports might use different types of testing. It doesn't necessarily equate with being cis or trans. You may get cis women who do not pass the testing to compete as women. And vice versa. It's more complicated than is set out in the OPs argument. She is misrepresenting the views of people who are not gender critical
As someone who is not gender critical I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women just for the sake of it if those trans women passed the testing of the sporting regulatory body in order to compete. To me that's not protecting women from men, its pure transphobia

And then we get into the discussion about who arbitrates who is and isn't really transgender.

Yet, when you then drill down into specific incidents, quite often it shows that the male person was already transgender when they committed the crime.

I did this analysis a few months back and found that some of them were in prison for a second time or finally in prison after being given a non-custodial sentence previously because a judge was convinced that it would be detrimental to that male person's health to go to prison when they were transgender.

Women are put into a no win situation when we have to justify that a group of male people have not magically lost their male pattern of criminality and with their physical advantages they are still as much risk to female people as all the other male people who are excluded. And there is no way to even collect and present the data accurately.

We are called right wing, bigots, akin to racists, and a slew of other things on thread after thread. Because some people cannot understand why female people need single sex spaces and that just having locking cubicles in a female single sex toilet isn't enough. The discussion has barely moved on since the Bryson case.

This is absolute nonsense though.

Sex testing is highly accurate. No men are 'passing' sex testing.

Transwomen are men and retain male physical advantage which is why they should not compete in the female category.

The cheek swab tests that are being introduced can accurately detect sex. Women are not going to fail these tests and be prevented from competing

And are you aware that the test to qualify to box in the women's events at the last Olympics was does it say female in your passport

Can you elaborate what you mean by this:
You may get cis women who do not pass the testing to compete as women

What possible testing would lead to this conclusion? Apart from someone guessing based on looks- which doesn't happen in sports sex testing.

Can you give an example of this having actually happened?

I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women just for the sake of it

But Its not just 'for the sake of it', is it? Why do you think we have women's sports at all?

https://www.shewon.org/

Male people with DSDs that are excluded from the female sports category are not 'female' by definition for many sports. And I expect that with Coventry at the helm, this will be resolved at IOC level considering WA, Swimming and other major sporting federations have already adopted the definition for female being a version:

of 'a person with a body formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether that gamete production ever happens'. With exceptions then for a group of people with male karyotype but who have never processed or some don't produce testosterone so can be classified as female at the moment for sport.

You may get cis women who do not pass the testing to compete as women

It is not complicated. Testing is reliable and has been recommended to be done as early as possible in an athlete's career and done for ALL female people in that category.

"if those trans women passed the testing of the sporting regulatory body in order to compete. To me that's not protecting women from men, its pure transphobia"

Can you please point out a male person with a transgender identity that has passed a sex test to compete in a female sporting event under the new regulations where those male people are excluded?

No i dont think they are but some cis women fail it
And trans women that pass whatever testing the sporting body has decided on should be allowed to compete.

Which 'cis' women?

It doesn't necessarily equate with being cis or trans.

The test is for male advantage. It has nothing to do with identity, but a trans women is by definition male, so would definitely be excluded.

Some sports might use different types of testing..

Why when the standard initial screening test is more straightforward than a drugs test and only has to be done once?

It's more complicated than is set out in the OPs argument.

I think you are making it more complicated than it is.

As someone who is not gender critical I just do not see the point of changing rules to exclude trans women

The rules exclude men. There is no reason to include some men, but not others. You might as well just have a mixed sex competition.

To me that's not protecting women from men, its pure transphobia

Do you perhaps not know much about this subject and the reasons why sport is segregated by sex?

The use of 'cis' is a good reminder that the term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.

When cis is used, there is no word left for female people. Using it includes a group of male people in the word 'female' or 'woman'.

Particular when even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a* *word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^
Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

This graphic might be helpful.