Genocide in the US

[TheAmusedQuail]

Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention sounds the alarm over transgender genocide.

No. No men in female spaces. However much they “pass”. Why are you so determined to inveigle men into female spaces? Can you give one benefit to women of making all single sex spaces mixed sex?

What is the difference? Both are categorically not true. Why is someone allowed to claim they are the opposite sex but not claim they are a different age, or race. Why is it only in this area people are allowed to self identify?

It doesn't seem wildly different or extreme to me. Some people do feel like they are a child in an adult body. It doesn't mean that they are actually younger than their age or that they can attend school.

Women don't need an excuse for not wanting men in their spaces, it's doesn't matter how well a man supposedly "passes", they can use the mens. Project the Dolls is discrimination against the Bricks, which is not very inclusive.

This was the situation in the country I live in but was deemed against human rights to demand someone undergo dangerous surgery with lifelong complications to castrate themselves in order to change their legal sex registration.
I agree with this position, genital surgery is brutal and should never be a criteria to be able to use the womens facilities. But as letting fully intact men into the womens is also not a solution.
the only way forward is to keep to strict sex segregation, with the exception of children, and demand all men abide by the law. Even transwomen, surely most transwomen are normal people who don't break laws just beause they want something not theirs?

It isn’t possible to transition to the opposite sex. And lying to mentally distressed people that it is, is unkind.

By their logic they are committing genocide against gender critical women!

I read number 4 in the list and it’s very obvious which side is being dehumanised and compared to vermin and so on. I think one side here is indeed harbouring genocidal hatred and it isn’t women who object to men in their spaces.

I think we have to accept that these people do really believe this, but the reality probably is that it’s projection. They wish we didn’t exist and would quite like to try to make it happen and so they project their own feelings and anger onto us.

Maybe it's themselves they wish didn't exist, we're just a constant reminder of why they hate themselves.

You only have to look at them to see that they're not the same as regular men

I'm fascinated by this argument that whether someone is really a woman or not is all about their appearance. Most trans people argue fiercely against this viewpoint, saying it's who they are as a person that makes them a woman.

How would I know whether I'm a woman or not? What physical characteristics does a woman have that a man doesn't, for people that say TWAW?

So with someone like Stefonknee Wolscht, it'd be completely ludicrous to accept his self-identification as a six-year-old, but entirely reasonable to accept his claim that he's 'transitioned to the opposite sex' and is now a 'girl'? Why's that then?

And yet lots of trans-identified people would tell you that you're being violently transphobic with your argument here about 'passing' as the opposite sex.

Right? I wonder what that poster would think of me. Do I pass enough to be a "not regular woman"? If not, then what am I? A non-regular man? Some mysterious something else?

As always, it comes back to "What is a woman?"

This doesn't make sense, does it? If "man" means "person who can be male or female", and "woman" means "person who can be male or female", as you are saying, then the female toilets will be for female men and women and the male toilets for male men and women.

Single-sex toilets are for all gender identities as long as they are that sex.

Otherwise it would be treating sex and gender as the same thing, which is transphobic because trans people are people with mismatching sex and gender so requires sex to be viewed separately from gender.

It's only in this area that people are allowed to claim a blatantly false self ID because the harms are mainly to those that many men don't think should have human rights and see as property - i.e. women and children.

I.e. it doesn't really affect men as much as other forms of self-ID.

I'm coming to the realisation that anyone who thinks men should be able to self-ID into single-sex female spaces fundamentally thinks that women aren't fully equal to men and don't deserve full human rights. That we're just support humans for men, ultimately.

As my name is a feminised version of a more common male name I have spent my whole 55 years being misgendered and never felt more than a very mild irritation at times.....certainly not like it was actual violence or that I needed to collapse in a fit of vapours and cry "woe is me"

I would suggest that you stop posting this images as some kind of 'gotcha'. If you cannot correctly identify the sex of a person in real life and with interaction, you really should not assume that this is a universal failing.

It is irrelevant that you, personally, think any male person passes. There are well proven evidenced reasons why no male above the age of about 8 years old should not be accessing female single sex provisions at all. Even a male person who you believe passes 100% will also be correctly identified by a female person at some stage, it is simply not possible for them to pass 100% of the time with 100% of people.

Therefore, it is irrelevant whether they pass or not. The law is clear. Safeguarding principles are clear too as they are based on risk assessment on a sex category basis.

There are a few reasons why this clarity exists.

Firstly, it is impossible for any male person to move from the male sex category to the female sex category because it is based on the sex class their body belongs to. This remains completely unchanged by any extreme body modification.

There are many reasons why a male person's sex class simply cannot be changed, scientifically because that body has cells coded as male from conception. This genetic coding resists any cosmetic or artificial change from hormones.

Changing how someone looks does not change their sex.

Then we have to consider that a male person knows they are male and has been treated as if they are male from conception, but maybe more understandably from birth. Therefore every interaction they have with society is as a male person and they react as a male person.

Philosophical theories or belief will not change the fact that that male person's interactions with the world is only as a male person. Certainly one who thinks of himself as not being male but is still male regardless.

No single sex provision has been created to allow male people access. It is very poor safeguarding to expose any female person who needs that provision to be single sex to a male person. No matter how that male person looks or acts. They are male.

Safeguarding exists as making blanket decisions about male people being excluded because no female people should have to make a decision on simple observation and in an instant whether that male person is going to attack, abuse or harm them in anyway. No female person should have to do a risk assessment in an instant of a male person who is in a female single sex provision.

In fact, it has been said and it has a lot of merit, that male people who make a deliberate choice to access a female single sex provision knowing that their very presence will potentially cause harm to a female person is doing so knowing the harm it will cause. That would be the definition of predatory behaviour, surely?

Then there is the aspect of discrimination. It is legitimate discrimination to exclude all male people from female single sex provisions. It is illegitimate and there are legal ramifications to discriminating against one or a group of male people by allowing one male person in and excluding the other male people.

This also relates to giving a group of male people access to GRCs. If the requirement is that they have hormones, surgery etc, that is discriminating against those male people who have transgender identities who cannot have hormones or surgery for what ever reason.

This is the law around discrimination.

So, that is also why it is not lawful to allow some male people into a single sex provision and not others.

However, EVEN with a GRC there are male people who will not even pass for those people who tell us they cannot tell between a male person and a female person. This then negates your argument about 'passing' male people.

It is a failure in safeguarding and it is a failure in law.

This is just the tip of the iceberg as to why allowing in a sub group of the group of male people that declare that they have transgender identities NEVER was the 'middle ground'. It might have made some people feel good supporting it thinking it was, but it never was.

You see, I don't get the 'workability' of your solution, Pawpainting.
Who defines 'passing'? You posted some photos of men you say are, to you, indistinguishable from women. Firstly, I'd like to see photos of them that are unfiltered. Secondly, you may think they look like women, others might disagree.

So who decides what is good enough passing? Would trans-identifying men have to pass some kind of test to judge if they had achieved the necessary level of stereotypical femininity to pass?

How would you organise all that?

If they fail this appearance test, they would then be redirected into medical, social, and psychological treatment, including hormones, but not necessarily surgery, and they would then be granted a certificate.
Which they could produce when they were immediately recognised as men who had failed the earlier stereotypically feminine test.

So more organisational work to set up structures for the treatment, assessment, certificate-awarding etc.

Finally, any transwoman who fails both the first femininity test, and the second certification one, who just doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing as a woman - tough, he has to use the men's.

I'm not getting workability vibes from your suggestion, it sounds like a huge and expensive bureaucratic nightmare.

What is really workable is the system of segregating facilities by sex - which is real and provable - rather than gender, which is arguable and vague.
Anybody born male uses the men's, anybody born female uses the women's.
Everybody is either male or female, so it is a very straightforward arrangement, and much more workable than yours.

I don't know what proof you have that 'post-transition trans women.... are no danger to anyone', I'm not sure that the crime stats back up that statement.

Anyway, it's irrelevant what they can and can't do, or how safe they are, or how photogenic - they shouldn't be in women's single-sex spaces because they are male.

Hiding in your Mum's basement from people who understand sex doesn't make you Ann Frank.

Post-transition trans women look just like women (like the ones I posted above), are no danger to anyone, and no one bats an eyelid

Oh, dear. I'm afraid this is complete nonsense from start to finish.

What are your thoughts on Sarah Jane Baker?

Reposting here what I wrote in response to you making this argument on another thread:

Your "compromise" is completely unworkable. It assumes that women, including rape survivors, will feel confident asking a man who is in their space for his certificate. It requires men to carry the certificate everywhere.

Can you think of why a rape or DV survivor might struggle to stay calm in the presence of a strange man in a changing room? Can you think of what a challenged man opening his handbag might be reaching for instead of a certificate?

I linked some of the text in the last paragraph to a report about a trans-identifying man who posted a TikTok video threatening women who challenged him with it being "the last mistake [they'] ever make" and encouraging trans-identifying males to arm themselves. I evidently wasn't explicit enough in explaining the risk these men pose to women. In addition to that linked example, we've also seen trans-identifying men post photographs of themselves on Twitter posing in women's loos with knives and swords.^

To avoid all ambiguity: the trans-identifying man reaching into his handbag might not be reaching for his certificate, but for a weapon or a corrosive liquid, in order to attack the woman challenging him. This risk has a chilling effect on the ability of women to even ask, assuming that she hasn't gone into panic mode or had her PTSD triggered by a man in the space to begin with.

Telling men that they can come into the ladies if they carry papers is nothing even resembling a reasonable middle ground. The only reasonable option is that men learn to accept their trans-identifying brethren in men's spaces.

Another flaw in this "papers, please" proposal is that we expect children from the age of nine to use their own sex's loos and changing rooms, whether or not the same-sex parent is there with them. The only exception would be that a disabled child above that age might be taken into the loo for their parent's sex, if for some reason an accessible loo wasn't available.

Whatever you propose has to work for a divorced or widowed father's nine-year-old daughter who is, of necessity, using the women's loos alone.

Oh god, not the precious "Lemkin Institute" again, which trans people hold up to be some kind of international peace-keeping foundation.

It was started by two women with a laptop in 2021. Neither of whom are called, or have ever been associated with, the name Lemkin.

The actual Lemkin family are fed up with them using their relation's name.

https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/family-of-raphael-lemkin-who-coined-the-term-genocide-fights-to-have-his-name-removed-from-anti-israel-institute/

Whatever you propose has to work for a divorced or widowed father's nine-year-old daughter who is, of necessity, using the women's loos alone and who may, as I did, have undiagnosed neurodivergence or other SEND.