Is anyone on here trans-inclusive?

[plinkyplonk123]

Hi everyone, this is just a quick post to ask if anybody else on here is trans inclusive? I know I’m definitely in the minority here but I just wanted to see.

I think most people on here are trans inclusive.

I’ll defend a trans man’s women’s rights the same way as any other women’s rights. I think the trans community as a whole should not be discriminated against and should be able to live their lives respecting other people’s rights. I feel the same about them as I do Muslim people - they’re just people with ridiculous beliefs, that they’re entitled to hold. Some of them are violent, aggressive and hateful but that doesn’t change my opinion of any single member of the community until they prove themselves to fall within that category.

But men, no matter how they describe themselves or identify, have absolutely no place in women’s spaces.

Yes that's because they're men.

What sort of idiot would actively support males being allowed free access to to female only spaces? That’s just weird and a little bit (actually a lot) concerning and has red flags all over it!

Oh that's OK then. Allowing men who think they are women into female spaces thus causing, harm, injury distress to women means that those men who think they are women should not be allowed into female spaces. The same way that men generally aren't allowed into female spaces. The effect of that means that women are far less likely to be caused injury, harm distress generally.

Fancy coming on here and proposing people don’t know the difference between trans men and trans women 🤣

We don't want men in our single sex spaces. We are saying no.

It's the sophistry that gets me. All this (pseudo) intellectual wangling (is that a word?) just to allow men to get their dicks out in women's spaces.
Oh, and the mimsy, wobbly-lipped "oh no, OP, I'm with you too, not like these bad feminists on FWR, I can't actually string a coherent argument together and I'm gone again after this post, but I'm with you, totally, firmly" posters, sigh.
I might need to warn my colleagues I'm clearly a bit of a grump today.

Here it is, in case you missed it.

How many additional female people need to be subject to harm by male people with transgender identities before you fully support those male people being excluded from female single sex provisions?

It was after all the point you raised. If you cannot expand on and defend your own point, you obviously don’t really believe it is a strong point at all.

So, just 1?

5?

100?

500?

I feel at odds with my body - I believe I should be 6 inches taller, have thick hair and smaller breasts. Nobody is going to surgically alter my body to help me meet those requirements unless I pay them a heck of a lot of money.
I am firmly against doctors gleefully removing body parts purely to assuage someone’s mental health problems (ie delusions). It’s monstrous!

Again, the law hasn't been tested or officially interpreted by government so until then all you have is amateur speculation.

Why isn’t it evidence of an increase in crime because of trans inclusion?

Would you like to explain ?

That's everyone No one demonises any community on here they stand up for women's rights and don't accept that men can become women that's reality not demonisation.

Ah I see - you’d only agree to a review of a law that doesn’t let people be safe once those very people have been assaulted? You’re nuts!

Define ‘trans inclusive’.

I don’t care what anyone wears. I totally support smashing gender stereotypes which is not something I see within the trans community. They seem to revel in reinforcing gender stereotypes - eg I’m wearing lipstick and a dress therefore I am a woman.
Im happy to be friends with a man who wears a frock or a woman who wears a tie just don’t go in spaces that do not align with your sex or take part in events that do not reflect your sex.

Females were given separate public loos over 100 years ago because of violence against them and the urinary leash. Sadly vawg still happens, that's why (as well as dignity) the laws around single sex facilities was created, and upheld last year.
Females are at risk from males, by the definition of trans woman, they are born male and statistics show they have the same pattern of behaviour.

We don’t need an interpretation of a law that defines what a person’s sex is dear. If you do, then you need to go back to school.

The law has been tested. The Supreme Court judgment was about whether the Scottish government could have men representing the places reserved for women on boards. The lower court said they could. The Supreme Court said they couldn’t. Ergo, the law has been tested in the Supreme Court to say that things that are for women have to be for just women.

Just because people are dragging their feet about it in other areas and just because it hasn’t gone to court again doesn’t mean the law hasn’t been tested and doesn’t stand.

Love this. Properly funny.

hurrah! I see I was right - OP never reappeared after page 1. Do I get a prize??

Yes.

If what you mean is, do I support men who present as women using women’s spacesI, then no I do not.
I also think that any issues that this might create for transwomen should be for men to resolve - women are busy.

The law has been in place since 2010! Of course it has been tested and interpreted!

Why are you so desperate to have fully intact males where vulnerable women and girls are?

You’re trivialising it by making it seem to be just about toilets. The issue goes to the heart of every element of feminism.

What if one of the women you referenced in an abusive relationship fled to a domestic violence shelter, or sought relief from a rape support group. But was constantly re traumatised by the presence of men there (which has happened (eg Brighton survivors network, Edinburgh rape crisis)).

What if there was no DV shelter to go to in the first place, because it had been defunded for not letting men in (eg Vancouver Rape Crisis et al).

What if the violent husband is tried and sentenced for DV, but during proceedings he says his anger is due to his rage around his gender identity and the judge lets him off because trans (this has happened), or he goes to a women’s prison and terrorises the women prisoners there (and they get punished for speaking out. (This has happened).

All if those scenarios I’ve mentioned have happened and we’ve haven’t even touched on topics such as women’s sport. Or the sterilisation of children through puberty blockers. Or people losing their jobs or university places for questioning it. Or nurses being suspended because they don’t want to undress in front of men.

It’s such a vast issue that affects so many of the things feminists are fighting for. Many of us have said how annoying it is to have to go back and spend so much time, money and energy fighting this through the courts when we could be doing other things, But “what is a woman” affects so many of the issues feminists care about, we really have no choice.

You don't seem to understand how the law works.

How the law will be implemented broadly wasn't clarified so it needs to be clarified & tested before any meaningful determinations on its scope can be made.

No. HTH