Daughter in early 20s lonely due to GC views

[Currentquandry]

My daughter is in her early twenties. She is GC and is struggling because so few of her peers have similar opinions. She is very lonely because of this. Are there any online groups she could join to give her a sense of community? She is also ND. Thank you in advance for your advice…

And who is going to be believed in this scenario? Do you seriously think that the venue that allowed this man in is going to want to admit they got it wrong and potentially have a crime on their hands?

Also, do you have the rather simplistic and cliched view that all flashers are visibly ‘leering’, masturbating or generally making it extremely obvious? They can easily be physically intimidating, or like the flasher I saw as a teenager, just sitting in a place where he knew I’d see him to watch my reaction.

And if the woman (or teenage girl) has to wait before he does something so obvious she can report him and hope to be believed, then the harm has already happened hasn’t it.

I note the implication that my previous question either wasn’t ‘decent’ or worded politely enough - are these any better for you?

There was no question in my post.

And it’s not just about assault, although there is credible evidence (ie govt stats) that supports that as an issue. It’s also about women and children’s rights to privacy, dignity and, separately, prizes and places on teams and on podiums.

'non-trans women'

Jesus wept.

I agree, I was going to type a response to that but ended up deleting it half way through as that "nah, can't be arsed" 😁
It's so bloody arrogant to think "we know better than you, you just haven't educated yourself enough like us more clever women!"
We all have different opinions on this subject, and may not always agree.
Doesn't mean we're not "read up"!
As I said earlier, it's just shouting past each other at this point.

Where we have to have single sex spaces, they should accommodate trans people in the space they feel most comfortable in. That's my view.

This is an extreme view not supported either by legislation or the British public.

Single sex spaces cease to be single sex spaces as soon as a member of the opposite sex uses them so you are proposing the abolition of all single sex spaces which is an extreme view.

Gob smacked at ada p's posts ( and the screenshots )

And at posters who haven't read OP's update; or if they have, and banging on as if she hasn't updated
And at people who are years and years behind the debate

'Mixed spaces' are not the answer. Why should people be forced into these spaces? So what if people have so-called hang-ups? They're their hang-ups to have.
Yes, use the mixed/unisex spaces if you like but leave single sex spaces for those who want and need them.
Like women who have said soooooo many times
TW are not unsafe in the mens; what are the concerns there? MEN?
Yes- we know how that feels
It's privacy and dignity; not just safety
TW want women's spaces to validate. Or to take selfies in.
Or to do other 'activities' in. Plenty of evidence out there.

As for digs and threats towards JKR, I don't know how she puts up with it. She's made of stronger stuff than the people who post them.
These people would run crying to mummy. Or reddit

And the comments re the Greens? Look at the rest of their policies/history: not just their 'trans friendliness'

Why not? In surveys men have said they have no issue sharing spaces with gender non conforming men (aka transwomen) - there was even a campaign to encourage them back into mens spaces at one point.

Lots of trans identifying people don’t ‘pass’ and especially the male ones are mostly very distinguishable as male so no one would look twice at them using a male space.

It's not 'clever' to know that humans can't change sex. It's just the truth.

Given that, single sex spaces have to be for only one sex or the other because that's what 'single sex' means.

I know humans can't literally change sex.
I've never claimed otherwise. So we're in agreement there

But why is it that male bodied trans "woman" are correctly facilitated with female bodies rather than male?

What is the actual, objective, empirical connection between female bodies and whatever mental characteristics it is that are being classified as "a woman" here, and why should it be assumed that (1) all the female people have the same mental whateveritis, (2) the mental whateveritis is the real reason for single sex provisions rather than the body even though the single sex provisions pre-existed the recognition of the mental whateveritis by millenia, (3) no other vulnerable male bodied people would benefit as much or more by access to female provisions?

Imagine trans women had never started doing it then asked society to retrospectively regularise it like a planning violation. What chain of observations and logic would get us here from first principles?

I mean, using your argument I could very legitimately say that since I have kids and my neighbour doesn't, we should balance my kids need for more playback and my neighbours need for a private garden by requiring them to accept my kids playing in their garden. The genuine improvement for my kids would be balanced against the small detriment to them of not having their garden to themselves (but still having a garden to enjoy). Is that also OK?

You keep arguing for giving away female rights, resources and language but never explain why this solution out of all possible solutions is the best.

You know, I'm going to go back to Black issues, because that's what I know about.

Let's take an event aimed at BAME women who are at risk of DV. Some BAME women think that it should be just for BAME women, as in white women can't attend. They think that their presence will make it less safe for BAME women and/or detract from the objective of the event.

Others think that there is enough commonality between working class white women (who frequently date and co-parent with BAME men and have BAME kids) and BAME women to include them. Others still, think that irrespective of who said white women date, they may be helped so should be able to attend. Some think it would help if all white women (some of who will be in authoritarian or professional roles) will benefit by being educated about the issue in a BAME space by BAME women.

I obviously fit into one of these groups, but my point is that all of us have an equal right to have an opinion and even a formal say because we are all BAME women. I have to respect that other people who are just like me might feel differently and I might be in the minority. I can't bully other BAME women or deny their BAME identity in an attempt to sway the vote.

Great.

So given that humans can't change sex and 'women' is a sex class in humans, how can men be any kind of woman?

The ones in very sexualised clothing might get some comeback in men's spaces, to be fair. At the least, comments like "the state of him", the poor wee darlings. So it's obviously only right that those men should instead frequent women's spaces and be able to dismiss any objections as bigotry. I don't understand how anyone could complain about that - these men are the most marginalised in human history after all.

I thought you said her job was stage manager? That’s usually fairly insecure employment so wouldn’t she be wanting to add things to her cv to help with future employment?

I think you need to reflect on why, at an event that is about BAME women who face DV, in the wake of a black mother and her child being murdered by her ex partner, the need for a white woman to get praised for lending some equipment is deemed to be a priority of any kind.

Honestly, I don’t think I do. Respectfully, I think it sounds rather entitled to expect a woman to do work for an organisation and be excluded from any credit or thanks because of the colour of her skin. It’s bizarre. Try flipping the ethnicity if the people involved, I find that a helpful exercise.

Most charities and charitable events are also for very worthy causes. My MiL has raised £hundreds of thousands for a cancer charity, she thanks ALL who contribute, she doesn’t exclude those who haven’t been affected by cancer.

Gob-smacked at ' non-trans women' !!!!!!
Re read iggy's post, who believes
'the right of men to have a space to shower/pee/get changed is greater than the right of women to be protected from the occasional sight of a penis'
Un- bloody -believable!

She is a stage manager in the theatre business. That is why she has access to such equipment. This isn't her job, it's more like a hobby.

She could have just used her professional position to help a cause she claims to be passionate about.

So it’s ok for trans identifying men to want privacy and perceived safety from other men but not ok for women and girls to want privacy and safety from men?

That is somewhat asymmetrical I think?

I'm with you on this one, just been thinking about and digesting your post (I'm a white woman)
It was a bit of a thinker as my immediate reaction was more "why wouldn't I want to be credited too if I'm lending my equipment?"
Then more "why would I want to, if it's a cause that I believe in, that I want to help out in, and I'm not black, why would I be centring myself?
I don't need to be credited in that scenario. As it's not about me.
So I can see where you're coming from there and agree.

Your example is about the decision of a group of women whether of not to exclude a woman based on her characteristics.

We're talking about excluding men from single sex spaces because they are men. And if you don't exclude all men, the space is no longer single sex.

Women can argue for all spaces to be mixed sex. But what you can't do is argue for single sex with some men in it because that's impossible within the definition.

I guess the bit that would be really helpful here is for the people who hold your beliefs, to share these thought processes and that have led you to your different conclusions.

If we start with the very basic facts, are you able to explain your position in a way that acknowledges that sex is real and is relevant in specific scenarios like sport and spaces that have been allocated single sex to exclude men for specific reasons etc?

Is it your conclusion that sex does matter but you disagree with us on the extent ie trans identifying men excluded from sports but PP is saying that trans identifying men should be included in women’s spaces if they choose. In which case, why?

No my point is that other women might disagree with you and their opinion is as valid.

What is valid about allowing some men in to female single sex spaces?

They think that their presence will make it less safe for BAME women and/or detract from the objective of the event.

Why would the BAME women be less safe if white women were present?

This illustrates why using analogues with black women to try and explain trans issues is so awful.

You need to look at the reasons why men are excluded from omens spaces. Then consider if a declaration from a man that he is now a woman has the power to change that.

Re the charity, regardless if the worthiness of the cause, I can’t see why they would expect people to contribute and not even have the manners to credit them. I also can’t see why if they want her equipment, she should be excluded from discussion to organise it - I don’t believe she’s doing it because she wants to take over - I imagine she’s doing it because she wants a say in how her equipment is allocated and deployed. The limitations of her decision making input could be made very clear by the organisers.

Excluding her from the practicalities of organising the event because she is white seems very odd.

Their opinion is as valid. They don't have to even explain it. If you go back to the example I gave, I don't have to say why or why not I do or do not think white women should be at the BAME event I described. But the fact I am a BAME woman means whatever opinion I have is valid.