Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

Is it only in this topic that you refuse to accept women’s consent and boundaries or is it something you do in other areas of your life?

So what typically happens is a vocal subset of the group pushes this, and others feel uncomfortable or disagree, but they stay quiet due to apprehension over the social cost of dissenting. The group then appears to agree more than it actually does.

Keep in mind the context: for years we've been told to "be kind" to these men and to prioritise what they want over what we need, otherwise we are apparently bigots and phobic and so on.

This is also why having it clear in equality law and policy that a women-only space means only women - not women plus men who call themselves women - is so important. The route to dissent is a procedural "sorry but we can't legally do that" rather than repeatedly trying to convince those who believe that men are women to stop imposing these men on us.

Genuinely, where exactly am I refusing to accept women's consent and boundaries by proposing that LGBT organizations fund separate porta-potties so that trans women won't even have to consider using the women's bathroom?

It would be placed in the open, as any porta-potty.
Generally, I don't think the issue of long lines will show up in most places. For instance, the ones in my country's capital are usually empty.

They are empty because they arent used?

I swear we should l look into this as a source of renewable energy.

Thats a novel concept. Have you done a risk assessment of creating such a beacon? Do you think non-allies will respect the toilet or will it be policed 24/7? Will that create tension?

And the design. So is it like an open portaloo? I am not familiar with porta-potty. Google brings up a small plastic caravan toilet. What about voyeurism and public (in)decency?

Please stop saying porta-potties, it’s making me murderous

In female spaces, a woman's No has veto power, but only over men.
It cannot override another's woman's Yes

"Yes" to men's inclusion?

If an organisation is mixed sex, but brands itself female only, its not not female only. Its mixed sex, and women who want a female focused group will not join.

The women inside the organisation can pretend they are a single sex organisation, but theyve used men's definition of women, not the actual definition of women.

Everyone in the group has redefined the word 'inclusion' to mean 'dont upset men'.

They stop being a womens digital art collective and become a group designed to promote men's definition of women with a special interest in digital art.

This all could be an elaborate advert for a portable loo.

A woman is an adult human female who has agency, who can make her own decisions, and who does not need the government to rescue her from making her own choices. If a woman disagrees with the consensus of a private organization, she has the absolute right to leave and form her own exclusive group.
I previously mentioned Women in Animation. The organization is led by industry veterans like President Marge Dean and Vice President Jinko Gotoh - women who have run major studios, managed global productions, and regularly negotiate terms with giants like Netflix, Sony, and Warner Bros.
Under their leadership, WIA explicitly states in their mandate that their push for gender parity formally includes trans women and non-binary people.
To believe your argument, we would have to assume that these highly successful, powerful female executives are too timid and afraid of peer pressure to set the boundaries for their own organization.
Furthermore, this is a digital-first, globally decentralized community.
In an online environment, the "social cost" of disagreeing is as simple as closing a tab or blocking an account. I don't think people are paralyzed by 'cancel culture' in these circumstances, especially with the current state of politics.
If these women did not genuinely believe in inclusion, they could have easily gone to a women-only organization that excludes trans women.

And back to the AI when the reality hits the argument

You can still advocate for a rule to dictate that all over the internet, a female only space is only for the female sex, but right now that is not the case, so it's up for the organisation to decide

For me it's triggering flashbacks to a hot day long ago when I had a leaky one in my car for two hours because I couldn't find a functioning disposal point on the K&A. I assume he means portaloo.

No offence @MedicalConsensus , but you're not bringing anything new to this debate. Except porta-potties.

Blergh. A portaloo at a festival. The smell of excrement, mud and chemicals trying to force the door from closing with one wellied foot whilst holding a very upset child over the loo so they didn’t touch any surface of the portaloo. We actually washed our hands in puddles afterwards.

A female-only art collective might recognize the issues biological women face. They might also look at the issues trans women face, and decide that including them aligns with their overarching mission of equity and support.

An art collective for disabled people might recognize the issues disabled people face. They might also look at the issues transdisabled people face, and decide that including them aligns with their overarching mission of equity and support.

An art collective for black people might recognize the issues black people face. They might also look at the issues transracial people face, and decide that including them aligns with their overarching mission of equity and support.

Do you agree with these statements? If not, why not? How are they different from the one you posted?

Would it be right to accept someone like Chloe Jennings-White in an organisation for disabled people or someone like Rachel Dolezal in an organisation for black people? If not, why not?

It's not a UK organisation.

I wonder how much of this is US cultural imperialism, couple with male entitlement.

We're in the UK. The law says that female only spaces are only for the female sex.

Where in the world is a female only space for male people? Or male people as well as female people? Why is it called a female only space if it's for people of both sexes?

Yeah, I mean portaloos
Standalone bathrooms already exist in every city in the world.
They do not require 24/7 police presence.
They are managed by standard public maintenance protocols.

These are single-occupancy, lockable units.
They are specifically designed for more privacy and greater physical security than a communal stall with gaps in the doors.

A bathroom is a utility. If it is located in a high-traffic area, it is safe.
If it is located in a dangerous, unlit area, it is unsafe.
That is true regardless of who the bathroom is intended for.

If long lines will not form, then it doesn't need to be any different from normal portaloos.

You do not need to see inside a locked cubicle to be safe if an aggressor knows they cannot act without being spotted by bystanders.
If there are people inside 24/7, like at an airport, then that will remain consistent.

People can continue using bathrooms the way they always did

This is where the problem lies, the transwomen who ignore unisex facilities to seek out the women's will continue to do so.
They will waffle on about safety, about being 'outted', about how they 'just wanna pee' but it's all a lie, they want to be in the ladies because that's where the women are. They give not one shiny, sparkly, wrapped in gold leaf and studded with diamonds shit what women want. They are self centered, egotistical, men babies who only see women as props in their game.

A bathroom is a room with a fucking bath in it, if we're going to be actuarily pedantic.

Yet that hope is not borne out in reality.

I was wondering similar. Definitely comes across with a distinctly American political tone using phrases like "does not need the government to rescue her from making her own choices".

He seems to miss the point that equality law is about setting a boundary on how organisations make decisions that affect access and participation.

That's the charitable assumption. Some men are delighted that women are saying no, because they like a goal.