Are we a cult?

[CyclingSam]

I keep reading that sex realists, of which I am one, are a cult. Perhaps a genderist could be so kind as to explain what a cult is, and why we qualify. Sometimes one of us calls them a cult too. Who has a better case, hmmm?

You can’t argue that’s not pure hatred and transphobia

A whole post full of something that comes so very close to hatred, decrying all the hatred of others.
Spitting out venomous invective and emotionally stunted nihilism, just shows how lacking in any coherent your arguments are.

It's about women's rights to privacy, dignity and their own spaces, it's not now nor has it ever been about 'trans' right's.

If you can't respect my right to single sex spaces you have no right to demand I respect you on any level.

“this would inconvenience disabled people” (less than 1% of the population is trans, they’re not exactly going to be causing queues round the corner 🤣).

Disable people have rights too, there are charities and organisations that have fought long and hard for their spaces, you don't get to steal them either.

Men in the Men's and Women in the Women's, NOT 'TRANSPHOBIA' or ROCKET SCIENCE.

I don't think you understand the relevance of this quote. It's not saying special exemptions can't be challenged on ground they are not proportional.

In other words if a service provider (& that's what this is about) decides to give a special exemption to women because they believe its proportional, that can be challenged by a trans woman as indirect discrimination. Whether they win or not is another matter but this is case law yet to happen.

"Might as well face it, you're addicted to hate". Ooh, gotcha! Look out women, we've been intellectually flattened by the profound political insights of that great thinker Robert Palmer.

In other words if a service provider (& that's what this is about) decides to give a special exemption to women because they believe its proportional, that can be challenged by a trans woman as indirect discrimination. Whether they win or not is another matter but this is case law yet to happen.

They'd be challenging it as direct discrimination against men though - as the exemption was given on the basis of sex. eg. if there were 3 mens toilets and 20 womens toilets in a facility used 50/50 by each sex, they might be able to challenge the disproportionate provision of mens facilities. Gender re-assignment doesn't come into that situation at all.

Or perhaps they'd challenge on gender-reassignment and say that there were no suitable facilities for people with that characteristic, and there should be some unisex facilities available.

That's not what proportionality means in law. Its about balancing rights. In other words who will be the most disadvantaged.

Completely off-topic, but I just saw a meme "when realise this song is actually about menopause"...

but still sympathise with the struggle trans people endure and show them respect.

Their struggle is against reality. They want to be able to change sex or have society ignore sex.

That's not healthy for them and not safe for society. We need to be able to acknowledge everyone's sex without fear or guilt.

Why should I show an adult man like Eddie Izzard respect? What is he doing that needs my sympathy and support?

I have a lot of sympathy with the children caught up in this mess, and I believe the kindest, healthiest way to treat these children is, as ever, to be truthful with them. We cant pretend that there is a way to change sex or for them to be allowed manipulate everyone around.

Why would trans men be mistaken for trans women?

So have non-binary and many gnc people.

Why would they be affected by the guidance in a way that they weren't affected before? If your assumption is that before the guidance everyone was happy with mixed sex toilets, why do you think people wasted money on single sex toilets?

As if public toilets are safe spaces. As if changing rooms are. We have lockable cubicles for a reason.

If you think single sex provision of changing rooms and toilets is exclusionary, you should certainly campaign for more mixed sex/unisex provision. The guidance makes it very clear that trans people's rights are protected.

There's zero justification for all the ignorant, malicious nonsense written about trans men on this forum.

Anything malicious should be reported to a moderator. However, I think the vast majority of posters are sympathetic to trans identifying girls and women. They just wish that they sought acceptance for being who they are, not what they can never be, and they think they are literally being sold a fantasy by exploitative adults. I agree that there is some irritation, and concern at the idea that a gender non conforming woman is a man, but that is hardly surprising on a feminist board.

Could it be that you are trying to be offended?

You can't even acknowledge my son as my son.

People are allowed to have different philosophical beliefs. Your child cannot change sex, but sex does not impart value.

Trans men being included in any form of health are messaging elicits howls of rage on here.

No, we want them to be included in health messaging, and we want them to be protected by sex based rights, because we know that they need them. We just want general communications to use words like 'woman' in a neutral way that relates to physical sex, not identity. This means they include everyone who is female. I don't think anyone objects to additional specific tailored care for people with gender dysphoria.

Because it isn't about women's spaces at all.

Actually, from my point of view, the main issue is that women (however they identify) can only be protected from discrimination if sex is coherently defined. But I suspect you would rather just believe that everyone hates you.

Agreed - single sex facilities are only legal because of the 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim'.

So you're saying they could be contested entirely? Yes, of course they could contest the entire idea of women's toilets for example, say that it's discrimination against those with gender re-assignment to have single sex toilets even with equal provision of mens and womens. They could say that adding extra unisex isn't enough, that the mere existence of the men's loos is discrimination. They certainly could.

I think they would struggle, but anyone can try anything.

In general single sex provision is NOT proportionate, which is why we don't have single sex supermarkets and cinemas.

The existence of single sex provision implies that that the service has passed the tests in the Equality Act, but if it were challenged the solution would be reverting to mixed sex provision.

Theoretically you might be able to create a mixed sex service that discriminates according to gender identity because gender identity is not a protected characteristic. However, in practice it would just be mixed sex, because who would you exclude?

In other words who will be the most disadvantaged.

You might be aware that the Good Law Project has already challenged the guidance, and the judge found that additional unsex provision does not breach article 8 rights.

It has been suggested by feminists for at least a decade that additional mixed sex single cubicle toilets be offered. It is most certainly not a new and novel suggestion.

Feminists should not be expected to campaign on behalf of male people. It is a misogynist expectation because that will divert focus from female people’s needs. If women say this bluntly, it seems to offend those who believe that feminists are or should be omnicause activists.

If male people require either additional provisions because they personally reject the male single sex provision that they have been provided for their use or they need a campaign to improve safety of those male single sex provisions, they do need to start that campaigning themselves and not expect others to do it for them. It is also infantilising them to start campaigning on their behalf and it is the opposite of respectful.

It is not disrespectful for feminists to state they have boundaries on what they campaign for when those boundaries are centring female people.

I think they would struggle, but anyone can try anything.

I really depends on how disadvantages are interpreted. Privacy & dignity works both ways but 'outing' does not. And I don't know how advantageous it is for women particularly those who are gender non conforming to be routinely subjected to bodily scrutiny.

TPA occasionally drops in on a thread to make a contribution, and as often as not she comes in in a state of OTT rage - she must be at a constant simmer and then peruses a discussion board called 'Feminism: Sex and gender discussions' to check for instances of discussion of feminism, sex and gender, at which the heat gets turned up to 11 and we get a barrage of things like

worshipping people who have done terrible things,
Its currency is outrage and hatred
howls of rage on here
alternately exciting and hurting yourselves with adrenaline and cortisol
obsessing over and inventing weird origin stories
fake outrage
addicted to hate
You're not just in a cult, it's a doomsday cult. Forever waiting for an end which will never come, and sainthood which will never be conferred.

Overheated negative energy, every flipping time!
That constant level of furious hyperbole loses its impact after a while -
oh look there's more invective from TPA, what hyperbolics has she written this time?

If reading posts discussing feminism, sex and gender on a board called 'Feminism: Sex and gender discussions' is so triggering for you that you can only respond with so much irrational hyperbole, maybe a board called 'Feminism: Sex and gender discussions' is not a good place for you, TPA?

It's up to you of course, but really - what are you getting out of interacting with all these howls of rage from us incorrigible obsessive doomsday cultists? Nothing good, from the tone of your posts.

There already is a patron saint of truth and justice, St Gertrude the Great, so we don't need to pursue sainthood - fortunately, because I don't think any of us would be very good at sainthood😁

The judge suggested that there was a case to made that men may not be discriminated against if trans women only are included in women's toilets because they aren't disadvantaged so I wouldn't be so sure that single sex with exceptions as already exists for male children can't be considered.

All women, gender non-conforming or otherwise, are routinely subjected to bodily scrutiny. As a woman who hasn't worn anything more girly than jeans and a t shirt for at least half a century I can attest to that. The only places that afford us some respite from the routinely predatory male gaze are the very single sex spaces you are so keen to destroy.

The GRA makes it clear that there are many situations where 'the veil' of a GRC can be lifted, including inheritance, sport and parental status.

There is no specific right not to be 'outed', just article 8 rights which are qualified and limited when they interfere with the rights and freedoms of others.

Either sex is relevant for everyone, or it is irrelevant and there shouldn't be any sex discrimination.

Men's and women's toilets don't tend to be identical, so it might be a struggle to show that there was no disadvantage.

However, in practice the main problem would be that there would be no reason to exclude any man from the gendered toilets (how is it possible to judge somebody else's gender?), so they would just be mixed sex.

@MarieDeGournay the gerbils love St Gertrude the Great.

You don't seem to be able to 'compute' that by virtue of making toilets single sex spaces its effectively facilitating bodily scrutiny…by other women to police them often incorrectly as we are now experiencing with the increased harassment of gender non conforming women.

I do not believe I am member of a cult, I believe that there are two genders male and female and you cannot move between the two. In my view that is basic biology. I accept that othered have different views - I disagree with them. I do not think the vile abuse that has been directed towards those with my views is acceptable. What I find most alarming that the it is seem as acceptable and my views have been silenced by those claiming they are discriminatory. Those working for public bodies aren’t allowed to express their view yet those opposing views are, they are s as allowed to wear badges and lanyards showing their views yet those who disagree cannot. I believe the tide has turned, hopefully it will be such a surge that the opposing view is consigned to a very small minority who cannot continue to cause the damage they have to young people.

as already exists for male children can't be considered.

I missed this bit.

Your problem here is that boys under 8 are not a threat, so their inclusion does not invalidate the reason for the exception. They can also be defined objectively.

If, on the other hand you allow some men to use a single sex facility, you can no longer rely on the exception in the EA.

There doesn't have to be a specific right. There just has to be a reasonable disadvantage.

The idea that up until recently, everyone assumed toilets were mixed sex, therefore nobody was 'scrutinised', is bonkers.

Um, you realise you are making the case for why men won't be disadvantaged from not being allowed to use the female loos?

In other words for a male to claim he was discriminated against because trans women have access to female loos & males don't they would have to prove their disadvantage…& there isn't any.

Only trans women & male children are more advantaged for using female loos.

Single sex provision is single sex. That is very clear. There is no grounds for allowing some men into the women's. There could only be grounds for having unisex provision as well, or instead of single sex provision.

I don't believe there is any 'outing' issue here - if someone is discriminated against because of the characteristic of gender reassignment or sex, that is already illegal. Outing isn't 'a thing'. Your sex isn't private information - it's clearly visible to anyone who encounters you.

Gender non-conforming women (and men) are still in the majority of cases obviously women or men. My son has no issue with occasionally having to say 'actually I'm a boy' because people see the long hair and assume. When I was a child, I had no issue doing the opposite because I had short hair and tomboy dress-sense (not an issue these days, as there really aren't many 5' men with a clearly female body shape). Facilities are split on sex, not on fashion choices.

It's advantageous because most assaults on women are done by men, so by keeping them out of places we are vulnerable makes us safer. This remains true no matter what any of the people involved are wearing, or what medications they take, or cosmetic surgery they have.