Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is this woman a transphobe?

Edie said:
The scale is incomparable. And the problem solvable with gender neutral facilities.

That is where the campaign should focus, and I would support that, not in access to female protected facilities, sports, prisons, hospitals and refuges. The fact it is focused on accessing womens space is because it is concerned with forcing an ideology (trans women are women) not just safety.

Even if it is a safety issue, which I accept, why should the safety of 1% men who identify as women be placed ahead of 52% of the population born as women?! That’s misogyny. I reject it.
Click to expand...

No, I get that. My point wasn't that you (or any woman) should have to accept any greater risk, necessarily, but that it's not fair to pretend it's a question of risk of harm on one side versus feelings on another. A recognition that there's risks to either approach leads to two questions: first, the practical one of assessing the size of the risks (to women as a result of trans women having access to single-sex spaces, and to trans women as a result of being excluded); and, secondly, the philosophical one of who should bear that risk i.e. whether it's right for cis women to assume any risk (no matter how small) to protect trans women. I suspect the latter will come down to whether you see trans women as men or women in this context.
 
Athos said:
No, I get that. My point wasn't that you (or any woman) should have to accept any greater risk, necessarily, but that it's not fair to pretend it's a question of risk of harm on one side versus feelings on another. A recognition that there's risks to either approach leads to two questions: first, the practical one of assessing the size of the risks (to women as a result of trans women having access to single-sex spaces, and to trans women as a result of being excluded); and, secondly, the philosophical one of who should bear that risk i.e. whether it's right for cis women to assume any risk (no matter how small) to protect trans women. I suspect the latter will come down to whether you see trans women as men or women in this context.
Click to expand...
Gender neutral facilities. Problem solved. No drama.
 
Edie said:
Gender neutral facilities. Problem solved. No drama.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would seem the most obvious answer. And didn't ought to be too difficult or costly to implement quickly - make both toilets unisex, take out urinals and ensure stalls are private and lockable.

Worth noting that there are many on either side of the debate who find such an accommodation unacceptable, though.
 
Dylans is a write-off, but worryingly some are actually mistaking his bigotry under the cover of feminism for genuine feminism. Because God knows all the men I've trusted over the years are prone to ranting about saving THEIR DAUGHTERS from dick waving Shirley's. And it was really heartwarming to read about the alliance of gender critical feminists and the far right, what could possibly go wrong.
 
smokedout said:
Given Stock signed a document calling for a worldwide ban on any kind of research which may result in people being born physically male ever being able to gestate, demands that no publically funded bodies be permitted to discuss gender identity in schools, insists that any kind of trans healthcare for children be banned regardless of evidence and that organisations which support the concept of gender identity not be permitted to have any say in the treatment of gender dysphoria in young people then I'm taking Stock's claim to support academic freedom with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...
What document was that, got a link or a title?
 
Athos said:
No, I get that. My point wasn't that you (or any woman) should have to accept any greater risk, necessarily, but that it's not fair to pretend it's a question of risk of harm on one side versus feelings on another. A recognition that there's risks to either approach leads to two questions: first, the practical one of assessing the size of the risks (to women as a result of trans women having access to single-sex spaces, and to trans women as a result of being excluded); and, secondly, the philosophical one of who should bear that risk i.e. whether it's right for cis women to assume any risk (no matter how small) to protect trans women. I suspect the latter will come down to whether you see trans women as men or women in this context.
Click to expand...

It's a question of a network of overlapping rights and obligations, rather than risk, to my mind. And you need to carry out a balancing test between rights/obligations that are in tension.

An analysis of risk is a component of that picture but it is wrong, IMV, to start from that place.
 
Athos said:
Yes, that would seem the most obvious answer. And didn't ought to be too difficult or costly to implement quickly - make both toilets unisex, take out urinals and ensure stalls are private and lockable.

Worth noting that there are many on either side of the debate who find such an accommodation unacceptable, though.
Click to expand...
If women are saying they're worried about being harassed by men pretending to be women don't you think they might be even less enthusiastic about the possibility of being harassed by men who aren't even pretending at all?
I expect this thread to get locked shortly but the argument over using the loo as silly as it might seem does sum up the whole trans rights argument in a nutshell.
Men didn't give up rights so women could have some they gave up privileges (and we kicked up a fuss about that). With the whole trans rights thing tens of millions of women are being told they have to surrender some of their rights so that a few thousand trans individuals can have those they are demanding.
 
dylans said:
They should use the mens because they are men. They could even use the urinals.

To be honest, I don't really care which toilet they use. I don't really care which toilet anyone uses. I think there are much bigger issues such as prisons, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, hospital wards, sports competitions etc that are more important.

There is also a larger point that women's and gay peoples identities are being erased. Lesbian dating sites are increassingly expected to indulge anatomically male trans women claiming to be lesbians and are called bigots when they object to what are really heterosexual men with dicks and facial hair demanding relationships with them.

Gay people are increasingly being told that the identity many of them fought for as SAME SEX ATTRACTED is no longer longer valid and has been replaced with same gender attraction, a definition that leads to the absurd situation where lesbians are attacked or labelled as genital obsessives" for rejecting potential partners with penises or gay men are called bigots for rejecting trans men with vaginas. If biological sex is no longer the basis for sexual attraction, if everything is now fluid and based on identity and something as subjective and undefinable as "gender" if an anatomically intact male person with a dick can call themselves a lesbian, then homosexuality no longer exists.
Click to expand...
Utter hysterical bollocks. Do you know any trans people or is all this based on stuff you've read on the internet.
 
Diamond said:
It's a question of a network of overlapping rights and obligations, rather than risk, to my mind. And you need to carry out a balancing test between rights/obligations that are in tension.

An analysis of risk is a component of that picture but it is wrong, IMV, to start from that place.
Click to expand...
I guess you don't feel at risk, so that's likely to appear less significant to you than it does to some women.
 
Last edited:
MickiQ said:
If women are saying they're worried about being harassed by men pretending to be women don't you think they might be even less enthusiastic about the possibility of being harassed by men who aren't even pretending at all?
I expect this thread to get locked shortly but the argument over using the loo as silly as it might seem does sum up the whole trans rights argument in a nutshell.
Men didn't give up rights so women could have some they gave up privileges (and we kicked up a fuss about that). With the whole trans rights thing tens of millions of women are being told they have to surrender some of their rights so that a few thousand trans individuals can have those they are demanding.
Click to expand...
There's some truth in that, though it's worth noting, first, that most women appear to be trans inclusive; and, secondly, that it needn't be a zero sum game.
 
Trans rights and women's rights are compatible
my rights as a cis woman are not being compromised by the rights of trans women

I despair of the prejudice that is carelessly tossed onto this thread with no thought of how it impacts on the trans people who post here
 
ginger_syn said:
Utter hysterical bollocks. Do you know any trans people or is all this based on stuff you've read on the internet.
Click to expand...
When Glinner was at this stage the next thing he did was start putting fake profiles on dating sites pretending to be trans or something grim like that? But I'm sure that's fine. Sensible even.
 
Miss-Shelf said:
Trans rights and women's rights are compatible
my rights as a cis woman are not being compromised by the rights of trans women
Click to expand...

I was involved in putting on a boxing and grappling match not so long ago. People entered and were matched up in age, weight, sex, and experience categories. We tried to have a discussion about how to match up transwomen in the sessions, and we did loads of reading about sports and sports competitions and how it was managed elsewhere.

We attempted to discuss whether a women entering had a right to step into a ring in front of a load of people with the full expectation that they'd be matched against another woman, rather than someone that possibly to them looked like a man and/or was a no-surgery non-hormone taking transwoman. That was shouted down as 'transphobic' and completely out of order, and all women should fine to be matched against a transwomen in a contact sport, and anything else was completely unacceptable, and women were being transphobic to express reservations about this, let alone being against it.

Yeah, a niche situation, but was there no conflict of rights/freedoms/expectations there?

I am a man. I have never been scared of a woman, but have been scared plenty of times by other men. I would have got into the ring with any woman in that competition without a second thought, but they'd have been at least few men just at that competition I would have not done that happily with at all.

And yes, we did talk to trans people about how to manage this, and no realistic answer was given. Aside from matching transwomen as women without any difference, other suggestions made included ignoring the sex/gender category altogether, adding a body fat/muscle mass ratio instead (how we were going to measure that wasn't explained), and all sorts of other similar things.

I think it was managed OK in the end, and everyone was happy, and loads was learnt about how to do it better in the future, but it was and is a really difficult topic, made much harder by people telling others that no discussion was allowed and the answer was and is simple; that transwomen are women.

Actually just to add (and I'm not sure what I make of it but it was noted by a few people) was that the people shouting the loudest about how the above was transphobic were not transwomen (who were mostly entirely reasonable when the subject came up) but men and women who made it clear they were trans allies.
 
Last edited:
Edie said:
The scale is incomparable. And the problem solvable with gender neutral facilities.

That is where the campaign should focus, and I would support that, not in access to female protected facilities, sports, prisons, hospitals and refuges. The fact it is focused on accessing womens space is because it is concerned with forcing an ideology (trans women are women) not just safety.
Click to expand...

I love the way 'campaign for third spaces' is thrown around like some magical shield that immediately absolves someone from any possible harms that could come from their demands. Because we all know how easy it is to persuade capitalists to spend huge sums of money on unprofitable activities. I suspect this attitude comes from the vast privilege of many involved in the gender critical movement, who assume all you need to do is write a column for The Times and a bunch of poor people will turn up and build you a toilet. I had hoped you were more grounded.

Even if it is a safety issue, which I accept, why should the safety of 1% men who identify as women be placed ahead of 52% of the population born as women?! That’s misogyny. I reject it.
Click to expand...

Why should we spend huge sums of money on wheelchair ramps for 1% of the population? Why should marriage be defiled for 1% of the population? Why should we have to pay tax to pay for unemployment benefits for 1% of the population? It's called living in a society. One day you will be in that 1%.

We have a huge dataset now showing what trans inclusion looks like. Cities like New York who have had specific laws which guarantee trans inclusion in women's toilets for over a decade. In the UK tens of thousands of trans women are using women's toilets every day and have been for decades. Beyond a couple of isolated incidents globally there have been no reported issues. The chances of being attacked by a trans women in a women's toilet must be hundreds of million to one. The chance of being attacked by a man in the streets, at work, or in just about any other environment is far more significant. I wonder how the angry gender critical men would feel if a similar risk analysis was used to curtail their ability to participate in society? There's a reason so many men are keen to see feminism focussed on attacking trans women. Something Dworkin nailed when she was discussing right wing women:

dworkin.png
 
Last edited:
smokedout said:
Stock signed the Declaration on Women's Sex Based Rights which calls, amongst other things, for the global elimination of trans people in law and the end of all existing trans rights. Her current position seems to be that she did sign it, but she didn't agree with it, and people assuming she did is harassment. Anyway it's here: Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights: Full Text - Women's Human Rights Campaign
Click to expand...
Specifically, which part(s) do you say amount to a call for the "elimination of trans people in law and the end of all existing trans rights"?
 
"States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into the category of women in law, policies and practice constitutes discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of women’s sex-based human rights."

"These measures should include the provision of single-sex services and physical spaces for women and girls to provide them with safety, privacy, and dignity. Whether provided by public or private entities, such single sex provisions should be allocated on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’, and should be staffed by women on the basis of their sex and not ‘gender identity’."

So there goes the Gender Recognition Act and trans people's protections under the Equality Act. It is an eliminationist manifesto, co-written by Sheila Jeffreys, who is quite open about her desire to see the elimination of what she calls 'the practice of transgenderism'.
 
Diamond said:
So my viewpoint prevents me from analysing the situation...?

Who is allowed to have a view then....?

And why?
Click to expand...
It’s more that there is no such thing as a context-free and objective analysis. All analyses start from a subjective understanding of what the world is, how it works, how people interrelate, the meaning of objects and institutions and so on. You can analyse a situation but you can’t do so from some theoretical plane free of this subjectivity. You therefore have to recognise how that perspective has influenced your analysis. If you don’t, your analysis is worthless.
 
I was referring to a legal analysis of the relevant network of rights/obligations.

Not some wishy-washy social science stuff.

The claims here are around rights - that engages the law.
 
smokedout said:
"States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into the category of women in law, policies and practice constitutes discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of women’s sex-based human rights."

"These measures should include the provision of single-sex services and physical spaces for women and girls to provide them with safety, privacy, and dignity. Whether provided by public or private entities, such single sex provisions should be allocated on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’, and should be staffed by women on the basis of their sex and not ‘gender identity’."

So there goes the Gender Recognition Act and trans people's protections under the Equality Act. It is an eliminationist manifesto, co-written by Sheila Jeffreys, who is quite open about her desire to see the elimination of what she calls 'the practice of transgenderism'.
Click to expand...
The call for states to provide sex-based protection for women doesn't preclude them also providing others with protections based on their gender identity. For instance, a state could mandate that trans women be excluded from female spaces, whilst also mandating the provision of equal facilities for trans women.
 
Diamond said:
So my viewpoint prevents me from analysing the situation...?

Who is allowed to have a view then....?

And why?
Click to expand...
You're allowed a view; everyone is. But it's hardly surprising that you opinion is informed by your experience. And a failure to recognise that it's likely to lead you into error.
 
Diamond said:
I was referring to a legal analysis of the relevant network of rights/obligations.

Not some wishy-washy social science stuff.

The claims here are around rights - that engages the law.
Click to expand...
Who gives a fuck about that? This is about what the law should be, not what it is. And it’s about who is harmed by the law as practised through the complexity of society, not some lawman’s (also subjective) opinion about how law is supposed to be interpreted.
 
Last edited:
JimW said:
Fair play Diamond I wasn't expecting a straight up belly laugh on a thread dealing with serious and for me tricky issue
Click to expand...
Indeed. Speaking as somebody who has had to use many tens of sober legal analyses that turned out to be completely mistaken about how things would play out, the idea that a legal analysis is somehow objective is extremely funny indeed.
 
I couldn't really give a fuck about toilets (because I never use them - at least not public ones) but I do reject the idea that refuges, prisons and various situations such as the right to have a female doctor should be compromised. I have been a victim of physical and sexual violence and my life has been irretrievably damaged so no, I don't give a single fuck for the comforts and convenience of men who retain their social, physical and hormonal size and privilege whatever pronouns they want to use or whatever they call themselves...and fwiw, women do not have 'ladydicks' - the very fact that TERF has been a slur to specifically single out women, (despite 99% of violence towards women and transwomen pertains at the hands of men ) is all the proof I need to see that men's rights still prevail and women's safety is (again) compromised because of men. I guess it's easy to feel safe and liberal when you haven't been on the receiving end of unwanted penises and fists but for me (and my daughter and grand-daughter), I will never again let any man put their hands on me or invade my privacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wookey
Woman falls through a hole in Blackpool Pier
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Lotte
L
WhyLikeThis
Is your Labour MP on this list?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
WhyLikeThis
WhyLikeThis
D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
2 3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
4K
Petcha
P
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
Boo Radley75
Boo Radley75
Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
Back
Top Bottom