Woman

So perhaps it is best he should be left out of it or I might start to question his existence.

I wasn't there, but I took my friend at her word - he was in a swimsuit which he took off to get changed, it being a changing room. A female changing room designed for mothers and toddlers to change in, on the 'female' side of the pool. The male facilities were on the opposite side to avoid instances of people entering the wrong one by 'mistake'. I accepted your suggestion that he may have been pre-transition, but even so, he had the option to use the single cubicles instead of the communal changing room.

So far, I have been accused of holding eugenicist views, of being a keyboard warrior, a racist, a homophobe, having twisted views, being guilty of inaction, a theoretical feminist, and now you are suggesting that I am a liar.

Luckily I'm not easily rattled, but it's not a good look - you'd do better to stick to answering the questions people are patiently putting to you instead of hoping that being offensive will divert the conversation away from the issues.

Mollygo my opinions on women's sport are clearly stated while you continue to make statements I have never made I refuse to debate with you.
Would you be happy if I summed up your comments as being quite happy for women in sport to be driven to suicide because you are obsessed with transwomen?

Doodledog

No, it was a changing room and he was naked. But let's leave this chap out of it - as a general principle, do you think that women should be protected by making it an offence for an intact male to be in their spaces, particularly in a state of undress (and not a member of the emergency services etc etc).

That's funny he's shed his swimming costume since Monday. You know the one
My friend did not need to control herself when she saw a man in a wig and swimsuit with barely concealed tackle in the female changing room. Her three year old was under no illusion either
So perhaps it is best he should be left out of it or I might start to question his existence.

That’s fine trisher. For you, transwomen men achieving to the detriment of natal women is OK until everything else you mention is sorted out.
I disagree.
I think that the problems need to be addressed as they arise and continue to be addressed until they are sorted, with particular attention being given where the initial issue has been exacerbated by new developments and attempts to defeat any system that has been put in place.

There has been a problem with ‘men masquerading as women in order to compete for the laurels of victory . . . back to the early cold war period’ ( see bjsm)
They have tried a variety of strategies to ensure that women are actually women, from making the women competitors parade naked before a panel of female doctors (1966) to using more scientific methods. Unacceptable, I agree, but who caused the need for such gender verification? Certainly not the men who were competing as men or natal women competing as women!
There is even suggestion in the same Bjsm document, that a pre-pubescent sex change would mean the athlete could then compete as a woman and would not have an unfair advantage, but “according to the Stockholm consensus, surgery must include gonadectomy and revision of the external genitalia and hormonal therapy must be administered in a verifiable manner.”
I could discuss the rights and wrongs of such early treatment, but not here.

They did not agree that athletes who undergo reassignment after puberty should be allowed to compete in the same way.

The problems of black female athletes needs addressing. We only see the successful ones so have no idea of issues behind their success other than those also suffered by white female athletes. Unless the problems are also caused by their chances being hampered by transwomen, then this is not relevant here.

As I said at the start I believe the issue of the rights of female athletes should not be addressed in a linear fashion, with new problems having to wait in line until the previous one has been sorted, but dealt with as they occur.

Yes Rosie51 I agree that humans, not necessarily only women, are capable of addressing more than one problem at once. Look at the make up of the IOC.

I was delighted to see mixed teams competing at this year’s Olympics, but the current scenario means that a mixed team could have transwomen and men. Would they win? Would the other teams feel it was fair if they did? Perhaps what we need is for men to see the unfairness and complain.

No, it was a changing room and he was naked. But let's leave this chap out of it - as a general principle, do you think that women should be protected by making it an offence for an intact male to be in their spaces, particularly in a state of undress (and not a member of the emergency services etc etc).

Not particularly it may be a single father finding the only decent loo to take his young daughter to is the women's. Is it fair to make him a criminal?

Riiiiight.

Not quite the same thing, though. Do you think that it should be a specific offence for an intact male, however he identifies, to be in a protected female space?

It is an offence to threaten to harm or physically damage another person, regardless of if there is physical contact. So the law already exists Doodledog
Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm. This definition recognizes that placing another person in fear of imminent bodily harm is itself an act deserving of punishment, even if the victim of the assault is not physically harmed. This definition also allows police officers to intervene and make an arrest without waiting for the assaulter to actually strike the victim.

*OMG how many times do I have to say it.
It is impossible to police properly places which are accesible to the general public. Transwomen anyway have been using them for years and the number of attacks or any other harrassment by a transwoman is minimal. There is therefore no point in having any law which in anyway resticts access to those places.*

Most laws are honoured in the breach not the observance, so that's not a problem. I am losing count of what I said where, but on one of the current threads I suggested that where a transwoman behaves like the ones you describe and is quietly going about her life, there is no issue, but when someone knowingly goes into a protected female space and causes concern, they be charged with a specific offence.

How would you feel about that?

I think that needs sorting before anything is done about transwomen.

Humans are capable of addressing more than one problem at a time you know. Women are renowned for their ability to multi-task, I'm sure a panel of women could address the multiple problems in women's sport at the same time.

OMG how many times do I have to say it.
It is impossible to police properly places which are accesible to the general public. Transwomen anyway have been using them for years and the number of attacks or any other harrassment by a transwoman is minimal. There is therefore no point in having any law which in anyway resticts access to those places .

In circumstances where women feel genuinely disturbed or upset by a transwoman using the same space, where for example women might not use the space because of transwomen, even those with a GRC can be excluded. I'm happy with that.

Women's sport has for years been subjected to unreasonable and invasive assessments for their gender. At least one woman has been driven to suicide by this. I think that needs sorting before anything is done about transwomen. Black women in particular are affected. I'm far more concerned about what is being done to those women than anything to do with transwomen

If you want to cheerlead each other. . . That’s unfair trisher. I did thank you when you posted about the erosion of women’s employment rights.

I’ve been waiting for a response from you, and from GJ, because she is the one who demonstrates that making assumptions is an OK way to go. Otherwise in response to my post on 5.8.21, we can take it that;

You do think it’s right to deny natal women safe spaces where the admission of some transwomen make the spaces unsafe, and women feel at risk, whether that be hospital, toilets, prisons or other single sex spaces.

You do actually believe that transwomen should be allowed into those spaces until, on an individual basis, a transwoman admitted, harms a natal woman, girl or child physically or mentally.

You do think it’s right that even a small but potentially increasing number of women and girls should be denied the right to compete or win at the highest level by having to compete against transwomen who still have the virtue of having reached puberty as a male and the advantages that gives.

Ignoring the diversions for a minute, what about the point that there was a private cubicle option? Would you support a law that prohibited untransitioned transwomen from accessing communal spaces such as I described?

Also, you said upthread that it was in the interests of women to allow untransitioned transwomen into their spaces. Can you please explain how women benefit from having them in hospital wards, prisons, refuges etc, all of which make changing rooms pale into (comparative) insignificance?

It would also clear the air if you could let us know whether you see those of us who keep saying that we are not transphobic, but simply have concerns about language and safe spaces are telling the truth?

grannygranby the reason there were no women's public loos was because upper class women never admitted to any bodily functions and lower class women simply hitched up their skirts and went in the street.
The law says you must
have lived in your true gender for two years before you make your application; and
intend to continue living in your true gender until your death
The "funny that" remark is aimed at the way self ID has been misrepresented in the press and by government. We have one of the most right wing governments in recent years, but no one seems to question their commitment to human rights. So refugees, and asylum seekers are denied theirs, transpeople are misrepresented and women are turned against each other. Do transpeople benefit? No. But it is obvious who does.

trisher what would be the point of segregation of spaces on the grounds of sex, granted since females were allowed to have public loos, (much later than men, separate point however) because females would be vulnerable to male attack, if you can use all the facilities at any time (in the two years proving your gender status) that is bonkers. And I don’t believe it. The evidence you have to supply is bureaucratic.

Cheerlead away, if that's how you see agreeing with someone. Personally, if I see a post that makes me think, or that echoes what I was about to post, I prefer not to ignore it, but instead acknowledge that I agree. I do't do it 'all the time', but anyway . . .

You know, you might get a bit more respect if you stopped with the sly nastiness on your posts. 'Twisted logic' is by no means a neutral phrase, and it is quite difficult to respond neutrally to a post that is insulting before it makes any point at all.

You may well be right about transwomen having to use female facilities - that is a valid point, so there is no need for the snide 'funny that' comment. However, and this is why many women are concerned, they do not have to use communal changing rooms which are there to help mothers dress their children and keep an eye on them whilst they dress themselves. Anyone wanting to fit in as a woman would know this, and would opt for a private cubicle, even if it were on the female side of the pool.

You may have told your toddlers not to stare - as their parent that was your right, but can't you see that your way is not necessarily the only way? Not everyone wants to see naked men when they least expect it, and not everyone wants their children to be confronted by a penis either - and that is their right. There was no need to 'examine his body' - he had it on full display in the shower and changing room.

The other questions asked by me and by Mollygo remain unanswered , however.

Thanks for your posts Gagajo I was thinking that perhaps we should be cheerleaders for each other much like some of the people on this thread who have to post "Good post" all the time.

Well here's one for the twisted logic of those who aren't against transpeople. Transwomen whatever their medical state have to access women's facilities. They cannot as some of you are posting choose to use men's facilities because the law says they have to use women's and live as a woman for two years regardless of any procedures they may or may not have undergone. Just as transmen have to use mens.

And as for the question about the person with obviously male bits and the three year old. I would have said what I always say to a child who questions someone's appearance. "You don't stare at anyone, you don't make remarks about their body. It's bad manners"
And as a matter of fact that has served me very well. I tend not to examine anyone's body in a swim suit.
But anyway that person is probably a transwoman putting in her two years. She has to be there. The law says she must. Self ID which might have given transwomen a choice was scuppered because misinformation about it was widely circulated. Funny that isn't it.

Gaga-just an inclusive name for . . .
You make such sweeping assumptions about the lives of others, what they do and don’t do, and whether their understanding of feminism is ‘right’ as defined by you and yet you can’t answer simple questions requiring a yes or no answer any better than a politician ever does.
So I’ll try again.
Can you give a straightforward yes or no answer to the three questions I asked at 22:14 yesterday?
I haven’t the time or the desire to post them again but
Q1, yes or no
Q2 yes or no
Q3 yes or no
I prefer not to make assumptions, but since your use of them implies that you approve of assumptions I’ll take it that any further diversions or your refusal to answer means no.
Sleep well everyone.

Distain, not sustain! Bloody phone.

How do you know whether or not I, or anyone else on the thread is an activist? You really don’t. This is not an activism contest anyway - it is supposed to be a discussion.

I’m not asking you to explain your life - just commenting on something you have posted numerous times that seems at odds with your sustain for theorising.

None of this is answering the questions though, and surely that is how discussions work? Someone asks a question and the person they asked answers?

not just you, the 'gang') Wow who belongs to this gang? Is it open to anyone? Is it really cool? May I join? Are there qualifications to join? Can you tell I'm excited/intrigued?

Do you not see how theory and action SHOULD go hand-in-hand? If you believe in something, you work towards it?

I'm not explaining my life to you. Anyone who is an activist works that way. Not just talk.

You have mentioned more than once that your (presumably theoretical) dissertation was on trans issues when it suited you to use it to show your expertise.

Are you denying it now that you’ve decided that only life experience matters?

Because when we do, you (not just you, the 'gang') resort to insults or abstraction. THAT isn't discussion, it's repeating a minute point from multiple angles.

Who has an MA in trans issues? Now there is an assumption.

Rosie51 Thu 05-Aug-21 23:11:05
lie through your teeth

Seriously? WHY would an anonymous individual lie about that?

I really don't understand this tendency. Perhaps you have more insight?
GagaJo when you patronise people and make such wild, unfounded assumptions, well I despair. You have absolutely no idea of the commitment or hours spent aiding others of anybody on this forum. You are not just patronising but rude and offensive. Maybe a lesson on common courtesy and good manners is called for?