Woman

What an amazing diversion.
Wether or not women would faint at the sight of a penis is your excuse for it being OK for men (and let’s not pretend that transwomen flaunting a penis instead of being considerate are anything but men) makes it OK for men to be in women’s spaces. ????
Is that the best you can do?
Women have the right to women only spaces where they can feel safe, whether the safety involves their mental health, their religion or even their fear of men. Transwomen who wish to access those spaces should not need to make it obvious that they are trans.

As far as I know Doodledog no one male or female has the right to decide who is in the hospital bed next to them.

That's fine Mollygo but given that legislation takes time, couldn't women just stand up for themselves a bit??

A lot of vulnerable women would find it very difficult to “stand up for themselves”. Why should it be necessary for them to do so in what they quite reasonably expect to be a safe all-female space? Why are you putting the onus on them to ensure their mental and physical safety in such a place? This is clear evidence of your desire to back the rights of trans women over those of natal women.

Indeed, Germanshepherdsmum

trisher, rather than diverting again, would you please answer the question.

Why, in your world, does a transwoman who has been raped have a right to use a female communal changing rooms in case she gets distressed by the sight of male bodies, but a woman who has been raped have to share a ward or a prison cell (or space in a DV hostel) with an intact male?

It's really not a complicated question, but your reluctance to answer it speaks volumes.

I could say that not all transwomen faint at the sight of a penis, but that would be sinking to your level, so I will resist the temptation.

Oh I stopped answering your questions Doodledog when the bloke in the changing room shed his budgie smugglers!
I've realised none of you actually want any solutions you just want to frighten each other or condemn transpeople.

If you really knew anything you'd know that most violence against women happens in the home and not in public places and it's usually someone the women know, not a stranger.

The transwoman wouldn't be upset by the sight of a male body, just afraid of being attacked again.
I will never understand why concern for a transperson is regarded as not caring about women. Both matter. Both need protection, but posting unfounded and doubtful scenarios, with no real concept of what can be done or even what you hope can be done is just scaremongering for some strange personal satisfaction.

If you really knew anything you'd know that most violence against women happens in the home and not in public places and it's usually someone the women know, not a stranger.

That is a truly appalling thing to say, you should be ashamed of yourself Trisher for advancing it. Violence against women should be condemned wherever and whenever it occurs. Of course trans violence against women isn't common, the number of men making these claims is very small.

On the basis of your remarks I assume that as most child abuse happens in the home we should not be too concerned any that happen outside the domestic situation, Jimmy Saville, I mean there was only one of him.

You never started answering my questions, or those of anyone else ?

You will never come to understand if you treat all attempt to discuss the issues by your DARVO tactics, but I don't think you want to - you are arguing in circles and making few useful points.

I gained no personal satisfaction from the incident. I mentioned it as it happened as this thread was live. I did not resort to dragging a lesbian affair in a prison that happened 50 years ago into it, which you clearly thought was ok, however.

I wish I hadn't mentioned it, not because, as you slyly insinuate, that it was not true, but because it gave you another opportunity to divert the conversation so that you could attack me and attempt to reverse the situation in the hope of presenting me as the oppressor to your victim, but anyone who has read the thread will see this for what it is.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

couldn't women just stand up for themselves a bit??

So that’s where women have been going wrong all this time! We haven’t stood up for ourselves enough. All those women killed though domestic violence, women who’ve been raped but no case has come to court, women subjected to sexual abuse. If only they’d stood up for themselves.

If that’s not a bully’s charter, I don’t know what is.

Trisher says, “ . . . couldn’t women just stand up for themselves a bit??”
I wonder what she thinks they should do? Women who have recently stood up for themselves and what they believe, find themselves “cancelled”, removed from office, and accused of transphobia among other things.
In real life as well as on GN they are faced with people who refuse to give unambiguous answers to questions relating to women’s rights to safety and other women’s rights issues and are often offered diversionary tactics instead, to avoid the a straightforward answer.

No one has said women haven't stood up for themselves enough
Simply that most violence is domestic- 92% of cases.
That you are focussing on something for which there is little evidence apart from a few individuals who terrible as they are are not typical. And I wonder why you do that.
That actually there are women who will not be intimidated by someone exposing themselves and all women are not victims.
That isn't blaming the others simply pointing something out.
Just as there are women who think transwomen are women, who don't see them as a threat and who are not being eliminated. You are entirely entitled to your opinions but really such personal attacks. Shouldn't feminists support other women no matter how much they disagree with them?

11.57 Missed this one?
Wonderful diversion about the choir, the deep voice and the woman’s size.
Does the person with the deeper voice or the large size make you aware that they are trans? (Did you announce you were heterosexual to initiate such a conversation?)
Does the person with the deeper voice and the large size -we have several in a choir where I sing, do anything which makes you feel uncomfortable, e.g. display their bits-male or female.
Do they do anything which makes you want to challenge them?
Does your large muscular friend do anything that would invite investigation?
Have you uncovered suggestion that checks should be made on women in choirs if they are larger or sing deeper.
I’ll digress and join your attempts at diversion, though I’m making it quite clear this is another nonsensical diversion so answers are not necessary.
On the same basis as your questions above, would you have wanted to check the BeeGees when you heard them sing falsetto.

Shouldn't feminists support other women no matter how much they disagree with them?

That is an interesting question. In fact I started a thread about it a while ago. It is such a diversion from this one that it makes no sense to start talking about it here - why not start a new one? I'd be very interested to see what you have to say about the way in which some women are refusing to support gender critical feminists.

As for the rest - You are the one saying that women should stand up for themselves:

given that legislation takes time, couldn't women just stand up for themselves a bit?? trisher 17:48

No one has said women haven't stood up for themselves enough trisher 20:20

Are you really saying what you think on these threads, or just scrabbling for something that you think will 'win' the post? You don't seem to be able to remember what you think from one post to the next.

Nobody has said or implied that women are victims - the exhortation that we should stand up for ourselves comes from you, not anyone else.

I am aware that there are those who think that TWAW - their voice is very loud and clear. That they feel like that is not under dispute. What is under dispute, however, is their (and your?) belief that as soon as a man says he is a woman he becomes one, and as such has unfettered access to all (previously) female spaces (define those as you will).

Are you arguing that because not all women will be intimidated by someone exposing themselves that all women should put up with it? What about your hypothetical transwoman who was raped in the male communal changing room of the swimming baths? Why should she put up with deliberate exposure if she can't bear to see male bodies in a more neutral setting? Actually, how would she feel about other transwomen undressing in the female communal changing room if they were still intact males?

Shouldn't feminists support other women no matter how much they disagree with them?

Good heavens, that sounds utterly totalitarian. Should I support a woman who expresses racist views just because she is a woman? Doesn't that mean I would be endorsing racism?

It is the argument used by every group/family that protects a member of that group/family from just punishment if a member transgresses. This is how many paedophiles escaped justice for so long.

couldn't women just stand up for themselves a bit?? Have you learnt anything from life, or perhaps from GN, where women often explain their unwillingness to stand-up to violence or coercion. yet you can talk confidently about 92% of violence to women being in the home, by someone they know.

I find many of the views you have expressed on this thread Trisher quite frightening. Not the specifics of transgender, but the underlying beliefs such as the one I have quoted in this thread, and the one I have queried in my previous thread. It shows a callousness and unwillingness to uunderstand other world views. This is new in you. Ist there a reason?

Wonderful diversion about domestic violence. If that was what we were discussing, but we aren’t.
So do you think that because some women aren’t intimidated by men exposing themselves-which is actually an arrestable crime, it’s OK. Oh dear.
Because there’s “little evidence” and there are only “a few individuals” you wonder why we are concerned. Oh dear
I’ll digress-I’m beginning to see the value of that strategy.
Compared with the whole population, there are only a few murderers, so should we be concerned?
With regard to feminists supporting other women . . . Are you a feminist? You certainly present as differently feminist from some of my friends and colleagues and some more well known ones I’ve met.
Do you mean supporting all other women or only the ones who agree with you?

And for the nth time, most women have no interest in transwomen except where their rights and behaviour are allowed to take precedence over the mental or physical safety rights, employment rights and rights to compete of natal women and girls. I’ll now extend that to religious rights as well.

trisher said "most violence is domestic- 92% of cases" if that is the case why would you want to deprive women of safe female only places? I repeat - as long as someone is still physically male they should not use female only spaces.

I also question why you seem to think it OK for someone who identifies as female but is still physically male should expose their genitals to women and children.

Mollygo and Oldwoman70 Thank you. Your last two posts, and others before have been so eloquent in defining the basics of most women's concern about men, self-definng as women using female spaces.

The idea that feminists should always support other women was put forward on another thread about trans rights. Not by trisher, but by a poster with similar views. It is a strategy often used in this debate.

I think it is a dangerous idea (and if memory serves on the other thread the comment was linked to something personal to another poster) so I started separate thread to discuss it, but was threatened with being reported under that silly TAAT rule. Clearly discussing the idea was not comfortable.

The idea that ‘feminists’ should ‘support’ all ‘women’ starts by dividing us into two groups, which are not defined. If you do not comply, you are not a ‘feminist’, and what is a feminist is decided by . . . whom?

As we know, what constitutes a ‘woman’ is now under debate too, so to be a ‘feminist’ you have to ‘support’ . . . whom?

See where this is going? And what does ‘support’ even mean? Who is deciding that?

It’s a meaningless concept, but has fascistic connotations. Divide people into groups, demonise ‘outsiders’ and make it very easy (because of unclear expectations) to fail to comply. If you do fail, by definition you are not in the ‘in’ group, and can be ostracised. Four legs good, two legs bad.

Even taken at face value the idea that all women should support all other women is nonsense. Are men never right? Are we always in opposition to men anyway? What about these much-trumpeted male feminists? And do women think as one? What a depressing thought.

No, the idea was never about solidarity. It is about control by the ones deciding what it is that the rest of us have to support. Some are more equal than others.

you really don't get it trisher do you? It really is nothing to do with transphobia. We only care about women and children's safety and fairness. We are mammals. The word itself is derived from mammary glands, breasts. We are a sexually dimorphic species These are facts. No choice. Now as the physical task of reproduction is fundamental it takes great toll on the female sex whether her body produces offspring or not. Males do not have this physical handicap. And has to be respected. There is no choice. Women have fought sexism to lessen the difference in the way society treats us. And we have achieved some (not much) leeway: Separate safe spaces because the consequences of rape is profound. we are not talking about feelings here for chrissakes AND in competitive sport because the female body is physiologically different. Yet this new movement wish to take even those protections away. Can you not see what a threat that is to women?

Well I absolutely support all of you with your views if I didn't why would I still be on this thread? I'd have abandoned you ages ago.What I am trying to do, strange as it may seem, is to make you realise that actually some of your demands are not only impractical , unenforceable and biased they in fact do absolutely nothing to increase the safety of women.
So lets get one thing straight I believe there are places where women need to be protected and that those spaces include refuges, rape centres, religious centres and any other places where for personal or religious reasons women establish groups where the presence of transwomen might cause a woman not to attend. These places arre already covered by the Equality Act. I think it's perfecly reasonable to ask why that Act isn't being properly implemented.
I do not believe that all the places women access or use are, or should be, designated under that act . So no the changing room in a public swimming baths cannot be designated a safe space. For many reasons including the big questions who will oversee it and how will they ensure no transwomen access it? As for the red herring what about women of other religions? Women of other religions would not use the pool whilst men were being admitted. So it might be possible to set up a women's time, restrict entrance to women only, staff the venue with women and class it under the Equalities Act. One big problem remains of course how would staff know who was a transwoman and how would they challenge them?
So I have suggested that perhaps women's best defence is to protect themselves. This doesn't mean I expect every woman to do so. It is however a lot more practical and much more likely to work than just moaning on about things or proposing unworkable legal solutions.
Of course the problem will always exist of about identifying transpeople. I don't think you can. So perhaps the only solution which would suit most of you is requiring them to wear something like pink triangles. But we know where that originated don't we?

You were doing so well until the pink triangles?.

It's good to see a more rational approach, though, and I am absolutely sincere in saying that.

I think that the reason the Equalities Act is not being used effectively is because there is so much confusion as to what is 'discriminatory' because of Stonewall and other groups' vociferous objection to anything that suggests that men cannot become women at will.

Re the changing room issue - I see your point about religious women not using mixed pools (although in some centres there is more than one pool and times that are designated for different groups), but I still maintain that in a female-designated changing room it is reasonable not to expect to see a man with his tackle out - particularly when children are present. The question of whether it should be called a 'safe space' is largely one of semantics. There should, IMO, be a much more open debate about what is meant by various terms, so that they can be used in a meaningful way by all concerned.

The question of how staff would know who was a transwoman is fair; but outside of situations such as swimming pools where, with the best will in the world it is fairly obvious if someone is male, it won't matter unless someone draws attention to themselves in an obvious way. As we have been saying on these threads for ages, most women probably don't care if we sit next to a bloke in a dress, or a fully transitioned transwoman, or people at any point in between. What we are asking for is protection against men using the trans issue as a loophole to attack (literally or metaphorically) women.

Personally, I also see the change in language as a metaphorical attack, as if it continues women as a separate class will simply disappear. There will be no mechanism for counting instances of abuse, of discrimination, of criminality or all the other things that are used by policy makers. It is not about discriminating against transwomen - it is about protecting the rights of women.

Is this where we can all sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya? ?

Yay trisher!
Who except you would have thought of pink triangles and relating women’s concerns about the erosion of their right to safety, fair employment (you endorsed that way back on this thread) and their right to compete in a fair playing field, to a different regime. Oops! You’ve used that link before.

Sorry ? about the digression about women’s religion-I was partly expressing admiration of your strategy for diverting a debate.
Oh and that yesterday I was at the gym with a woman who had been affected by the decision to admit even blatantly male transwomen to the women’s pond at Hampstead Heath Ponds rather than them using the mixed pond, a decision which affected use by the orthodox Jewish and Muslim women.
The men there got really cross when self ID women invaded their pool and police removed the self ID women because they might cause a breach of the peace.
To be fair, the Jewish or Muslim men may well fight for the rights of women with regard to religion. I’m no expert on that.

Thanks Doodledog, you are so much more measured in your response.

Shouldn't women in prison, be protected from genitally whole men identifying as women, or is the threat of sexual attack there part of their punishment?

We know there have been a number of such attacks by such biological men, when incarcerated in women's prisons, disproportionate to the number of such men in this situation. Women in prison, have very limited means of escape from such situations.

Trisher writes:
So lets get one thing straight I believe there are places where women need to be protected and that those spaces include refuges, rape centres, religious centres and any other places where for personal or religious reasons women establish groups where the presence of transwomen might cause a woman not to attend. These places arre already covered by the Equality Act. I think it's perfecly reasonable to ask why that Act isn't being properly implemented.”

Indeed and it was for protesting that this wasn’t happening that maya forstater got the sack. Finally winning her case in the high court. It is still legislated via stonewall’s diversity scheme which the police courts councils political parties have signed up for and pay them shed loads of money to train their staff. Any breaking of these rules snd they are accused of transphobia. You must know this. Males purely on self id are recorded as female their crimes often sexual are recorded as female and they are placed in female jails. That’s why it has to stop.it is a dangerous lie.