Woman

New thread ‘Mixed Hospital Wards’ started by MawBe today.

Good question Doodlebug.
If you think those in this thread who do not want to see female single sex spaces vanish are behaving like victims, who do you see as the aggressors?
I suspect the question may be ignored or diverted, or there might be a sudden rôle reversal statement whereby women become the aggressors and the victims will be . . .

I wasn't asking for a lesson in activism, thanks. Nor to be told what to do. I was asking what you think people should be opposing and why (not how) they should do it, since you brought it up.

I don't know what you mean by 'what used to be said about black people and those with disabilities'. Said by whom? I can't make connections without more information, but I can assure you that I do not see black people or those with disabilities as trying to dominate women or take over their spaces, and nothing I think or feel has anything in common with racists or eugenicists, if that's what you are implying. I find that suggestion extremely offensive.

As for the Godwin's Law effort - I know about the rise of the Nazis and will not allow the conversation to be derailed down that road either.

I do not see myself as a victim, but if you think that those on this thread who do not want to see female single sex spaces vanish are behaving like victims, who do you see as our aggressors?

You are the one suggesting that victims need to organise and oppose aggressors. Why do you feel that way if you don't think there is any threat?

So trisher do you think the erosion of natal women’s rights in favour of the rights of all transwomen is something that isn’t already happening and won’t get worse in the future?

Doodledog if you can't see the connection between what was posted about transwomen and what used to be said about black people or people with disabilities, or that those words were based on unfounded fears, just as the remarks about the "men dressed as women" remarks are then I fear for our future. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
Amongst the first to be targetted by the Nazis were the "undesirables", the "dissolute" the "non conformist" and "sexually deviant" please note the inverted commas these are not my words.

If you believe that there is some threat and obviously you do, although apart from Stonewall and a few outspoken activists I'm uncertain where it comes from then shouldn't you at leat do something? As it isn't me who thinks there is a threat I'm quite uncertain what you expect me to tell you to do. Do you think it is acceptable that women should present as victims all the time? I gave you PTS as an example of one woman's fight.
But if I thought it was really happening here is how I would start
1. Document and collect all instances of what you say is happening with times dates places and people involved
2. Take this evidence to every MP whose constituency was involved.
3. Involve one of the women's organisations already in existence.
Will that do?

Sidetracking to other causes which certainly need addressing doesn’t take away the problem of the erosion of natal women’s rights and the rights of transwomen taking precedence, especially when it affects the safety of natal women and girls or causes the loss of opportunity which should rightfully belong to natal women and girls.
Rather it implies that the sidetracker simply does not consider the erosion of rights of natal women sufficiently important.

Germanshepherdsmum

Which I never have.

It is clear that you have not said anything racist Germanshepherdsmum, just as I have never said anything homophobic or, as far as I can tell anything that is 'out of touch' (although out of touch with what exactly is not clear).

It is a classic deflection - don't rise to it.

trisher, in what parallel universe does it make sense for someone to suggest that people should fight to oppose something that they are also saying hasn't happened yet and poses no threat?

That is a convoluted sentence for a convoluted concept, but to simplify it - what are you saying that people should organise and oppose, and why do you think they should do this?

Also, do you honestly think that if anyone on here were organising and opposing they would say so? Do you have any idea what can happen to people who organise and oppose trans rights?

Also, please don't bring the pregnantthenscrewed thing into this again. Congrats on getting maximum publicity for a no-doubt worthy cause - can't fault you there, but it has bog all to do with trans rights. You keep mentioning it on these threads, presumably to show how that you do care about women and how much of an activist you are, but come on. With the best will in the world, surely you can see that it doesn't matter what you do for other causes - that cause won't make this one any more or less acceptable, as it's not relevant to trans rights.

Which I never have.

I remember when people used to say things like that about black people and disabled people Germanshepherdsmum

Quite simply, whether logical or not, seeing an obviously intact man dressed/made up as a woman, or a person very obviously male dressed/made up as a woman in an all female space would frighten me. I don’t mean I would be afraid they would attack me (I’m not that vain), simply that it’s not something I would expect to see and would be shocked. Feel free to say I’ve lived a sheltered life or whatever attack you wish to make. I’m sure you won’t be alone. I find the idea of an intact man trying to look like a woman repulsive, likewise when a ‘woman’ (how some of you will enjoy the inverted commas) is interviewed on tv and the features and voice are clearly those of a man. That is how I feel and whatever anyone thinks of those feelings won’t change them. I doubt I’m unique amongst my generation. I have only once seen someone very obviously male dressed and made up as a woman. That would have been in the 80s but I can still see his face, the whiskers and blue eyeshadow, such was my horror then. Lots there for the picking but I won’t be engaging to defend myself.

Sorry I thought I had addressed your question Doodledog none of your rights are being eroded the 2010 Equality Act still protects you and all other women.
I don't know who is "Prioritisng the rights of men over women" certainly not me. I'm still fighting the fight for women who are really suffering and lobbying for change in the law where women are actually penalised like those dismissed in the late stages of pregnancy.
I think if you feel there is a real problem then do what the woman who created Prenant then Screwed did or the women who created Smart Works. Organise and oppose. If you believe rights are being eroded then fight for them. It's not a back to front way of looking at it, it's simply taking action and empowering women.

If the relationship between Hindley and the officer was consensual then it is a matter for the authorities to deal with in the light of the fact that it was clearly a breach of security. I don't think that there was ever a suggestion that Hindley was coerced into it (more the other way around?), but I don't know a lot about it, really. Even if she was, that is a deflection from the point, surely? I am far more concerned about prisoners being at risk from cellmates, and not in a 'hugely upset' way.

No, I am not saying that the Equality Act has been repealed, or that Self-id was legalised in the way that Stonewall wanted, (although in a 'social' setting it may as well have been). Why would I say either of those things?

In the swimming pool incident someone did complain to a member of staff who was completely nonplussed and didn't want to do the wrong thing and risk an accusation of discrimination.

The passive aggressive dig at 'out of touch individuals' won't wind me up?. I am not being 'egged on' by anyone, and as far as I can tell, nor are others on this thread who share my concerns about the erosion of women's rights to single sex spaces.

You have not addressed my answers to your question of which rights are being eroded, incidentally - instead you are deflecting the conversation with such digs, and suggestions that we are unable to think for ourselves.

It's odd, as pretty much all of my friends are 'union people' who also celebrate IWD, but I don't find that they are all determined to prioritise the rights of men over women - rather the reverse.

Anyway, are you saying that because things are moving in a particular direction it is the fault of people who have not organised resistance? This is a back-to-front way of looking at things, surely?

It does interest me that some people seem hugely upset and concerned suddenly about what is going on in women's prisons when there have been issues for years that haven't concerned them in the least. Things like sexual relationships developing between staff and prisoners - like Myra Hindley. Apparently whatever went on there was acceptable.

The complicated situation in women's prisons as far as sexual matters is concerned needs far more investigation. Forrexample it is almost certain that there are women in prison who use implements to sexually attack other women but under English law this cannot be described as rape. There are other relationships where individuals are coerced or forced into sexual relationships (this is particularly true of younger prisoners). I would imagine as well that the social interaction in a women's prison makes reporting an attack by a transgender prisoner much more acceptable than reporting an attack by another women.

Doodledog -possibly they are of a "type" possibly the women I know who celebrate things like International women's day or organise events are mostlly left wing and union people. But if so what difference does that make. If there are women who believe they are having their rights undermined are they not capable of organising themselves?
Are you saying the Equality act of 2010 isn't still in place or that self ID is legal?
As for the extremes and emotional cases you stated where is the evidence? Could a woman not complain to the swimming pool staff? or to the hospital authorities? or to the staff running a hostel (although they disagree with you about who is admitted to them)? Has someone suddenly silenced women? Is Stonewall standing watchdog over them all?
Or is it in fact just a few out of touch individuals who see the presence of transpeople as a threat? Individuals who are egged on by people like the journalist Helen Joyce who see in this issue a chance to make themselves a name and money. By using the methods always used by such people, fear and trepidation of the different. Isn't that what has always been used to divide people by gender, race, religion, abilities or any other feature which can be identified as marking them out? And hasn't such fear been proved in the end to be entirely imaginary? By all means let's discuss what can be done to help assimilate transpeople but let's do it from the standpoint that they are not predators and they do not threaten women.

And implying or suggesting transpeople can be linked with abuse is transphobic.

What about the men identifying as women and sent to women's prisons who then sexually attack other female inmates?

I quote from a Times article. Transgender prisoners are five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates at women’s jails than other prisoners are, official figures show.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

I think your 'women's groups' sound very specific and 'of a type', trisher. Many women absolutely agree with grannygranby, and none of that matters in the grand scheme of things, as it is parliament that changes things, not women's groups; and legislators are running scared of Stonewall, and the 'no debate' approach to what would be discussion if there were any. It seems as though politicians are (understandably) reluctant to give opinions on trans issues, as they have seen what happens when anyone voices dissent.

The rights that have been removed are the rights of women to go to single sex spaces and expect to find that only female people are there. The right to take your three year old to a swimming session designed for toddlers and find an intact man in the women's changing room. The right to feel as safe as it's possible to feel in a jail. The right to know that the person in the hospital bed next to yours is not able to rape you in the night, and that if you have to go to a hostel for victims of domestic abuse which has always been strictly women-only, you will not find that the word 'women' has been expanded to include men, so is now meaningless. The right to adhere to your religious principles without having to limit your life because men are in both male and female spaces. The right to compete against other women in a sport that relies on strength for success, and not to find that your competitors are men.

For many women, what would be a great start would be the right to discuss all of this without being silenced by threats, or being called transphobic, told to read more, to have it implied that your disconcertion at men being in women's changing rooms is akin to homophobia and so on.

The wholescale removal of our rights is abusive, and it's propped up by institutional threats, shaming and gaslighting. This is not being done for women's benefit, and women were not consulted. That is misogyny.
So what rights have been removed grannygranby? The Equality Act 2010 remains in place. The proposed Self ID bill was dropped. Women as far as I know still have the vote so can choose the policies they support, lobby parliament and form action groups.
There are a lot of women's groups about if you want to change things, or form your own.
Most of the women's groups I know would absolutely disagree with you though.

It is not that transwomen are predators, but predators are overwhelmingly male. And that does not change when someone 'identifies' as a woman. Most males are nice, but since we can't tell who, women must be protected from all. Even if that hurts their feelings. Respectful males, including trans ones, understand this.
When you create a loophole, and when you raise any group of males out of the normal safeguarding policies abusers see and exploit.
Women and girls have the legal right to single-sex facilities, for privacy, dignity and safety, regardless of who the male is, and without any need for justifying it. That's supported by the Equality Act 2010.
The wholescale removal of our rights is abusive, and it's propped up by institutional threats, shaming and gaslighting. This is not being done for women's benefit, and women were not consulted. That is misogyny.

My copy came from DD who bought it in Waterstones when we were in Glasgow.

My copy came from Waterstones !!!

Help could be tied into that. Those who self ID could certainly expect or ask for the same checks that their birth sex entitles them to, e.g. cervical screening, breast screening, but self ID means you keep the risks pertinent to your birth sex.

Most trangender people do not see self ID as just deciding to be a particular gender one day. They simply want an inexpensive non-medical process which is easily accessible.So swearing in front of a magistrate, being issued with a certificate, or some legal process. So help could be tied in to that.

Transwomen (man to woman) can get prostate cancer because the prostate is not usually removed even during reconstructive surgery. Transmen (woman to man ) may have cancer of Skene’s glands but it is very rare. Transwomen going for surgical transition can opt to retain the ovaries , even when the uterus and Fallopian tubes are removed.
Anyone with ovaries can get ovarian cancer. It’s a danger of being a woman even if you’ve transitioned.
Taking hormones to aid transition male to female gives an increased risk of developing breast cancer.
This is all explained in great detail when you start to ask for help with transition. If you simply self ID, you keep the risks related to your birth sex.

Maggiemaybe

Thank you