Woman

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.

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No, I am not saying that the Equality Act has been repealed, or that Self-id was legalised in the way that Stonewall wanted, (although in a 'social' setting it may as well have been).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

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.

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.

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

Which I never have.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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 . . .

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

I don't think all women are victims. I don't think transwomen are threatening women's spaces. I don't think women need to act except against the very real threats to their employment and earning capacity.
Someone can perceive themselves a victim or act as a victim-it's called victim playing. There doesn't needto be an aggressor. But it seems to me this is the role you choose for women to play. To break the hold of that negative complex, and to escape the passivity of victimhood, requires taking responsibility for one's own desires and long-term actions. Which is what I am asking you to do and which you constantly object to.
So what do you expect to happen if women don't act?
I don't see any major change in the future. Apart from women losing more and more employment rights as the patriachy steadily uses existing legislation to make women's lives more difficult whilst you are distracted by the trans threat.

Hurray! One down, two to go. Thank you trisher!
Agreement in the erosion of women’s rights regarding employment caused by the patriarchy! The one place where it doesn’t matter whether or not the transwoman is acting with physically harmful intent, but it’s a start.
The same patriarchy that is overruling women’s rights to safety and women’s rights to success by giving precedence to the rights of transwomen some of whom do have harmful intent.
I’ll tell my DD that she was wrong to have been distracted by the trans threat when she was hospitalised with a transwoman who quite definitely had harmful intent towards the women on the ward. She, and the other patently frightened women were still obliged to share the same facilities or be put into isolation themselves (a threat used but impossible to fulfil because they didn’t have sufficient spaces) because moving him would have left the staff open to allegations of transphobia, i.e. trans rights took precedence.
But hey, according to you, they were only ‘playing the victim’ and there wasn’t an aggressor and they, in their already fragile mental state should have taken responsibility for their own desires and long term actions.

the patriachy steadily uses existing legislation to make women's lives more difficult

Yes! And also deliberately misinterprets it to deny women what should be theirs. Caitlin Jenner as woman of the year in Vogue although they had only been a woman for the blink of an eye. Laurel Hubbard denying born-women a place at the Olympics. Pip Bunce taking a space on a list of Britain’s top 100 female executives compiled for the Champions of Women in Business awards when the next day Mx Bunce might choose to be a man.

I was shocked at the manner in which the winning female Olympian weight lifters were treated at the post contest interview. They were asked about Laurel Hubbard. Why? What relevance did that have to their win? They were majestic in their response by refusing to comment. mobile.twitter.com/artofhunger75/status/1422592460438519809?s=21&fbclid=IwAR32hOPPwmiFVfZZD1xDU9tI8PpQ0PjR7nwrW7NmPIs4icZgfEpPRkvbNys

I think men 'identifying as women' is the ultimate act of patriarchy and control. We are nothing, any man can be a woman if he wants to. I am not being a victim I am objecting to being reducedd to something like a change of dress.

I am not talking about those who are truly transgender and have chosen to have surgery.

Call yourself what you like but if you have a penis and testicles you are a man, and therefore have no rights to be in women only places.

Too right GG13.

GG13 and GSM I agree. I’m only sorry that posting a really funny, but impolite image I saw on FB the other day would get me banned!

Some transgender women are unable to have surgery because of medical conditions. It seems they are now to be differentiated against because of that. So there will be classes of transwomen. Quite how this is going to be legislated for isn't clear. Will there be inspections? If so who is going to do them? What if a transwoman ignores her medical conditions and undergoes surgery anyway but dies during the procedure. Is that OK ?

Do clarify trisher. Which medical conditions would prevent a transwoman from having surgery?
I know this is another sidetrack but I’m genuinely interested.

It is indeed yet another diversionary tactic, along with:
'why aren't you organising?',

'you are doing what Nazis did',

'you are playing a victim'

'you are racist and against disabled people',

'you should be campaigning for XYZ instead'

'why weren't you so bothered about Myra Hindley's gay affair that happened in 1974?' and so on.

Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender - it happens every time.

The same conditions that cause complications in all surgery requiring anaesthetic Mollygo meaning that usually only essential and not elective surgery is done.
Diabetes or kidney disease.
Family history of malignant hyperthermia (anesthesia allergy).
Heart disease, high blood pressure (hypertension) or strokes.
Lung disease, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Obesity (high body mass index or BMI).
Seizures or neurological disorders.
Sleep apnea.
Smoking.

Lets go back to biology, Biological men use the gents but can dress, act and do what they want, biological women us ethe ladies and ditto.

Gender is an entirely social construct. Abolish it.