Eddie Izzard

When you bother to read and respond to anyone else's links or questions I'll read yours trisher. I could of course share the many links women have posted which would illustrate the reverse. But there's really no point is there?

For anyone who is worried about safe spaces for women I present this account, it gives the views of some of the women who work at women's refuges in Scotland. It is moving, amusing and revealing and shows that the people at the coalface are actually coping and dealing with these issues and much of the scary hype being posted is just that, and has no basis in the real work being done.
athousandflowers.net/2018/02/01/we-asked-womens-aid-centres-if-theyre-trans-inclusive-and-heres-what-they-said/

And by the way, humans teeth do not indicate they are carnivores but omnivores. And our gut indicates that our dietary needs are similar to apes, whose diet is close to vegetarian. The biological evidence is that we need little if any meat. I don't suppose you'll bother read to read this trisher any more than you've bothered to read other links provided or answer any of my questions.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320047#Meat:-In-sickness-and-in-health

And finally, if a vegetarian harms their own health by not eating meat (highly unlikely) they are not harming anyone else.

Nobody on here has proposed objecting to anything a transperson does that does not negatively impact on women.

Sorry, I cut and pasted my own post while I thought whether or not to post it and the ^ ^ seems to have disappeared which highlighted Chewbacca's words which are the second two paragraphs.

Trisha nobody on here is suggesting that transpeople or any people should be victimised and beaten. You do know that women around the world are also victimised, beaten, raped, murdered, mutilated etc. For being women? The fact that these awful things happen to anyone in no way strengthens your case that women should be forced to give up their safe spaces. Nobody dies of being trans. Bad things happen to transpeople. Bad things happen to women. And men. Of course we should try to protect ALL people from harm. What you propose, does not do that.

Nobody who chooses to be a vegetarian has a negative impact on others who choose to eat meat.

I've skimmed through this thread and want to say well said, Iam64 and to Chewbacca too (and everyone else who makes the point) that this is yet another arena where men are again attempting to exert their dominance over women as they have for centuries.

And please, don't try to reassure me that their safety won't be compromised because a DBS check will protect them. It won't. As has been proven over and over again.

The safety and security of little girls is being chucked under a bus simply to accommodate a tiny percentage of men who are insistent that their needs and demands usurp all others.

Well said. DBS checks are not infallible and, more to the point, only show up previous history. They are not cheap and voluntary organisations may not have the resources to apply for them as routine.

Another point - Girl- mode? What is that? I thought there was a thread not long ago disparaging the use of the word girl for grown women.
Eddie Izzard is 58. Girl?
Izzard has described himself as a "straight transvestite" and "a lesbian trapped in a man's body"
He's nearly 60 and still deciding who or what he is; I do feel sorry for him and hope he "finds himself" (as one friend told me he had been doing for years).
However, someone with such a high profile will undoubtedly encourage others whose motives may be more suspect.

The vegetarian analogy was about deceiving someone into doing something by not telling them that it was not as they thought, and then excusing the deceit by pointing out that they had been at liberty to refuse it.

No more, no less. An ethical issue, not a life or death one, and not a biological one. Ethical, and based around the deceit involved in your saying that people can refuse to be examined by anyone.

Analogies do not have to hold true in every detail - they are made to get across a point of principle, not to make exact cross-disciplinary comparisons.

Others on this thread seem to have understood what I was getting at.

Also, I think I can speak for others when I saw again that we know that transpeople have suffered. Of course we do. We are not suggesting that this is ok, or that they should not be protected in law. All we are saying is that women have a right to safe spaces, and anything that threatens this should be resisted.

I really don't know why you can't see that this is what we are getting at, even if you don't share the view.

Ooh you are all out of date! I was going to cut and paste the relevant procedure but then I thought some on GN might not appreciate the graphic details so here's the link so you can see how things have changed thetranscenter.com/transmen/

If we must have the vegetarian analogy and the biological reasoning then let's put it like this.
You raise your child as a vegetarian, she believes she is a vegetarian but you send her to stay with someone who inspects her tells her she can't be a vegetarian because they believe the biological evidence (her teeth) and these prove she is a carnivore (she has canines) there fore she will have to eat meat. Would you agree with that? Of course you wouldn't.
The reason I reject vegetarianism as anything comparable is because as far as I know no one has ever died for it. Trans-people exist in cultures where they are victimised and beaten, they survive abuse and condemnation, sometimes when it is too much for them they commit suicide. It's nothing like a food preference.

trisher it is increasingly difficult to discuss these issues as the language has been hijacked - it's like talking in Newspeak.

We are no longer allowed to say 'men' and 'women', but have to use terms such as 'people with penises' and 'biological women' in order not to be picked up on about our vocabulary, which is not only annoying, but when we do so we are accused of being 'bothered' by penises. There is, as you are very well aware, much more to this than that.

trisher

But I thought it was penises that bothered people? If he had had surgery the transman might have one. Is it then assumed that that s OK because he won't use it? But if his sexual preference was females might he be tempted? Or is it only people born as males who do such thing?

Based on my experience as a nurse in a hospital where patients presented for various trans surgery - from what I've observed the vast majority of transmen do not attempt to achieve a surgical penis but settle for bilateral mastectomy and use a prosthetic penis with their partner.

There must be very few cases of transmen (formerly women) who commit sexual offences against women.

Whereas people with penises have continued to be a threat, regardless of how they identify.

If you think trans men have penises then I despair. You are giving cosmetic surgeons an awful lot of credit when they take a slice of flesh from the forearm and roll it to produce something that resembles a penis.. on a female.

Or is it only people born as males who do such thing?
Transgender women exhibit male behaviour offending patterns. But their offences are more likely to be of sexual nature.
fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
Men are more much more likely to offend than women.
People have shared this info with you before.
It's purely about risk.

What basic human right are you talking about Trisher ?

When you start equating basic human rights with food preferences I despair.

But I thought it was penises that bothered people? If he had had surgery the transman might have one. Is it then assumed that that s OK because he won't use it? But if his sexual preference was females might he be tempted? Or is it only people born as males who do such thing?

I am troubled by the assumption that 'passing' is a ticket to womanhood.
If everyone really thinks you are female, you can go anywhere biological women go.

I find that deceitful.

And if a vegetarian was offered a delicious meal on the pretence it is meat free. They are being lied to.

If a Muslim was offered a meal prepared with non halal meat or pork, but told it is ok for them to eat.
They are being lied to.

If a man decides he is a woman and gets a job in a womens refuge centre. There are women there who are being lied to.

A trans man, that is, a female that wishes to present as a man, well of course it is ok that they can go into female spaces. Because..
wait for it.. they are biologically women. They often don't pass and look very much like a beta male, smaller, less aggressive.
No one is in danger.

The vegetarian analogy is spot on.

If someone has trained to be a doctor but does not have the relevant qualifications to practice in a particular country is it ethical for them to do so?
Many people suffer financial difficulties and life set-backs, so they wait until they overcome, or ask for help, we don't just change all the rules at the expense of other people's safety.

trisher

And I'm supposed to be the one who never answers a question!!!!
OK so if a transman has had treatment including surgery but hasn't changed his gender perhaps because of financial difficulties so is still listed as female and he's a nurse is he permitted to work with women who ask for a female carer?

I did answer. My views are not as black and white as yours, so it is not a yes or no answer.

I support self-id when it is not impinging on the rights of a woman to be in a single-sex space when she wishes to be. Otherwise I don't.

Is it at all likely that someone would have surgery before gender transition? I am not familiar with that scenario, so can't answer off the top of my head, however I am broadly in agreement with Chewbacca.

If you don't support self id, you are subjecting transpeople to unnecessary and often unwanted medical interference

If you don't sell vegan meals you are forcing people to eat meat.
No, there are other places to eat.

If I lived in a town with only one toilet and someone was desperate to use it I would not give a fig what sex or gender they were. That is rarely, if ever, what we are discussing.

So do you support self-iding or not Doodledog?

I don't know about Doodledog but I don't support it trisher. Why would I support something that takes away a woman's rights to privacy, safety and security?
Why should I, as a parent, forego the right to know that my child will be safe, in what I believe to be an all femail environment?
Why would I, as a woman, forego the rights of other women who have been physically, mentally and emotionally abused, by men, allow a man who claims to be a woman, to invade her safe spaces?
Why would I, as a woman, agree to be intimately examined by a woman only to discover that I was actually examined by a man?

And why, as a woman, should I have to make yet more compromises to my life just to accommodate the requests of a man who decides that he wants to be a woman but doesn't want to do all that it entails to complete the exercise. I've fought long and hard for my feminine rights; if a man wants to take advantage of those too, then do what's necessary to complete the transition.

And I'm supposed to be the one who never answers a question!!!!
OK so if a transman has had treatment including surgery but hasn't changed his gender perhaps because of financial difficulties so is still listed as female and he's a nurse is he permitted to work with women who ask for a female carer?

Again, I support people living their best life in whichever way they choose. If that is a man living 'as a woman' then as far as I am concerned there is no problem.

For the gazillionth time, what concerns me is when people with penises are allowed in what should be places of safety for vulnerable women who would prefer not to be touched by men/people with penises. Single sex places.

That its not incompatible with self-id, and in no way subjects anyone to have any treatment against their will. It simply protects biological women from being subjected to unnecessary and unwanted distress by being forced to be in intimate company of men/people with penises at times when they are vulnerable.

If you don't support self id, you are subjecting transpeople to unnecessary and often unwanted medical interference. If you don't understand that you don't understand the core argument of self id ing. So do you support self-iding or not Doodledog?

trisher "I was brought up to be polite, understanding and non judgemental." - yes most women were, especially towards men. Even at the expense of themselves and other women.

I ask you, would it be acceptable for me to base my appearance on racial stereotypes and then claim I identify as that race? And expect people of that race to treat me as such, and change their language to accommodate my preferences. If not, why not.

I found the burger question entirely relevant. But the answer a side-step. Not agreeing with someone doesn't deny their existence. Nor does denying them everything they want. A vegetarian would simply choose not to visit somewhere that only serves meat. Just as someone with a penis can choose not to use somewhere that is designated for someone who has a vagina. As a meat-eater I would have the respect not take a big mac into a vegan friend's home.

I have no problem being excluded from men's spaces, as long as comparable women's spaces are provided. Nobody is arguing against the provision of third spaces.

Nobody is forcing anyone to have any medication. Why are you intent on forcing women to accept someone else's ideology and give up their sex based rights to accommodate it? Would it be acceptable for a Christian to compel a Muslim to adopt their belief system or vice versa? When you can prove to me that a man who puts on a dress and says he is a woman is in fact so, then it will be more than a belief system. Until then, I will try to respect those beliefs but not at the expense of my own safety or well being.