Eddie Izzard

We do know when a transwoman is in out midst. Very few slip under the radar. Even the ones who have spent thousands on feminisation surgery and their appearance. (Bruce/Caitlin Jenner/Jonathon/india Willoughby).But women are socialised to be nice, so we don't make a fuss and we don't draw attention to it.

But passing as a woman is beside the point. Most of the time, it doesn't matter. But then sometimes it does. And when it does, in employment, in women's prisons, in women's refuges, in women's sports, language describing women, even women's only swimming sessions and, dare I say this, in spaces where women are changing or using the loo, the woman point if view in that situation should be paramount. To often, the woman at the sharp end of this encounter faces accusations of bigotry and trans phobia.

trisher I have not castigated you for saying that.
It's obvious that if someone appears to be a woman, we will be unaware.

It's becoming more usual, tho, for little or no effort to be made while claiming to be a woman.
That means it will become easier for people who are just men to decide to enter changing rooms and toilets or to get a hospital to believe that they need to be in a female ward.

I'm fairly sure that I would recognise your tall friend as being a woman, from all sorts of subtle clues and, as a start, I'm guessing she doesn't have stubble?
(That's a not so subtle clue)

What matters is what people have been saying from the start - that women who (for whatever reason) do not want to share personal space with men/people with penises have the right to refuse to do so. Also that we should not be gaslighted into not exercising our right to refuse because we are unaware that the transwoman is actually a man/person with a penis.

If the law said that female spaces should not be used by men/people with penises, none of this would be an issue. Men who want to identify as women but don't want surgery could simply stay away from exclusively female spaces, and when the concern about their being there was removed it seems to me more likely that they would be able to go about their lives as women with far less hassle.

As has been pointed out, transpeople have been around for a long time, and on the whole they have simply blended in. What we are seeing now is not about that at all - we have a group of people who are so vocal about the issue that they are making the lives of 'quieter' transpeople much more difficult and are silencing (or cancelling/no-platforming) anyone who doesn't agree with them and let them do 100% what they want. Many of these people do not want to 'live as a woman' in the sense of assimilating into a more female way of life - if they did they would not wear beards, or present at beauty salons asking for genital waxing.

I don't know what is so difficult about people with penises staying away from female spaces, which are few and far between anyway. I can't remember the last time I was in an excessively female space myself, and I am a woman who was born female. If I had to go to hospital, however, I would not want to be in a mixed ward, and I don't want to have men/people with penises in the female changing rooms of a swimming pool, for instance.

What I can't understand is why men/people with penises would want to be there, and why they wouldn't understand why their presence would be worrying for a lot of women. My husband and son would fully understand this, and it wouldn't occur to them to impose themselves where they would make others uncomfortable.

So Doodledog you would pass a law saying people with penises could not enter a certain space but that conflicts with the present legislation for transwomen which says they cannot change gender until they have lived as their chosen gender for 2 years. As some transgender people are waiting over 2 years for surgery, you are presenting them with a Catch 22 situation. Is that really fair?

I wonder if eddie izzard is aware there is a thread about him/her on gransnet!

thread needs a change of name or ended and new thread about the subject matter!

Quotes from the novel 1984 :

“The Party imposed itself on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them.”

“In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, for there will be no words in which to express it.”

He's busy running marathons and doing gigs lemon He's in Rome (virtually) today www.crowdfunder.co.uk/eddie

It always amuses me when someone posts 1984 to support a change of law which would be restrictive and repressive. Makes me think they didn't understand the book. was about totalitarian repressive regimes where the public were heavily regimented and not permitted freedoms.

they cannot change gender until they have lived as their chosen gender for 2 years

That needs to be changed, but not to self-id of sex.
(Gender and sex being different things)

lemsip discussions of threads often veer off from the original subject.
This one hasn't veered far, though, as the whole topic of 'transwomen are women' is the reason that Izzard's wish for 'she' pronouns has been instantly accepted by so many who are now claiming that he is a woman.

Titter away, trisher.
You are the one who is completely misunderstanding the situation.

trisher

So Doodledog you would pass a law saying people with penises could not enter a certain space but that conflicts with the present legislation for transwomen which says they cannot change gender until they have lived as their chosen gender for 2 years. As some transgender people are waiting over 2 years for surgery, you are presenting them with a Catch 22 situation. Is that really fair?

Yes, I think it is fair. All a change of law would do would be to restrict pre-transitional transwomen from entering very specific places for a period of 2 years. It's not really a Catch 22 situation, as it is not necessary for them to be in these spaces. Someone might wish to be able to swim in an all-female pool (as I would prefer to do), but if they couldn't do so for a couple of years they could still go to mixed sessions. The upside of this is that when the transition has taken place they too will be women in a single sex space, so far less at risk of attack.

Can you tell me to which single-sex spaces you feel it would be 'unfair' for untransitioned transwomen to be denied access for a couple of years?

Try it this way :

The ideology was imposed on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them.

(Good to see you're using 'he' pronouns for Izzard again )

.

He's busy running marathons and doing gigs lemon He's in Rome

Indeed he is, trisher, indeed he is.

It takes a lot of energy to keep the pretence going.

Gaslighting wears people down.

So what "pretence" are you referring to Nice asMice the fact that I used the wrong pronoun (although Izzard has said she/he are both acceptable) But I freely acknowledge that I sometimes get it wrong. I find the "they" quite confusing as well. I was reading a book recently with a non-binary character in it and I thought at one time there were two characters.
Or do you mean Izzard who is on a spectrum she/he calls gender fluid. It's all a learning process but at least I have an open mind about it all.

Doodledog if someone is dressing and presenting as a woman, because they need to do so for the peace of mind it gives them I think expecting them to use any men's facilities or requiring them not to dress and present as they are would be very dangerous for their mental health and expose them to physical risk. So they should use all female facilities.

Here's the danger I think you are exposing women to by insisting they should have special exemption because of their birth gender. (and I'm absolutely sure the right wing Christians will have worked this out,)
You make a case that birth sex is important and sex should be an exception under the Equalities act. Women(born) set up such spaces.
Men then respond that they need single sex spaces as well and legally they are entitled to them. Male clubs return (there are still more MPs, CEOs ec than women, so women are cut out more)
The fact that women need special spaces is used to justify removing them from certain jobs (they need protection). The army, front line policing, etc are lost because they are dangerous.
The hard won equalities we now enjoy are gradually eroded and before you know it the space you designated as safe becomes in fact the space you're limited to.

I am referring to the pretence that is enforced upon everyone around transwomen . Anyone can keep up with the lie if they choose to, so what is it that makes it so appealing to some?

I really don't understand the concept of a lie or pretence. There are people who feel they are in the wrong body and who change their gender. They are then entitled to be addressed by the pronoun they choose, they often live long and happy lives- like Jan Morris.

I really don't understand the concept of a lie or pretence

Really?

trisher No the danger to women's erasure is that people such as Philip Bunce who splits his time 50/50 between being a man and a woman takes a female place on the Financial Times & Her-oes Champions of Women in Business list. Of course he qualified for the men's list too. Transwomen having their crimes recorded as women's crimes totally misrepresents the truth. Provision of sex based services will be based on faulty data when trans women are included. The co-chair of the Green Party Women's group is a transwoman, so another place lost for a natal woman. Transwomen out perform natal women in sport so women will lose out on sponsorship, and scholarships in places like the States, which is happening already. I'm pretty sure that CEO places amongst others will be taken by transwomen. Didn't you point out the Masons allow transwomen who were members before transitioning to remain members? Not allowing any of those pesky born women who still identify as women in though.

Everyone is born with a sex, not a gender. The deliberate blurring of words where gender is used interchangeably with sex is what is eroding women's rights.

Rosie51

trisher No the danger to women's erasure is that people such as Philip Bunce who splits his time 50/50 between being a man and a woman takes a female place on the Financial Times & Her-oes Champions of Women in Business list. Of course he qualified for the men's list too. Transwomen having their crimes recorded as women's crimes totally misrepresents the truth. Provision of sex based services will be based on faulty data when trans women are included. The co-chair of the Green Party Women's group is a transwoman, so another place lost for a natal woman. Transwomen out perform natal women in sport so women will lose out on sponsorship, and scholarships in places like the States, which is happening already. I'm pretty sure that CEO places amongst others will be taken by transwomen. Didn't you point out the Masons allow transwomen who were members before transitioning to remain members? Not allowing any of those pesky born women who still identify as women in though.

Everyone is born with a sex, not a gender. The deliberate blurring of words where gender is used interchangeably with sex is what is eroding women's rights.

Very good points Rosie51

I entirely agree about women being allowed to join the Masons (although I've no idea why anyone would want to and men in my family have refused membership or dropped out).

As for transwomen taking places as executives etc well maybe that's a good thing. maybe they will have the agression and strength necessary to carve out more space and protection for women. We have after all had the vote for almost 100 years and yet we are still massively underrepresented in Parliament, transwomen standingwith women might shift the balance.