can we discuss feminism please

And well said, Galaxy.

Excellent post, petunia.

I know trisher and I am talking about facilities segregated by sex.
Actually trisher when men are claiming to be lesbians we are going to talk about it, I am not going to not challenge homophobia because it makes people uncomfortable.

I wish peope would stop bringing into this argument references to people who are insisting anyone should have to have sex with someone else. All sex should be consensual. No one should pressure or force anyone else to have sex with them.
I will stand beside anyone who actually supports feminist principles. That the patriachy suppresses any group of people that are different and only by standing together can we oppose that.
Galaxy people are not changing sex they are changing gender.

I believe that the toilet situation has been used to trivialise the issues faced by biological women and to distract from other issues. Discussing it keeps us busy while the world turns upside down.

The elephant in the room here is what is the definition of transwoman. How can the definition of woman be opened up to include men if we don't know exactly what sort of “woman” is to be included. Is it someone who has had a full surgical and medical transition one sort of “woman”. But the trans umbrella includes a wide and hugely populated group. From cross dressing to body dysphoria, autogynephilia to someone who isn't sure, someone who is a woman one day a week to the individual who just calls himself female because he can. Should the definition of woman include someone who wants to broaden the bandwidth of woman without shaving off his beard and who calls himself a “grrl”? Is Eddie Izzard a girl? Stonewall include everyone, should the word woman include everyone too
What about the transwomen who call themselves lesbians and screech transphobe to the female lesbians who don't want to have sex with someone who has a penis (pretty unreasonable of those pesky lesbians eh??)

I believe that JKRowlings statement about transwomen was an eloquent and accurate statement that many people would agree with. I personally don't wish transwomen harm. I'm not sure the reverse is true. But I don't think the definition woman should be opened up to include transwomen.

So who stands up for women against this many headed onslaught. Large organisations have caved in, the media are pushing the trans agenda, the law is clinging by a thread. And the modern feminist movement seems to have lost its way by all accounts.

Pretending we cant tell the difference is part of what has led us to this situation. I am not going to get into a discussion about peoples genitals but the situation for transmen is particularly difficult, the failure rate and complications if they do have surgery are very high, most dont because of that. It's very complex trisher which is why we should never have pretended that people can change sex. I have grave concerns about how safe transmen are in male toilets.

Galaxy

They can be whoever they want to be, I couldnt give a monkey's, but facilities are segregated by sex and I am really sorry but you cant change sex. The exemptions are in the equality act so it's not discrimination. In the same way not being allowed to take a 15 year old to a playgroup is not discrimination.

So what you are saying is you are prepared to share facilities with a woman who is a transman, who may have undergone surgery and have a penis, but you are not prepared to share facilities with a transwomen at all. Beause you believe they remain the gender they were born.
Doesn't that mean people who look like men can access women's facilities just by claiming they are transmen? How would you know the difference?

Galaxy

I dont know what you mean, who is assuming there are no transwomen? I agree secure individual toilets with a sink would meet everyone's needs but no one is doing that are they? They are just making womens toilets unisex.

The facilities I used did have a sink, mirror and about double the size of a normal cubicle, because you wouldn’t have the lobby or hand washing areas, they would take up very little if any extra space, it did feel strange queuing with the ladies but in practice worked well.

They can be whoever they want to be, I couldnt give a monkey's, but facilities are segregated by sex and I am really sorry but you cant change sex. The exemptions are in the equality act so it's not discrimination. In the same way not being allowed to take a 15 year old to a playgroup is not discrimination.

The argument Galaxy is always "Women are women and that cannot be changed" well there are women who don't want to be women but want to be men. are you saying they can't be? Because that seems to me to be discriminating against some women. Or are you saying they can be men, but transwomen can't be women? Because either way you are discriminating against someone.

I dont know what you mean, who is assuming there are no transwomen? I agree secure individual toilets with a sink would meet everyone's needs but no one is doing that are they? They are just making womens toilets unisex.

Once again the assumption is that there are no transwomen. There are.
David0205 is quite right single person secure toilets would solve any problems. They are already provided for disbled people. Why not for everyone?
As for the swimming pool are you really saying that someone was employed to look and see if someone still had a penis? Or is the truth that actually this was a real example of how a rule is absolutely incapable of being applied?

I agree completely petunia, toilets are the least of our worries in a way, but are a symptom of how the needs of women are put to the bottom of the pile.

I had told myself I wouldnt get into this toilet discussion yet again, the issue is far greater than that, but here we are again. The needs of women have been overlooked and dismissed time after time, toilets are just one example.

I find it quite difficult to get my head around a feminist point of view that has moved on from fighting for and protecting the rights of women and now regards trans women as women, no ifs, no buts. So by ignoring biology and ignoring and dismissing genuine concerns of women the situation, women are disadvantaged. So in essence, the rights and protections, safety and dignity of the majority must be minimised and trivialised for the very very few.

In the news this weekend-a great example

In Sydney, a women and children only open air swimming pool has recently been in hot water because it was following the guidance of the 1995 equalities act. Transwomen wanted access to this space and initially the authorities stated that only fully transitioned transwomen were allowed in the pool i.e. following removal of the penis. Uproar ensued and the authorities caved in. So essentially, the women's pool has become a mixed pool. A complaint was made pointing out that women may object due to religious or other reasons to sharing such a space with male bodied people. The complaint was quashed and disgruntled women were told to educate themselves.

Are the real disadvantages and needs of half the population ( women), due to their biology, now so sorted that we need and must to focus on the desires of a very tiny number of men?

Many women wont be able to access those facilities David. Some shops etc, have quietly changed back from unisex due to the number of sexual assaults.

Our local baths ended ‘unisex’ changing rooms because of the number of occasions when women and children were sexually harassed or assaulted there.
What’s the problem with single sex facilities alongside facilities for trans people

Regarding Toilets and gender exclusive spaces new facilities are being built Unisex and individual, you queue with the men and other genders and have your own private facility.

I have visited several and it works better than expected, even our local leisure center has unisex changing, it’s going to take time for existing facilities to get changed.

But no one is saying that really protected spaces like women's refuges should be open to everyone without proper regulation petunia just that proper risk assessment should continue and just as DBS does rule out anyone who is a risk to women.
The other places like loos and changing rooms really can't be regulated like that.

But as to the danger posed by all men, while some men are a serious danger to children, most are not. But before a man is allowed to undertake any role with children, he must undergo a DBS check, (as do women). We do not take his word for it that he's a lovely man and good with children and vulnerable people and has a twinkly smile. This removes a good many dubious individuals accessing children. By allowing anyone into women's spaces without question, the good, the bad and the downright dangerous will go there and all they need to say is “I'm a woman”.

This doesn't feel like the years of struggle for women have got anywhere if even the place they should expect privacy and dignity has men in it.

MBHP1 as far as toilets and changing rooms go I think there is no way anyone can prevent any men, disguised as women or not from accessing them if they intend to harm women. The law cannot police every public toilet. Which is why your suggestion of toilets for women and seperate ones for transpeople won't work either. Transwomen believe they are women so some would use the women's loo. It is actually putting women at risk not to warn them that public toilets may not be safe spaces.
As for changing rooms how do you suggest we distinguish between the people using them? Do you intend to have someone on the door challenging anyone who doesn't look sufficiently female to gain admission? Will you have genital inspections? Wouldn't this mean women have to look certain ways?
The worse sort of laws are those which cannot be enforced.

The discussion about men and paedophilia is interesting. But if we apply the same arguments as those being used against transwomen to the situation -ie some transwomen are dangerous to women so all transwomen must be banned - logically if some men are dangerous to children all men must be banned from working with them.

As for the wages for housework yes I know about it and it was resurrected in the 1970s. It is a great suggestion for an alternative economy. It would of course now need to be paid to a partner who didn't work outside the home.

P.s. financial independence is a fore runner but not exclusive, to a woman being involved in things out with the home.

trisher

I was thinking about Simone De Beauvoir's assertion that women are complicit in maintaining their position as "other" and allowing men to remain as powerful. I know this won't sit well with some on GN but I do wonder if we do unconsciously buy into this. I'm thinking of the many posts about how male partners or husbands can't be trusted to do household tasks because they don't do them properly. In any other situation you would insist the person did the task more often until they improved, but some women don't do that. I recognise that when I had small children I was intensely protective of that role and had difficulty passing responsibility to their father. I think for women today it must be incredibly difficult accepting equal roles in childcare . But if we don't make men responsible for the everyday tasks and childcare how can we move away from being seen as only homemakers and become equals.
This was written by a women called Lisbeth Simm in 1913.
To rid ourselves of ancient superstitions regarding woman’s proper sphere: to equip ourselves for the work of to-day, public as well as private; to join hands in good faith and comradeship with all those willing to work with us. Surely this is not difficult? Surely working women will not refuse? Then it may soon become a matter of urgent practical politics to relieve the working woman of much that is now considered the necessary work of each separate home, so that the energy and thought this set free may be used for the development of an altogether higher standard of human life; and women’s labour in the home be recognised as other than a desirable but unpaid for appendage to the labour of the working man. In our visions we sometimes imagine a time when poverty and misery will be banished from our midst - the time is not yet, but it is brought nearer whenever a woman realizes that poverty in a land of plenty is an unnecessary evil. First then, as working women, we must combine; second, educate and agitate; third, administrate; and so by easy stages gradually take our proper place as comrades and equals with men in the great family life of the nation.
She was a workng class woman now largely forgotten. She also wrote that women didn't attend political meetings because men didn't do their share of the housework.
How far have we moved on since then?

Are you familiar with the campaign from her time, ‘Round about £1 a week’ and the book of the same title?
Trisher - The campaign was for the government to allocate to all women a weekly amount in recognition of the ‘unpaid’ work that they contributed to society by working in the home.
I think it worked it’s self into the ‘Family Allowance’ benefit, paid to all mothers regardless of circumstances and paid in the mothers name, now ‘Child Benefit’ no longer to all mothers nor paid in her name only!

Trisher - if you believe there are predatory men who have disguised themselves in order to gain access to children and women e.g. priests, teachers, doctors, uni lecturers, tv presenters, do you believe they will not disguise themselves as women to gain access to women and children spaces? If you do, how do you propose we continue to protect women and children in what is recognised traditionally as their spaces?
Are you in agreement with the Equalities Act 2010 that protects women in law by having rights to privacy, dignity and personal safety? If you are, how do you suggest we continue to protect those rights in spaces where they are particularly vulnerable to predatory men like toilets, changing rooms?
I presume you agree with child protection laws and the stats and research that informs us that it is men who they most need protection from so how do you propose that we continue to protect children from predatory men if we accept that toilets, changing rooms etc are to be also used along with men? Women and children would not use a toilet specifically for men who present as women, would they?
I presume you know that in all Health and Safety policies and procedures, prevention is paramount because it is recognised, based on evidence, to be the most effective way for protection.

MBHP1 if your suggestion is implemented and we have seperate loos for transpeople how do you think this rule will be implemented. Will we have to show some sort of id in order to enter a toilet? Laws which are unenforceable are useless.

l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fprogrammes%2Fp0872g59%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2SZ53YOYFBx7i1RKtjhgOa8IxHOOI_j1RIK0lCzQUD_RnaPXGYYyrnImE&h=AT0j_WUmdCFHdP9nY_GPHpRbtQx5rYkRTRfs-Hu8xOrlDB7IUFR9yNJODgjyERydUObSgZCI78C0_OMQllFsPg5aQnQm1ZD-lRNrd3fsLu5FPWITMX2Z1YJfjQubYKIHC3tUpXbIimPRLq502-VAVT8&__tn__=H-R&c%5B0%5D=AT0kmCb-WaQb8duDSSzrHT_RDf9qEQaDBs56jIo0uiRlxVTAJFE7b0ZrTF5mhm-AFcngxLymt-WcBUc8aeIdLXN47OGxP61EasFz824oSt03pMBmlKVE-atHzQzWdqxRfpLfDbqIdtvIQlieK2sZBc3RKGPqjDPymQF5l6bKiMi14jl-m1-WjQbamhUroZh1LFlmgbDM39zEHXnu5baupuSlinXoxAv0vcz583FYy8ZgO43FO-YBoDqB0tAMiWhJB7QXp8rED6U7QSu1_OgrPZh5NTzRczNkJu_67pfximeb