can we discuss feminism please

trisher

Doodledog

Funnily enough, Gaga, so did I.

trisher your comment about being st risk when using facilities is deeply ironic when you are prepared to have men in women’s facilities unchallenged. Frankly, your own lack of understanding of, or sympathy towards the concern of women on this thread concerns me. It reads like the views of someone who has internalised misogyny and is prepared to sweep aside the safety of women to appease a very number of men.

I would still like to know to which disabled facilities you referred upthread, please, if I haven’t missed an earlier response. .

It isn't ironic at all it is the logical outcome of saying people can't change sex. But I understand that it poses an unanswerable question for you.

I didn't mention disabled facilities you did. I said that if someone was unable to transition fully and have surgery because of a disability denying them access to the facilities of their chosen gender might be actionable under disability rights law. You then said they must use disabled facilities which isn't really an answer

As for internalised misogyny it amuses me that we' re not allowed to call the people posting on this thread anti-trans although they are imposing requirements and restrictions on trans people incompatible with human rights but you feel free to throw allegations of misogyny about simply because I'm willing to accept transwomen as women. Thanks sister.

I didn’t know how to only quote your final paragraph here, trisher. I quote it because it clarifies your view of ‘people listing on this thread’ as ‘anti-trans’.

I’ve seen no anti trans posts. Posters repeatedly express support for people to live as they choose. It seems expressing concern for girls being expected to compete in sport against boys who have the strength etc by virtue of their birth sex is ant trans.

Iam64 you may not consider posts about peope having to have surgery in order live as their chosen gender anti-trans. I consider they are. I assume in the spirit of feminism I am entitled to my own opinion and don't have to conform to yours?

Rosie51

How ironic that link features Rosie Duffield, she who got a torrent of abuse accusing her of being transphobic because she liked a tweet which said "individuals with a cervix" should be described as "women".

I don't see why this is "ironic" Rosie51 I have consistently posted that all abuse is wrong and unacceptable. The only reason it would be ironic would be if I supported such statements, which I don't. But it shows something about some people's views that they appear to be unable to accept my statement that I support free speech.
I do wonder though what the young woman I know who had her cervix and uterus removed when she was found to have cervical cancer would be called?

Well, that would include me trisher. I have no female reproductive tissue. A husk?

Trisher, if anyone could be arsed to go back through this thread and do a content analysis (unlikely), I would put money on their finding that there are far more examples of you refusing to accept statements from others that they are not anti-trans than there are from others refusing to take you at your word.

As for your friend - of course she is a woman. Saying that individuals with cervixes are women is not the same as saying that those who have lost them to cancer are not. The very fact that we are having this conversation is testament to the idiocy of this whole 'debate'.

Why should women need to define themselves like this? Why is there any need for a term that includes men into any definition of 'female'? Women are already here, and have been for millennia. Why should we be the ones to alter what that means because men want to join us?

Doodledog Of course it's ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than expecting anyone to examine people to see if they still have a penis before they can change their gender. And according to the classification you choose transmen can never be men unless they have reconstructive surgery. It's not all about men defining as women you know. There are people who want to be men.

Women are women, trans women are women and vice versa for men, most of the other arguments are logical fallacies.

Predatory men in the quest for power and control will neither decrease or increase in number if trans rights are supported. They can access female only spaces now - when was the last time you saw a changing room etc with a security guard? Most of the cases of women being assaulted in such spaces involves men, dressed as men, identifying as men. The very few cases that involve trans women are not because they are trans, it's because they are criminals with intrinsic mental ill health.

All this divisiveness is stupid, and speaks far more loudly about the discomfort of the people holding the divisive opinion. Rather than face their own limiting beliefs and prejudices they project their antipathy onto trans people. And ultimately, that's what we all are, just people. My genitalia and how I acquired it is none of anyone else's business, neither is how I identify.

All of the logical fallacies that people are using to support their position are at best semantics, at their worst poorly disguised transphobia.

Ask yourselves this, how does any of this directly affect you and your life in any tangibly difficult way? Unless you are trans it doesn't. Unless you have problems respecting other human beings, it doesn't.

Maybe the real problem here is you.

Oh I see thank goodness you were here to explain that to me.
We have given numerous numerous examples of the effect this has on women.

Oh NellG, thank you for being the voice of sense, caring and reason.

Thanks NellG

Galaxy people have given numerous examples of prejudice, transphobia, supposition and ignorance. I've not read one argument about how this affects that has any depth or basis in anything other than the insecurities of the person presenting it. Just because a number of people believe the same thing, it doesn't increase that things credibility or veracity. Only facts do that.

Did your sarcasm make you feel better about your argument and strengthen your position in any way? I'd love to think that passive aggression actually had a purpose other than bolstering the ego of the person offering it.

Does your overt aggression and desire to call people names make you feel better about your argument.
The fact is human beings cant change sex and sex is a protected characteristic under the equality act.

I don't believe I've called anyone 'a name' - I have assigned language that represents the attitudes I've observed.

Neither do I need to feel better about my argument, I am quite happy with it as it stands.

Equally if the fact you quote is indeed a fact, what exactly is your argument? If sex is a protected characteristic, what's your beef?

I hope you're not too offended, I like good debate and I'm happy to take what I dish out.

trisher

Rosie51

How ironic that link features Rosie Duffield, she who got a torrent of abuse accusing her of being transphobic because she liked a tweet which said "individuals with a cervix" should be described as "women".

I don't see why this is "ironic" Rosie51 I have consistently posted that all abuse is wrong and unacceptable. The only reason it would be ironic would be if I supported such statements, which I don't. But it shows something about some people's views that they appear to be unable to accept my statement that I support free speech.
I do wonder though what the young woman I know who had her cervix and uterus removed when she was found to have cervical cancer would be called?

I wasn't using the ironic towards you but towards the campaign, but if you want to see slight where there is none, go ahead. And a woman is a woman whether or not she has a cervix, uterus, ovaries breasts or indeed any other part missing. My friend with the DSD was born without one of these elements, she still has female chromosomes and is a woman.
The use of such offensive ideas to progress your argument comes from your own head, I have never ever heard a feminist say a woman ceases to be a woman if she lacks reproductive organs.

If the fact I have quoted is indeed a fact? Do you not know whether it is or not. I am not being funny but do you not know that it's a fact? Because am not sure how to proceed unless we both have some understanding of what is a fact and what isnt. Do you see what I mean?

A question about our personal experiences has been asked as a challenge. I am tempted to explain my ‘tangible’ history however I am going to resist because I think it will get the same treatment that other women have received, in public, when explaining their history which helped inform them if their views in relation to this matter.

It is clear that regardless of what arguments have been posted it seems impossible for some to take the genuine concerns for women and children’s health and safety seriously. E.g. men can enter a Ladies toilet now. I agree, however at this present time if a man were found to be there he would be charged with breach of the peace and that acts as a deterrent. You want to change that.

Those who champion the rights of men who feel they are women to self identify, are obviously confident that ALL men, (it will be all men otherwise it will be discriminatory) can be trusted in women and children’s protected spaces. I don’t. This is a considered position based on personal history and a life time of working in the field of male violence against women and children.
You want to open that door for the men who identify as women and will not accept that in doing so you open the door to ALL men therefore the potential health and safety hazard that this presents. Tragedies will happen. It already has in Women’s prisons and you think that has nothing to do with you, well it does in my book, you campaigned to allow those male bodied people into Women’s prisons. It is not the penis that rapes, or the fist that sexually assaults, it is the person attached!

I wonder if those reading this thread but not taking part have learned anything, I hope so. The general public seem unaware that this matter is the ethical and moral question of our time. If laws are made that allow anyone to self identify their sex, as what ever sex they wish, there are consequences that some of us believe include the eradication of women’s rights, their health and safety and that of children.

If no one else is reading this thread apart from those taking part I think, for me, we have exhausted the arguments and recent contributions are moving in a direction that is patronising to me as a biological woman and feminist.

What this thread has done for me is spurred me to join others in the campaign to uphold women’s rights in the face of this threat. I will also be continuing with my interests including, having a government that supports left wing socialist policies, campaigning for world peace and my support for Greenpeace.

* Galaxy* I absolutely do understand what a fact is, in fact I found this for you to read.

www.fcsa.org.uk/should-belief-in-biological-sex-be-protected-under-law/

Women are women, trans women are women and vice versa for men, most of the other arguments are logical fallacies.

Whether other arguments are or are not logical fallacies depends entirely on whether your statement is based on logic, which I dispute.

To take it a step at a time - if we begin by accepting that women are women, we need to have a shared understanding and acceptance of what this means. Agreed?

What is your definition of a woman?

The next part of your statement is that transwomen are women. How do you define transwomen, and how does that definition fit with your first definition of women?

Whatever your conclusions, I agree that the same would apply in reverse, so there is probably no need to labour the point by defining men and transmen.

Only if we agree on these points can we approach the idea of logic or logical fallacy on an equitable basis - otherwise you are simply defining the terms to suit your point of view and there is no scope for agreement.

None of this, however, addresses the point that men (however they are defined) simply saying that they are women and being allowed to blah blah, is actually the crux of the objections to self-id that most people on this thread are expressing.

No you dont that is nothing to do with the facts I used. That's an employment case about protected beliefs and whether that belief is one of them. She is appealing the case but that's by the by. It has nothing to do with the fact that sex is a protected characteristic under the equality act. Are you saying sex is not a protected characteristic under the equality act because I dont really know how to proceed if you are saying that.

I also agree with MBHP1 that asking for personal anecdotes to 'back up' viewpoints is unacceptable.

This is not a confessional, and in any case, men are rarely expected to base their views on personal opinion, yet women are asked to do this all the time, leaving their opinions open to trashing based on so-called inaccuracies in the detail of their examples, or accusations of partiality based on their experience and so on.

MBHP1 as regards a man entering a ladies public toilet t presenthe would not be charged with a breach of the peace unless any of the following could be proved

A breach of the peace may occur in both public and private places. The following is an accepted legal definition of a breach of the peace:
♦ harm is actually done or is likely to be done, whether by the person against whom the breach is alleged or by someone else who provokes it, or
♦ harm is actually done, or is likely to be done, to a person’s property in their presence, or
♦ a person is genuinely in fear of harm to themselves or their property in their presence, as a result of assault, affray, riot or other disturbance.
In other words if he'd just nipped in for pee he wouldn't be charged.

* Doodledog* I've posted what I believe. You seem to be the one who has the issue with definitions, I'm clear thanks. Equally my point of view is no less valid than yours. Biological sex does not define gender or identity and biological sex can be successfully re assigned both physically and legally. None of that presents a threat to me in any way. If the difference perceived is based on the possession of a womb and ovaries, I don't have either - it has zero affect on my gender, identity or biological sex. It just means I can't reproduce. I am a woman because I say I'm a woman. Who is anyone else to say I'm not? As long as I conduct myself within the law it's a non issue.

Galaxy - I think it's clear that sex, as it pertains to discrimination is protected under the equality act, but so are trans people, are you suggesting that those protected characteristics can't co exist? That a trans woman's rights are not equal to the rights afforded to a non trans woman's rights?

I found this interesting :

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/consultation-response-gender-recognition-act-18-october-2018.pdf

Non trans womens rights

Doodledog To your second point - people's perception of safety in single sex spaces. I already addressed that in my original post, and the link in my last post contains information on how that perceived threat is being addressed in the proposed changes to the law.

Galaxy We're all women - you'd have picked on it just the same if I'd said "women" and inferred I was stating a difference. Would you feel better if I stumble and give you an 'aha, got ya!' moment?

I can if you want, but it wont change the truth. We're women because we say we are.