But none of those situations are to do with rights nor have I refused to answer the questions. You simply question my answers.
If you could point me in the direction of an answer I would be grateful.
So for the woman with a doctor anyone can for any reason refuse treatment by any person they feel uncomfortable with for any reason. They do not need to state a reason, So what right is being abused or what on earth has this to do with rights?
As I'm sure you are aware (and knowing that you would respond in this way is why I put 'potentially without her knowledge' in the example), I am talking about a case where the patient is unaware of the fact that the doctor is a male who identifies as female. Your interpretation that TWAW rides roughshod over her cultural, religious obligations, or her personal preference, that she should not be touched by a male. Does she have no right to hold those preferences, or to adhere to religious obligations simply because a section of society believes that TWAW? Not believing that is a position protected by law, as I am also sure that you know.
Transwomen are women
I would take issue with that, as you know. Also, see above about the fact that not believing it is a position protected by law.
or are you suggesting anyone entering any competition must produce evidence of their birth gender? If you are doing this than I suppose transmen will be able to enter any such competitions? I suppose it might be possible but really a complete complication for dealing with a community which is a tiny percentage
No, of course people aren't going to be asked to produce certification of their sex. We don't get certificates of 'birth gender', as we don't have a gender at birth - this is a learned set of behaviours. But anyway. In many cases, such competitions (as with jobs in Arts-based organisations) specify characteristics because the purpose of the exhibition/book/film is to give a voice to someone from the community concerned. Someone who has lived experience of being in the position that is represented, not someone who has come in from outside speaking for them, which happens so often (eg middle class men writing about working class women). To have an applicant/submission from a different group - however disadvantaged they may have been in their own way - completely disrupts that, and makes a mockery of the purpose of the request. It would be exactly the same if someone claimed to be from an ethnic minority when their great grandmother was Irish but migrated to England as a child, or if they had lived on a budget for a couple of years and claimed to be from a disadvantaged background.
You do have a bit of an obsession with genitals
For someone who repeatedly posts that she is not going to look under people's clothing, or that she doesn't know what is between someone's legs' this is a bit rich. I'm not remotely obsessed with genitals, except when they are inappropriately displayed, and even more so when this happens in a situation in which women and children are undressed and consequently vulnerable. Does that not trouble you?
I'm not sure why it is always women you have taking children swimming. There are an awful lot of single fathers about. Their children presumably are familiar with male genitals. The answer is of course larger cubicles for all families and many pools have these. What is the rights issue?
I do't 'have women taking children swimming'. I am, as you know, referring to a situation mentioned earlier on here when my female friend took her child to a female communal changing room and found a man (however he identified) in there. I have never been in a male changing area, so I can't comment on what happens there. I agree that in many families parents are happy to be naked in front of their children, but it is well within their rights to choose not to be, and I guess that most families would draw the line at their young children seeing non-family members without their clothes. In most circumstances what happened would be considered indecent exposure. Do you think that such an offence should no longer be on the books? If not, how would you counter a defence that an exposer is not guilty, as he believes his penis to be female?
Carers and clients can clash over many matters. The client is the one who chooses, and it can be difficult to accommodate all the personal preferences which can be sometimes based on prejudice, but no one is forcing her to take on anyone. What is the rights issue?
The rights issue, as with the doctor question, arises if the client does not want a male-born carer, but the carer is on the books as female, and presents as such, does the right of the transwoman to be treated as female trump the right of the client not to have a man in her home, even if she is not aware of it? Let's assume that the client is also blind?
I've answered many of these questions before. The above are still not answers to the question of whose rights should prevail? You claim that there are no rights issues, but in each case, the right of a woman to determine who touches her body intimately, or to be represented in the Arts or media, or to be confident that the person sharing her home is of the sex she prefers them to be (regardless of their gender identification) is under threat. I am asking whether you can see that, or if you are still insisting that the hypothetical transwoman should take precedence in these situations?
So could you at least comment on the real subject of the thread and the way her views have been misrepresented and her career ignored? I have already commented on this thread - ended I raised the subject on another 'trans' thread that was live when this one started - and my views are there for you to see. With all due respect, I have had enough of trawling back through threads to find my own posts and being asked to repeat myself over and over again.
