Latest from Mridul Wadhwa

Oh well, we’ll disagree about that too. ?

Thank you those who understood the question I asked about a theoretical situation, but one that absolutely could be real. I didn't expect a straight answer and that's exactly what I didn't get.

Duncan Bannatyne of Bannatyne gyms has male and female only changing rooms and a third space with individual cubicles complete with individual shower. Guess what, he has transwomen refusing to use them, they want in with the 'other' women. He's prepared to take all the flack directed at him, but too many aren't.

“For my safety and well-being my religion forbids me to share a pool with a male.
When you use the pool I cannot”

I understand. I will use one of the many other session for my swim.”

That’s a compromise that means both get to use the pool.

Isn’t it?

Well now, there’s another compromise Rosie.

Perhaps trisha would like to comment on why it doesn’t work??

Trisher. Oh dear.

Time for Greys Anatomy I think.

Peasblossom That's considering the other person instead of yourself. Following the mantra 'be kind', but it seems kindness only goes one way.

Peasblossom

“For my safety and well-being my religion forbids me to share a pool with a male.
When you use the pool I cannot”

I understand. I will use one of the many other session for my swim.”

That’s a compromise that means both get to use the pool.

Isn’t it?

Yes, that is a sensible approach that doesn’t rely on the woman giving up 50% of her swim.

I think I have probably said this before but men are entitled to single sex spaces, a group to support men with mental health issues for example, men who need support when facing domestic violence, groups specific to gay men etc.

I can see that Galaxy but take religion. Certain orthodox Jews will not associate with women (even to the extent of not shaking hands with them because they are unclean) if they want their own swimming session will it be allowed?
As women are legally permitted to deny transwomen access I suppose it would apply to men as well.
Maybe I'm suspicious but I have a feeling men would take advantage of the sitution (but of course I allways support them )

Nobody is asking for religion-specific swimming sessions. That would be unmanageable and undesirable in what is largely a secular and multicultural country.

Asking for women to have an hour or so a week when they can swim without men being there is not a big ask, and neither is having changing rooms where male-bodied people aren’t allowed.

That is a slur on Orthodox Judaism.

Women are not considered unclean.

Niddah is an unclean state when there is a discharge of blood from the womb. It is the blood that is considered unclean not women.

But if distorting another persons lifestyle will serve your purposes then go ahead.

Or you could say Oh I got that wrong.

Jews, Muslims, Christians.

Anyone will do.

trisher

I can see that Galaxy but take religion. Certain orthodox Jews will not associate with women (even to the extent of not shaking hands with them because they are unclean) if they want their own swimming session will it be allowed?
As women are legally permitted to deny transwomen access I suppose it would apply to men as well.
Maybe I'm suspicious but I have a feeling men would take advantage of the sitution (but of course I allways support them )

Swim sessions......one male only, one female only, the rest mixed.

You can opt out of your own sex class but can't opt into the other one. So you stay in your own sex class or use mixed sex sessions. That could apply to changing areas etc too. If there is no demand for the single sex ones, then they will fizzle out.

Peasblossom

That is a slur on Orthodox Judaism.

Women are not considered unclean.

Niddah is an unclean state when there is a discharge of blood from the womb. It is the blood that is considered unclean not women.

But if distorting another persons lifestyle will serve your purposes then go ahead.

Or you could say Oh I got that wrong.

So why would a Jewish man refuse to shake hands with a woman? (and this happened to someone I know. She was with a man (not Jewish) the two men shook hands. He didn't shake hers)

I am not Jewish, but I think it is about exclusivity of touch between married couples, nothing to do with women being unclean.

Which shows how little you understand what we are saying about the fact that there are times when there can be no compromise when it comes to mixed sex settings.

Careful trisher your antisemitism is showing. Perhaps you should educate yourself in other's beliefs.

A strict Orthodox Jew will not touch a woman at her time of Niddah. He will know when his wife is in Niddah and will not touch her.

But in today’s society he cannot know whether a woman is menstruating or has a flow of blood for other reasons so the logical thing is not to touch any woman.

In other words he takes responsibility for obeying the Laws.

Now with the possibility that someone presenting as male may actually be female and menstruating, most Orthodox Jews will only shake hands with men that they know for certain to be male.

As I said it s the flux of blood that is the issue. Not that women are considered unclean.

Now that trisher knows this I expect she will apologise for her wrongful representation of the Jewish faith. After all didnt she say something about why we have laws to follow?

Definitely touched a nerve!
But trisher, these people you have introduced as anti trans as yet another diversion, this time religion. Go and sort them out.
If you RTWT, on here posters are not anti trans, they are anti the erosion of women’s rights by some transwomen and some m/f posters who also support that erosion.
Your choice is to support transwomen’s rights over those of females-that’s quite obvious, for whatever personal reason you have.
If I don’t believe any intelligent or knowledgeable woman would do that that’s my choice.
Anyway, work calls so I’ll have to wait till this evening to see where you go next.

Diversion alert!
That’s interesting, Peasblossom. Out of interest, would an ultra-orthodox man touch an older woman who is clearly post-menopausal?
Diversion over.

Yes, that’s why traditional households welcome the mother or mother-in-law. In times past the menstruating female would separate herself completely from the household (the red tent) and older females would be responsible for all household duties. Some compromises have to be made nowadays but Niddah is observed as much as practically possible.

Obviously an older woman would respect Niddah if there was blood for any other reason and avoid contact with a male.

I understood that, so perhaps I drew the wrong conclusion that if the blood is unclean and the woman can't be touched it follows that the woman is therefore unclean. I also thought it was necessary to undergo a ritual bath after menstruation in order to be considered touchable. If I did draw the wrong conclusions from these facts I apologise.
I really just find these things interesting. I realise trans matters are a total obsession for some and any other cultural or religious matters can't be discussed without accusations of diversion. I think understanding where our views and ideas originate is always useful.
I will say once again I support human rights. I don't think there is a hierachy.

I really just find these things interesting. I realise trans matters are a total obsession for some and any other cultural or religious matters can't be discussed without accusations of diversion.

Except you were using the Orthodox Jewish men as a reason to question women only swim sessions. You are quite transparent.

I thank you for your response. I can see how Niddah could be misinterpreted without knowledge of the underlying faith.

A man can have contact with a woman when she is not observing Niddah. The flow of blood is the crux. It would be no contact ever if women were thought to be unclean!

There are, like most Jewish Laws, practical sociological reasons for forbidding contact with a menstruating woman, which actually protect women physically and promote the family.

I think I’ve said all I want to say now. I apologise for diverting the thread.

It is interesting, Peasblossom, and your clarification is not at all the same as a deliberate diversion to make false analogies or change the subject. No obsession here, incidentally- I don’t see that bringing things back to the topic signifies obsession, or that resisting attempts to ignore points that haven’t been answered is obsessive either.