the law as it stands on sex

I have just seen this and it has made me giggle

I was mis-specied in Scotland recently at Glasgow train station a guard asked to see my ticket ‘hen’ I’m from the East Midlands and have always identified as a ‘duck’

Here's some more light relief, from 2 years ago.

youtu.be/HK3-HEfdwYQ

Trisher, Trans Women Are Transwomen.
They are not female.
If someone uses the term women to mean anyone who claims to be one that is their responsibility.

It doesn’t make them female so really women is now a meaningless word in terms of claiming to be something that you’re not.

If someone is a patriarchal feminist (supports mens rights over those of females) or a trans-feminist (supports the rights of trans over females). Or even your version of intersectional feminism (which supports the rights of anyone over females) that really just shows their disregard for anyone except males.
Happily there are still many who don’t support the patriarchy in those ways -the real feminists.

trisher, you put the onus on females to stop tw from cheating.
Which by implication means you believe transwomen to be incapable of stopping themselves from cheating or seeing that cheating is wrong.

supports mens rights over those of females

Men already have all the rights they could need, so anything else is demands.

supports the rights of trans over females

Transwomen do not have a right to be treated as women/females at all times.

Transwomen who forget they are not female are no help to themselves.
E.g. India Willoughby who thinks he has a cervix.

Btw, I know nothing at all about Doug (in my post of 11.39) but I'm guessing you're fine with Doug identifying into everything for women/females trisher?

All this is worrying and frightening for those of us who are concerned about women's rights being overlooked. It must also be deeply concerning for those transwomen, whom I think all of us (or the overwhelming majority anyway) have said frequently that we support, ie those who have had surgery and hormone treatment and just want to get on with their lives. Also for the huge majority of men who think that the rights of men and women are equally important and are well aware that women do not have penises.

Wheniwasyourage

All this is worrying and frightening for those of us who are concerned about women's rights being overlooked. It must also be deeply concerning for those transwomen, whom I think all of us (or the overwhelming majority anyway) have said frequently that we support, ie those who have had surgery and hormone treatment and just want to get on with their lives. Also for the huge majority of men who think that the rights of men and women are equally important and are well aware that women do not have penises.

Well said Wheniwasyourage. It sometimes gets forgotten that we support the majority of trans who want to get on with their lives without making demands that destroy the lives of others.

Thanks, Mollygo. Most of us have probably known, or known of, transpeople like that, and good luck to them! To ignore them seems to me to be like thinking that all men are abusers or all football fans are thugs.

FarNorth

Btw, I know nothing at all about Doug (in my post of 11.39) but I'm guessing you're fine with Doug identifying into everything for women/females trisher?

Love Doug Stanhope but if you don't understand that he lampoons everything and nothing is sacred you probably don't really get what he is about. Watch this and then tell me what you think of him FarNorth (contains references to penises although he calls it cocks and dicks) www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOKqXYusQw

Wheniwasyourage

All this is worrying and frightening for those of us who are concerned about women's rights being overlooked. It must also be deeply concerning for those transwomen, whom I think all of us (or the overwhelming majority anyway) have said frequently that we support, ie those who have had surgery and hormone treatment and just want to get on with their lives. Also for the huge majority of men who think that the rights of men and women are equally important and are well aware that women do not have penises.

So now we not only have the right and wrong sort of women we also have the right and wrong sort of transwomen. How the hell do you keep up with all the discrimination? (And purely incidently how do you know???)

A bit like Bernard Manning then...

The question, trisher, is would you be happy with someone very similar to Doug being in women's spaces because she claims to be a woman?

If not, why not?

I am still wondering how the idea that laws should be for the benefit of those who organise best and demand loudest sits with a professed desire to protect the vulnerable? These seem to me to sit in opposition to one another.

How do you reconcile them, trisher?

We don’t have right and wrong sort of women.
That’s your fantasy; the tall, strong, deep voiced, muscular ones or butch ones you’ve often mentioned.

Presumably the reason you feel you are such an expert on discrimination is because of the way you appear to practise it.

Since the devaluation of the word woman since 2004, we often don’t use that word, rather we have females and males.
I’ll agree however that there does appear to be two sorts of transwomen.
Those mentioned and supported by me, Wheniwasyourage and others and those supported by you. Though I see the second sort as transmales. i.e. those who have no real desire to be women, only to say they are, in order to override females’ rights, win at sports they can’t win against other men, etc.

The latter are easily identifiable by visibly appearing as males in females’ safe spaces, toilets, hospital wards etc. or cheating in female sports, or obtaining posts intended for females and claiming the right to do so just so because they SAY they are women.

How do we identify them? A TW appearing as a man is a trans male as identified above.
A TW not needing to display his male attributes, or to appear threatening to females, either in places where he should not be or, in fact, threatening in any situation, will be recognised in the same way as you would recognise him.

Sorry I still don't understand what your point is Mollygo. You seem to be insulting and denigrating all women who don't subscribe to your brand of feminism, and categorising transwomen according to the medical treatment they have received.
I really don't know what you want or how you intend to achieve it. Perhaps instead of telling me exactly what is wrong with me you could try explaining exactly what you want and how you intend to make it work.
Personally I'm happy with the law as it stands.
I'm also quite happy to share spaces with transwomen after all I've been doing it for over 70 years. Why fix it if it aint broke?

Doug Stanhope incidently is nothing like Bernard Manning- completely the opposite really. But you have to watch a lot of him to realise that.
The point about him is that there are no sacred cows. Which is exactly the opposite of what is promoted on all these threads.

How do I know what, trisher? Not that I intend to get into a discussion with you, as I think our viewpoints on this are irreconcilable and I don't want to get into a fight.

How do you know what medical treatment a transwoman has had? And how will you find out?

No sacred cows with Bernard Manning either trisher, he was inclusively offensive to all.

Nannee49

No sacred cows with Bernard Manning either trisher, he was inclusively offensive to all.

Bernard Manning was a married, non-smoking, non-drinking upright citizen who told off colour jokes. Doug Stanhope is a libertarian who sometimes says he's an anarchist, he doesn't tell jokes he tells stories which lampoon stereotypes. He smokes and drinks and says he hasn't done a gig sober for years.

No sacred cows is the last refuge of the offensive, isn't it?

It's a handy phrase for those who don't want to think about the impact of what they say. Bernard Manning has been mentioned. Do you think that Dapper Laughs is funny? Roy (Chubby) Brown?

Also, you said upthread that women should 'organise and demand' changes to laws that don't protect them, and not expect things to be handed to them on a plate - this indicates a 'victim mentality' according to you.

Do you stand by those statements? Or are you withdrawing one, the other or both? Or are you going to ignore any further reference to them?

If you are standing by them, how does that fit with your self-proclaimed belief that the vulnerable should be protected, and what is it that you think that women want to have handed to them on a plate? If you are going to continue to ignore the requests for clarification, is it out of embarrassment, or for another reason?

For Doug Stanhope offense is a first response not a last refuge Doodledog You either get it or you don't.
Bernard Manning wasn't funny, neither were the other two. Doug Stanhope is.
What I said was
It isn't not asking for fairness to think that if women want something and they aren't going to be handed it on a plate they should organise and demand it. It's how it's always worked. Why do women just have to play the victim now? How is that feminist?

As I'm happy with the legislation as it stands why should I have any idea about what changes should be made. I'm not the one complaining. If you want changes and you think most women want changes then state clearly what changes you want and then I can decide if they are practicable and if I would support them.
Meantime if you want to protect women encourage them to report infringements. If someone flashes their genitals inform some one. Take photos. Tell the police, get them charged with indecent exposure.

Why do you think this clarification has been made. Why do you think we are here rather than the no debate of a few years ago. Because woman have fought for their rights, in the face of death threats, rape threats, loss of employment etc, oh and the endless tedious cries of bigot. Women have organised and demanded. Women have taken legal case after legal case. Well some women have. They have fought like lions.

*For Doug Stanhope offense is a first response not a last refuge Doodledog You either get it or you don't.
Bernard Manning wasn't funny, neither were the other two. Doug Stanhope is.*

Well, obviously 'what is funny' is subjective, so nobody can say for sure what's funny and what isn't; but 'you either agree with me or you don't get it' is another last refuge - of those who can't back up their assertions with explanations.

It isn't not asking for fairness to think that if women want something and they aren't going to be handed it on a plate they should organise and demand it. It's how it's always worked. Why do women just have to play the victim now? How is that feminist?

But women had single sex spaces. You can claim that they have always been accessed by transwomen, but not by transwomen waggling their penises about. What we are asking for is to get them back. I can't speak for all women, obviously, but I'm pretty sure that if that happened things would go back to how they were - women would turn a blind eye to transwomen using the Ladies Room to touch up their make-up or trying on clothes discreetly in shops. The transwomen who wanted to 'pass', or believed that they were passing would carry on as before, but women wouldn't feel threatened by having male bodies flaunted in front of them. We are also asking for sex-based prisons, sports and hospital wards, and for anyone who is going to examine a woman intimately to be obliged to disclose her trans status. Obviously this last thing would only impact on transpeople who had chosen careers where they were in a position to be examining vulnerable women.

So, nothing too radical, really. As you have suggested, the people who get called TERFS are not particularly radical - we just want to keep the fair treatment that women have already fought for and gained.

How is that playing the victim?

Oh, and it's not my role to protect women, and I wouldn't presume to 'encourage' people to do anything, particularly anything that might put them at more risk from a man who is, by dint of the fact that he is in a female space flashing his genitals, a definite danger to women. Would you?