the law as it stands on sex

Unbelievable!
If there is a group of women I'd advise them to complain loudly, take photos if they can and make sure the person is prosecuted.
Prosecuted for what? Being in woman’s place? Are you going to finally agree that a visible male TW should not be in a ‘womens safe space’
Can you guarantee that his cry of But I’m a woman! I have the right to be here would be dismissed in the light of his traumatising females?

trisher

Incidently I used a cafe the other day which had only one loo-used by everybody. Men, women, trans gender, non-binary. and we all survived.

One at a time, I assume.

Women have spoken out, and have got safe spaces.

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes. My point is that we need to have agency - which we can’t have as long as men just have to say they are women to be taken as such. I don’t think that we should have to make a fuss, or to organise in order to have laws enforced. We are moving backwards as things are.

So (and I really am trying desperately to understand this) Mollygo your law would insist that people who are male are not allowed in certain spaces- spaces you describe as safe. Hospital wards I can see could work but it would depend on the building.In my local hospital for example a ward is a large space with seperate bays of 6 beds, some single rooms and various social rooms, meeting rooms ,storage rooms. There is a long space at one side and all the bays open on to it. The bays are designated for men or women, but the ward is mixed. and bays can be changed to accommodate differing numbers of each sex..If wards were single sex, one of the two wards like this would have to be designated as male and the other as female. As there are more older women, beds in the male ward would stand empty and women would have to wait for beds. I wouldn't regard that as desirable.
The safe spaces- what are they?
Refuges can refuse admission to transwomen. The law is clear.
So how would your law work?
I don't think transwomen are incapable of knowing good behaviour, but I do think if anyone breaks the law they should be reported and that if (as is constantly being repeated on these threads)someone shows their genitals they should be subject to the law.
You see I understand what you say you want I just don't see how it will work. And actually I suspect the legal niceties are beyond you as well, which is possibly why you continue to abuse and villify me.

Doodledog as far as a lone woman goes I would advise her to do nothing which put her at risk, but to report any infringement of the law and ask that her complaint be properly recorded.
If there is a group of women I'd advise them to complain loudly, take photos if they can and make sure the person is prosecuted.
The law has always needed women to speak out, isn't that what the MeToo movement was all about?

Trisher.
Why do you always need to describe your posts so accurately?
Well as usual there is an awful lot of rhetoric, criticism and condemnation on this thread and yes, there is, from you!
There is no point in any of us posting what females want, as you either deliberately misunderstand or you really don’t understand. Furthermore, you twist posters words to suit your own agenda.

Whatever I put as what females need you reply that women already have that knowing full well that your ‘gender’ term covers males.
If I say we need the right, as females, to not be faced with an obvious male in a hospital ward with or without traumatised females,
back you come with “you can report him or ask for him to be removed”.
True as far as it goes, though you have already been told that
You can always ask for him to be removed, but you would be told he can’t be removed because that would be transphobic but that doesn’t suit you at all, so gets ignored.

How would the law be enforced? You ask.

Same way as laws are enforced now.

Ah, I can hear you say, not all people obey the law.
Is that an excuse for not having a law?

Do you really think that we should not have a law against murder because not all people would obey it?
If there was a law that TW appearing as males (not your famous deep-voiced, strong, muscular women) were not allowed in female wards, female safe spaces, cheating in competitions etc. it is likely that
the incidence would be less. I’m not saying it would stop-you’ve already shown that you think tw are incapable of knowing good behaviour unless told by females, but fewer wrong minded TW would attempt it.
If it was against the law, those TW who do attempt it could be punished and claiming “But I’m a woman” would carry no weight.

The thing is trisher, Trans Women Are Transwomen.

You have the right to refuse to be examined by anyone why would you need to know their trans status? If you don't like the look of them say "no" and you just try saying that in a hospital setting, get labelled transphobic and treatment withheld. Still as long as the transwoman (it's always a transwoman exerting their male privilege) is validated. If I request that I am attended by a female practitioner and a transwoman appears then that person is already lying. They are not and never can be female. Why is the onus on me to object, why isn't the onus on them to be honest? I thought you agreed with informed consent? I can't give informed consent if I'm being lied to at the outset.

But how will you "get them back" Doodledog? I'd say you will never be able to guarantee those spaces are free of transwomen because they never were. I'd say if someone waggles a penis (or any other genitalia) report them it's illegal. But that won't remove all transwomen.
Prisons are being dealt with.
Hospital wards depend largely on the hospital design and its capacity.
Sports is just a mess.

But the problem you have is what will the law say that it doesn't now? How will that be enforced?

You have the right to refuse to be examined by anyone why would you need to know their trans status? If you don't like the look of them say "no"

Doodledog

*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?

Perhaps you missed my post where I outlined what I think women want, although I don’t claim to speak for all of us.

Here it is again.

Incidently I used a cafe the other day which had only one loo-used by everybody. Men, women, trans gender, non-binary. and we all survived.

Well as usuall there is an awful lot of rhetoric, criticism and condemnation on this thread but nothing which answers the question what do you actually want?
What will the law say that will bring about the nirvana you hope for?
How will it be administered and applied?
And what punishment will breaking it result in?
Until there is an actual policy and indication of what the law, you insist you need, will say I can't see how this can be regarded as any sort of women's movement. It's just an oportunity to slag off anyone who challenges your prejudices.
Explain clearly what you want legally. What will be illegal? What will the offence be? Who will make sure the law is applied?
Personally I'm happy with the law as it stands. I think there is protection. I'd like to see it used more and if I wanted anything done it would be to help women understand the legal position and actions they could take. (and yes I'd include transwomen in that)

Nannee49

Richard Pryor not anarchist trisher? Really? The comedy genius who invented modern anarchic comedy not anarchist? The man who paved the way for all wannabe comedians using comedy as a vehicle for anarchy not an anarchist?

That's the trouble with labels though isn't it, labelling something as something when they're not immutable fact just someone's opinion.

It's all very well to state an opinion assertively as if it was a fact but it holds no credence in reality. It's just a label, a point of view.

It's when the point of view transmutes into an ideology as if it's fact that it becomes untenable. It seems to happens a lot on these trans debate threads.

I think you are confusing anarchic comedy which undoubtedly Pryor was a master of, living an anarchic lifestyle, which Pryor managed because of his addictions and actually being an anarchist which is a political persuasion
Pryor entered into and embraced the Hollywood lifestyle. Stanhope, who obviously shares both the comedy and lifestyle elements with Pryor, is a confirmed anarchist. He began as a libertarian but says he has moved on.
I wonder why you feel the need to set up the two in conflict or judge one as better than the other?

Delicately, but perfectly phrased, if you don’t mind my saying so, Nannee43 ?

Richard Pryor not anarchist trisher? Really? The comedy genius who invented modern anarchic comedy not anarchist? The man who paved the way for all wannabe comedians using comedy as a vehicle for anarchy not an anarchist?

That's the trouble with labels though isn't it, labelling something as something when they're not immutable fact just someone's opinion.

It's all very well to state an opinion assertively as if it was a fact but it holds no credence in reality. It's just a label, a point of view.

It's when the point of view transmutes into an ideology as if it's fact that it becomes untenable. It seems to happens a lot on these trans debate threads.

So basically then, what you want, is for males, however they present to have power over females.
You’re happy with the way the law allows that to happen.
You’re happy to use only the word woman to back up your points, knowing that men and some females use it as a term of disrespect for females, or for denial of protection of females.
You’re happy to see no difference between those TW who have been in existence without the need to cheat and lie and endanger females and those whose purpose in declaring themselves ‘women’ is to have opportunity to do all the above.

Fortunately those with your submissive attitude or victim mentality are still in the minority, as are the men who demand that submissive attitude.

The majority of males, whether TW or not, who find the actions of the few toxic TW an abhorrence.

Females who value themselves and the achievements and rights of females and are unwilling to accept the handmaid’s role assigned (love that word) to them by the toxic few and their supporters are still in the majority.

I think we can safely say that trisher doesn't think she'll be using the first two examples you give FarNorth, probably not the third, and hopefully not the fourth. When things don't directly affect you or yours it's a lot easier to be sanguine about the effects on others, even while professing to be a caring individual for the oppressed.

Other places to consider are prisons, refuges, counseling groups, hospital wards, women-only classes in eg self-defence.

As for a man in a space dressed as a woman. I'm not sure I would mind. I tend to prefer private cubicles anyway. When communal changing rooms were introduced into shops I seldom used them.

Someone presenting exactly like Doug, is what I asked about, not a man dressed as a woman.

So it turns out that you avoid the situation altogether. I think that disqualifies you from saying that other female women should just put up with it.
There isn't always another option eg at swimming pool or gym or sports facility.

It's not about being offended by penises, it's about wanting to have agency over whether, when or how we want to see them, to know who were are agreeing to allowing to touch us intimately, and to know that we are safe when we are in a state of undress, ill, or otherwise vulnerable.

As most men are bigger and stronger than most women, and as transwomen were socialised as male, and as most men are sexually attracted to women, and as most violence is committed by men, and as the vast majority of sexual crimes are committed by men, and as many women belong to religions that forbid sexual touching or being alone with members of the opposite sex outside of marriage, women have organised and demanded spaces where men may not go.

Not only that, but women organised and fundraised and campaigned to provide refuges for women who were fleeing domestic violence.

Now men (supported by some women) want to take what women have built for ourselves, by deciding that they are women too. If we complain, we are told it is because we are bigoted, prudish, 'offended', or that we have 'a victim mentality'.

Not only do we no longer have the right to single-sex spaces, but we no longer have the right to call ourselves women, or mothers unless men have the right to do so too.

They bleat 'but what about transmen?', not because they give a tuppeny one about the women who have 'transitioned' (many of whom have deeply regretted it), but because most transmen are smaller and lighter than most men, were socialised as women, and are unlikely to pose a sexual threat of any kind, so feigning concern for them gives an air of equal opportunity, when in fact the women, in both cases, are the ones to lose out.

Nannee49

Bernard Manning...yes, back to him... wasn't funny to YOU trisher, doesn't mean he not funny.
As doodledog points out, it is subjective.
I think Dougie is a very poor copyist who's grasping the shirttails of Richard Pryor's genius but can't quite cut it no matter how many times he says pussy...yawn!

Bernard Manning wasn't funny because he told racist jokes.
Doug Stanhope is funny because he tell stories which point out the inadequacies in so many things and he has a political bent. Richard Pryor wasn't anarchist. And Stanhope has won many comedy awards.

Bernard Manning...yes, back to him... wasn't funny to YOU trisher, doesn't mean he not funny.
As doodledog points out, it is subjective.
I think Dougie is a very poor copyist who's grasping the shirttails of Richard Pryor's genius but can't quite cut it no matter how many times he says pussy...yawn!

FarNorth

^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?^

That's exactly what women are doing, trisher. If you haven't noticed that, you haven't been paying attention.

Also, you haven't answered my question. Is a transwoman a woman if she presents exactly as Doug does?

Obviously I understood that Doug is a comedian being funny, I don't know why you'd think I didn't.
My point is, that any man could present himself in exactly that way and have his trans identity accepted by you.
If I'm wrong about that, please explain why.

That would be great if I could find out exactly what they wanted FarNorth but I can't. They post about wanting transwomen to be only admitted into spaces if they have taken hormone treatment and had surgery but won't tell me how that will be discovered or regulated.
They post about wanting to ban anyone who is a danger to women, but the law already covers assault
They post about transwomen with penises exposing themselves but exposing genitals is already illegal.
They think transwomen are men and transmen are women. So if they are to have people designated by sex, that is male and female it will be impossible to tell who is using a facility by the way they look. The person next to you may be a man or a transman, how will you or anyone else know?
If women really want a change in the law I would like to know the exact wording of that law and what they are asking for. But I suspect that they are neither as united or as clear about their demands as they pretend.
As for a man in a space dressed as a woman. I'm not sure I would mind. I tend to prefer private cubicles anyway. When communal changing rooms were introduced into shops I seldom used them. I had no desire for others to see me or to see others undressed (even other women) fully admit I have hang ups. They are my hang ups and I don't expect other people to accommodate them. So it's not just penises that offend some of us. But I don't blame other women who want to strip off that's up to them. (Waits to be told how this shows I favour men again. I'm getting used to it and it's actually quite funny)
Those who want to regulate transpeople also want to regulate feminists. You do wonder if any other opinions will be permitted than those designated the correct ones.

I wish you more luck with getting answers to your questions than I am having with getting answers to mine, FN.

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?

That's exactly what women are doing, trisher. If you haven't noticed that, you haven't been paying attention.

Also, you haven't answered my question. Is a transwoman a woman if she presents exactly as Doug does?

Obviously I understood that Doug is a comedian being funny, I don't know why you'd think I didn't.
My point is, that any man could present himself in exactly that way and have his trans identity accepted by you.
If I'm wrong about that, please explain why.

Mollygo

trisher said, Sorry I still don't understand what your point is Mollygo. That’s OK, trisher, it was quite a complicated explanation so I can quite see why that would be.
So, Trisher, You seem to be insulting and denigrating all women who don't subscribe to your brand of feminism.
?? It was not I who mentioned medical treatment, it was another poster.

How would I identify trans males, certainly not by peering down their pants, and I don’t have your fascination with quick gropes etc.

If a TW displays as a man, he is a trans male as I described. If you think someone displaying as a male is a woman because you’re happy with the law as it stands , it says a lot about your patriarchal or
trans-sectional feminism and little about your pretence of ‘caring for everybody’.

Well if your point is so complicated Mollygo that's a great pity (not that I believe there is actually a point), As usual another attempt to denigrate me.
You seem to have invented a new designation - a transmale
Can you explain what this is? Trans means to cross so it must mean someone who has crossed from male. Does this mean you now believe people can change sex?

trisher said, Sorry I still don't understand what your point is Mollygo. That’s OK, trisher, it was quite a complicated explanation so I can quite see why that would be.
So, Trisher, You seem to be insulting and denigrating all women who don't subscribe to your brand of feminism.
?? It was not I who mentioned medical treatment, it was another poster.

How would I identify trans males, certainly not by peering down their pants, and I don’t have your fascination with quick gropes etc.

If a TW displays as a man, he is a trans male as I described. If you think someone displaying as a male is a woman because you’re happy with the law as it stands , it says a lot about your patriarchal or
trans-sectional feminism and little about your pretence of ‘caring for everybody’.