the law as it stands on sex

No one is talking about anyone being "subjected to restrictions about (their) clothes" trisher. For goodness sake, are you actually reading what's being posted here?
You wouldn't think so, would you?

What is this obsession with masculine-looking women being persecuted? You do know that that is probably far less likely than feminine men? A woman in jeans is most unlikely to draw the same attention as a man in a dress, and I have never in my life been anywhere where anyone of either sex has been 'inspected', or asked to show their genitals before being allowed to use the facilities.

I was going to say that you can't be serious about women not being allowed to wear jeans - it just isn't going to happen. But as you clearly think that it's ok for a woman who has been raped to have no say over who examines her, as if she asked a transwoman to reveal her trans status you would consider such a question to be an intrusion, maybe you are. After all, according to you, a penis isn't a weapon to terrify women.

Having seen that comment I have even less confidence than before in your suitability to comment on refuges.

I don't really see the point of continuously answering the same questions.

I'm not sure what people want the answer to be because they don't listen even when I agree on some things.

Maybe I am not saying what people need me to say to feel better about their own behaviour

Nobody has answered my question about what 'presenting as' a woman means. Any thoughts on that one, VS?

trisher

When I got my first pair of jeans, way before trousers were accepted women's wear, my mother wouldn't buy me ones with a fly front, lady's jeans had a side zip. My mother told me that if I wore the fly front ones I would be arrested for wearing men's clothes. I don't know if that was true or not, she certainly believed it. I have no desire to see my GD subjected to restrictions about her clothes because there are vigilante groups out looking for transwomen or anyone who looks a bit butch.

But Trisher We have been wearing jeans with front zips for decades. Some women wear dungarees, with or without a Tshirt, a grandad vest or even a frilly blouse if they feel like it. Some wear their underwear over the top of their outer clothes. And those are the more conventional ones. No-one is going to restrict what your grand-daughter wears.

Some men wear pink shirts and purple trousers, some wear kilts, some jeans, some skirts, some lounge suits, some look as though they stepped out of bed and grabbed whatever was lying on the floor. That has nothing whatsoever to do with them wanting to enter a race in the women's class after spending twenty years using their natural generous supply of testosterone to develop their male musculature and heart and lung capacity. Be real!

However, I know well from the past that you debate as an intellectual exercise using all the techniques of the debating society - of which techniques relevance comes far down the list, after distraction and accusation.

As the Mock Turtle said to Alice, when she asked what he learned at school:

'Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with ... and then the different branches of Arithmetic--Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.

I don't think that their are many posters on here who have ever had their behaviour questioned. Maybe one or two?

Doodledog

*No one is talking about anyone being "subjected to restrictions about (their) clothes" trisher. For goodness sake, are you actually reading what's being posted here?*
You wouldn't think so, would you?

What is this obsession with masculine-looking women being persecuted? You do know that that is probably far less likely than feminine men? A woman in jeans is most unlikely to draw the same attention as a man in a dress, and I have never in my life been anywhere where anyone of either sex has been 'inspected', or asked to show their genitals before being allowed to use the facilities.

I was going to say that you can't be serious about women not being allowed to wear jeans - it just isn't going to happen. But as you clearly think that it's ok for a woman who has been raped to have no say over who examines her, as if she asked a transwoman to reveal her trans status you would consider such a question to be an intrusion, maybe you are. After all, according to you, a penis isn't a weapon to terrify women.

Having seen that comment I have even less confidence than before in your suitability to comment on refuges.

Doodledog I don't think anyone on this thread is asking for those things. I do think the danger is that in insisting it is always possible to tell a transwoman by just looking, and by insisting that they need to be identified and they are a danger, you provide others with the ammunition and they then take action which I'm sure you would deplore. I'm sure you don't mean to. I'm sure some of the people with views similar to yours don't mean harm, but their assertions will harm women. Because once you start trying to say who is trans and who isn't there will be people who will use that to abuse and villify women.

What I actually said was that I wouldn't want any legal insistence that someone must declare their trans status. I'd apply the same rule to any declaration, like race or religion it should always be voluntary.
And as you believe most transwomen are cooperative a legal ruling wouldn't be necessary anyway.

Anything can be used as a weapon. We don't usually class objects as such. The comment was anyway about people calling a penis a penis. (although it has lots of other names!)

Carry on abusing it really isn't feminist though.

trisher Rosie51 I have quoted the law interminably. The fact that you choose not to listen isn't my fault. The fact that you choose to translate my posts as you do isn't my fault.
The law is clear. Female only spaces are protected by law and any transwoman, with a GRC certificate or without,, with or without surgery, can be excluded if it is felt their presence would stop women attending.
I find that a simple and easily applicable solution. I don't want to change it. Female spaces are protected under law.

And yet you also interminably say "how are you going to police it, a flash of the genitals or a quick grope?" So yes the law exists and whole swathes of people and institutions are terrified of implementing it fearing to be classed as transphobes. Stonewall wants single sex exemptions removed, will you fight against that removal? I will.

I'll put the same direct question to you as I have to VS
trisher a question to you. If I request a female doctor to do a required internal examination on me, do you think it is right for an undisclosed transwoman to present and do the examination. I call that dishonest and deceitful, and totally disrespectful of my dignity and informed consent. What do you think? And before you protest, no she doesn't have to reveal her trans status she just doesn't attend to do the examination.

This is the usual fluffy argument.
The law is clear. Female only spaces are protected by law and any transwoman, with a GRC certificate or without,, with or without surgery, can be excluded if it is felt their presence would stop women attending.

If it is felt . . . By whom?

Who do you propose will be allowed to decide to feel that women won’t attend?

No.

If ONE female won’t attend because of being potentially being obliged to face or deal with a male, a man in a dress, a TW, that’s one too many. That target has already been met.

Or do you think there should be a decision about which number of non-attending females is acceptable?

Who would make that decision?

I’m surprised that those supporting the rights of a minority aren’t on board with this. Or is a minority only important if you are not an AHF. (Lesbians are AHF in case you didn’t know.)

VioletSky

I don't really see the point of continuously answering the same questions.

I'm not sure what people want the answer to be because they don't listen even when I agree on some things.

Maybe I am not saying what people need me to say to feel better about their own behaviour

My question was a new one to you VS but it's OK, I get you don't want to answer it because that would mean you'd have to come down on one side's rights being paramount, as there's no middle way in that scenario. My view is the vulnerable patient's rights outweigh the TW's wants, but hey you may well feel differently. Maybe you're comfortable with a lack of informed consent, I'm not.

Well there we have it again, no need to answer you've already decided what I think

I have answered that question several times. I'm not on trial here

I don't believe any of our opinions here will be of any consequence anyway.

I'll just respect the law as it pertains to all protected characteristics, of all demographics because to do otherwise is to be legally and morally wrong and risks harm to someone.

If that's a problem, then I am not the one you should be speaking to about it anyway

VioletSky

Well there we have it again, no need to answer you've already decided what I think

I have answered that question several times. I'm not on trial here

I don't believe any of our opinions here will be of any consequence anyway.

I'll just respect the law as it pertains to all protected characteristics, of all demographics because to do otherwise is to be legally and morally wrong and risks harm to someone.

If that's a problem, then I am not the one you should be speaking to about it anyway

That question has only been asked on this thread. How have you answered it several times? I'll ask you again If I request a female doctor to do a required internal examination on me, do you think it is right for an undisclosed transwoman to present and do the examination. I call that dishonest and deceitful, and totally disrespectful of my dignity and informed consent. What do you think? Do you think the doctor is right or wrong to do the examination? Yes or no will do, I'm not asking for an essay.

Rosie51
How have you answered it several times? I'll ask you again If I request a female doctor to do a required internal examination on me, do you think it is right for an undisclosed transwoman to present and do the examination. I call that dishonest and deceitful, and totally disrespectful of my dignity and informed consent. What do you think? Do you think the doctor is right or wrong to do the examination? Yes or no will do, I'm not asking for an essay.

I’d love to see you get a yes or no answer to that question.

You are more likely to get the ”I support equal rights for all” with no suggestion of how this may be achieved, because it’s impossible answer, which we are usually presented with.

And as you believe most transwomen are cooperative a legal ruling wouldn't be necessary anyway.

I believe what? Are you on the gin, too?

VioletSky

Well there we have it again, no need to answer you've already decided what I think

I have answered that question several times. I'm not on trial here

I don't believe any of our opinions here will be of any consequence anyway.

I'll just respect the law as it pertains to all protected characteristics, of all demographics because to do otherwise is to be legally and morally wrong and risks harm to someone.

If that's a problem, then I am not the one you should be speaking to about it anyway

I have answered that question several times. I'm not on trial here

Of course you're not on trial.

I have just trawled through this entire thread and read every single post of yours VS and I can assure you you have not answered my question once let alone several times. If you wish to refute that and label me a liar I'd appreciate you pointing me to the relevant post. I'll assume you thought you'd answered, but as you hadn't would you like to now? I'm interested in your opinion.

I think it's entirely up to you and what you are comfortable with Rosie and your medical or mental health needs take priority in those situations whether you are right or wrong to be frightened or concerned by any one demographic is irrelevant.

Yes I have said that before many times

I think asking for a cis woman would be the most respectful way to do that and I would hope in some situations you wouldn't mind who treated you. For example, in an emergency situation we don't generally get to choose who treats us and our sudden medical need is the priority, not what sex or gender or whatever you want to call it, the people who save your life are.

No personally I'm not bothered, I've had a male midwife and honestly I couldn't have cared less if the entire england football team, a marching band and the cast of Cats walked past at the time.

I do however respect your needs even if I don't have them

Is that a good enough answer?

Carry on abusing it really isn't feminist though.

? And that's not an abusive comment at all, is it? Also, it's not anti-feminist to disagree with another woman (or to point out that not understanding that a penis can be used as a weapon is scant qualification for commenting on refuges). Now that thinking is anti-feminist. And misogynist.

I have just trawled through this entire thread and read every single post of yours VS and I can assure you you have not answered my question once let alone several times. If you wish to refute that and label me a liar I'd appreciate you pointing me to the relevant post. I'll assume you thought you'd answered, but as you hadn't would you like to now? I'm interested in your opinion.

This happens all the time. Deflect, distract insult, and then pretend there's been an answer. Don't hold your breath.

I'd still love to know the answer to my own question - what does it mean to 'present as a woman'? That does seem to underpin a lot of the TWAW philosophy, but I don't know what it means. A woman (which to me is an adult human female) is, apparently, anyone who 'presents as one'. But I know women who 'present' in so many different ways, many of which are remarkably similar to the way men (adult human males) 'present'.

If someone 'presents' themselves in jeans with a front zip, a denim jacket and a buzzcut, is she still a woman? Or does she need to have a floral frock, coiffed hair and lipstick? Or could it be that there is something else that differentiates her from the men?

I think asking for a cis woman would be the most respectful way to do that given that I find the term "cis" highly offensive as I've posted many times before, I'm surprised you don't respect my feelings enough that you actually use it in a reply to me. A female describes what I have requested in my theoretical scenario, a transwoman is not female so therefore doesn't fit my request.
I've had male gynaecologists and surgeons, I didn't mind because I gave informed consent. That is entirely different to being deceived. Of course in a life or death emergency nobody gets to choose their doctor!

I think it's entirely up to you and what you are comfortable with Rosie and your medical or mental health needs take priority in those situations whether you are right or wrong to be frightened or concerned by any one demographic is irrelevant.
Incidentally requesting a female doesn't necessarily indicate fear, you are wrong to assume so. It may be a matter of modesty, or religious or cultural norms.

I think you're agreeing that it would be wrong for the transwoman doctor to attend a patient who has specifically requested a female?I don't want to assume.

If someone 'presents' themselves in jeans with a front zip, a denim jacket and a buzzcut, is she still a woman? Or does she need to have a floral frock, coiffed hair and lipstick? Or could it be that there is something else that differentiates her from the men? Rosie whispers quietly........they have different biology and secondary sex characteristics. That's something all women share, their biology. Doesn't matter if they're tall or short, black or white, heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian, any religion, any political allegiance........

Well I knew we wouldn’t get a yes or no answer and I was right.
What arrived was a lecture which avoided the point and tried, once again to make it seem like your fault that you are so unaccepting as to require a female medic.

Was that an example of “being kind”.

Personally I’m not bothered (how other people feel as long as she’s happy?)

And as you believe most transwomen are cooperative a legal ruling wouldn't be necessary anyway.
Please cite the post where this was said.

The need for a legal ruling arises specifically because not all tw are not cooperative

Carry on abusing it really isn't feminist.
(Not sure trisher understands feminism)

? And that's not an abusive comment at all, is it?
Also, it's not anti-feminist to disagree with another woman (or to point out that not understanding that a penis can be used as a weapon is scant qualification for commenting on refuges). Now that thinking is anti-feminist. And misogynist

Accurately put DD.

Rosie and doodledog

Let's see the problems there shall we?

1, there are many threads on this subject, I have previously answered, I can't be expected to remember who asked or where

2. Oh look, the gun was jumped and I did in fact answer again

Are you actually gaining anything from these questionable discussion techniques? Genuine question

I'm not gaining an answer to what 'presenting as a woman' means, no.

Can you help me out, please?

Rosie I am really disappointed with you pulling up that one word.

In my repotoire it's the least offensive term, in others it isn't

You can use any word you wish

I didn't in fact call you a cis anything

This is exhausting

If it's exhausting to remember that the term 'cis' is extremely offensive to a lot of women, maybe your kindometer is on the blink?

It may not be offensive to you, but most people are aware that it is a term used only by TRAs to deny the idea that women are born, not made. How could it not be offensive to people who believe that this is absolutely the case? Whether or not you believe it, using 'cis' to GCFs is every bit as offensive as 'misgendering' a transperson.