Eddie Izzard not chosen to be Labour candidate for Sheffield Central.

There are those on here who seem to hate all men, so aggressive. I don’t agree with a lot of the very extreme views expressed best to leave them to it.

I just find it astonishing that thread after thread focuses on a small number of abusive men who are using the "garb" of trans to be abusive.

Yet we had a thread not so long ago where it was absolutely clear that there is institutionalised absuive racism and sexism amongst white males in the fire force in London, and its expected its not just in London. Where are the pages and pages of critique, reason for, what to do about it, to protect the vulnerable? I dont see it coming from the posters here who repeat again and again the same "examples" - of course deplorable- of abuse by people who CALL themselves transwomen. can you not see just how divisive it is in terms of us women standing together against abuse by men? Or is it that it happens so much, and even in our lives, we chose to obsess about trans abuse?

Night after night the police are called to incidents of domestic abuse and its men on women mostly. What are we doing to address that instead of obsessing about pronouns?

I've posted links in the past Doodledog which you obviously failed to read. Interesting that you think a 3 year old case is important but you fail to read the opinions of women who have been abused for the way they look. I suppose it proves your concern is not really for all women.

'Failed to read them' 😂

Sorry, Miss. The dog ate my homework. The three year old case is almost certainly extremely 'important' to the child concerned, her mother, and the other woman who was attacked in a similar way in Asda by the same man. I doubt that even after three whole years they will have forgotten it. That you appear to think otherwise says a lot about your 'care for women' if we are trading insults.

My last post referred to the men dressing as women dressed as men scenario above. We cross-posted, sorry.

Has this rather bizarre scenario ever happened, to your knowledge, Glorianny. You've posted about that possibility before, too, but it sounds like a plot from a Brian Rix farce, tbh. Or a rather desperate attempt to 'outwit' fact-based feminists* who object to men being in there at all. The logic seems to be 'Stop moaning, women. Men will do what they like whatever you say, so why not wheesht and leave them to it?'

*a more accurate name for so-called Gender Critical feminists - shamelessly stolen from Hadley Freeman, whose interview on Woman's Hour is available on BBC Sounds and is well worth a listen. It's about how the trans lobby is silencing feminist journalists, (with particular reference to the Guardian, sad to say).

Doodledog

*Interesting that the only instance of a transwoman attack was from 3 years ago*

Are you serious? That was the first one that came up when I searched, and as I said, it was difficult to find search terms when the trans lobby police language so assiduously. Are you now setting parameters for acceptable responses to your false assertions? A bit rich from someone who can't be bothered to answer direct questions when they are put to you!

People in the 'wrong' loos is going to happen - we all know that. What we don't want is for it to be legal or socially acceptable.

I would still like to know more about the 'masculine-looking women' who are always getting asked to prove their sex who you keep going on about. Where does this happen, and in what circumstances? Who takes it upon themselves to question a woman who looks like a man? And why, given that female-male assault is vanishingly rare outside of domestic situations? How often does it happen?

I've posted links in the past Doodledog which you obviously failed to read. Interesting that you think a 3 year old case is important but you fail to read the opinions of women who have been abused for the way they look. I suppose it proves your concern is not really for all women.

Mollygo

So it seems that if facilities were labelled male and female, some would still support the right of males to use them even though that would involve lying?
Yet there is no suggestion from them about how harmful males can be prevented from accessing female facilities, only a rebuttal of any propositions made and the burden placed on females to deal with any attacks, instead of having the confidence that they would not encounter harmful males in female facilities.
In every other situation of potential illegal or dangerous action, it is accepted that measures have to be put in place.
Not everyone shoplifts, but store detectives and CCTV are accepted to protect the stores.
Not every airline passenger is a terrorist, but we accept the measures put in place to protect us.

Not all males are dangerous to females, but the resistance to measures being put in place to protect females from those males who adopt a disguise specifically to give them easier opportunities to harm females is astonishing.

But it wouldn't protect women Mollygo it would simply remove the necessity of dressing up to access facilities for any abusive male who on a whim could pass a women's toilet and just walk in. No planning, no pretending. If challenged he can say he's a transman. So either transmen would be subjected to lots of unnecessary abuse (and let's remember you think they are women) or any male can walk into any toilet at any time. So which is more likely that a male intent on abuse will go to the trouble of dressing as a transwoman or that he will just walk in and claim he's a transman?
It is absolutely nothing to do with "supporting the rights of males" but of looking at practicalities and reducing the likelihood of harm.

Glorianni
Have you seen the transgender problems in the most powerful country in Europe: Germany

www.dw.com/en/trans-germany/a-56031861

So it seems that if facilities were labelled male and female, some would still support the right of males to use them even though that would involve lying?
Yet there is no suggestion from them about how harmful males can be prevented from accessing female facilities, only a rebuttal of any propositions made and the burden placed on females to deal with any attacks, instead of having the confidence that they would not encounter harmful males in female facilities.
In every other situation of potential illegal or dangerous action, it is accepted that measures have to be put in place.
Not everyone shoplifts, but store detectives and CCTV are accepted to protect the stores.
Not every airline passenger is a terrorist, but we accept the measures put in place to protect us.

Not all males are dangerous to females, but the resistance to measures being put in place to protect females from those males who adopt a disguise specifically to give them easier opportunities to harm females is astonishing.

Interesting that the only instance of a transwoman attack was from 3 years ago

Are you serious? That was the first one that came up when I searched, and as I said, it was difficult to find search terms when the trans lobby police language so assiduously. Are you now setting parameters for acceptable responses to your false assertions? A bit rich from someone who can't be bothered to answer direct questions when they are put to you!

People in the 'wrong' loos is going to happen - we all know that. What we don't want is for it to be legal or socially acceptable.

I would still like to know more about the 'masculine-looking women' who are always getting asked to prove their sex who you keep going on about. Where does this happen, and in what circumstances? Who takes it upon themselves to question a woman who looks like a man? And why, given that female-male assault is vanishingly rare outside of domestic situations? How often does it happen?

I'm sure it's the aim of many trans ideology supporters to remove all words which distinguish people's sex.

Yes, I think you're right.

Newspaper reports in particular are written in such a way as to remove pronouns altogether from transpeople. Look at this example from the BBC.

They are talking about an male offender who had impregnated a 14 year old girl (so nothing female about him), but you wouldn't know it from the language:

The offender, whose name was recorded as Danielle-Rose Gemini by Leicester Crown Court, was jailed for nine-and-a-half years.
Leicestershire Police - who said the 25-year-old identified as a woman at the time of the offences - were not able to give a current gender identity.
The defendant was also charged with raping the girl, but was found not guilty of this following the trial.
Det Con Sarah Le Boutillier, the investigating officer, said: "Throughout our interviews, Orton refused to accept that there was any wrongdoing and [claimed] that they were in fact the victim.
"The claims were unfounded."

Not a male pronoun in sight.

I have said for years now on these threads that language matters, because it really does. If we can't talk about men and women using one word for one and another for the other, we won't be able to differentiate between the sexes, and if men can become 'she' even when they are in court for rape, the concept of men and women will cease to exist.

When that happens, we will all blend into one sex, which may seem egalitarian, but with no protections in place women will soon become not the weaker sex (as the idea of a sex won't exist), but a collection of weaker individuals who can be picked off one at a time, with no legal or social sanctions for those who want to take advantage of their strength. When women are no longer a concept, there can be no sexism against us - except that of course there will - what will change is that there will cease to be legal recourse against it. There will no longer be anywhere we can go to get away from men if we need to - no refuges (literal or metaphorical) if we feel in danger, no privacy, no space for women to be with other women if we want or need to. All will be 'equal', which will mean that biological women may as well forget about competing in sport, and who knows what will become of maternity provision in the workplace and so on. And don't forget that this is a deeply exclusive way of thinking, as women from many religions will have their lives curtailed if they are unable to be around men when they are undressed, or at different times around menstruation, childbirth etc.

And why? Because a small number of people have 'a feeling' that they are 'in the wrong body' - something that is being encouraged by increasingly discredited agencies such as Mermaids and The Tavistock.

Doodledog

*Wyllow*, the example of the attack in Morrison's was in response to Glorianny's assertion that all the evidence from places where transgender people have had access to public toilets for some time shows that there is no threat, which is clearly nonsense.

As has been said a million times, nobody thinks that all transwomen are dangerous or that attacks on transpeople are acceptable. However, as long as men can access female spaces simply by saying they are women, there will be some men who will abuse that and women (and children) will suffer.

Interesting that the only instance of a transwoman attack was from 3 years ago, proving perhaps that such events are neither common nor usual. And of course if trans people are to use the facilities which match their birth sex transmen will be in women's facilities so challenging anyone who looks male will be a problem.

I don't consider it acceptable that the UK is now aligned with right wing countries like Poland and Turkey for the degree of transphobia experienced eachother.org.uk/council-of-europe-criticises-uks-treatment-of-transgender-people/

Well, this thread went in some strange directions! I was once accused of being a man on a rock music forum because I ‘knew too much’

Wyllow, the example of the attack in Morrison's was in response to Glorianny's assertion that all the evidence from places where transgender people have had access to public toilets for some time shows that there is no threat, which is clearly nonsense.

As has been said a million times, nobody thinks that all transwomen are dangerous or that attacks on transpeople are acceptable. However, as long as men can access female spaces simply by saying they are women, there will be some men who will abuse that and women (and children) will suffer.

It is not hard to find examples - ones which no one here would feel acceptable - of a tiny minority of trans women abusing situations.

For centuries the more vulnerable in our society have been abused by a number of predatory adults. Including a small number of women in positions of power or authority. (Want example - the young nurse who killed babies, etc, etc) Women can also be very coercively abusive to children and family members. Gransnet has had many threads on this sort of abuse.

Abuse is not acceptable from anyone.

I have no problems with transwomen using facilities I use or my DS or DGC use anymore than any other group. It's not the fact they are trans that abuse occurs - it is because they are abusive people. I am happy to use the words "women" and pronouns accordingly with my Quaker trans friend. You couldn't wish for a more gentle soul. Indeed, likely to be vulnerable.

Its about time we recognised the levels of abuse against trans people and stopped making assumptions about a whole series of very different individuals.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202212/medium-627038-ftnvqzjxoaayaxg.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202212/medium-801791-fpe2fffx0ayvbc-.jpg

Transwoman cyclist Emily Bridges said, in an interview, that he wanted to race with 'other females'.
Transwoman India Willoughby claims that he has female anatomy.
This pic shows a man happily telling how he hoodwinked a woman who had asked for a female nurse.
I'm sure it's the aim of many trans ideology supporters to remove all words which distinguish people's sex.
So far, tho, there's been a lot less removing of the categories of 'male' and 'man' than of 'female' and 'woman'.

Thank you for the link Doodledog. It’s appalling.
I don’t want to rule out the words woman/women, as they should still refer to females.
Would renaming all facilities male or female instead of men and women help to stop atrocities like that?
If you are male, you cannot access female spaces.
In all probability those TiM who have accessed them unnoticed, because they have no ill-intent would continue to do so. But males like KD could be arrested for fraud, which is a criminal offence and would hopefully carry a heavier penalty.

Or would the males cheat, with the same support as they get now? I did ask someone if using ‘female’ would affect their POV but lacking an answer, it probably wouldn’t.

There is no evidence to say that most women are unhappy, just that a vociferous minority are making a lot of noise about it.
With no evidence how do you know that the 'noise' is coming from a minority? It seems you want to have it both ways.

As for policing thought I have absolutely no idea of doing so. In fact I have said many times you may think what you wish. I have however been told that my thinking is wrong and I need to change it. So who exactly wants to "police thought"?
Not me, if that is what you are insinuating. It is actions I believe should be policed. My comment was in reply to your question about far right Christians not wanting abortions. Again, you can't twist things both ways - if you ask a question you are likely to get an answer (from me, anyway, as I believe it is only good manners to reply to direct questions). You can't then claim that the premise of the question was wrong and use that to negate the logic of the answer.

I always prefer to have as little regulation as possible and al the evidence from places where transgender people have had access to public toilets for some time shows that there is no threat. So no protection is needed.
All the evidence, or a selected sample? There certainly have been instances of women and children being attacked in toilets by transwomen. The policing of language (of which you are, I believe, in favour?) makes it increasingly difficult to search - journalists fight shy of using everyday language to report anything involving transwomen - but here is one example:
metro.co.uk/2019/03/16/transgender-woman-18-sexually-assaulted-girl-10-morrisons-toilet-8914577/

Doodledog

*I have no doubt that some women will be disturbed by Eddie using the women's toilets Doodledog but equally a number won't. So are you saying that those who take offence at something should be prioritised over those who don't ?|*

Maybe I am. I wouldn't put it like that or look at it in that way; but yes, if there is a status quo and someone or some people from outside of it want to change it, then if everyone is happy it would be foolish not to go ahead. If, OTOH, there are those who are deeply unhappy, and who are able to defend the reasons for their unhappiness, then their views should be prioritised.

If so where should we draw the line? Very right wing Christian evangelists don't approve of abortion, should I modify my views to take into consideration their views? Or is this something which only needs to apply when the views match yours?
No, if you want to have an abortion and others don't, then both can go about their business without affecting the other. That is a very different situation, as in the case of men in women's toilets, it is the women who are affected.

Many women recognise trans identities, some don't what makes one more acceptable than the other?
Neither is more acceptable. You can't police thought, much as you may like to do so. What you can do, however, is to police actions, and base that policing on the safety of those who need protection.

But Doodledog I and many other women are not happy to have spaces policed and regulated and are perfectly happy to have transwomen sharing those spaces. After all they have been doing so for a long time. There is no evidence to say that most women are unhappy, just that a vociferous minority are making a lot of noise about it. And I believe you have said before that activists do not represent or speak for the majority.

As for policing thought I have absolutely no idea of doing so. In fact I have said many times you may think what you wish. I have however been told that my thinking is wrong and I need to change it. So who exactly wants to "police thought"?

I always prefer to have as little regulation as possible and al the evidence from places where transgender people have had access to public toilets for some time shows that there is no threat. So no protection is needed.
time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/

That interview was instrumental in forming my view of EI

Gagajo you may be interested to read an interview with Eddie Izzard in The Skwarkbox of 12th November 2017. I know that is some time ago but I can't see that his views are very different now. I am afraid that I am unable to give you a link but if you Google "the skwarkbox " " Eddie izzard" you will see an interview entitled " I'm more of a Blairite" which is interesting.

FarNorth

^Could we not just talk about the politics of it?^

Is there much to talk about, in that area? It seems everyone thinks the best person won and, in any case, she was the choice of the local labour members.
So that's that isn't it?

Yes, and that's fine. EI wasn't the best choice. Not local enough. Maybe not well versed enough in local issues. That's something that I'd be interested in finding out/hearing. I don't know enough about their politics to know just how Labour they are.

snowberryZ

Wyllow3

I feel we are here to share POV, not be aggressively pushed into answering extremely personal questions.

Fair enough, if we want to share if we are straight/gay/trans/etc then it can sometimes be helpful but please don't lets start demanding like that.

Why is it an extremely personal question?
If I'm asked whether I'm a woman I will say, 'yes I'm a woman . I have the chromosomes of a woman and don't have a penis or testicles, so am a Woman.
Last time I checked anyway.(confused)

I could cut my hair short, bind my breasts, or have a mastectomy, and I would still be a woman..
You can't 'wear your way into being a woman.
Deep down everyone knows this truth and it angers some sectors.

The question you asked, albeit phrased differently was 'Do you have a penis'.

Now, I'm not sure where you're from (I am not asking!), but where I'm from, that is definitely a personal question. Whether you're happy to answer personal questions or not is irrelevant.

I don't care whether you think I do or I don't. But it is a personal question and TBH, I'd question your judgement if you can't understand that.

Well there's that, too