Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

Aveline

Three changing rooms/toilets. Mens, Women's, Unisex. Simples.

That might work in new builds, but not all older buildings can accommodate it, and not all companies have the funds to install new plumbing systems. It really isn't simple.

Also, there are people like India Willoughby (a transwoman) who refuses to use a unisex loo because that would suggest that IW is not a real woman.

What tends to happen is that the Ladies is colonised as the 'gender neutral' loo, and the Gents continue as is, on the grounds that the presence of urinals is off-putting for women (which it is). This means that men, women and transpeople all use the Ladies, which is also often the Disabled loo and has baby-changing facilities in there as well. Given that women don't just nip in and out, the queues are problematic and it really doesn't solve the problem that males are in there.

This is what happened in my workplace. As the ex-Ladies' is near the door to the building, it is more convenient for passing men to use it on their way in and out than to go to the Gents' along the corridor. Not only that, but the building opens onto a public thoroughfare, so randoms tailgate and use it too. I'm rarely there late these days, but I used to be. I wouldn't be comfortable about going in after dark now that there is nothing to stop males from going in.

Syracute

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66984843

This article highlights that crimes against transgender people are rising. So it’s really the transgender people that have something to fear .

It’s quite clear that the danger to trans comes because of the actions of some TIM which have brought harm not just to females but to trans.

I know Syracute and others won’t admit that and will keep dragging other things into the discussion, but it’s true.

If, as some claim, TIM have been using female facilities unnoticed, why was that previously able to happen? Whose actions are responsible for the change in attitude?

Those TIM who caused the problems that made it unacceptable are to blame, coupled with the violent activities of TRA who highlighted those actions.

Here’s a suggestion Syracute.

Instead of attacking females who want to protect their safe spaces by keeping them free from males, why not apply your energy to stopping the cheating, threatening, violent TIM from doing what has caused the problems?
Stop them causing incidences that hit the headlines in the tabloids you mentioned.
E.g.
- Stop TIM from abusing lesbians who won’t accept them because they are male.

- Stop TIM from pretending to be female in circumstances where a female has asked for female support.

-Stop TIM from cheating their way into female competitions, depriving females of well earned chances to win.

-Stop TIM from going into female safe spaces -toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, especially mental health wards and making it quite obvious that they are male.

Stop violent males suddenly deciding they’re TIM and expecting to be housed in female prisons.

Why not put your energy into demanding male, female and unisex facilities and make sure that trans understand they have the right to use the facilities of their birth sex or unisex?
Why do you feel it should be the responsibility of females who want to keep their safe spaces and sports etc to relinquish those things to males?

Why do you protect TIM rather than females?

Syracute

So all transgender women should use the men’s room ? Many don’t look like men at all ! Many have fully transitioned and no longer have a penis. You think they should go to a men’s toilet ? Those who think trans people are so dangerous don’t seem to be aware of the real dangers transgender people go through on a daily basis. What they have their whole lives. That is being ignored on this thread . They are brave to be their authentic selves yet here they are painted as dangerous and predatory. Ridiculous! The problem with this sort of thinking is that it spreads and gives dangerous influence to those who will go out and use violence against the trans population and feel validated. The occurrence of violence against the trans community is far larger than vice versa. May I also point out that Trump was recently convicted of sexual assault that occurred in a women’s changing room. So I think if there is a predator they will find a way.

May I also point out that Trump was recently convicted of sexual assault that occurred in a women’s changing room. So I think if there is a predator they will find a way.

I'm not sure why you've used Trump to illustrate the point that most of us on here are aware of which is, as you have pointed out, that men will find a way to prey on women (in particular or in general) if that is how they are inclined. A point which in fact supports our argument rather than yours.

The occurrence of violence against the trans community is far larger than vice versa.

I have no statistics to hand - but it is a fact that attacks against and abuse of the trans community are increasing - fortunately, more and more trans people are reporting those crimes so obviously, we are going to be more aware of them.

No one on here, as far as I am aware, is denying this though - nor condoning those attacks. It should also be noted - you obviously read the data so you can see this for yourself - there are reports that up to 80% of abuse (emotional as well as physical) suffered by trans people is at the hands of a partner, or ex-partner, or someone within the family group...Intimate Partner Violence and Family Violence (IPV or FA).

So it is not simply solely random abuse from 'strangers on the street' who you appear to think we here on GN are emboldening because we state that we do not believe TWAW.

As for the rates of trans violence directed towards the non-trans - it will quite obviously be less because the trans community are a minority grouping so one would not expect the attacks to be in excess of those 'vice versa'.

Anyway - it's not a competition, whoever is committing acts of violence against whomever for whatever reason is, surely, to be condemned regardless?

So all transgender women should use the men’s room ? Many don’t look like men at all ! Many have fully transitioned and no longer have a penis. You think they should go to a men’s toilet ?

The majority of transwomen - regardless of any other treatment or procedures to change their appearance opt to retain their penis. For very good reasons. The surgery is drastic, not usually available on the NHS, and very expensive if done privately. It also requires continuous use of medication. Not least, if you read some of the personal experiences of transwomen undergoing or having undergone such surgery - the results are not guaranteed, it's a very lengthy recovery period, and the constructed vagina has to be dilated every week for the remainder of your life if you are not having sex. Other transwomen have said that they prefer to keep their penis because they believe it is or will give them a more satisfactory experience when they have sex with women.

Some transwomen have fully transitioned, most have not. So in answer to your question - we do not want biological men in women's toilets, changing rooms, or other 'intimate' spaces because they are, regardless of how they look - men. We want to keep those spaces for the same reasons they were fought for in the first instance. The logistics of how they are accommodated in toilets and other places is a separate issue - but presenting that as a reason why women should simply roll over and accept the new status quo - because it presents a problem - is not a good enough reason to comply.

And I object to the inference that debating these matters on here might be the cause of others committing acts of violence towards the trans community. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If someone commits a hate-crime - do you think they can claim as a defence, that other people are responsible for it because they were talking about it? That would not wash in a Court and it doesn't wash on here.

The idea that women are just men with their penis removed is deeply sexist nonsense.

Galaxy

The idea that women are just men with their penis removed is deeply sexist nonsense.

It started years ago in Genesis, Galaxy.

God made man in his own image; women are just made from an old spare rib from a man.
As soon as women start to assert themselves they have to be put back in their rightful place.

I read an article some time ago now where a lesbian was explaining why she was not attracted sexually to transwomen.

I don't remember the reason for the 'explanation' or even why she felt she had to give one - but it was a strangely moving article because, although I am heterosexual, I could put myself in her place, and feel the dismay she felt.

She mentioned things like the jaw-line which to her was unmistakably male... the Adam's apple, shaved or not, it was still distinguishable - the size of the hands.

... things like that, which left her completely unmoved emotionally / physically. Because she, as a lesbian, was attracted to the "woman-ness" of women - perfectly understandable to me who as a hetero is attracted to the 'manliness' of men.

I believe she'd been coerced in some way into an encounter with a TW, I can't remember, but whatever, it was a very poignant read, and brought home to me how awful it must be for anyone to feel compelled to have sex with someone they are simply not attracted to.

So yes, it's about a heck of a lot more than a man with his penis removed. But this point is raised now and again as if not having one makes a transwoman more of a woman - or less of a threat. So we end up discussing an issue that, whilst it has some relevance to the debate, muddies the waters... it's about the sex chromosomes in the trillions of cells in the body which cannot be modified.

Simple : I don’t feel threatened . I don’t see nor have your viewpoint to what are exaggerated problems . I have seen a transgender person in Victoria Secrets and did not feel threatened or uncomfortable . She was just shopping like I was .

Syracute

Simple : I don’t feel threatened . I don’t see nor have your viewpoint to what are exaggerated problems . I have seen a transgender person in Victoria Secrets and did not feel threatened or uncomfortable . She was just shopping like I was .

Whatever I feel should order convention and the law!!
I feel comfortable with various situations therefore if you feel uncomfortable it's a problem with you. I believe in fairytales so if you don't it's a problem with you. I have certain beliefs, so if you don't share those beliefs it's a problem with you. Men can become women by uttering the sacred phrase. Whatever I believe or am comfortable with is the standard and if you are at any way in variance then the problem is with you. Go Syracute and those that align this way! (cheerleader waving of pom poms) That teensy minority have taken hold of the world. Yay! Let's celebrate! Yay! (exit stage right waving tattered crepe paper pom-poms)

Well said Rosie. I share your frustration with the ’Mememe’ tone and the total inability to see beyond her own experience that infuses Syracute’s post.

Syracute

Simple : I don’t feel threatened . I don’t see nor have your viewpoint to what are exaggerated problems . I have seen a transgender person in Victoria Secrets and did not feel threatened or uncomfortable . She was just shopping like I was .

... Oh, well... that's OK then.

You saw a transgender person in Victoria's Secrets and didn't feel threatened...

I have a transgender friend - and I don't feel threatened either.

But that is not the point. At all. Which I don't think you have grasped.

Syracute
As Rosie51, Doodledog, Dickens and others have said, you’re missing the point.

However your statement . . .
I have seen a transgender person in Victoria Secrets and did not feel threatened or uncomfortable.
is very surprising!

*Glorianny always says you can’t tell if someone is a TIM or not, and there you go, instantly identifying a shopper as such.
Do share what gave him away?*

Even though you find it hard to grasp, no one on here sees all TIM as a threat.
The problems and anxieties for females caused by those TIM who are a threat, are very real as is the concern with TIM clearly male, in female spaces.

Your clearly identifiable TIM in Victoria’s Secret is not a threat, any more than my DH going there to make gift purchases would be, unless either of them wanted to try items on in communal changing rooms.
However, my DH going into female changing rooms would cause the same anxiety as the TIM you so easily identified.

Not because my DH or even your easily identified TIM is a threat, but because they’re somewhere they shouldn’t be and they would be disrespecting and disregarding the feelings of female customers.
If you think that’s OK. Then that’s up to you.
As I asked before, Why do you protect TIM rather than females?
You didn’t answer before. Was it because you can’t?

Some people see the world at face value.

fancythat

Some people see the world at face value.

What does that mean?

I notice that people in the world sometimes see what is in front of them. Right then.
They dont and never see a bigger picture.

They believe everything they are told. By the media and others.

As just 1 example.
They think the world or country is what they have seen.
If say a hospital a&e is not that bad as regards waiting times, they think every hospital is like that.
They have not heard and dont believe in postcode lottery about anything.
Because they "have seen" for themselves.

That's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude that is one of the reasons we are we are today.

It doesn't worry me so it doesn't matter if it worries anyone else.

Well observed Mollygo.

The point that Syracute and those of the same mind miss - or don't engage with anyway - is that we do not believe that men can change themselves into women. We understand gender identity; we know that the trans community suffer discrimination at the least and abuse at the worst; we know that stereotypes exist, sometimes to the point that it becomes untenable for a person to conform to them; we know that some men feel more comfortable emotionally and physically identifying as women, we know that the majority of transwomen are not a threat... we know all these things but it doesn't alter the fact that a biological male cannot become a biological female. And that is the material point and the one which is ignored in favour of pointing out to us what we already know.

Ignoring that fact makes these discussions with those who disagree with out stance - pointless Because transwomen, regardless of how they endeavour to portray themselves as women and what lengths they go to to achieve it to satisfy their gender identity are still men and therefore the status quo that exists regarding men and women, still exists. Women have safe spaces because there are sufficient numbers of men who abuse or intimidate women, so by the law of averages some transwomen will be a threat. I don't know why those like Syracute don't understand this.

Of course, it's about more than that, but Syracute has brought it down to that level by reducing the argument to one of whether or not you are safe in a commercial outlet with another transgender person. And so we go through the whole rigmarole again instead of discussing what really matters which is the gradual erosion of women as a sex and what that will mean for us in the future.

fancythat

I notice that people in the world sometimes see what is in front of them. Right then.
They dont and never see a bigger picture.

They believe everything they are told. By the media and others.

As just 1 example.
They think the world or country is what they have seen.
If say a hospital a&e is not that bad as regards waiting times, they think every hospital is like that.
They have not heard and dont believe in postcode lottery about anything.
Because they "have seen" for themselves.

LOL!

Yes, it's the "it-didn't-happen-to-me-so-it-can't-be-true" syndrome.

And of course, the corollary to this is that, if it did happen to you - it must have been your fault...

'I went in a shop and saw a transgender person and did not feel threatened or uncomfortable'

And?

I went in a pub and saw a transgender person and didn't feel threatened or uncomfortable either.

That is missing the point by a country mile.

I suspect that that attitude is born of the belief that anyone expressing concern about the whole trans agenda is 'phobic' and that we are all afraid of transpeople.

This is linking to the other thread, and how words matter. A phobia is an irrational fear, which can often be disabling. Being concerned about the ramifications of a world where being a woman is optional and has no protection in law is not an irrational fear, and speaking out about the idiocy of criminalising saying that males are male is not phobic.

It's morally wrong that transgender people suffer from inadequate provision of comfortable safe toilets and changing rooms, and intransigent elderly.

It is within human ingenuity to plan public toilets which are permanently staffed by attendants who do more than clean them.
Toilets which are actually 'comfort able welcoming centres where people can relax and clean themselves and their children if need be.

These facilities cost money that local authorities don't have so they must be financed by taxation, possibly with financial input from those local businesses that profit from good town centre facilities. Great public toilets would be a great innovation to rejuvenate town centres.

Caleo

It is within human ingenuity to plan public toilets which are permanently staffed by attendants who do more than clean them.
Toilets which are actually 'comfort able welcoming centres where people can relax and clean themselves and their children if need be.

These facilities cost money that local authorities don't have so they must be financed by taxation, possibly with financial input from those local businesses that profit from good town centre facilities. Great public toilets would be a great innovation to rejuvenate town centres.

Sometimes we're lucky to find them open!!

PS Great well-planned public toilets would be for all sexes and genders like hotels are for all sexes and all genders, as there would be no reason for their not being so. These comfortable retreats could supply a shower for those in need and a clean towel. They could be renamed ' retreats' or 'shower rooms ' instead of the smelly name 'public toilets'.

They could of course charge an entry fee and extra for the clean towel etc. The disadvantage is that people with stomas or poor people could not afford such expensive comfort. The solution here is to provide sufficient benefits for poor people and for people with limiting conditions such as stomas.

This nation under redistributive socialism would be a nicer place to live in.

Callistemon, before there are adequate facilities in public places, there has to be political will to build the architectural infrastructure. Conservatives won't do it as they seek sort term profits .

short term profits.