Transgenderism

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Agreed. I don't like the way she's gone about it at all and persnally think she's doing harm to her cause but I'm not sure how we move forward. The tendancy is to talk about women in general terms, like they all think like Rowling. I know my Mrs says she personally isn't bothered if someone Trans is using the womens toilet or changing room but I don't think she's ever known when someone Trans was, so is it a non-argument? It's a pretty wooly debate that ultimately boils down to how certain women (but evidently not all) "feel" about it rather than any kind of hard evidence of anyone being in actual danger.

As a man though, I don't feel like this is my fight to be had. It doesn't affect me and I don't really care what bathroom or changing room someone uses. It feels to me like something prominent women politicians need to sort out as they're the ones 'at the coal face', if you like and the rest of us need to butt out and be guided by them.

It’s part of the problem now that some people including some women feel like they are able to police what they perceive as their spaces. But how exactly is this going to be done, do the public have a right to see your genitalia if you’ve entered a women’s rest room and they suspect you are wearing a wig or are unusually tall?

Can I demand to see your cock if I suspect you might be a trans man and my son is in the building? 

The government involvement has been less than helpful, the spineless PM and the trouble making Badenoch with their flippant attitudes and their flippant comments on WC’s provision and access. Do we really think that a potential rapist is dissuaded from rape if a toilet has a lady symbol on the door? But would commit rape if there is a unisex facility? It’s a level of debate that is deliberately pathetic. 

[desensitized43]

27 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s part of the problem now that some people including some women feel like they are able to police what they perceive as their spaces. But how exactly is this going to be done, do the public have a right to see your genitalia if you’ve entered a women’s rest room and they suspect you are wearing a wig or are unusually tall?

Can I demand to see your cock if I suspect you might be a trans man and my son is in the building? 

The government involvement has been less than helpful, the spineless PM and the trouble making Badenoch with their flippant attitudes and their flippant comments on WC’s provision and access. Do we really think that a potential rapist is dissuaded from rape if a toilet has a lady symbol on the door? But would commit rape if there is a unisex facility? It’s a level of debate that is deliberately pathetic. 

Well definitely a sexual offender will find a way to offend regardless and tbh I've never heard of anyone actually exploiting this as a way to get into a womens space in order to offend which is why it's a paper argument not anything grounded in reality. It's about fear and anxiety rather than anything else, but that fear and anxiety is real, even if it's baseless. 

[bobzy]

28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s part of the problem now that some people including some women feel like they are able to police what they perceive as their spaces. But how exactly is this going to be done, do the public have a right to see your genitalia if you’ve entered a women’s rest room and they suspect you are wearing a wig or are unusually tall?

Can I demand to see your cock if I suspect you might be a trans man and my son is in the building? 

The government involvement has been less than helpful, the spineless PM and the trouble making Badenoch with their flippant attitudes and their flippant comments on WC’s provision and access. Do we really think that a potential rapist is dissuaded from rape if a toilet has a lady symbol on the door? But would commit rape if there is a unisex facility? It’s a level of debate that is deliberately pathetic. 

This is it.  Rape has happened - and continues to happen - because some people (largely men) are horrific.

Are we implying that anyone transitioning from male to female is inherently a dangerous man?  Are we saying that only now can a man dress up as a woman?  Further, are we saying that, purely in order to attack women, some men will go through an entire process of gender reassignment?  It just all seems a stretch.

[StefanAVFC]

The toilet issue has been and always will be a complete distraction about real issues.

We have shared toilets at work, I was in a restaurant at the weekend with shared toilets.

Men will assault women/children in those without having to dress up to do it.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I've never heard of anyone actually exploiting this as a way to get into a womens space in order to offend which is why it's a paper argument not anything grounded in reality.

You may not have heard of it, because it’s rare. But it’s also fact and reality. It’s happened multiple times and Prisons are usually the location, though not exclusively. People with todgers being put in women’s prisons because they either identified as women, or had been gender reassigned as women and then going on to sexually assault other prisoners.

That’s obviously a lamentable situation. I guess the question is how do you stop that and also stop completely innocent and decent trans people from being discriminated against or victimised.  There’s kind of 2 extreme camps (can I say camp?). One is shouting for the rights of Trans people trumping the rights of women born as women, and the other is shouting for the rights of born women trumping the rights of trans people. And then each calls the other haters and dangerous and evil and…so much noise, so little understanding.

[desensitized43]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

You may not have heard of it, because it’s rare. But it’s also fact and reality. It’s happened multiple times and Prisons are usually the location, though not exclusively. People with todgers being put in women’s prisons because they either identified as women, or had been gender reassigned as women and then going on to sexually assault other prisoners.

That’s obviously a lamentable situation. I guess the question is how do you stop that and also stop completely innocent and decent trans people from being discriminated against or victimised.  There’s kind of 2 extreme camps (can I say camp?). One is shouting for the rights of Trans people trumping the rights of women born as women, and the other is shouting for the rights of born women trumping the rights of trans people. And then each calls the other haters and dangerous and evil and…so much noise, so little understanding.

Well people who are in prison are generally there because they aren't standup members of society so it shouldn't really be a surprise that when you put scummy people in jail they're going to do scummy things if the opportunity presents.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Well people who are in prison are generally there because they aren't standup members of society so it shouldn't really be a surprise that when you put scummy people in jail they're going to do scummy things if the opportunity presents.

Indeed. Though they can't rape female prisoners if they're in a male prison, and that seems to be the issue for one camp.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Indeed. Though they can't rape female prisoners if they're in a male prison, and that seems to be the issue for one camp.

…and quite a legitimate issue if you ask me.

Things get discussed by the great and the good and look like good ideas with good intentions, and then turn to shit when in a real world situation where some people are not thinking of the greater societal good. From proven convicted criminals with penises being put in to women’s prisons, to letting violent prisoners out a bit early because they’ve promised not to stab their girlfriend on the day they are released, to granting asylum because someone attended a bible reading class.

That’s a system error, not a reason to condemn all men, all trans people, all asylum seekers etc..

There are more than enough prison establishments in existence already for prisons not to be the issue it is. There are good design solutions for schools that mean all kids can go to the toilet. What we don’t have is rational debate and a grown up government.

My fear, is that the next lot in government will also allow the same heady mix of theoretical experiment lost in reports that nobody reads on serious issues like prison. Followed by then playing to the gallery with soundbites on how they are getting tough and clamping down and all that bollocks.   

[Panto_Villan]

3 hours ago, bobzy said:

This is it.  Rape has happened - and continues to happen - because some people (largely men) are horrific.

Are we implying that anyone transitioning from male to female is inherently a dangerous man?  Are we saying that only now can a man dress up as a woman?  Further, are we saying that, purely in order to attack women, some men will go through an entire process of gender reassignment?  It just all seems a stretch.

I'm guessing the female-only bathrooms have some value when it comes to preventing rape. I'm sure some men wouldn't follow a woman into a female bathroom, and security staff or other men might forcibly prevent another man from going into a female bathroom because it's obvious they shouldn't be there.

The bolded part is an issue for me though. I don't think that's implied at all. The problem I've seen highlighted by women isn't that trans women are assumed to be dangerous, it's that overly permissive laws allow men to pose as trans women. That's very different from calling trans women themselves dangerous, and tbh it feels to me like the misunderstanding is very deliberate because it allows people to dismiss the entire argument as transphobia rather than engaging with the difficult questions (that's a general comment, not aimed at you specifically).

It's relevant when it comes to policies like gender self-indentification. As you say, it's much more outlandish to assume a man will go through an entire process of medical gender reassignment so they can commit sexual crimes, but it's not that difficult to imagine it might make life easier for sexual predators if the only thing required to legally become a trans woman is to say "I'm a trans woman".

[bobzy]

5 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I'm guessing the female-only bathrooms have some value when it comes to preventing rape. I'm sure some men wouldn't follow a woman into a female bathroom, and security staff or other men might forcibly prevent another man from going into a female bathroom because it's obvious they shouldn't be there.

The bolded part is an issue for me though. I don't think that's implied at all. The problem I've seen highlighted by women isn't that trans women are assumed to be dangerous, it's that overly permissive laws allow men to pose as trans women. That's very different from calling trans women themselves dangerous, and tbh it feels to me like the misunderstanding is very deliberate because it allows people to dismiss the entire argument as transphobia rather than engaging with the difficult questions (that's a general comment, not aimed at you specifically).

It's relevant when it comes to policies like gender self-indentification. As you say, it's much more outlandish to assume a man will go through an entire process of medical gender reassignment so they can commit sexual crimes, but it's not that difficult to imagine it might make life easier for sexual predators if the only thing required to legally become a trans woman is to say "I'm a trans woman".

I reckon it has barely any difference on preventing assault - though I appreciate there's probably a feeling of being more safe because "at least they can't get me here" which is obviously fair and a big issue.  We know that the factuality of being safe isn't true because people sexually assault others in a wide variety of situations, but the feeling of safety is a good thing.  I do doubt having a picture of a woman on a door really makes any difference, mind.  If someone wants to assault someone else, why not go where someone is in an enclosed environment, away from the general public?

(As an aside, this is partly why I'm in favour of unisex toilets rather than continued segregation.  I think what could happen is that, instead of toilets solely being used by one type of person, the amount of people being around is, broadly, doubled, so the risk of being alone and vulnerable is decreased.  Also, as a father to two young girls, it would be 'nice' to be able to keep an eye on my eldest (and youngest when she gets there) when she goes to the toilet when we're out as, currently, I obviously can't - there are evil women out there too.)

 

I haven't read into this (or any) law on the latter point; but I have doubts that simply saying "I identify as <x>" would be a catch-all for becoming the opposite gender.  If it is, it would have to be refined.  There's nothing stopping a bloke donning a wig and dressing like a woman currently simply to enter a female-only toilet as it stands in any case... but I stand by incredibly few men actually going down that route solely to attack women.  Anecdotally, the sexual assaults I've experienced (not personally, but on friends) are very much opportunistic rather than seemingly planned - though the latter, sadly, will also happen.

[StefanAVFC]

28 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I'm guessing the female-only bathrooms have some value when it comes to preventing rape. I'm sure some men wouldn't follow a woman into a female bathroom, and security staff or other men might forcibly prevent another man from going into a female bathroom because it's obvious they shouldn't be there.

If I was a sexual predator, which is easier?

Going to the multitude of places where there are mixed bathrooms, or dressing up (often unconvincingly) like a woman and going into a female bathroom?

A man walking into a mixed draws zero suspicion, a quite obvious man dressed up as a woman draws more than a man walking in dressed as a man would.

[tomav84]

as said above, assaults are more opportunistic than planned. they target females walking alone etc, not in a public space with potentially half a dozen other women present ready to rip their bollocks off if they tried something.

besides, if someone attacked a woman in a toilet or changing room under the ruse that they identify as female then the mail, sun, express etc would be all over it. i've seen nothing of that sort so it's obviously not a common occurrence anyway

[Panto_Villan]

51 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I reckon it has barely any difference on preventing assault - though I appreciate there's probably a feeling of being more safe because "at least they can't get me here" which is obviously fair and a big issue.  We know that the factuality of being safe isn't true because people sexually assault others in a wide variety of situations, but the feeling of safety is a good thing.  I do doubt having a picture of a woman on a door really makes any difference, mind.  If someone wants to assault someone else, why not go where someone is in an enclosed environment, away from the general public?

(As an aside, this is partly why I'm in favour of unisex toilets rather than continued segregation.  I think what could happen is that, instead of toilets solely being used by one type of person, the amount of people being around is, broadly, doubled, so the risk of being alone and vulnerable is decreased.  Also, as a father to two young girls, it would be 'nice' to be able to keep an eye on my eldest (and youngest when she gets there) when she goes to the toilet when we're out as, currently, I obviously can't - there are evil women out there too.)

I haven't read into this (or any) law on the latter point; but I have doubts that simply saying "I identify as <x>" would be a catch-all for becoming the opposite gender.  If it is, it would have to be refined.  There's nothing stopping a bloke donning a wig and dressing like a woman currently simply to enter a female-only toilet as it stands in any case... but I stand by incredibly few men actually going down that route solely to attack women.  Anecdotally, the sexual assaults I've experienced (not personally, but on friends) are very much opportunistic rather than seemingly planned - though the latter, sadly, will also happen.

This is one of the reasons why gender self-identification is unlikely to become commonplace, in my opinion at least - there are plenty of trans advocates who think it literally should be as easy as saying "I identify as <x>" but I think there's too many issues in practice. The reason I mention it is because one of the arguments they use to defend the position is the one you used; anyone saying it's impractical because it would give men posing as trans women easy access to female-only safe spaces is a transphobe because they're implying all trans women are sexual predators.

Anyway, yeah, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure exactly what the answer is. I don't actually have an issue with unisex toilets in practice, and I've also got a daughter so you make a good point there.

49 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

If I was a sexual predator, which is easier?

Going to the multitude of places where there are mixed bathrooms, or dressing up (often unconvincingly) like a woman and going into a female bathroom?

A man walking into a mixed draws zero suspicion, a quite obvious man dressed up as a woman draws more than a man walking in dressed as a man would.

Those crimes are opportunistic, not something planned in advance. The more barriers you put into place against an opportunistic crime, the less likely it is to happen. 

As I mentioned above, this is an argument against the implementation of overly permissive laws for gender identification rather than me complaining that our current laws are too permissive. I don't currently think there's an issue with trans people using toilets of the appropriate gender.

Edited April 2 by Panto_Villan

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Panto_Villan said:

Those crimes are opportunistic, not something planned in advance. The more barriers you put into place against an opportunistic crime, the less likely it is to happen. 

I think even with this clarification my point is legit.

For the bloke to be dressed as a woman in the first place, there needs to be some planning ahead so the opportunism is lost. Whereas in a mixed toilet, anything could happen at any time. 

[bobzy]

6 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

This is one of the reasons why gender self-identification is unlikely to become commonplace, in my opinion at least - there are plenty of trans advocates who think it literally should be as easy as saying "I identify as <x>" but I think there's too many issues in practice. The reason I mention it is because one of the arguments they use to defend the position is the one you used; anyone saying it's impractical because it would give men posing as trans women easy access to female-only safe spaces is a transphobe because they're implying all trans women are sexual predators.

But that is the implication - or, at the very least, always the discussion around it being a bad thing.  It isn't "men piss all over the floor and their toilets stink, so I don't want anyone with a willy in here" it's always around trans people and women being attacked... which is something that could happen now anyway as, as I said before, a picture of a woman on a door isn't stopping a rapist.

[Panto_Villan]

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think even with this clarification my point is legit.

For the bloke to be dressed as a woman in the first place, there needs to be some planning ahead so the opportunism is lost. Whereas in a mixed toilet, anything could happen at any time. 

Well with some forms gender self-ID the bloke doesn't have to be dressed as a woman, right? They can just claim to be a woman, even if presenting as a man, and then anyone preventing them getting into the female toilets is committing a transphobic hate crime.

Yes, in a mixed toilet there wouldn't be an issue. But the same issues occur in other situations - prisons, rape shelters, etc. Changing rooms at the gym, where guys could just wander in and watch women getting changed. Obviously that's an unlikely situation, but it's only unlikely because no parliament is going to pass laws that allowed that to happen because the effects of doing so would be very obvious.

(I appreciate that to some extent this is a strawman, as I'm not sure anyone on here is advocating for gender self-ID?)

[Panto_Villan]

18 minutes ago, bobzy said:

But that is the implication - or, at the very least, always the discussion around it being a bad thing.  It isn't "men piss all over the floor and their toilets stink, so I don't want anyone with a willy in here" it's always around trans people and women being attacked... which is something that could happen now anyway as, as I said before, a picture of a woman on a door isn't stopping a rapist.

I might be misunderstanding you here. Then why do you think the any proposed gender self-ID laws need to be tweaked so it was something more involved than just saying "I identify as <X>"?

[bobzy]

27 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I might be misunderstanding you here. Then why do you think the any proposed gender self-ID laws need to be tweaked so it was something more involved than just saying "I identify as <X>"?

Because there’s a quite obvious difference between someone who is trans and someone who just says “I identify as <x>” for the bantz.

I could walk up to someone and say “I identify as female” but would quite clearly not.

 

Edit: although, really, it shouldn’t particularly matter. 

Edited April 2 by bobzy

[mjmooney]

I think you're all missing the illogical assumption in the minds of the objectors - that a trans woman is by definition a sexual pervert, and therefore more likely to be a predator. 

Whereas a 'normal' looking bloke is assumed to be probably safe until proven otherwise. 

[tomav84]

9 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I think you're all missing the illogical assumption in the minds of the objectors - that a trans woman is by definition a sexual pervert, and therefore more likely to be a predator. 

Whereas a 'normal' looking bloke is assumed to be probably safe until proven otherwise. 

Yep. And often forgotten is that legally, there's nothing stopping a cis gender man from entering and using a female toilet and vice versa.