Woman

But Doodledog what I really don't understand is why if it is men you believe responsible you are posting about trans people. Why not just say men? Why even mention transwomen?
I'm not sure that I fully understand what this question is getting at, but if you are referring to the examples in my last post, I am mentioning transwomen because that is how these people are presenting. For the millionth time, transwomen who do not impose their maleness, or want to be in places where women feel the need to be private are not the issue!

The reason that I, and others, mention transwomen is because many of the people who do this (go to beauticians for testicle waxes, etc etc) claim to be transwomen, and as long as it is considered transphobic or otherwise unacceptable to question their right to be there, women will be concerned about it. this will, of course, mean that genuine transwomen will suffer, but I and others have acknowledged this all along. The TRA lobby does far more to damage the cause of transpeople as gender critical feminists, who (in my experience) just want to be sure that women's rights to privacy, safety and dignity are not compromised.

I have lost count of how often I have said this.

Of course I understand analogies, but unfortunately that’s not how you present your diversions and if you don’t recognise that, then perhaps you need to reread some of your posts and the link you sent.
Your feel your own narrow view of women overrides anyone else’s.
Admiring women who have successfully stood up for themselves should not be a reason for dismissing those women who have not managed to do that and have been attacked for trying, though that seems to be what you feel. and you’re right, that attitude is insulting.

I have posted frequently that I don’t feel all transwomen are a threat. (See 16:55 for my latest confirmation of that fact.
There is one thing that all transwomen, whether threatening or not, have in common. In order to be a transwoman, you have to have been born a man.

Mollygo I didn't divert or change the subject under discussion as I said before they are analogies. If you don't understand the use of analogy in discussion that isn't my fault. plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/ might help.

I believe there are certain circumtances where women could stand up for themselves and I know women who have and do. Of course not all women will be able to. Of course it isn't their fault if they are a victim, but not all women are victims. To ignore or dismiss women who advocate action and not being a victim, because they don't fit your narrow view of what women are, is insulting to women who have acted and stood up for themselves and other women.
I have stated my view of a feminist but I have yet to see yours.

But Doodledog what I really don't understand is why if it is men you believe responsible you are posting about trans people. Why not just say men? Why even mention transwomen?

I don't believe Stonewall are stifling discussion, some (but not all) Trans activists might.be.

I've just been looking at Stonewall and their policies. One of their key points is tolerance and respect. How does that fit with shutting down debate?

But trisher, that’s how I see some of your posts.
You have tried to divert a conversation about whether transwomen’s rights should take precedence over the rights of natal women into a discussion about black women, Nazis, old people, all of which are present day problems, but a digression from the topic, and usually used by you to avoid answering questions.
I have read your opinion about who are the ‘correct’ feminists and while my view of what a feminist is doesn’t match yours, I haven’t said you can’t be one of your sort of feminist.

I haven’t pointed out how much I wish you wouldn’t try diversions so I think your accusation is unfair.

I never said you were a narcissist. In fact I went out of my way to say I wasn’t saying you were a narcissist.

I have posted many times that I do not see all transwomen as a threat and I have posted my concerns about the issues that do arise, which are caused by transwomen not behaving as the women they claim to be.
I have read your ‘women should stand up for themselves, alongside reports of domestic abuse, cancelling and online and physical threats towards those who do ‘stand up’.
Did they invite that treatment by standing up for themselves? Where do you think they went wrong and how would you suggest they go about ‘standing up for themselves’ in safety?

I don't think that transwomen do benefit as I said in my last post. Do you read what people say? That is a genuine question, as it gets very frustrating having to say the same things over and over again. If you aren't reading the posts it might also explain why so few of our questions are answered, and there appear to be so many diversions into other areas.

As I have just said, I think that Genuine transwomen are pawns in this game, and as has been said over and over, they also suffer by the 'no debate' and the TWAW lobbies, as public perception does not differentiate between their needs and the demands of the vocal fringes.

It is not genuine transwomen who believe that they are women who are the issue. It is the fact that men are able to insist on female status just because they say they are female that is the issue. How often do I have to say it?

Someone who believes they are a woman is highly unlikely to make their maleness clear. The people who insist on being allowed into DV refuges, or use communal female changing rooms (wearing female costume) or ask beauticians to wax their testicles are absolutely making their maleness clear. Sticking two fingers up at feminism.

Unfortunately for the 'real' transwomen, as you have pointed out, there is no real way of knowing which is which until it is too late, and the beautician is staring at hairy balls instead of the female bikini line she thought she was going to wax, the mother in the changing room is concerned about someone exposing himself to her child, or the woman in the refuge leaves to spend a night on the streets because there is a man in the next room.

A 'people with children only' rule would not be ideal, as those who don't want to see the opposite sex naked are highly unlikely to care whether they are parents or not. I for one would not be keen to undress in front of men, fathers or not, but I am not bothered about doing so (discreetly) amongst other women. I can't speak for others, but I doubt that's particularly unusual.

My answer to the questions in your last paragraph have also been answered more than once. IMO, it is the loud and aggressive voices of Stonewall and other TRAs that have stopped debate (in line with their declared intent) and people are afraid of falling foul of them and having their accreditation as 'equal opps' employers withdrawn. They did a lot of good work for gay rights and I was a loyal supporter for years, but since gay rights have become mainstream they are looking for a cause to keep the funding coming in, and have settled on the trans cause as a way of staying 'relevant'.

Doodledog I'm saying it's one person who may or may not be a genuine transwoman in one changing room. You don't know. Because you don't know you can't equate it with trans people.
Here's another suggestion to add to the no stripping. Only people with children allowed in that area.

I think all our thinking is influenced by reports and news we see. So why was self ID wrongly presented? Why isn't the equalities act being properly implemented? Why is such a small body of activists being allowed to influence so much? Who has the power to do these things?
How do transwomen benefit from the dilution of women? They believe they are women.

Mollygo I do wish you would stop identifying my examples as attempts to divert the argument, should I wish to do that I could do so. I was simply explaining why posting such things as "horror" about a man in make up is not acceptable and I used an analogy which is closer to some people experiences. And that is all it is an analogy.
And there it is again use an analogy and I'm accused of being phobic. Could I ask how making such accusations in any way adds to the discussion?
Ah now I'm a narcissist.
Can I ask how these accusations build any sort of an argument to support your beliefs, or show in any way any sort of feminist viewpoint?
It would be nice to see something relating to trans issues rather than a personal attack.

I’ve been out so missed out on all your posts t, but really, your reference to ‘old people’ is your saddest attempt at diversion yet.

I wonder if all your references -Nazis, old people, the need to wear badges, women’s rights etc are actually things you are phobic about and that’s why you post about them so often in response to others genuine concerns.

Your constant insinuations of ‘if you say this you must mean that’ show a lack of understanding I have seldom experienced in anyone who claims to have done as much as you do.
Interestingly, on here, because your posts are mainly attacking other posters views and feelings, whereas they continue to debate their concerns, you have everyone’s full attention-and the need for everyone’s attention attention is an excellent example of narcissistic behaviour. Not that I’m accusing you of being a narcissist obviously, merely pointing out a behavioural trait.
Your feminism is your feminism based on what you believe. Others may share your views or have a different view of what a feminist is from what they have learnt, experienced or feel the need to do.
That doesn’t mean any of them are wrong, just different and you would obviously support the right to be different.

matterless, not masterless ?

trisher

Doodledog I am sure there are men who would seek to take advantage of any law or provision to futher their own interests. Such people are not trans in anyway. Using transwomen to describe them is wrong. So why is trans being associated with them? I can't see that it is any benefit to trans people to associate themselves with anyone who means women harm. I can't see that any transwoman would benefit in anyway from "diluting" what it means to be a woman, or that there will ever be enough transwomen to control us from within. There are over 34 million women in the UK and an estimated 200,000-500,000 trans people. Even if every trans person is a woman they still constitute a tiny portion, and some are transmen.
I can see that the patriarchy and its greatest ally corporate business are busy eroding women's rights whilst we quarrel .

Trisher, come on. You said that it is possible that the infamous bloke in the changing room may or may not have been trans. You can't now say that he is 'not trans in any way' and question why he is associated with the concerns held by many on this thread. He was in a female changing room wearing a women's swimming costume until he took it off.

Are you seriously saying that if he was a real transwoman (as defined by his assertion that he is a woman) that this is ok, but if he has not declared himself to be female it is different? It's masterless to the women in the room, as all they see is a bloke in a swimsuit, and as you say, there is no way of knowing who he is or why he is there.

Also, I am not saying that transwomen are attempting to dilute what it means to be a woman. You keep suggesting that 'the patriarchy' has persuaded gender critical feminists to oppose self-id and the ability of men to 'become' women at will in order to oppose trans rights. I would argue that women (gender critical or otherwise) can think for ourselves, and that if anything it is in the interests of the patriarchy to have a system in which women have, effectively ceased to exist.

If we become 'natal women', cis women', 'cishet women' 'people who menstruate' or whatever, we are no longer a class of people in ourselves, a bit like the women in A Handmaid's Tale who woke up to find themselves Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Unwomen, Econowives and so on, except that some of us are men.

As such, (see posts passim) we no longer have spaces of our own, we no longer have meaningful figures about female health, the crime figures don't show the extent to which women are victims of crime (or aggressors, before you try that diversion), we may as well give up on competitive sport and so on, and Newspeak means that we can't even talk of ourselves as women. It's a misogynists wet dream.

Genuine transwomen are pawns in this game, and as has been said over and over, they also suffer by the 'no debate' and the TWAW lobbies, as public perception does not differentiate between their needs and the demands of the vocal fringes.

trisher my statement was of my experience and my feelings but despite calling yourself a feminist you ‘cannot allow [it] to pass without criticism’. How very superior and judgmental and once again you liken it to a racist statement. You ‘may’ feel sorry for me and sympathise with me. Of course you don’t, nor do I ask you to. I have asked only for the respect you talk about, not the abuse and dictatorial attitude which fills your posts.

Gsm Even if I emphasise with your feelings that does not mean I have to find your statements acceptable. I understand perfectly why you can't reply to my question about old people. I'm sorry you don't want to listen to me. My feminism remains as it always has been an integral part of my life. It means that although I may feel sorry for you and sympathise with you I cannot allow such statements to pass without criticism, anymore than I would permit racist or sexist remarks to pass.

Doodledog I am sure there are men who would seek to take advantage of any law or provision to futher their own interests. Such people are not trans in anyway. Using transwomen to describe them is wrong. So why is trans being associated with them? I can't see that it is any benefit to trans people to associate themselves with anyone who means women harm. I can't see that any transwoman would benefit in anyway from "diluting" what it means to be a woman, or that there will ever be enough transwomen to control us from within. There are over 34 million women in the UK and an estimated 200,000-500,000 trans people. Even if every trans person is a woman they still constitute a tiny portion, and some are transmen.
I can see that the patriarchy and its greatest ally corporate business are busy eroding women's rights whilst we quarrel .

feminist like the word gender is so corrupted its meaningless now. I am back to using women liberation...woman woman woman...whenever and always sex instead of gender. I don't care what gender someone is...it's used euphemistically, by ignorant people, by people who think their biological sex is a feeling. It's just not a useful or valuable term. Since 2nd wave feminism the term has embraced extreme gender stereotypes, girl power botox, all that tosh; sexually provocative laddettes ...just lost the plot. So that's meaningless too.

No trisher those words are not judgmental. They are descriptive of my feelings. Don’t tell me what I can and cannot say within the bounds of the law - once again the dictatorial attitude which prevents women from speaking their mind in a situation which harms no-one and is supposed to be an open debate and frightens them into silence. As you have continually failed to answer entirely reasonable questions posed by others I see no reason to answer your entirely ridiculous question, intended only to goad. You may care to consider whether my feelings today might have been coloured by my experience some 40 years ago. In your position, as someone who has trained and mentored girls and women throughout my long career and listened to their problems I would have empathised with the person describing their experience whether I shared their views or not, and said I understood how they felt at that time. It’s entirely possible to understand a viewpoint without sharing it. That’s what feminists do, they empathise, they don’t seek to bully and abuse other women. Which is why you are not a feminist despite your protestations to the contrary.

Germanshepherdsmum

Quite simply, whether logical or not, seeing an obviously intact man dressed/made up as a woman, or a person very obviously male dressed/made up as a woman in an all female space would frighten me. I don’t mean I would be afraid they would attack me (I’m not that vain), simply that it’s not something I would expect to see and would be shocked. Feel free to say I’ve lived a sheltered life or whatever attack you wish to make. I’m sure you won’t be alone. I find the idea of an intact man trying to look like a woman repulsive, likewise when a ‘woman’ (how some of you will enjoy the inverted commas) is interviewed on tv and the features and voice are clearly those of a man. That is how I feel and whatever anyone thinks of those feelings won’t change them. I doubt I’m unique amongst my generation. I have only once seen someone very obviously male dressed and made up as a woman. That would have been in the 80s but I can still see his face, the whiskers and blue eyeshadow, such was my horror then. Lots there for the picking but I won’t be engaging to defend myself.

Using the tern "repulsive" is judgemental Gsm so is "horror". However you feel about someone you are not entitled to post such statements. You can feel how you wish (although I would suggest you examine carefully where those feelings came from, as I would with any strong judgement based on appearance and not evidence) you just don't need to state such things.
but I will ask again would it be OK to post such judgements about old people?

The paragraph above the last highlighted words in my post should also be highlighted, as they are a quote to trisher's words, not mine.

Another ridiculous post addressed to me trisher. We’ve now moved from black and disabled people to old people. What will you think up next? Yet you said previously I was entitled to my feelings. Obviously not in ‘your world’, to quote that back at you. I’m still wondering what my ‘judgmental decisions’, as opposed to observations and feelings, might be but please spare me yet more patronising abuse by answering and inventing some examples. You refer to respect and sisterhood but I see little of that in your responses to people who don’t share your views. Little wonder that many women don’t ‘stand up for themselves’ or reveal their true feelings when someone like you will jump on them. Your posts display some unpleasant dictatorial features and as I have said previously you are not a true feminist, simply someone with an agenda who wishes to beat into submission all who do not for whatever reason share that agenda.

I said a few pages ago that I can see that swimming pools are not in the same category of safe spaces as, say DV refuges. I still feel that the communal changing rooms should be designated male or female, though. If discussion were more freely allowed, we could develop a mutually understood vocabulary, and that would be very useful.

I am delighted that you finally seem to have grasped where many of us are coming from when you say 'He may or may not be trans'. You finally get it.

This is why, for many, the notion of 'no debate' is dangerous, and why self-id is so concerning. How are we to know if a man is a transwoman or a passing exhibitionist? Or in a different context, a transwoman needing refuge from assault or a violent man who wants access to vulnerable women? When we have asked those questions you have replied by quoting the Equalities Act, and asking who will police things. Telling us that we are over-reacting and that true feminism includes men.

It is precisely because we don't know if a man who says he is a transwoman is genuine or not that we are concerned. Not because we are transphobes, and not because we are scared to speak out. Not because we want to prevent genuinely misgendered people from being happy.

As for the exhibitionist - yes, he probably would be the same in the male changing room. IMO that is no worse than what he is doing to women and girls, and the odds are that when there are other men around he will be less able to get his kicks by seeing the scared faces of those who don't expect to see him there.

Patriachy is indeed splitting women but they are doing so because women are abandoning the basics of sisterhood. That respect is given, difference is embraced, ideas are discussed but solidarity always triumphs.

When the patriachy has successfully made trans issues unacceptable and driven trans people back into hiding who do you think will be next?
I don't think that the patriarchy intends to make trans issues unacceptable though. As I keep saying, it is in their interests to dilute what it means to be a woman, by allowing anyone who says they are female to become one, so that they can control and dominate us from within.

So Doodledog we seem to have agreement that swimming pools etc are not safe spaces and cannot be controlled and yes a man may dress as a woman and flash his bits in communal changing area. He may or may not be trans. Given that the pool staff might be reluctant to act what could stop this happening?
I also do wonder if he is an exhibitionist would it be better if he was restricted to the men's facilities, might he do the same to boys who wouldn't have their mother with them?

The problem with that response Doodledog is that the idea that I am in anyway seperated from you is entirely unfounded. I simply don't see your ideas as practical, workable or indeed acceptable. And it is actually the trans exclusionist feminists who are accusing others of putting transwomen first. Asking for equality is not saying anyone needs more consideration just that equal consideration should be given to everyone.
I have tried consistently not to call anyone transphobic because I don't think it is helpful to do so, but because I disagree with your points of view I have been instructed to keep quiet, stop digging and had my views on women questioned. So who is causing the split?
Patriachy is indeed splitting women but they are doing so because women are abandoning the basics of sisterhood. That respect is given, difference is embraced, ideas are discussed but solidarity always triumphs.
When the patriachy has successfully made trans issues unacceptable and driven trans people back into hiding who do you think will be next?

'name of them' should be 'many of them'.

You all persist in insisting these can be designated safe spaces and I'm simply pointing out there isn't anyway of telling who is trans and who isn't. I'm quite open to other ways if there are any.

Have you been reading our posts? It has been said over and over that it's only important when there is a way of telling! If a transwoman changes in a cubicle, swims, then leave the pool and changes back in a cubicle, few people, if any, would notice or care if they did. It is in circumstances such as when someone with full male genitals uses a communal room that there is a problem.

Similarly, the way in which the TWAW 'no debate' mantra insists that men are women because they say they are makes it much more likely that dangerous characters will get into DV refuges and so on. That is what we are concerned about, not the fact that transwomen exist.

You keep pointing out that transwomen have been around for many years, and nobody knew about them. You also keep saying that you 'don't want to look under clothing' to determine someone's sex. Both of these things suggest that for those men (or name of them) who genuinely want to 'live as women' it is possible to do so unobtrusively. Yet over the past few years there has been an increase in the numbers of obviously male-bodied people drawing attention to themselves - not in a 'out and proud' sort of way, but in spaces which have are recognisably 'female' - places where there are obvious reasons why men should not go.

Why do you think this should be?

Well put Doodledog.

trisher

Actually A Handmaid's Tale (the original) is about men controlling women and using them for their reproductive capacity. The women married to the men in power were happy to use other women.
I'm watching "Pose" two of the most beautiful transgender actresses I've ever seen. Set in 1990s New work as AIDs devastated the gay community

In the original HMT, as in the TV adaptation, the Wives bought into the idea of Gilead with religious fervour, not realising the impact that it would ultimately have on them, as in their heads they had separated themselves from their biology. They were able to do this as 'women' were no longer a single class, but a collection of segregated classes, so they could overlook the plight of those who were suffering - at least at the beginning. Once the ideas had taken root, of course, they realised that it was men at the top controlling everything, including the Wives, but by then it was too late.

There are, IMO, parallels with the topic of this thread, in that the patriarchy in both cases has relied on the internalised misogny ingrained into many women to further its cause.

There have always been women who see the approval of men as more valuable than that of other women. From girls who are proud of the fact that they have more male friends than female, women saying they would rather have a male boss, through to women seeing transwomen as needing more consideration than women.