The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

This American TW golfer has come out in support of TW being banned from competing against biological women, in sport:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10730179/Transgender-golfer-Mianne-Bagger-calls-transwomen-banned-elite-sport.html

Fennel

I agree too.
And I've had a flash of memory about the woman who wrote about gender roles in Indonesia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead
She was one of the early American feminists. A social anthropologist.

It was Samoa and there is a lot of discussion about her findings. One of the women she interviewed said afterwards that she had been joking and making things up for MM. She was undoubtedly a great woman but her findings are questionable.

Well put Doodledog. Thank you.

TW and their supporters don't seem to have any answers either.

Other than to let TW go wherever they like, by calling themselves whatever they like, regardless of the effects on biological women.

Not really a workable solution is it? ?

Well said Doodledog the voice of sanity yet again ?

trisher

Doodledog I have posted solutions tomany of the problems you list but you don't want solutions. I'm not even sure exactly what you do want.
Transwomen apparently restricted to male facilities and transmen using male facilities (but only if they want to) Now what is equal about that?

Yet again.

I am not the person to solve the problems thrown up by trans rights issues. I am a very ordinary member of the public, and not a lawyer, a politician or policy maker of any kind.

Those who insist on trans equality should solve them, and their solutions should be debated and (if appropriate) ratified by people who are properly qualified to do so.

As a member of the public my interest is not in limiting the lives of transpeople, but in doing what I can to protect the safety and rights of women before we allow them to be handed over to the trans lobby, which could not be further from having feminism at its heart.

Are you saying transmen should be placed in male prisons if they dont want to trisher. I am unclear on that.

Pressed post instead of preview
You know plenty about what I posted, but you can’t comment honestly without proving the truth of what I wrote.

trisher

No comment about Nic Mollygo well I suppose he presents too many complications doesn't he.

I know nothing about Nic so I can’t comment. You know plenty about what I posted, but you can’t comment.

Doodledog I have posted solutions tomany of the problems you list but you don't want solutions. I'm not even sure exactly what you do want.
Transwomen apparently restricted to male facilities and transmen using male facilities (but only if they want to) Now what is equal about that?

So one law for women and one law for men. You do realise that this opens up a huge question of equality. One we thought had been answered and that we would never have to revisit, That is the unequal treatment of women under the law. It might start with one exception but then there can be others.
No. One rule for transmen, allowing them to use a male facility (if they really want to), but business as usual for everyone else.

I can't honestly believe that your objections have anything to do with equality for women, as if so you would surely put the right of women to have sex-based shortlists, sport, statistics and healthcare, and to be safe in what used to be safe spaces ahead of an insistence on 'equality' when it comes to letting transmen into male lavatories where they pose no harm to anyone.

No comment about Nic Mollygo well I suppose he presents too many complications doesn't he.

Keep going trisher. I have to admire your persistence, though I can’t I admire your unwillingness to protect the sex to which you presumably belong, nor your constant diversions.

That is the unequal treatment of women under the law. you said.

It might start with one exception you said.

It has started with one exception.

The exception that males, with the support of some women as we see on GN, can change the meaning of the word ‘women’ to suit the needs of males.

That exception then grew to allow these non-female ‘women’ to usurp rights that natal women have fought for, again with the unwavering support of some women as portrayed on GN.

The exception that then extended to deny women safe spaces in female toilets, where males have no need to be (Apart as I’m sure you’ll drag in again, male toilet cleaners).
or
in hospitals where female patients may prefer to be treated by a natal woman, not a male pretending to be a female,

or on wards where the presence of a male pretending to be a female causes further trauma to women already suffering mental health issues,and harm to those who daren’t complain because of fear about their jobs

or in prisons where TW (even the newly declared) who have damaged women are still in some places allowed to be imprisoned in female units where they can continue their attacks

Claiming you care about or are interested in
One we thought had been answered and that we would never have to revisit
whilst supporting all the above, plus the cheating in sport, plus the misrepresentation to obtain jobs destined for natal females, plus the farcical attempts to close down businesses causing loss of female jobs is dishonest.

Doodledog

As I keep saying, there is no reason why transmen can't use men's loos. They pose no danger to anyone there.

There is no logical reason why transmen and transwomen have to be be treated the same - laws are made on the basis of threat of harm. If there is an illogical reason why they must be seen as one unit, then let men deal with it, or lawyers. People who have the knowledge and who are paid a salary to do so.

The fact that I don't have all the answers is no reason to abandon all attempts to keep women safe - is it?

So one law for women and one law for men. You do realise that this opens up a huge question of equality. One we thought had been answered and that we would never have to revisit, That is the unequal treatment of women under the law. It might start with one exception but then there can be others.

Er well according to the figures that were kindly shared it would make more sense to let men who identify as men in female spaces.

Is that because men who aren’t pretending to be something they aren’t in female spaces are less dangerous to females than men who are pretending to be females?

Er well according to the figures that were kindly shared it would make more sense to let men who identify as men in female spaces. I am involved in lots of discussions about single sex spaces and as I have said a million times toilets are very easily solved. Refuges prisons crime stats and sports are the main areas of concern.

As I keep saying, there is no reason why transmen can't use men's loos. They pose no danger to anyone there.

There is no logical reason why transmen and transwomen have to be be treated the same - laws are made on the basis of threat of harm. If there is an illogical reason why they must be seen as one unit, then let men deal with it, or lawyers. People who have the knowledge and who are paid a salary to do so.

The fact that I don't have all the answers is no reason to abandon all attempts to keep women safe - is it?

Doodledog

*The only answers the gender critical can give when problems are raised that show there is more to the trans debate than simply banning transwomen is that it's all the fault of men who think they are women. Which is a bit ridiculous and totally ignores women who think they are men. As for blaming women for supporting men when the question you are being asked is about a transman you think is a woman anyway, how can men possibly come into that? It's a woman asking a question about someone you think is a woman. The fact that transmen make the problem more complicated and less clear than simply men pretending to be women, and your prejudices don't provide answers to that area of the matter, is not the fault of the women pointing out the inadequacies in them. But I can see you would need to blame someone.*

No. Transwomen present a threat to women. They want to enter our spaces, to compete against us in sport, to change the language in ways that erase us, to skew statistics in ways that mean that women, as a sex class, are not accurately represented, and muscle in on female-only events and those which celebrate womanhood. They are also, on the whole, larger and stronger than women, and capable of doing us physical harm, particularly when they remain genitally and hormonally as men. Transmen, on the other hand, do none of those things, and are not a threat to women.

If we were 'phobic' about transpeople, we would want both transmen and transwomen to be discriminated against/eradicated/whatever you think phobics would want; but as we are not transphobic, but simply trying to protect ourselves and our daughters/granddaughters, this is not our aim at all. Instead, we concentrate on situations in which we feel that we (and our female friends, family and comrades) are threatened and speak up then.

So how will your female friends be safer when people who look like Nic are required to use female facilities? Will we simply accept that people who look like men might be found in the women's loo? And therefore that men can enter a women's loo without even putting on a dress? Or do you imagine that it is transwomen and not other men who are the danger?

Transmen actually face quite a lot of inequality-

Maybe because transmen are females and females are under attack by males however they present themselves.
So why would that be surprising?

Correction. That should have read 'some transwomen'. I do not believe that all transwomen do the things I listed, but there is a potential for them to do them if laws are not made (or kept) on the grounds of sex, rather than declared 'gender'.

The only answers the gender critical can give when problems are raised that show there is more to the trans debate than simply banning transwomen is that it's all the fault of men who think they are women. Which is a bit ridiculous and totally ignores women who think they are men. As for blaming women for supporting men when the question you are being asked is about a transman you think is a woman anyway, how can men possibly come into that? It's a woman asking a question about someone you think is a woman. The fact that transmen make the problem more complicated and less clear than simply men pretending to be women, and your prejudices don't provide answers to that area of the matter, is not the fault of the women pointing out the inadequacies in them. But I can see you would need to blame someone.

No. Transwomen present a threat to women. They want to enter our spaces, to compete against us in sport, to change the language in ways that erase us, to skew statistics in ways that mean that women, as a sex class, are not accurately represented, and muscle in on female-only events and those which celebrate womanhood. They are also, on the whole, larger and stronger than women, and capable of doing us physical harm, particularly when they remain genitally and hormonally as men. Transmen, on the other hand, do none of those things, and are not a threat to women.

If we were 'phobic' about transpeople, we would want both transmen and transwomen to be discriminated against/eradicated/whatever you think phobics would want; but as we are not transphobic, but simply trying to protect ourselves and our daughters/granddaughters, this is not our aim at all. Instead, we concentrate on situations in which we feel that we (and our female friends, family and comrades) are threatened and speak up then.

Yes it could but it hasnt been yet. It shows that whatever words we use and however much we pretend, that sex inequality is very difficult to get rid of.

Galaxy

Transmen actually face quite a lot of inequality (I cant imagine why this would be, complete mystery!) so they are not allowed to inherit titles etc if they are the eldest and transition, it appears that in terms of medical care lots of the decisions made were based on transwomens experiences and strangely enough that model doesnt fit for transmen, in Canada? or USA I cant remember transmen are starting to organise collectively as they are stating that the dominant voice is that of transwomen and that their experience is very different.

I don't see how raising the problems of the inequality transmen face is anything to do with the acceptance of transpeople. Nor is the position as clear as you make out. Legally the prevention of inheritance by a transman could be challenged under human rights law. www.tatler.com/article/trans-toffs

Trisher’s endless . . .
If there is to be equality under the law and transwomen are not permitted to access female loos how then can we give permission to transmen to use male loos

It’s easy to have equality under the law.
Simply ban transmen from using male toilets. They will have to sort out the problems that arise for themselves.

That's inequality under the law and that has been responsible for women being mistreated throughout history. ???

You are so right, that inequality is and has been, responsible for women being mistreated, but the reason I find that funny is that those trans allies who continue to parrot “it is against the law and AHF can complain if it happens” or saying AHF are in the wrong for not accepting a man misrepresenting himself as a female when a female has been asked for,
or constantly coming up with scenarios which you feel would make it right for a TW to be in AHF spaces are continuing the work begun by men and now perpetuated by a section of men pretending to be female.

I talk about transmen all the time Trisher all the time. Sorry if that doesnt fit the narrative.