TERFs crash London Pride

JihadJane said:
What's your definition of the word "woman", Archie?
Click to expand...

Why would that be important? Im not the arbiter of anything.

If someone tells me they are a woman and would like to be treated as such then Im happy to do so unless I have good reason not to.

When it comes to transphobia i have a reasonable way to spot it. i simply replace the trans word with black or Muslim and see if it would be consider racist. And pretty much always it would.

i have asked otherwise sensible people to tell me why this is different. what real issues there are and how they could be addressed better in a way that accomodates both groups and all i got in return was told im a misogynist for even asking.

so i no longer think those people are arguing in good faith. they simply want to exclude transpeople for reasons of bigotry as far as i can see
 
I want to exclude people with male genitalia from women's protected spaces. If that's bigotry we have no more to say to each other.
 
Rolfe said:
I want to exclude people with male genitalia from women's protected spaces. If that's bigotry we have no more to say to each other.
Click to expand...

I want to exclude people with dark skin from white people protected spaces. yep smells like bigotry to me.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I want to exclude people with dark skin from white people protected spaces. yep smells like bigotry to me.
Click to expand...

Except that 'protected spaces' are meant to exclude certain people. This analogy could apply to all of them.
If they don't exclude on some agreed-to basis, they don't exist.

So, what is the criteria by which males can be excluded from female-only spaces?

I think having criteria as loose as "whatever the person identifies themselves as" is inadequate for the purpose of the space.
 
I feel like if I'm wrong in how I think about this, I'm wrong in the way that Nice Midwestern White People are wrong about how they think black people generally never really have trouble with cops unless they Did Something Wrong and any anxiety they feel around cops is Unreasonable and the result of Media Hype and misdirected risk assessment. I can at least understand how a Nice Midwestern White Person could, from their own experiences and a reluctance to think Bad Things about people who really ought to be good people doing a tough and necessary job, could dismiss assertions and evidence, and explain away lopsided statistics. They just don't know it, aren't faced with it, don't have to live with it, don't have any close friends impacted by it, and so aren't convinced. They'll generally just concede the occasional example of, well, obviously that one cop did wrong things; nobody ever said there's never ever a bad cop.

And yet those guys have to ignore or rationalize away a hell of a lot of sketchy things that are well documented in the news etc.

So I do wonder if I'm just insulated from these times and places where there are lots of pushy, threatening trans women, people dealing with real repercussions for not wanting to date trans women (without being a dick about it), cis women of any kind losing anything but exclusivity to trans women in general, to the point of being under any degree of actual threat. But I haven't hardly seen anything I have to rationalize away yet. Like, two stories ever of guys in wigs (who did not appear to be trans) going to womens' toilets to take photos. I've read about one guy in the early days of SRS whose doctor was too excited about pioneering to care that he was really way more paraphilic than transgender. And I know there's gotta be troubles here and there, no group is without jerks and bullies.

But my personal experiences have been pretty thoroughly unworrying. Early days I had the typical doubts (Is this person transitioning because it's better than being gay? Is this other person really trans, they have so many traits of their current gender?) but
I now feel like at least in those cases my doubts didn't pan out into real issues.
 
Sherkeu said:
Except that 'protected spaces' are meant to exclude certain people. This analogy could apply to all of them.
If they don't exclude on some agreed-to basis, they don't exist.

So, what is the criteria by which males can be excluded from female-only spaces?

I think having criteria as loose as "whatever the person identifies themselves as" is inadequate for the purpose of the space.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the trans-men and men's protected spaces. Where are they to go?
 
Sherkeu said:
Except that 'protected spaces' are meant to exclude certain people. This analogy could apply to all of them.
If they don't exclude on some agreed-to basis, they don't exist.

So, what is the criteria by which males can be excluded from female-only spaces?

I think having criteria as loose as "whatever the person identifies themselves as" is inadequate for the purpose of the space.
Click to expand...

well then we need bettee thought out rules. You cant simply say I feel uncomfortable around group x so want to be able to exclude them.

Because some people feel uncomfortable around black people or muslims too. And there are plenty of anecdotes to be found of muslims and black people acting inappropriately.

If a transwomen is acting inappropriately in female spaces they should of course be excluded. but we dont exclude groups based on actions of individuals.

thats prejudice and bigotry. if it isnt then i am all ears as to why but so far all ive had is reassertions that its different, accusations of misogyny (which is odd because my view also applies equally to men) and now a flounce.
 
The Norseman said:
Don't forget the trans-men and men's protected spaces. Where are they to go?
Click to expand...

When I ask about the criteria, I'm not concerned about the relatively tiny percentage of actual transpersons (of any gender). I'm talking about having laws that could be easily exploited by everyone else.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
well then we need bettee thought out rules. You cant simply say I feel uncomfortable around group x so want to be able to exclude them.

Because some people feel uncomfortable around black people or muslims too. And there are plenty of anecdotes to be found of muslims and black people acting inappropriately.

If a transwomen is acting inappropriately in female spaces they should of course be excluded. but we dont exclude groups based on actions of individuals.

thats prejudice and bigotry. if it isnt then i am all ears as to why but so far all ive had is reassertions that its different, accusations of misogyny (which is odd because my view also applies equally to men) and now a flounce.
Click to expand...

I missed this response yesterday but see my previous response that I'm not too concerned about actual transgender persons. And by 'spaces' I mean ALL spaces.

Women-only spaces also include programs, grants, and scholarships to boost female participation in sports and STEM fields. What is the criteria for applying for these?

e.g. Male person applies for female scholarship in engineering. Claims he is 'really a woman'. Is there any other criteria other than what he claims to be? Is there any check beyond taking their word for it on the application? Is it really bigoted to question this persons gender?

I don't know how many would 'game the system' but if it's as easy as checking a box or making a statement, I predict we will have a problem. And that problem will hurt women AND actual trans persons.
 
I'm booked in a youth hostel on Friday night. I booked a bunk in a 6-bed female dormitory. If one or more of the other occupants of that dormitory turns out to be a man, I suppose I'm bigoted if I object?

I wonder if AGG would himself feel it appropriate to march into a ladies' room, or book a bed in a female dormitory (or indeed book a sleeper berth in a 2-bed compartment with a lone female traveller in the other berth), or walk into a section of a hospital where mamograms are being carried out, and consider it bigoted if anyone objected to his presence?

I wonder if he'd be comfortable for his own little daughter to go to a Girl Guide camp where teenage boys who say they're girls are allowed to sleep in the tents and bathe in the showers with the girls, and men who say they're women are allowed to be leaders and act in a chaperone capacity for these children?

Because that's what we're talking about here. As well as women-only short-lists, Jo Cox scholarships, awards for "woman of the year" in various fields and so on. Now I can see that some people disagree with awards and scholarships and quota places reserved for women and that's a reasonable point of view (I'm not a huge fan of them myself), but deciding to have these awards and scholarships and quota places and then awarding them to men anyway seems like a bit of a slap in the face.

And it's absolutely true to say that this will really hurt genuine trans-sexuals. Many of them are very worried, but they're being called TERFs too. It's already changing the way many women feel about trans-identifying men of any description. That's what "peak trans" means. That we were trans allies, we were supportive of our trans friends and treated them as honorary women, and then we began to see where this is actually going and who and what are driving it.

We've all rubbed along fairly well where there was gatekeeping and checks and diagnoses and criteria that had to be met to be recognised as trans. But there is huge pressure from the trans activists to do away with all that and simply tick a box, and it's done. The politicians are listening to them, and to their shrieks of "transphobia" against the women who're saying, hey, can we at least discuss this?

Half of all trans-identifying men in prison are in for sex offences. The new laws will ensure they have the right to be transferred to women's prisons. After release it will be illegal to link their female name and identity to their previous male identity so it's likely they'll be able to disappear into society and lose the "sex offender" label.

But I guess it's transphobic to be worried about that. They're trans, so they would never do anything inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
The men's rights activists dominating this thread will dismiss this twitter thread as "terf bigotry", but readers who are interested in seeing the feminist viewpoint might find it worth a read.

https://twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1003233125751840769

Here's another specific example of a male intruding into a women's protected space and causing alarm and discomfort. Or possibly a bigot woman who should just have got on with showering and changing while being leered at through a mirror by an angelic "transwoman" who only wanted to spend an hour putting on makeup.

https://genderidentitywatch.com/2018/07/31/mrs-h-v-planet-fitness-usa-planetfitness/
 
Last edited:
You'll find very few people here who call themselves men's rights activists. I might be the only person here willing to call myself an MRA.

I don't dismiss that thread as "TERF bigotry". I don't condone violence like the people quoted/screencapped.

btw I mostly stopped replying in this thread because
1) I felt I wasn't being engaged with honestly (very straightforward questions repeatedly ignored)
2) the stuff I was talking about became too off-topic imo which is why I don't want to keep pressing on those questions
 
pharphis said:
You'll find very few people here who call themselves men's rights activists. I might be the only person here willing to call myself an MRA.

I don't dismiss that thread as "TERF bigotry". I don't condone violence like the people quoted/screencapped.

btw I mostly stopped replying in this thread because
1) I felt I wasn't being engaged with honestly (very straightforward questions repeatedly ignored)2) the stuff I was talking about became too off-topic imo which is why I don't want to keep pressing on those questions
Click to expand...

Yup. And there were disagreements I could have made with some things you argued, but as you indicate in 2, it was leading off topic. The idea that we all agree even on the same 'side' is as wrong as the idea that it's MRA's disagreeing.

And the idea that it's the 'feminists' view to agree with the trans excluding posters. That's false, and obviously so. There are many feminists, including radical ones, who are trans-inclusive. They are targeted by TERF threats a lot.

My disagreements with the trans-excluding are based on mainly on feminists views. They can deny that all they like but it's the truth. It is not inherently pro male, even if I recognize the misandry in some of their views.

Here is a marvelous takedown of much the TERF arguments, and those arguments have been made here too. The citations are important and good too. One has the author of the Swedish study often cited by the anti-trans brigade (including Rolfe in another thread) showing exactly how they are misusing the study. It should be interesting to many in the thread.

As noted upthread, there are many parallels with the far right, but the one I don't think was pointed out was that on top of the language control stuff is the 'rebranding'. 'We aren't white supremacists or Nazis, we're alt right', is paralleled by 'We aren't TERFs, we're gender critical'.
 
Sherkeu said:
I missed this response yesterday but see my previous response that I'm not too concerned about actual transgender persons. And by 'spaces' I mean ALL spaces.

Women-only spaces also include programs, grants, and scholarships to boost female participation in sports and STEM fields. What is the criteria for applying for these?

e.g. Male person applies for female scholarship in engineering. Claims he is 'really a woman'. Is there any other criteria other than what he claims to be? Is there any check beyond taking their word for it on the application? Is it really bigoted to question this persons gender?

I don't know how many would 'game the system' but if it's as easy as checking a box or making a statement, I predict we will have a problem. And that problem will hurt women AND actual trans persons.
Click to expand...

Actually this seems to be based on a strawman that the process for a transperson is simply to say they are whichever gender they choose on any given day (maybe they say it three times into a mirror?) while in fact as I understand it the process of changing your gender is a legal one.

So no its not just ticking a box to say you are a man or a woman. It would seem to be for example that if you can provide some official documentation that says you are female then you should be treated as such.

And if you aren't concerned at the small number of trans people who are having issues it seems odd that you are concerned about what is surely a vanishingly small number of people who would choose to game the system for nefarious ends?
 
Rolfe said:
The men's rights activists dominating this thread will dismiss this twitter thread as "terf bigotry", but readers who are interested in seeing the feminist viewpoint might find it worth a read.

https://twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1003233125751840769

Here's another specific example of a male intruding into a women's protected space and causing alarm and discomfort. Or possibly a bigot woman who should just have got on with showering and changing while being leered at through a mirror by an angelic "transwoman" who only wanted to spend an hour putting on makeup.

https://genderidentitywatch.com/2018/07/31/mrs-h-v-planet-fitness-usa-planetfitness/
Click to expand...

Because if you collect enough anecdotes about bad behaviour by individuals that totally is data to exclude entire groups.

Good thing no ciswomen ever do anything inappropriate to other women or we'd have to ban them from safe spaces too.
 
bluesjnr said:
Apparently, to ****. They can get to **** out.
Click to expand...
Seems the case, but we'll see...


Sherkeu said:
When I ask about the criteria, I'm not concerned about the relatively tiny percentage of actual transpersons (of any gender). I'm talking about having laws that could be easily exploited by everyone else.
Click to expand...
Who says that they could be easily exploited?

Maybe you're right, I don't know.

Maybe the trans person could have an official letter written by a doctor or something which can be shown to an HR department of a public gymnasium, for example, so that they can demonstrate to the proper persons in charge that they are attempting to do their best at living the life of their non-birth gender and that they can therefore have full access to the changing rooms that they then need.

The rest of the patrons would have to understand that the transperson would have done this and thus have legitimacy to be there and if they don't like it, they may go elsewhere. The transperson would not have any burden to show this to any other patron.

For public restrooms where this sort of thing is not feasible, well... they all have privacy stalls, so that won't be an issue.

What's your potential solution?


Sherkeu said:
I missed this response yesterday but see my previous response that I'm not too concerned about actual transgender persons. And by 'spaces' I mean ALL spaces.
Click to expand...
Are you?


Women-only spaces also include programs, grants, and scholarships to boost female participation in sports and STEM fields. What is the criteria for applying for these?

e.g. Male person applies for female scholarship in engineering. Claims he is 'really a woman'. Is there any other criteria other than what he claims to be? Is there any check beyond taking their word for it on the application? Is it really bigoted to question this persons gender?

I don't know how many would 'game the system' but if it's as easy as checking a box or making a statement, I predict we will have a problem. And that problem will hurt women AND actual trans persons.
Click to expand...
That problem will hurt women? I didn't ask about women, though, did I? You paid mere lip-service to "everyone" and then zeroed in on the "real" issue of women — and only women — being infringed upon when that's not the case.

If you really cared about this being about gender equality you have a very strange way of demonstrating it.



Rolfe said:
The men's rights activists dominating this thread
Click to expand...
LOL What a crock.


will dismiss this twitter thread as "terf bigotry",
Click to expand...
Because it is.


but readers who are interested in seeing the feminist viewpoint might find it worth a read.
Click to expand...
The "feminist viewpoint" is the ONLY POV being presented here, most notably by you and JihadJane (now I can understand which "jihad" she's apparently on). You have attempted to shout down, belittle and shame any other POV and then try and claim any other POV besides your precious feminist one is "misogyny." I suppose it helps to prevent others from calling you out on your misandry and sexism because they're afraid of being called anti-feminist but thankfully, not everyone who gets beaten by the misogyny stick will stay silent.



pharphis said:
You'll find very few people here who call themselves men's rights activists. I might be the only person here willing to call myself an MRA.

I don't dismiss that thread as "TERF bigotry". I don't condone violence like the people quoted/screencapped.

btw I mostly stopped replying in this thread because
1) I felt I wasn't being engaged with honestly (very straightforward questions repeatedly ignored)
2) the stuff I was talking about became too off-topic imo which is why I don't want to keep pressing on those questions
Click to expand...
The more I read and discover, the more willing I am of being one of those demonized MRA's.

I think that if we're all wanting equal rights for each gender, I go one further and say we all need equal rights for all genders. I also think that if a trans person does everything within their power to live a life as fully as they can to fit in with their chosen gender rather than birth gender, then we should respect that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom