Yup, proving you haven’t read this thread.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,491
I have absolutely read the thread. Dress it up anyway you want, it's still hate for people's lifestyles that people are uncomfortable with,
They're different and it's disgusting. We don't like it so we are going to do something about it. If those people thought they were outcasts before, they are going to love this. But no, it's not that. We have to protect women from the boogeyman.
Last edited:
What is hateful about people - not just women - being able to have same-sex spaces legally?
What is hateful about trans-identified people having the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of gender reassignment?
What is hateful about people having the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of biological sex?
What is hateful about people being legally allowed to request - and get - same sex carers if they need intimate personal care?
What is hateful about sports being segregated by biological sex?
The Supreme Court ruling clarifies the law and ensures all the above and more. It clarifies that organisations must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992; currently there are some organisations which, following poor advice given by lobby groups, are not compliant.
Thermal
August Member
Just want to respond to this again.
You make a valid point about convenience of having a retreat room. But that's not what a restroom was ever designed for; it's an offshoot benefit, probably never even considered by those who thought bars needed toilets (who are likely only complying with municipal code and not having piss all over their floors).
So ok. You got away from drunk and horny Bob who is not taking no for an answer. Is the plan to stay in there till he goes home? Whatever you are going to do to deal with Bob, hiding in the ladies room is just delaying it a bit. So is your issue having a temporary Base to touch where he can't enter, or more globally dealing with men who are a problem inside or outside the bathroom?
Yes, a temporary women only space can have a practical benefit. Should that be codified in law? "Women's rest rooms shall be a refuge for females who don't know what to do in a foreseeable yet uncomfortable social interaction that they hadn't thought about in advance"?
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes, probably. And if you read my anecdote, you will understand that Betty will be able to emerge accompanied by two or three other women who will stay with her until she has escaped from Bob's proximity.
Why do you want to take this amenity away from us?
Why do you want to take this amenity away from us?
Rolfe
Adult human female
Operation Let Them Speak is working well, I see!
Rolfe
Adult human female
Rolfe
Adult human female
There was a bunch of them in Edinburgh as well.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,491
It's hateful the same way colored only bathrooms and drinking fountains are.
It's hateful because you're turning a group of people into criminals unnecessarily.
People are segregated by sex. But that is social segregation. It doesn't have to be a legal one.
I don't disagree with sports being dependent on biological sex. I agree with that.
I cannot confim anyone's sex simply by their outward appearance. A hairy person might be a man or a woman. A muscular person might be male or female. Every single sex identifying feature you might use is not universal. Including genitals. So when a masculine female walks into a woman's bathroom are they going to yell for the police?
This is not about protection of women. It's about justifying one of the last forms of discrimination. There always must be one more group of people for us to step on. I mean what would we do without it? I may not be better than everyone. But at least I'm better than those people.
Thermal
August Member
I don't, and had you bothered to read, I acknowledged that it was a good point.
But good points are often fig leaves for the real motivations, which ...some... in this discussion make clearer than others.
In EC's anecdote, the solution when I was in the bars was for the woman to make sustained eye contact with the barkeep or bouncer. They took it from there.
Your Betty does bring up an extra level of awkwardness though. Her Bob wasn't a stranger that could be brushed off more callously. She had some kind of relationship, that she didn't seem to want flattened. So agreed, that's trickier. But you know what I'll bet you didn't have back then, if you were relying on private spaces to talk? Cel phones. Texting.
Women I still know who go to bars and all have a text drafted to be sent to me, with the bar they are at and an 'X'. That means 'help, get me the ◊◊◊◊ out of here'. A lower case 'x' means do so calmly. No sex segregated privacy needed in the hopes that another woman is available to bail you.
Last edited:
The sex binary is not in the least bit analagous to the stain on US history that was racial segregation.
Who, exactly, is being turned into criminals?
I don't understand why your apparent inability to tell the sexes apart - something hardwired into humans, evident from babyhood and admittedly better in adult females than adult males - leads to an idea that female single-sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and prisons should become unisex spaces.
If an organisation wants to provide gender-neutral/unisex toilets or changing rooms, they can do so as long as there are also single-sex facilities.
This is absolutely about the protection of women. But not just protection, it's also about fairness, modesty, dignity and privacy. It's not discriminatory to recognise that there are differences between the sexes. It's not discriminatory to have laws that flow from these differences.
When I request a female carer to perform intimate personal care, I'm not being discriminatory.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,491
Of course it is.
Are you making it a crime for a trans-person to use the public restroom facility they identify with?
Because you can't, unless they drop trou right in front of you. And even then you might be wrong. I tended bar in Seattle in a nightclub that most people would describe as a gay bar. But it probably had more heterosexual or bisexual individuals in it on any given night. A lot of trans individuals also came in. I was always amazed about just how many I was wrong about.
Human beings are generally dimorphic. This is true. Generally. There are exceptions. My sister is bigger and stronger than me. Does that make me a female or her a male? I dated a woman once who was a bodybuilder. She had hair on her face too. Was she a male or a female? How would you know without her exposing her genitals to you? What if she had a penis? What if her chromosomes still identified her as female?
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm currently watching Parsifal from the Met on DVD for Easter. Prelude and first scene. The Grail Knights, all men. In this production dressed identically in dark grey trousers and white open-necked shirts, barefoot. But - there's a woman among them? And another? I had forgotten the two younger Squire parts are written for female voices. The backstage people had done their best. Short hair, I'm pretty sure chest binders, and one in particular has really quite masculine features. Within about three microseconds one has clocked that they're women.
Paddington in Peru. One of the characters is a gold-hunter, searching for the City of Gold, and he comes from a long line of ancestors with the gold fever. They are haunting him, and several appear as characters in the film. One is a woman, an early aviator. an Amy Johnson type. She was seen in her plane, in flying gear and helmet. My immediate thought on seeing her was, why have they cast a man in that part? It wasn't till the end of the film that the penny dropped that the ancestors were played by the actor himself, but it was only on the way home in the car that I understood completely. All the ancestors. Including the aviator. Which is why I'd clocked the character as being played by a man. Again they had done their best, the best a Holywood blockbuster's makeup department can do. But it was still obvious at first blink.
You need a lot of suspension of disbelief to buy Dustin Hoffman as Tootsie, or Robin Williams as Mrs Doubtfire. I think there's something wrong with your perceptive faculties. Yes, I'm sure one can be fooled for a short time by a really good act, and more rarely for longer. But 99.9% of the time, we know.
Paddington in Peru. One of the characters is a gold-hunter, searching for the City of Gold, and he comes from a long line of ancestors with the gold fever. They are haunting him, and several appear as characters in the film. One is a woman, an early aviator. an Amy Johnson type. She was seen in her plane, in flying gear and helmet. My immediate thought on seeing her was, why have they cast a man in that part? It wasn't till the end of the film that the penny dropped that the ancestors were played by the actor himself, but it was only on the way home in the car that I understood completely. All the ancestors. Including the aviator. Which is why I'd clocked the character as being played by a man. Again they had done their best, the best a Holywood blockbuster's makeup department can do. But it was still obvious at first blink.
You need a lot of suspension of disbelief to buy Dustin Hoffman as Tootsie, or Robin Williams as Mrs Doubtfire. I think there's something wrong with your perceptive faculties. Yes, I'm sure one can be fooled for a short time by a really good act, and more rarely for longer. But 99.9% of the time, we know.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No. The sex-binary is observable, scientific reality.
If they identify as a gender other that their biological sex, then they have no right to use that public restroom... and they never did.
Then that is a problem that is unique to you. I can spot a transwoman easily. Most women are better at it than me, and I have never yet been fooled by one
You're talking specific cases, when the rest of us are talking generally.
It is a fact that men are on average, significantly bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic than women.
It is a fact that men, on average, have more facial and body hair than women.
Taller women are still female. Shorter men are still male. Stronger or hairy women are still female. I don't really think you are confused by the definition of sex, so this doesn't seem to be a good faith argument.
No, it's not a crime to use the wrong-sex toilet in the UK. Is the reporting of the Supreme Court ruling really so poor in the USA that people think it is?
However, males can be asked to leave female single-sex facilities, and companies/organisations can require them to leave and to use the appropriate facility, whether that be the male facility or a unisex facility. Just as anyone breaching a company's rules can be asked to leave (say) a shop, and if they don't leave then they are trespassing.
Organisations employing people who need changing facilities already had a legal obligation to provide single-sex spaces, though as the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal and the upcoming Darlington nurses employment tribunal show, the NHS has not been complying with the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. But it's the NHS that has been breaching the law, not the trans-identifying males using the wrong changing rooms. They should have been instructed to use male or unisex spaces, not the female ones, and after this ruling the females can expect the employer to so instruct.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,491
No, it's not.
A mountain out of a mole hill.
ROFLMAO...
BULL. How did you confirm that? Let me guess. You didn't. Generally, is your problem. Generally means there are exceptions. I rest my case.
On average, that is true. But it's not universal. Which means there are exceptions.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well explained.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,651
I'm not sure why original intent matters. It's a benefit, one which women want to have and don't want to lose. So what's the logic for taking it away?
The removal of such spaces absolutely should NOT be codified into law. It's enough if the law allows them, people can figure out the rest.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Incredibly marginalised group. Vulnerable and shy.
Last edited: