The trans debate

[Long slender neck]

Ceb-Can you summarise it please as i can't go through 100 pages looking for it.

[Dunners]

FFS.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Ceb-Can you summarise it please as i can't go through 100 pages looking for it.

No.

[Max B Gold]

Go on. But keep it short.

[Long slender neck]

Ceb-Can you summarise it please as i can't go through 100 pages looking for it.

No.

Then you lose.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Ah well, never mind. I’ll somehow have to cope with just the consolation of the Tavistock being shut down, Mermaids being so scandal ridden it can’t function, reform of the gender recognition act being scrapped, the Supreme Court ruling that sex refers to sex and not gender identity, and the 180 turn by sporting bodies for their women’s categories to be female only.

[Hoover Attack]

Ceb-Can you summarise it please as i can't go through 100 pages looking for it.

This post - asking CEB to summarise 99 pages and many, many years of ranting - deserves to win. Fair play.

[Hoover Attack]

Saying “I’m a woman”

That's what they would say too.

Right, but overall, (engaging sincerely, against my better judgement) the only people talking about “toilet police” are trans activists fear mongering about what will happen.

What will actually happen is that there will be occasional awkwardness that people navigate - just as there was before trans activism.
The potential for incorrectly believing someone is in the wrong space for their sex is an inherent property of single sex spaces, but doesn’t constitute a reason to abolish them, or to render them meaningless by having no criteria for entry

I fully agree, just saying it is an issue that you can't just dismiss (one that will almost certainly have been made worse over the last decade, of course).

Also wrong to say the only people talking about toilets are the trans activists - it was the other side who declared toilets and changing rooms an area on which to do battle.

[Long slender neck]

Ah well, never mind. I’ll somehow have to cope with just the consolation of the Tavistock being shut down, Mermaids being so scandal ridden it can’t function, reform of the gender recognition act being scrapped, the Supreme Court ruling that sex refers to sex and not gender identity, and the 180 turn by sporting bodies for their women’s categories to be female only.

Yes and I'm on your side but just need to double check this point. I honestly thought you had this topic nailed down and were undefeatable on this but perhaps not.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Rest assured LSN, I’m confident that anyone who cares is able to summarise my likely answers to your question

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

That's what they would say too.

Right, but overall, (engaging sincerely, against my better judgement) the only people talking about “toilet police” are trans activists fear mongering about what will happen.

What will actually happen is that there will be occasional awkwardness that people navigate - just as there was before trans activism.
The potential for incorrectly believing someone is in the wrong space for their sex is an inherent property of single sex spaces, but doesn’t constitute a reason to abolish them, or to render them meaningless by having no criteria for entry

I fully agree, just saying it is an issue that you can't just dismiss (one that will almost certainly have been made worse over the last decade, of course).

Also wrong to say the only people talking about toilets are the trans activists - it was the other side who declared toilets and changing rooms an area on which to do battle.

I’m not being facetious in making this distinction; I said “the only people talking about toilet police”, *not* “the only people talking about toilets”; it is an invention of trans activists that bans of male people, however they identify, having access to single sex spaces - such as toilets - can only be achieved by some sort of enforcement on the doors, or by over zealous trans detectors catching some women in the cross fire.

Re your last point - not true; the rising profile of trans activism, and the seismic shift in what constitutes a trans identity over the last decade, has meant that while for years, “trans person in a woman’s space” meant “vanishingly rare instance of someone who has had hormonal and surgical steps to look like a woman discreetly uses spaces and hopes no one notices” it was changed to “trans women are women, ps anyone who says they’re trans is trans, plus some women have penises, plus trans women don’t owe you femininity” and when *those* people started demanding access to women’s spaces - not just communal changing areas, but *all* single sex spaces, women pushed back on every area where they can reasonably expect single sex provision.

Not meaning a gotcha here, but it’s interesting that you’d take women saying no to men as provoking a fight. There’s no other context where you’d do that, is there?

[Long slender neck]

Let me rephrase the question- why are trans people a danger in womens spaces?

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Let me rephrase the question- why are trans people a danger in womens spaces?

also a question I’ve addressed in full and at length, and I’d be astounded if you were unable to give a pretty good summary of what my answer would be.

[Hoover Attack]

Not meaning a gotcha here, but it’s interesting that you’d take women saying no to men as provoking a fight. There’s no other context where you’d do that, is there?

Very good.

The thing is, and this is very telling (either about me or the whole debate), I didn't even have women in mind. It's the men complaining about trans-women invading womens spaces I could hear. Us fellas are very good at making ourselves heard, aren't we?

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

There’s not many women on here, to be fair.

But, again to engage sincerely, my take on this is informed by reading the points of view of left wing feminist women (JK Rowling is the most visible gender critical woman, but far from the one with the best and most thorough take)

I’ve linked to many pieces of writing by women on this, and I don’t think I’ve linked to many men. (And for the record, Graham Linehan, maybe the best known man in the debate? really is a f***ing moron with nothing of value to say on the subject IMO)

This blog post was one of the best things I’d read on the subject at the time, I’d recommend reading it (bearing in mind the context at the time) and letting me know what you think.

Might be an interesting one for Proposition Joe to read, too, based on some of his recent posts

https://janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/g ... -contrast/

[Story of O]

Let me rephrase the question- why are trans people a danger in womens spaces?

It’s not about being a danger. I am friendly with my female neighbour, but she would not want to share a woman’s space with me

[Hoover Attack]

Will read that later, CEB.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Much much later I bet

[Long slender neck]

Let me rephrase the question- why are trans people a danger in womens spaces?

also a question I’ve addressed in full and at length, and I’d be astounded if you were unable to give a pretty good summary of what my answer would be.

I dont want to guess your answer.

[Long slender neck]

Let me rephrase the question- why are trans people a danger in womens spaces?

It’s not about being a danger. I am friendly with my female neighbour, but she would not want to share a woman’s space with me

Why?

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

OK, LSN, against my better judgement, let’s do this.
Trust me that I’m answering your question, but talking you through it.
So let me start by asking you two questions. For now, disregard the trans aspect, let’s do it from first principles.

1: what is the intended purpose of a woman only space?
2: do you personally believe that purpose to be legitimate?

[Bandy Legs]

to 100 pages,
Mazel Tov to all involved

[Long slender neck]

OK, LSN, against my better judgement, let’s do this.
Trust me that I’m answering your question, but talking you through it.
So let me start by asking you two questions. For now, disregard the trans aspect, let’s do it from first principles.

1: what is the intended purpose of a woman only space?
2: do you personally believe that purpose to be legitimate?

1.To protect women. But I'm not 100% sure what from. To protect them from embarrassment? From being looked at? From sexual violence?

2. Yes

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Wait - so your answer to “is it legitimate to exclude men from women’s spaces?” Is “yes” despite you not understanding what it is that they’re intended to protect them from?

For the record, your answer to question 1 is incorrect, in terms of what the purpose actually is.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

So, I’ll tell you the answer;

The purposes of a women spaces (and “women only space” has a broad meaning, encompassing physical spaces like communal changing areas, but also shortlists, services, sports teams, dating apps, social groups) vary depending on context, but include

1: safeguarding the right of female people to privacy from male people in spaces where they may be undressed or otherwise vulnerable
2: enabling the achievement of women to be recognised where systemic bias in favour of men has mean limited opportunity for women (eg all women shortlists)
3: (specifically in sport) enabling female achievement to be recognised in its own right by not being measured against male achievement (eg, without a “women’s category”, no female sprinter would ever have any recognition, no female footballer would ever reach professional standard)
4: to allow women (and men, where they want to) the opportunity to organise politically based on their own interests as women.


That’s not an exhaustive list, but that’s a decent overview of what the intent of a “women only space” is intended to do