This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Trans-ylvania
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Pembroke  Bristol 05 Apr 23 5.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
The sports change certainly made sense, as biological men in womens sport provably puts women at distinct disadvantage, no matter if testosterone levels and the like were now reduced. The knock on effect on records, physical safety and the like is clear. The bathroom issue has become near hysterical from all sides, clearly almost all trans women (as with all women, and indeed men) go to the toilet to actually use it. If someone is nuts enough to want to sexually violate others, they can do so without impersonating a woman, so it doesn't in any way reflect on a group as a whole. The other side is that it's fair in a womens space for those present to.. well actually be considered to be women. I'd say the changing room issue is more difficult in that people are more exposed. There are aspects of that to any use of changing rooms though and to my mind places that just have individual cubicles have the right idea. Maybe that should be a law with new facilities goes forward, it would seem to be a sensible idea. A 'careful what you wish for' with this proposed change is that if we base use of these facilities on biological sex, trans men (those who are visually male but are biologically female) are then forced to use womens spaces, and is that the most rational place for them to be? Doesn't that defeat the object (and question the logic) of bringing in such a single sex measures? As with anything newly hyper political, the realities and more nuanced than the lurches.
Just having cubicles would be a leap away from what is the law. Individual cubicles do not uphold rights in law to single sex spaces, they are mixed sex. The are cubicles exist in would mixed sex, a queue would become mixed sex and rights to dignity, privacy and safety undermined.
|
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 05 Apr 23 7.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Pembroke
Just having cubicles would be a leap away from what is the law. Individual cubicles do not uphold rights in law to single sex spaces, they are mixed sex. The are cubicles exist in would mixed sex, a queue would become mixed sex and rights to dignity, privacy and safety undermined. All people are entitled to considerations of dignity, privacy and safety, not just those we decide are. That's why these issues are complex. Your comment doesn't address the fact that your stance advocates, whether you like it or not, for trans men to be present in womens spaces. That would appear to defeat the point of what those advocating for this law change want. I certainly don't propose cubicles as an all encompassing solution to anything, rather that it's something already done in many places (prior to the politicisation of this issue) that can work well and ensures privacy of all - which is something that people could be just as passionate about.
|
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 05 Apr 23 7.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
All of these changes to accommodate so called trans people should be abolished. Then make no considerations for them, but you still need answers to the same questions as a persons identity doesn't preclude them from needing a piss. Edited by footythoughts (05 Apr 2023 7.30pm)
|
|
 georgenorman 05 Apr 23 7.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
Then make no considerations for them, but you still need answers to the same questions as a persons identity doesn't preclude them from needing a piss. Edited by footythoughts (05 Apr 2023 7.30pm) They can use the disabled toilets.
|
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 06 Apr 23 8.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
They can use the disabled toilets. Interesting that you perceive imposing on spaces by gender as an issue, and yet doing the same with the limited facilities designed specifically for physically disabled peoples as not. The point remains that if people have to adhere to biological sex when using a toilet you're going to get transmales, often indistinguishable from biological males not only using female facilities but forced to do so by law. Is that really a step forward from those identifying as or living as females using female facilities and those as make using male? Your perspective and mine really both highlight the fact that having general cubicles where possible is just a good idea across the board and something that there are few political and rational arguments against. Law changes or not, it may be that people just have to gain a little perspective on what happens on almost ever visit to a toilet, rather than take extreme outlier events and contrived narratives as comment occurence.
|
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 06 Apr 23 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
All people are entitled to considerations of dignity, privacy and safety, not just those we decide are. That's why these issues are complex. Your comment doesn't address the fact that your stance advocates, whether you like it or not, for trans men to be present in womens spaces. That would appear to defeat the point of what those advocating for this law change want. I certainly don't propose cubicles as an all encompassing solution to anything, rather that it's something already done in many places (prior to the politicisation of this issue) that can work well and ensures privacy of all - which is something that people could be just as passionate about.
I agree entirely that single cubicles are probably the way forward however even then I do not see them as being requisite. The fact is, if you take hormone replacements and undergo surgery to change your appearance, including additions intended to replicate sexual organs, that is your choice at the end of the day. It isn't a natural occurrence in fact it's quite the opposite. What I therefore disagree with is firstly the changing of circumstances which could be considered as critical and long established within the societal fabric - same sex changing rooms/toilet facilities, to fit a minority based off of their active choices and manufactured state and secondly any approach to this en masse enforced through litigation. Sure Trans people have the same rights as we all do however society cannot just change entirely to meet their chosen situation. The ludicrous notion that we have to cater to their every demand as though they have given no due consideration to their choices is ridiculous. I have every right to get 'F**K OFF!' tattooed on my forehead however will have to accept that I may never get a job as a primary school teacher. It's a consequence of that choice. The likes of changing rooms and toilet facilities, as it is the example at hand, are segregated by sex for a very good reason. Society cannot then completely disregard this and put a majority like women and girls at risk on the basis that a few oddballs decide to conflate gender and sex. If a woman chooses to actively have an artificial c0ck attached to her she cannot expect to be in a changing room with other women as I would not be able to do certain things if I attached one on the end of my nose. If venues, establishments etc want to cater to this that's fine, provide a separate cubicle, however a trans person is a trans person, you cannot magically change sex and they have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of society and must live with that choice not try to create a false narrative and parallel reality where they put others at risk.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| georgenorman 06 Apr 23 8.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
Interesting that you perceive imposing on spaces by gender as an issue, and yet doing the same with the limited facilities designed specifically for physically disabled peoples as not. The point remains that if people have to adhere to biological sex when using a toilet you're going to get transmales, often indistinguishable from biological males not only using female facilities but forced to do so by law. Is that really a step forward from those identifying as or living as females using female facilities and those as make using male? Your perspective and mine really both highlight the fact that having general cubicles where possible is just a good idea across the board and something that there are few political and rational arguments against. Law changes or not, it may be that people just have to gain a little perspective on what happens on almost ever visit to a toilet, rather than take extreme outlier events and contrived narratives as comment occurence. Edited by footythoughts (06 Apr 2023 8.32am) Two points. Disabled facilities are single cubicle so men will not be mixing with women. Also, people who think they are women when they are men, and vice versa, can be considered disabled.
|
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 06 Apr 23 9.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Two points. Disabled facilities are single cubicle so men will not be mixing with women. Yes, a point I've made several times and proposed as a good idea. Quote Also, people who think they are women when they are men, and vice versa, can be considered disabled.
Disabled facilties tend to need to be available for people with access needs and mobility impairments - rather than you as an able bodied person not caring about those and wanting to shove people in them without said needs who you just don't personally want to see.
|
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 06 Apr 23 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
I agree entirely that single cubicles are probably the way forward however even then I do not see them as being requisite. The fact is, if you take hormone replacements and undergo surgery to change your appearance, including additions intended to replicate sexual organs, that is your choice at the end of the day. It isn't a natural occurrence in fact it's quite the opposite. What I therefore disagree with is firstly the changing of circumstances which could be considered as critical and long established within the societal fabric - same sex changing rooms/toilet facilities, to fit a minority based off of their active choices and manufactured state and secondly any approach to this en masse enforced through litigation. Sure Trans people have the same rights as we all do however society cannot just change entirely to meet their chosen situation. The ludicrous notion that we have to cater to their every demand as though they have given no due consideration to their choices is ridiculous. I have every right to get 'F**K OFF!' tattooed on my forehead however will have to accept that I may never get a job as a primary school teacher. It's a consequence of that choice. The likes of changing rooms and toilet facilities, as it is the example at hand, are segregated by sex for a very good reason. Society cannot then completely disregard this and put a majority like women and girls at risk on the basis that a few oddballs decide to conflate gender and sex. If a woman chooses to actively have an artificial c0ck attached to her she cannot expect to be in a changing room with other women as I would not be able to do certain things if I attached one on the end of my nose. If venues, establishments etc want to cater to this that's fine, provide a separate cubicle, however a trans person is a trans person, you cannot magically change sex and they have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of society and must live with that choice not try to create a false narrative and parallel reality where they put others at risk. Certainly, I agree with many aspects of that. It would be unrealistic in many situations to have cubicles. Nor should be want to do away with gender based facilities, just because of relatively rare instances of people briefly using or wanting to use them whose gender expression aligns, but we realise (or don't) is not biologically our sex. I just think we gave to deal with workable realities, rather than pushed politics from either direction. If the law changes to force people to use facilities based on biological sex then the example of the woman (to male) you gave above, she'd be forced to use womens facilities, and indeed a male-to-female who in some cases would resembles a female and is weaker than a man, would be forced to get changed around men. Where a concern is safety, that doesn't sound sensible either. I see this issue as largely being inflated out of proportion but tend to think that cubicles are a good option for those who could unsettle an environment - though of course in situations where a trans person is indistinguishable from others no-one would know or therefore care anyway - which itself gives us pause for thought about the realities of these situations rather than the pushed narratives.
|
|
| georgenorman 06 Apr 23 9.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
Disabled facilties tend to need to be available for people with access needs and mobility impairments - rather than you as an able bodied person not caring about those and wanting to shove people in them without said needs who you just don't personally want to see. Edited by footythoughts (06 Apr 2023 9.23am) I merely do not want men in women's toilets and women in men's toilets - a view that is no doubt shared by the vast majority of the population.
|
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 06 Apr 23 9.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
Disabled facilties tend to need to be available for people with access needs and mobility impairments - rather than you as an able bodied person not caring about those and wanting to shove people in them without said needs who you just don't personally want to see.
Edited by footythoughts (06 Apr 2023 9.23am)
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 06 Apr 23 9.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
Certainly, I agree with many aspects of that. It would be unrealistic in many situations to have cubicles. Nor should be want to do away with gender based facilities, just because of relatively rare instances of people briefly using or wanting to use them whose gender expression aligns, but we realise (or don't) is not biologically our sex. I just think we gave to deal with workable realities, rather than pushed politics from either direction. If the law changes to force people to use facilities based on biological sex then the example of the woman (to male) you gave above, she'd be forced to use womens facilities, and indeed a male-to-female who in some cases would resembles a female and is weaker than a man, would be forced to get changed around men. Where a concern is safety, that doesn't sound sensible either. I see this issue as largely being inflated out of proportion but tend to think that cubicles are a good option for those who could unsettle an environment - though of course in situations where a trans person is indistinguishable from others no-one would know or therefore care anyway - which itself gives us pause for thought about the realities of these situations rather than the pushed narratives. That all sounds sensibly articulated to me however the I disagree with the emphasis placed upon a 'minority' of those that may be inclined to commit crimes or prey upon women and the fact that most 'would not notice' either. It's not just a minority who would commit crimes in abuse of the situation it is an extreme minority, a miniscule number. I'd also highlight, as previously stated, relative to those with the intention to commit any such crime this would not be a sole inspiration for them nor a deterrent. However, there is only a miniscule number in the population who murder, rape, steal etc. We still do everything within our power to ensure their opportunity to do so is minimised including certain protocol. I also disagree, particularly within the female safe space context, that members of the same sex would not notice. I've heard many women support my inclination to believe 'they know'. Males might be somewhat more oblivious and equally un-phased by the prospect or reality however for females the ramifications and emotional response will justifiably be far greater. Again, a neutral, single usage cubicle seems like an ideal approach. My argument would however be that if certain locations choose not to provide this or indeed are unable to, they should retain that right with Trans individuals having to accept that circumstance. Where I strongly object is the dogmatic perusal of ideological nonsense being allowed to infringe upon female right to single sex 'safe spaces'. There should be no superseding notion, argument or desire within society and anywhere it is openly expressed we should, as a society and culture, say no, YOU are the enemy here if you're looking to compromise and erode this.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 06 Apr 23 10.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
I merely do not want men in women's toilets and women in men's toilets - a view that is no doubt shared by the vast majority of the population. Hence how to achieve a workable outcome that most are happy with. And comments on how laws that force spaces to be 'biological sex' only would force the person below to use female changing rooms, which would not seem to make much sense either. It's an issue all sensible perspective has been lost on so we can expect legal lurches and scare narratives to dictate, rather than common sense.
|
|
Attachment: | Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 06 Apr 23 10.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
Hence how to achieve a workable outcome that most are happy with. And comments on how laws that force spaces to be 'biological sex' only would force the person below to use female changing rooms, which would not seem to make much sense either. It's an issue all sensible perspective has been lost on so we can expect legal lurches and scare narratives to dictate, rather than common sense. Pffft. I have more tattoos than that.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| georgenorman 06 Apr 23 10.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by footythoughts
Hence how to achieve a workable outcome that most are happy with. And comments on how laws that force spaces to be 'biological sex' only would force the person below to use female changing rooms, which would not seem to make much sense either. It's an issue all sensible perspective has been lost on so we can expect legal lurches and scare narratives to dictate, rather than common sense. Why are you posting photos of Wisbelch?
|
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 06 Apr 23 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
That all sounds sensibly articulated to me however the I disagree with the emphasis placed upon a 'minority' of those that may be inclined to commit crimes or prey upon women and the fact that most 'would not notice' either. It's not just a minority who would commit crimes in abuse of the situation it is an extreme minority, a miniscule number. I'd also highlight, as previously stated, relative to those with the intention to commit any such crime this would not be a sole inspiration for them nor a deterrent. However, there is only a miniscule number in the population who murder, rape, steal etc. We still do everything within our power to ensure their opportunity to do so is minimised including certain protocol. I also disagree, particularly within the female safe space context, that members of the same sex would not notice. I've heard many women support my inclination to believe 'they know'. Males might be somewhat more oblivious and equally un-phased by the prospect or reality however for females the ramifications and emotional response will justifiably be far greater. Again, a neutral, single usage cubicle seems like an ideal approach. My argument would however be that if certain locations choose not to provide this or indeed are unable to, they should retain that right with Trans individuals having to accept that circumstance. Where I strongly object is the dogmatic perusal of ideological nonsense being allowed to infringe upon female right to single sex 'safe spaces'. There should be no superseding notion, argument or desire within society and anywhere it is openly expressed we should, as a society and culture, say no, YOU are the enemy here if you're looking to compromise and erode this. I don't disagree in that where there are single use cubicles (which exist in their millions, both changing rooms and toilets even without this issue being a consideration), or possibly specific facilities for those who would be better suited to them, that sounds like a win-win. But beyond that I see no sense in doing away with sex based facilities at all as they clearly serve a purpose and I understand the desire to fight to keep them. I do think in trying to be exacting in every instance we get no further forward or just create different problems though (my 'biological sex' point) and that common sense is largey already in place and working. Society certainly takes steps to ensure safety of people - as it should but we do also have to prise reality of risk from media and political narratives designed often to distract or scare rather than problem solve. We can forensically scrutinise trans people - who in all likelihood as no or little more inclined to crime than you or I - when countless numbers of the actual released rapists and murderers you mentioned (who are certainly objectively dangerous) likely swan in and out of public toilets and the like with nowhere near as much attention. I don't think an ultra focus on political faultlines really reveals much at all about the people at the centre of said focus, other than either artifically raising them up or dehumanising them, neither or which helps them or society as a whole.
|
|
. | georgenorman 06 Apr 23 11.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Perhaps trans people could wear nappies instead of using public toilets?
|
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 06 Apr 23 11.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Perhaps trans people could wear nappies instead of using public toilets? They do say that advice from experience is the best kind Edited by footythoughts (06 Apr 2023 11.08am)
|
|
.All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.