You mean they need hygiene disposal bins?
I wasn't refering to additional equipment but to the additional activities/events that often take place within womens toilets, where I am fairly sure due to the sensitive nature and vulnerability they feel, they wouldn't be wanting to be sharing the same space with any males.
though it’s not that large a sample yet
It’s the large samples that are often the problem.
Except for the obvious issue that, unless you make the space bigger, you're replacing a bank of urinals or a trough that can accommodate six with, say, two shitters. I'm sure that's fine for Manchester, but at a [I]proper[/I] drinking university there'd be riots. It's tough enough being a bloke in 2018, the fact that we don't have to queue to take a piss is pretty much the only thing we've got going for us any more! 😀I was at Manchester University Student’s Union a little while back and most of the toilets are now unisex (though unisex ones are available still), such a simple change
My local pool has gone a long way to solving the changing room and shower issue by having four models of acceptable swimming costume, one of which must be worn at all times including in the showers. The only place you can get naked is in the individual or family changing cubicles. There are sometimes women in the men's showers when it's busy and Madame has seen three or four men in the women's showers in about five years of swimming three times a week. We've never seen anyone make an issue of it.
Our local pool has sets of private cubicles no sergregation, they are open showers and then private showers. The only segregated area is the toilets.
What Drac says.
You are reading something into my post that is not there.
No I’m not. Your post was very clear that we were to consider how uncomfortable we would feel in the presence of a transgender person whilst we, our children or they were in a state of undress:
Ask yourself and some of your male friends/colleagues how you/they would feel if a naked transman was in the changing room while you/they and your/their sons were getting changed at your local swimming pool.
Then ask some women you know how they would feel if a naked transwoman (with penis) was in the changing room while they and their daughters were getting changed.
You even highlghted the “with penis” bit for added graphic effect. It’s simple transphobia: fear of trans people. What other emotions were you trying to drum up with that post?
Just because you think of yourself as a woman doesn’t mean everyone else has to (this isn’t ment to sound nasty).
**** me, did you really just post that? Go and have a think about how that comes across. Talk about crass insensitivity.
[i]Edukator wrote:[/i]
My local pool has gone a long way to solving the changing room and shower issue by having four models of acceptable swimming costume, one of which must be worn at all times including in the showers.
I'd far prefer not to have to keep my cossie on in the shower given the option - though mixed showers and changing areas (with cubicles) do seem to be the more common than single sex changing now.
Not that I'm sure how much relevance it has to the gender debate, but I'll throw out this anecdote. When my kids were little I often took them to toddlers swimming sessions (parent and baby sessions). Naturally most of the parents at these sessions were mums and often I was the only dad in the session. Though I think when this particular incident happened his mum had mostly been taking him to that session before. Anyway, single sex changing rooms at this pool, with a communal changing area (in the men's, I've no idea about the other changing room), but a couple of smallish private cubicles and strangely private showers with locking doors. On coming out of the shower there is a group of schoolboys in the changing area - supervised by a couple of women.
I did feel awkward and ended up keeping my trunks on whilst I got my son changed - made it a bit of a pain trying to keep things dry with wet trunks on. Not that I'm at all bothered about whether some strange woman sees my bits, I often enough get changed in public without bothering to wrap a towel around me, but I was bothered about their reaction if I'd just stripped off as I normally would (that might have been the first time I'd been to that pool, but used it a lot after that and normally stripped off in the shower).
Not sure what that adds, apart from that it can be awkward and embarrassing, even for somebody like me who isn't actually bothered themselves about being naked.
It's fair enough to say that one 'Lives as a (insert gender here)' and the more modern amongst us can surely accept any individual based on their actions and not their willy, but it does sound a bit daft if the word 'Badger' is used instead. Let's keep things in proportion.
It’s not all that long ago that white American folk weren’t comfortable with sharing their space with black American folk, should their right to say no be respected?
It's even more recent that black Americans decided that they could not accept that Rachel Dolezal was black and forced her to step down from her position in the NAACP. That is a much closer analogy to the trans issue. So should black people's right to reject white people who identify as black be respected? (this is not a rhetorical question - would you please answer it)
I suspect it’s not the terminology that’s the core problem. Rather, your stance appears to be “well yes, but they’re not really women are they.”
You are attempting to put words into my mouth, and in doing so insinuate that I am prejudiced. This issue does not affect me, and I could not be more disinterested in what women/transwomen want. The best way I can think of explaining my position is that for me it's a bit like reading a news article about the black majority in Zimbabwe deciding to pass a law that says white settlers or their children cannot call themselves Zimbabweans or be Zimbabwean citizens. They can pass whatever laws they see fit: any view I held on the issue would be irrelevant, and I'm too far away and too uninformed and ignorant of all the issues to be able to form a judgement of my own.
If women are happy for a law to be passed in which the definition of women as far as that law is concerned includes transwomen, that is a matter entirely for them. However evidently a significant number of women are not happy about transwomen self defining themselves as women and that then being used to insist on access to women's spaces etc., and they are insisting on recognition of the scientific/biological definition of a women, i.e. an adult human female.
As I understand it, female biology is fundamental to feminism/feminist theory. In other words, the unfair treatment and disadvantages that women experience and have experienced throughout history are primarily the consequence of their being the sex that carries, gives birth to, and is predominantly responsible for nuturing babies and children and the various factors associated with that, e.g. the impact of the menstrual cycle and of their generally being physically weaker than men, and the fact that for violent and sexual assaults involving a man and a woman the perpetrator is overwhelmingly the man.
If a woman insists that the scientific definition of a woman is an adult human female, and that it is biology that makes her a woman, and she is attacked for maintaining that view, and attempts are made to silence her, then the issue has moved beyond trans rights to censorship and freedom of speech, and I am no longer disinterested.
For what little it's worth, it seems to me that the trans rights movement has badly misjudged and mishandled its campaign: instead of being a supplicant requesting more understanding and acceptance by women and itself considering the impacts of what it is seeking on everyone affected (rather than just its own constituency), it has sought to force the issue, and that and the behaviour of some of the extremists is prompting a push back.
The key word here is “activists.” ...Have you never come across “feminazis”? Neither are representative, and here they’re two sides of the same coin.
I don't think they are two sides of the same coin. The activists in question are aggressively seeking to intimidate, threaten and silence women who are voicing concerns and objecting. 'Feminazi' is not a term which refers to violent or aggressive women; it's a term usually used to dismiss the statements and opinions of feminists, i.e. also to silence women.
Feminists in my very limited experience are not violent or aggressive. As the 'weaker', more vulnerable sex they have had to rely on their intelligence and intellects instead. They have been discussing feminist theory and women's issues amongst themselves for years, and they are masters at analysing and dissecting the arguments of their oponents. The attempts to dismiss and silence them by those who call them transphobic and those who call them feminazis, are a testament to how much those people are incapable of - and fear - debating with them.
Incidentally I've read comments before by feminists that the behaviours towards them of trans activists and 'men's rights activists' are very similar, but they never made sense to me. Seeing your juxtaposition of '[trans] activists' with 'feminazi' was illuminating for me. (I am not insinuating that you yourself would use the term feminazi)
**** me, did you really just post that? Go and have a think about how that comes across. Talk about crass insensitivity.
it isn't - you cannot force people to believe in a view point.
That's a hell of a lot of words for something you're disinterested in.
The point I was making - badly, it would appear - is that there will always be shouty people and generally they aren't representative of the people they're shouting on "behalf" of. See also, preachy PETA vegans, explody Muslim terrorists and so forth.
You've latched on to the notion of aggressive and bullying trans people and I'll hold my hand up if I've misunderstood you but you seem to have extrapolated that this means this is what trans folk are like - essentially a bloke in a frock. I can't really be bothered but I'll go back and quote several sentences where you appear to be insinuating this if you need me to.
Similarly, you seem blind to the idea that aggressive feminists exist. There's plenty of them (but, again, I do not believe them to be representative of most feminists).
Oh, you asked a question.
So should black people’s right to reject white people who identify as black be respected? (this is not a rhetorical question – would you please answer it)
I have zero knowledge of the incident you're referring to (I just had to Google "NACCP"). I'd have to look into it in order to give you an informed answer, and I'm not sure as I can be arsed just for an analogy. Based purely on what you've said it seems to me to be inappropriate to make her stand down - an organisation who's mission statement is to "...eliminate race-based discrimination" is seemingly discriminating against her based on race. But there could be all manner of other factors at play here that I'm not aware of so I don't know I'm afraid.
I think it is most important to remember that there is no one ideal solution to the many problems under discussion.
Did the OP get banned? Surprised she's not dipped into the conversation.
it isn’t – you cannot force people to believe in a view point.
No, I suppose I can’t. But what I can do is call out your bigotry when I see it. If you like the cap, wear it. But expect to find yourself in quite a lot of arguments as thankfully more and more people call out bigots on their behaviour these days.
Oh, and if you don’t like being called a bigot, there’s a really easy way to avoid it: don’t be one.
Biology is not bigotry
I have zero knowledge of the incident you’re referring to (I just had to Google “NACCP”). I’d have to look into it in order to give you an informed answer, and I’m not sure as I can be arsed just for an analogy. Based purely on what you’ve said it seems to me to be inappropriate to make her stand down – an organisation who’s mission statement is to “…eliminate race-based discrimination” is seemingly discriminating against her based on race. But there could be all manner of other factors at play here that I’m not aware of so I don’t know I’m afraid.
You have answered a different question to the one I asked. I did not ask whether a white person should be able to join the NAACP and occupy a senior position in that organisation. I asked whether the right of a black person to say that Rachel Dolezal is not black, should be respected.
Oh, that's easy then. They have the right to say whatever they want, so long as they're not inciting hate. I respect their right to say she's a cheese sandwich if they so choose.
It's acting on it that's a bit more problematic. If they said she was a cheese sandwich and then stuffed her in a toaster oven, for instance.
Oh, and,
You have answered a different question to the one I asked.
I didn't, you've just changed the question.
No, I suppose I can’t. But what I can do is call out your bigotry when I see it. If you like the cap, wear it. But expect to find yourself in quite a lot of arguments as thankfully more and more people call out bigots on their behaviour these days.
Oh, and if you don’t like being called a bigot, there’s a really easy way to avoid it: don’t be one.
I think you need to look up what the word bigotry means.
No, I just think that as a society we’re far too precious about it. ZOMG what if a woman sees another woman naked, and one or the other used to be man?! The answer, of course, being “so what, grow the **** up.”
If I'd posted the first words that popped into my head when I read this, I'd probably be on the receiving end of a ban. Don't you dare tell me I should 'grow up'.
Does anyone know if Brian has a kite?
Biology is not bigotry
Just found a slogan to paint on my placard for the next Biological Rights Activism march.
Don’t you dare tell me I should ‘grow up’.
Wasn't directed at you (or anyone) specifically. I did say "as a society" in that very bit you just quoted.
Unless you mean you're a grown adult and you can't cope with seeing another adult naked?
Oh, that’s easy then. They have the right to say whatever they want, so long as they’re not inciting hate. I respect their right to say she’s a cheese sandwich if they so choose.
It’s acting on it that’s a bit more problematic. If they said she was a cheese sandwich and then stuffed her in a toaster oven, for instance.
This has been a fairly serious thread discussing some extremely sensitive issues, why have you now at this point in the conversation started to make such flippant nonsensical comments?
If asked the question "Should the right of transwomen to say they are women, be respected?", you would not reply "I respect their right to say she’s a cheese sandwich if they so choose."
So what is it about black people that allows you to be so dismissive of the rejection by many/most of them of Rachel Dolezal's self identification as black?
Moreover, is Rachel Dolezal black?
why have you now at this point in the conversation started to make such flippant nonsensical comments?
Don't you read much of what I write generally?
I was giving you a lighthearted example to demonstrate that they have a right to call her what they like, and also that there's a difference between respecting someone's opinions and respecting their right to have them. Someone famous said something famous about this once.
If asked the question “Should the right of transwomen to say they are women, be respected?”, you would not reply “I respect their right to say she’s a cheese sandwich if they so choose.”
Sure I would. It's the same question only with different nouns (and broken pronouns). That was kind of the point.
So what is it about black people that allows you to be so dismissive of the rejection by many/most of them of Rachel Dolezal’s self identification as black?
Damned if I know, it's your analogy and it's kind of hard to follow what you're actually asking.
Moreover, is Rachel Dolezal black?
As I said earlier, I've no idea who she is.
I went in the loo in the Manchester Art Gallery last week and there were two young trans people in there, one in the trap and one waiting for them and presumably chatting. I did feel a bit uncomfortable and made an effort not to flash and I managed to restrain myself from saying 'that's what girls do'.
I put a lot of this calling out as emanating from postmodernist intersectional feminism, it sees shouting and screaming at people as a legitimate political engagement. More alienation than persuasion results from that. Who have I offended now?
Great thread this, very STW.
On the one hand there are people trying to explain and to understand various view points surrounding the issue. Its quite interesting to someone who knows bugger all about it.
On the other hand there are a couple of people who come across as just wanting to draw lines, pick sides and have a fight. You can almost smell the testosterone.
Kind of funny really
You have offended those that get offended. What it seems to me is, there is a group of people in society who like to look for things to get upset and rowdy about, even if its nothing to do with them or affects their views or beliefs.
Moreover, is Rachel Dolezal black?
So, I Googled her briefly out of curiosity.
"She was president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter in Spokane, Washington, from 2014 until June 15, 2015, when she resigned after it was revealed that she had lied about being black, many other aspects of her biography, and about alleged hate crimes against her.
...
In June 2015, Dolezal came to media attention when her European American parents stated publicly that Dolezal was a white woman passing as black."
So it would appear that no, she isn't black, and the circumstances around her leaving NAACP wasn't because
black Americans decided that they could not accept that Rachel Dolezal was black and forced her to step down from her position in the NAACP.
after all.
On the other hand there are a couple of people who come across as just wanting to draw lines, pick sides and have a fight. You can almost smell the testosterone.
Pretty much. Oh well. Abandon thread I guess.
On the one hand there are people trying to explain and to understand various view points surrounding the issue. Its quite interesting to someone who knows bugger all about it.
On the other hand there are a couple of people who come across as just wanting to draw lines, pick sides and have a fight. You can almost smell the testosterone.
You missed "people dropping into random threads to complain whilst making no useful contribution to the discussion whatsoever." How very STW.
You can almost smell the testosterone.
Almost. It's subtly masked by expensive French perfume.
Argumentive mods hey, makes you think...
So it would appear that no, she isn’t black,
No Cougar - it hits at the heart of the issue, Rachael Dolezal self identifies as being non-white, regardless of biological factors and believes that you ought to be able to choose your racial identity in the same way that (it is argued) you can with gender:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43330999
I Googled her briefly out of curiosity.
Cougar, thank you for doing that and thank you for the reply.
With regard to the point that "she had lied about being black" and your answer that "it would appear that no, she isn’t black", she herself identified as black, and ergo did not consider that she lied about being black. The assertion that she lied was presumably the NAACP's. Her case has some interesting parallels with the trans rights issues.
You say "it would appear that no, she isn’t black", which says that you either have some criteria of your own about how you define a black person, or you accept some other (possibly vague or possibly quite scientifically precise) definition from an external source, e.g. the definition of the NAACP itself implicit in its judgement, general opinions voiced by commentators in the media, or your friends/acquaintances (some of whom might themselves be black and whose opinion on this issue you might particularly respect). A scientific definition would probably be based on DNA/genealogy, and although that might be far less binary than male XY/female XX chromosomes given the potential for mixed parentage/grandparentage etc., in Rachel Dolezal's case she had two white parents with solely white ancestry.
Which brings us to the question "If you consider that Rachel Dolezal is not black, then by what criteria do you consider that transwomen are women?"
I'm pretty sure there is no scientific definition of race.
(Those DNA kits are nonsense btw)
You say “it would appear that no, she isn’t black”, which says that you either have some criteria of your own about how you define a black person, or you accept some other (possibly vague or possibly quite scientifically precise) definition from an external source,
I do. It's in my post. ICYMI:
In June 2015, Dolezal came to media attention when her European American parents stated publicly that Dolezal was a white woman passing as black.”
I imagine her parents would have some idea.
it hits at the heart of the issue, Rachael Dolezal self identifies as being non-white, regardless of biological factors and believes that you ought to be able to choose your racial identity in the same way that (it is argued) you can with gender:
Ah, now that is interesting, I missed that. I'll reply shortly (I'm just about to leave work).
Argumentive mods hey, makes you think…
Ah, old chestnuts. As far as a discussion goes I'm a regular forum user. Thanks for the cheap shot though, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way back out.
[i]Cougar wrote:[/i]
In June 2015, Dolezal came to media attention when her European American parents stated publicly that Dolezal was a white woman passing as black.”
I imagine her parents would have some idea.
In the same way the parents of some people who are now women remember giving birth to a boy?
I’m pretty sure there is no scientific definition of race.
there is - humans are a race. The fact that someone is black or white is irrelevant
In the same way the parents of some people who are now women remember giving birth to a boy?
Do two white parents often give birth to black babies, then?
" As far as a discussion goes I’m a regular forum user". Or "I think I’m going to close this one shortly".which one hey? makes you think...
And opens up a lot of problems for females who, let’s be honest, use toilets for a wider range of things than males.
We've recently gone gender neutral with the bogs at work. Had to get some extra hygiene bins for the ones that were formerly boys only. The cost was a lot less than replacing all the bloody toilet seats with brightly coloured ones to be dementia friendly (and the signage.. and the lighting...and the light switches... i'm telling you, having trans-friendly facilities seems a lot easier than becoming dementia friendly).
