Gender Self-ID

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

The Toilet Taliban desperate to keep the men from the women.

[Savage Henry]

21 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

One thing that has caught my eye here is this wings stuff... Not being a man of social media, I had thought Wings was a pro indy account which was used to debunk media bullshit. Clearly they are up to allsorts now including Helen Lovejoy pant pissing. Whats the deal? 

He is an absolute weirdo with zero social skills and a freakishly vocal band of alt Nat followers who have even fewer and who lack the capacity for abstract thought.  Quite why this particular issue is the one that he's selected for his cause célèbre I have no idea.  

[Gordon EF]

59 minutes ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

The Toilet Taliban desperate to keep the men from the women.

The Toalieban?

[Guest JTS98]

On 6/15/2019 at 04:27, Detournement said:

I agree with that. Signs on doors aren't preventing any crimes at the moments.

Refuges are a different matter though.

How do you know that?

I don't think it's too outlandish to say that the social norm of men not entering women's changing rooms makes those places safer for the women who are using them.

What seems to be happening here is that legislation is going to remove that social norm. I doubt there will be any major difference in behaviour right away, but I don't think it's a sensible thing long-term to remove the idea that restricted areas for men and women are out of bounds for the other group.

I wish our trans brothers and sisters nothing but the best and I don't think for one second that they should be discriminated against. However, they are a tiny section of the population and it seems less than wise to remove rules that have been in place for a long time to protect people's safety - and to protect people from unfair accusation or misunderstanding - based on the interests of such a small group.

What I think we're seeing here is a very interesting clash of the sanctity of the individual against the interests of society as a whole and I don't see a clear answer. I believe in the rights of the individual, whatever their origin, beliefs and preferences. But that can't be unconstrained.

In the words of John Stuart Mill

"The only freedom that deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs".

Trans people, like all people, are free to pursue their own good, but in changing things like access to facilities are we not also depriving women their own good in the form of a safe place to change or use the toilet?

I don't see an easy answer.

[welshbairn]

I haven't heard about any rule changes about using toilets, thought it was just a simplification of the gender registration rules. What do Trans women wearing a dress do now? I'd have thought using a cubicle in a Ladies toilet would be the most discrete and natural  thing to do. Maybe we should all wait till the white paper or whatever it is to be published before making up our minds.

[Guest JTS98]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I haven't heard about any rule changes about using toilets, thought it was just a simplification of the gender registration rules. What do Trans women wearing a dress do now? I'd have thought using a cubicle in a Ladies toilet would be the most discrete and natural  thing to do. Maybe we should all wait till the white paper or whatever it is to be published before making up our minds.

I've seen plenty of blokes standing pissing at urinals in London train station toilets wearing dresses. I think it's preferable to have people look a bit out of place to having people who may pose a danger to others.

Of course the risk is small. But why take it? Keeping men out of women's segregated spaces is the societal equivalent of "if in doubt, put it out". Nobody ever lost a goal while the ball was out for a shy, and nobody ever got attacked by someone who couldn't get into the room.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

I've seen plenty of blokes standing pissing at urinals in London train station toilets wearing dresses. I think it's preferable to have people look a bit out of place to having people who may pose a danger to others.

Of course the risk is small. But why take it? Keeping men out of women's segregated spaces is the societal equivalent of "if in doubt, put it out". Nobody ever lost a goal while the ball was out for a shy, and nobody ever got attacked by someone who couldn't get into the room.

There's nothing to stop trans women using ladies toilets at the moment. There are lots of laws to punish bad behaviour though. Nothing's going to change. 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

There's nothing to stop trans women using ladies toilets at the moment. There are lots of laws to punish bad behaviour though. Nothing's going to change. 

I disagree. Social norms stop trans women using the ladies at the moment. It's an extra line of defence.

I think it's better having obstacles in place to stop an offence than simply saying that we can punish the offence.

Surely ensuring safety in the first place is preferable?

[sophia]

2 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

He is an absolute weirdo with zero social skills and a freakishly vocal band of alt Nat followers who have even fewer and who lack the capacity for abstract thought.  Quite why this particular issue is the one that he's selected for his cause célèbre I have no idea.  

Are you restricting yourself to one alt nat per day or can we expect more sneary smearing in future?

As for ablutions, the Rocpool restaurant in Inverness has perfectly adequate facilities for those that can make it downstairs to shared area. For those that can't, the broom cupboard that houses alternative porcelain is more of a concern.

[NotThePars]

[NotThePars]

I disagree. Social norms stop trans women using the ladies at the moment. It's an extra line of defence.
I think it's better having obstacles in place to stop an offence than simply saying that we can punish the offence.
Surely ensuring safety in the first place is preferable?

Quite into this “we should shame people with legitimate access to spaces because they personally are less willing of basic human decency in my opinion” line of argument. Keep it going.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

I disagree. Social norms stop trans women using the ladies at the moment. It's an extra line of defence.

I think it's better having obstacles in place to stop an offence than simply saying that we can punish the offence.

Surely ensuring safety in the first place is preferable?

You mention trans women lifting their dresses to piss in urinals in London. There are plenty places where that is likely to get your head kicked in. You can't ensure safety 100% from people behaving badly from any sex or gender, why single out a tiny minority who up until now have gone largely unnoticed and without causing trouble outside the twittersphere? The hysteria reminds me of clause 28, wanting to ban teachers from promoting homosexuality, not because there was any evidence of it happening, but just to feed the braying mob. Or in the olden days banning Jews from drinking the blood of Christian babies. Trans people have existed for millennia without there being a big fuss, now because of some lunatics on both sides of the argument with doubtful motives they've become the number one threat to womankind. And again, as far as I know there are no plans to change the rules on who can use what toilet.

[Savage Henry]

Are you restricting yourself to one alt nat per day or can we expect more sneary smearing in future?
As for ablutions, the Rocpool restaurant in Inverness has perfectly adequate facilities for those that can make it downstairs to shared area. For those that can't, the broom cupboard that houses alternative porcelain is more of a concern.

What the absolute f**k are you on about?

[Miguel Sanchez]

I was in the CCA in Glasgow recently. I went to the toilet and was greeted with two doors stating "This is a gender neutral bathroom," with one containing urinals and stalls and the other only containing stalls. 

Remarkably, I managed to pick one and wasn't witness to any sex crimes. 

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

I was in the CCA in Glasgow recently. I went to the toilet and was greeted with two doors stating "This is a gender neutral bathroom," with one containing urinals and stalls and the other only containing stalls. 

Remarkably, I managed to pick one and wasn't witness to any sex crimes. 

Did you commit any?

[welshbairn]

18 minutes ago, sophia said:

Are you restricting yourself to one alt nat per day or can we expect more sneary smearing in future?

As for ablutions, the Rocpool restaurant in Inverness has perfectly adequate facilities for those that can make it downstairs to shared area. For those that can't, the broom cupboard that houses alternative porcelain is more of a concern.

That broom cupboard is a fucking nightmare for an old lady in a wheelchair. My mother would have happily taken on the marauding transgender brigade in the shared space if she could have negotiated the stairs.

[NotThePars]

I was in the CCA in Glasgow recently. I went to the toilet and was greeted with two doors stating "This is a gender neutral bathroom," with one containing urinals and stalls and the other only containing stalls. 
Remarkably, I managed to pick one and wasn't witness to any sex crimes. 

Mono has toilets labelled “urinals and cubicles” and “cubicles only” and as far as I can gather everything is cushty.

[Miguel Sanchez]

38 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Did you commit any?

The hand driers weren't powerful enough.

[Guest JTS98]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

 

Quite into this “we should shame people with legitimate access to spaces because they personally are less willing of basic human decency in my opinion” line of argument. Keep it going.

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. Carry on.

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

You mention trans women lifting their dresses to piss in urinals in London. There are plenty places where that is likely to get your head kicked in. You can't ensure safety 100% from people behaving badly from any sex or gender, 1why single out a tiny minority who up until now have gone largely unnoticed and without causing trouble outside the twittersphere? 2The hysteria reminds me of clause 28, wanting to ban teachers from promoting homosexuality, not because there was any evidence of it happening, but just to feed the braying mob. Or in the olden days banning Jews from drinking the blood of Christian babies. Trans people have existed for millennia without there being a big fuss, now because of some lunatics on both sides of the argument with doubtful motives they've become the number one threat to womankind. And again, as far as I know there are no plans to change the rules on who can use what toilet.

 

1) Likewise, why change how we organise society, based on common sense and safety, to suit a tiny group?

2) It's completely different. The clause 28ers were calling into question the legitimacy of homesexuality as a life. That's not the case here. People are just asking for a bit of common sense when it comes to ensuring safety.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

 

1) Likewise, why change how we organise society, based on common sense and safety, to suit a tiny group?

2) It's completely different. The clause 28ers were calling into question the legitimacy of homesexuality as a life. That's not the case here. People are just asking for a bit of common sense when it comes to ensuring safety.

The only people who want to change the rules on the use of toilets are those who want to stigmatise trans people as being more dangerous than any other group. The "It might be a very low risk but better safe than sorry" brigade.