Guess my Canadian trans ass is boycotting the UK now too. It’s been a long time coming anyway, Terf Island.
(Sorry Scotland, you’re cool but also in a toxic relationship I can’t be around right now. I hope we can be friends again some day)
I hate bioreactionaries I hate bioreactionaries I hate bioreactionaries I hate bioreactionaries I hate bioreactionaries.
Mind your own damn business you archaic old fuckwit.
True but in this case his office was just referencing a court ruling
What an absolute coward. Bowing down to the USA because Trump told him to. Fucking coward.
Old man shouldn’t get a say in what a woman is.
🤷
Can we not just have gender neutral bathrooms and changing rooms and be done with it?
“But what about MtF people going into sports?” Just put a fucking asterisk by their name on the leader boards.
Jobs a good un
Its so tiring of people trying to patch problems with “gendered bathrooms”, “train cars only for women”, “women parking lots” rather than actually solving real problems. These band aids should be a temporary solutions at best but here we are - argueing about gendered bathrooms in 2025.
The worst when people try to spin these as some sort of innovation. Especially for gendered train cars here in Japan was such a huge thing and I couldn’t help but eye roll when instead of addressing perverts they just herd women into protected pens and put camera noise default on every smartphone that take 10 minutes to disable by actual criminals.
train cars only for women
Good thing nobody can actually suggest that in this day and age. Because that’s a concept that makes everyone immediately go “Ooooh, how delightfully 1800s. Wait, why are we doing this, I thought we were better than that.”
…If someone actually suggests that, have them be detained by a few chimney sweeps until the police arrives by horse carriage.
pretty sure they do this in Japan?
nah that’s just you guys americans. This suggestion is still widely considered in most places. The problem is that it turns from a temporary patch to a “solution”.
Shopping mall next to me just added a parking floor for women only instead of hiring more security guards which here Thailand are incredibly cheap and honestly a real joy to have around. In the west people would say “it’s a pointless job” but having someone maintain order and vibe of a place is much more effective and important than girl trains.
There are just so many of these populist examples that people have their brains hijacked by. Once you start paying attention you just can’t wait for AI overlords to take over cause we’re really not good at this.
Removed by mod
Same argument that was made for gay people sharing locker rooms, bigots never get new material. If you’re not comfortable sharing a bathroom with someone, then, ya know, you don’t have to use it.
Why is it queer people have to suffer for bigotry? Why not just be less of a bigot?
Guess what? Trans women also don’t feel comfortable using men’s bathrooms or sharing bathrooms with men. Because trans women are women.
You put the handwashing station in an open area, visible to the hallway.
You put floor to cieling stalls for the actual doing your business part.
I have been to a lot of places that do this and nobody cares. It is an added level of safety that you are either in private or visible to passers by.
To be totally honest: I like the current divided setup for the purely selfish reason of the men’s toilet being less occupied than the women’s toilet at most places with a lot of people.
But that would mean that in average it would be a net benefit to use non divided ones, since then the empty stalls would be used.
Removed by mod
I just visited a high school that does exactly this, and no one cares.
In fact they like it better.
Removed by mod
There will always be somebody who doesn’t like something. But you normalize things and then people adapt.
They like it better because they feel it is more private.
Nobody cares about washing their hands or fixing thier hair or whatever in front of others, and the appreciate that when they are doing the business part their is a completely private space.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is any context in which your interlocutor would accept trans people being treated like people.
A lot of people are uncomfortable with bigots leaving reddit and joining lemmy.
They can always stay home
That’s weird cuz most of them do it at home.
Removed by mod
Are you implying that in public restrooms people share the same stall?
Also the strangers thing ain’t exactly solved by having one gender bathroom is it? So that seems like a moot point to me.
Removed by mod
In the scenario I described to you trans people are much more comfortable than have 2 sex bathrooms.
A single sex bathroom means there is no choice that need to be made. They do not have to present as anything, nor be judged as anything. It is simply a person in a public room, and a private room for the private time.
It also means (as I described it) the sharing of the hand washing mirror facilities are barely different than being in the hallway. Do people share hallways? Of course. So this open to the public space adds a level of protection.
Then for the private space it is single use. One person.
I feel like I am having a hard time getting this across, and I don’t know why.
I really have it with those old white men.
Why can’t you just shut up if you are incapable of adjusting your world view to the 21st century?
As an old white man, I completely agree. It’s not always easy to change old habits, but people’s refusal to even try is infuriating.
I don’t believe Keir Starmer is Labour. Fight me.
From a German perspective he awfully seems like a Tory
The only way for Labour to govern under first past the post is to appeal to the center.
Unfortunately our country is disgustingly conservative and the right wing have always been far better organised, it probably helps they have the media on side.
Starmer is actually doing a surprisingly ok job. The austerity he’s pushing is tedious as fuck but if he weren’t keeping an eye on economics we’d be drowning in hysteria about “magic money trees” and labour dragging the country in to debt.
The employment rights bill will be an incredible improvement for working people. I wish it went a lot further but it’s a solid start.
Unless labour support electoral reform we are doomed to an eternity of right wing government. Labour only got into power last year because reform split the vote, and very soon the reform and conservatives will merge together again.
Isn’t that why he helped remove actual labour people to make new, now more tory labour?
Labour’s been getting steadily more Tory since at least Blair. I just didn’t realise how bad he was until his government started stepping up the evil shit. Wish we had a viable left option.
Only correct reply
Remeber how when there was a fight for gay marriage a good portion of people said they didnt mind the legal concept and just wanted to call it “civil unions” and we totally did that as a first step to placate those people before going full on equal marriage…
I wonder why the approach to trans rights has been so all or nothing with people It seems like there is no real desire for progress from eithet side the way things stand now.
What is there to compromise here? Every building with gendered facilities has to build a third set of toilets for trans people? The government has to build a third set of prisons for trans people?
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea. Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate. Acceptice means different things to different people and it wont come all at once.
To compare a similar example imagine someone who comes out as gay to parents in the 90s: strict chrisitan parents might kick them out of the house and never speak to them again, - OR- they could be the type of conservative parents who say “well i dont agree with it but i still love you”. Whch would you rather have? Which one would potentially lead to a potentially better outcome/changed mind?
It seems to me that completely alienating people who have reasonable objections to relatively new ideas is not the best way to go.
That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…
You asked “What is there to compronise” and i answered “an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women”…
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.
I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.
Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.
So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.
Its about engagjng in good faith discussions so that people who just passivly observe things dont get the impression that the disenguous “just asking questions” people are the moderate and reasonable ones.
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea.
It is also not in dispute.
What is in dispute is sometimes the extent of those differences, but is usually whether those differences are relevant at all.
Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate.
Opposition to trans rights generally comes from three motivating factors:
- The propensity to find trans people icky.
- The desire to deny the existence of gender identity as something that is distinct from sex. (This comes in both pro- and anti- gender essentialist flavours and we could discuss it all day, but that is not relevant for now.)
- Having a genuine concern about biological differences. The reason why we’re not having nuanced discussions is because people in categories 1 and 2 will masquerade as people in category 3 and not participate in any discussion in good faith.
Let’s take trans women in sports as an example. There is - for sure - a small number of people who will argue that that anyone who identifies as a woman should be able to compete as a woman in any circumstances, but this is not a mainstream position, even in the trans community. The mainstream position is that trans women should be generally be allowed to compete as women in competition after some suitable amount of time on hormone replacement therapy.
This is because strength is not stored in the balls or in the genes; the difference in strength between cis men and cis women is a result of the effect of testosterone on the muscles, and the presence of testosterone needs to be maintained in order to maintain those muscular differences. Such studies that there are seem to suggest that trans women tend not to have any advantage over cis women after a year or two on HRT when controlling for differences in height.
Some people who are hostile to trans women in sport are unaware of this and think that strength advantages are permanent, and when you explain the reasons that they aren’t then those people may become less hostile to the concept. Maybe they have doubts about the specific studies or want there to be more research for any given sport or whatever, but that is the region in which compromise is possible. But maybe they’ll just start pulling further justifications out of their arse.
- “Those height differences are significant enough to merit banning trans women!” If it were then the sport would have height categories, wouldn’t it?
- “What about muh bone density?” In what world does having heavier bones and weaker muscles to move them around with constitute an advantage?
However, the debate is mostly populated by people who pretend to care about biological differences, but in reality simply object to any concession that trans women are in any way women. Anyone who claims that men are biologically better than women at chess or darts is fundamentally unserious. The film Lady Ballers came about when someone at the Daily Wire suggested that they make a documentary about men identifying as women so they can compete against women. When they found out that actually, that’s not a thing that happens and there are requirements that you have to meet, did they let that stop them? No, they just wrote a fictional film about it instead because they object to trans women being treated as women for ideological reasons, and they want to poison the well by persuading people that it is a thing that happens.
How do you compromise with that? How do you compromise with someone who objects to a trans woman competing as a woman in a chess competition because they fundamentally object to the premise that a trans woman is in any way a woman?
First off, thank you for taking the time for an execellent response. This is pretty much the kind of compromise im talking about, you acknowledge there are people with genuine concerns, but the vocal majority are acting in bad faith. You didnt just say anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, you brought more information to backup your positions.
Honestly, i am with you 100% on everything you mentioned already. The reason im posting the question like this is because sadly it seems my partner of 16 years, has fallen down the Jk Rowling rabbit hole, and i know for a fact my wife does not hate trans women, but also wants “women only spaces” because on facebook and twitter you basically get nothing but hateful stuff vaguely disguised as "safety” or fairness concerns. Its not exactly easy to convince a 49 year old life long feminist that they are falling for propaganda.
Its one thing when to have this kind of disagreement with random internet people, and quiet another to have it with someone you respect and care about. The point is conversations can and should be had. If its mostly bad faith actors being vocal with fake concerns, why not respond with something that has genuine aswers to those concerns, like what you did here so that the people who do have good faith concerns but arent speaking up dont get overwhelmed by only seeing the bad faith side of things?
Well, that whole civil union thing didn’t really work out so well and those same people were still (and are still) homophobic to the extreme so why give them anything? They are clearly not interested in compromises anyway.
It certainly did work out in many countries, which transitioned from it to Marriage for all in the end
Thanks to the people who were in favor of marriage equality in the first place, not thanks to the bigots who wanted “civil unions” instead. Those are even more vicious in their bigotry these days.
And why the fuck is there a compromise position at all? Bigots don’t have a right to discriminate against people. If they don’t want to get on board they can fuck off.
What happens when that attitude ends up creating more biggots and we find ourselves even more outnumbered. I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone.
On a personal one to one level i do agree they can fuck off. But from an observing the reality of living in a country that just elected a fascist, im worried all the demanding people accept things they disagree with lest they be shunned, its just going to lead to more pushback against trans and other vulnerable people.
I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone
A full third of the population is already alienated. It’s not working well for anyone. I’m simply saying we should leave a full third behind in the dust if they don’t want to give up bigotry. These people are not helpless, they know that they’re wrong, and they’re doing this shit anyway. Compromising with them is exactly why we elected a fascist.
And to be clear, conservatives drove this, they had a million opportunities to turn around, and refused every time. I’m not the one who brought us here.
Again i agree with this 100% on a personal level, my concern is just that it seems like that third is growing and the other side is shrinking due to increasing in fighting. Im not really sure what the solution for that is, i just think its a bad trend and leads to more hostility.
How didnt it work out? It lead to eventually getting marriage equality world wide, in large part because those first states tried to do civil unions.
By your logic, when they freed the slaves, they really should’ve done it slowly instead of all at once, because look how many racists it made!
Or was civil rights too fast as well?
Im not sure you have my logic correct… Im not saying we should do things slower, im saying its concerning how black or white everything has gotten, everyone has purity tests and if you dont pass you arent worth engaging with and im concerned that will have a lot of negative consequences and lead to increased hostility.
I am sharing an observation, not suggesting a solution. I am saying the way things are is concering and while i hope for a positive outcome (one where people are accepted for who they are) i see a lot more pushback than acceptance with the current strategy/mindset.
Why are they trying so hard to prove it, if it’s the obvious truth? I never saw my mother and sister having to prove or defend the point that they are women.
Well, regardless of my standpoint, I might not like what you have to say but I will for sure fight for your right to say it. Same goes for everyone.
If you spent more than five minutes looking into this you’d understand that there’s a whole lot more to it than presentation. Some people are born intersex. Some biological women are born with two xx chromosomes. Some biological men are born with xy chromosomes. Etc etc. It’s nice that your mom and sister have it all clear. A good portion of humanity has to fight to explain their place every day
I never saw my mother and sister having to prove or defend the point that they are women.
Is anybody saying that they aren’t?
Why are they trying so hard to prove it, if it’s the obvious truth?
It’s unclear, and quite important, who you mean by “they” here.
The ones who try to pass something that’s not a common sense as a common sense.
And I’m still not sure whether you mean the “your gender is the sex you’re born with” people or the “trans women are women” people.
Yes - that’s what I mean.
