GN Toilets

drunkmonkey

I'd say more forced neutering than sexualization.

Invisibleman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The toilets-issue at this stage is a bit of a distraction.

The question is: should women have safe spaces where men can't go; and how do you stop men pretending to be transwomen to get into them?

Because sticking your head in the sand and pretending transwomen don't exist; or that they are all a pack of liars, is at best, confirmation bias; and at worst, downright ignorant.

you can't be a transwoman or transman though, you are what your genome is.
Anything else is basically surgery to look like something else but you can't change sex.
I feel sorry for people like this i really do, but it's help they need not a permanent costume

Cordell

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Educate Together school installing mixed gender toilets with a see through window from the corridor because or the growing debate around transgender.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/new-limerick-secondary-school-to-install-gender-neutral-toilets-961522.html

You won't be able to see into the ...business area from the corridor ffs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Invisibleman wrote: »

you can't be a transwoman or transman though, you are what your genome is.
Anything else is basically surgery to look like something else but you can't change sex.
I feel sorry for people like this i really do, but it's help they need not a permanent costume

Physically or psyhcologically?

Physically, yes. Psychologically, what are you basing your opinion on?

Will I Am Not

Invisibleman wrote: »

you can't be a transwoman or transman though, you are what your genome is.
Anything else is basically surgery to look like something else but you can't change sex.
I feel sorry for people like this i really do, but it's help they need not a permanent costume

Transwoman or transman are acceptable terms in my opinion. It’s when people are demanding they be called real women or men that it gets a bit crazy.

drunkmonkey

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Transwoman or transman are acceptable terms in my opinion. It’s when people are demanding they be called real women or men that it gets a bit crazy.

It's causing confusion for real men, women and children The trans part needs to be knocked on the head as you can't transition in reality.
We either do away with sex altogether so everyone is equal or we recognize the sexes are different but we have to stop pretending that one can become the other on whim or though medical intervention. It's not possible and never will be.

Invisibleman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Physically or psyhcologically?

Physically, yes. Psychologically, what are you basing your opinion on?

both clearly, my opinion no,
It's fact not opinion you can't separate the two,
you can pretend sure, but it's not real.

Will I Am Not

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's causing confusion for real men, women and children The trans part needs to be knocked on the head as you can't transition in reality.
We either do away with sex altogether so everyone is equal or we recognize the sexes are different but we have to stop pretending that one can become the other on whim or though medical intervention. It's not possible and never will be.

But they’re not becoming the other. A man that wants to be a woman can become a trans woman, not an actual real woman. It’s just a term, no skin off my nose if that’s what they want to do.

victor8600

Meh. I think this is a non-issue. Toilet rooms should be divided into two categories -- a (smaller) room for those who can pee standing and a room with cubicles for those who prefer to sit for whatever reason.

Gynoid

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The toilets-issue at this stage is a bit of a distraction.

The question is: should women have safe spaces where men can't go; and how do you stop men pretending to be transwomen to get into them?

Because sticking your head in the sand and pretending transwomen don't exist; or that they are all a pack of liars, is at best, confirmation bias; and at worst, downright ignorant.

Have you heard of Aimee Challenor. Aimee is what is viewed as a bona fide transwoman. Not a man pretending to be a woman at all. Aimee has had an extraordinarily public innings. Aimee was a youth spokesperson for the Green Party UK up until the point when that partu acknowledged that Aimee had appointed dad David as their election campaign manager, in full awareness of daddys crime of kidnapping and holding hostage a small child in their attic, raping the child while he wore a nappy as he identifies as infantile or something. Anyhoo Aimee resigns from the Green Party and is whipped up by the Lib Dems where Aimee is appointed the Diversity Officer for Coventry. In the past few days Aimee has been removed from this role as they were conducting one on one online sex advice sessions with children on behalf of Prism LGBTQ+.
Put Aimee together with the egregious Lily Madigan, a trans woman accused repeatedly of sexual assault but yet the Labour youth partys spokesperson for - I fcuking kid you not - Womens Affairs, and other notable public figures like Morgane Ogar in Canada who went balls deep defending pedo Jessica Yaniv, and one really must wonder how it is that the public face of transactivism have so many dangerous and detestable people in their ranks.
Strange, that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Invisibleman wrote: »

both clearly, my opinion no,
It's fact not opinion you can't separate the two,
you can pretend sure, but it's not real.

If it's fact, then can you point me to the research that proves that physical and psychological gender are a) connected, and b) aligned correctly at birth in 100% of cases?

And if not, then - again - what are you basing this fact on?

Invisibleman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If it's fact, then can you point me to the research that proves that physical and psychological gender are a) connected, and b) aligned correctly at birth in 100% of cases?

And if not, then - again - what are you basing this fact on?

This literally makes no sense at all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gynoid wrote: »

Have you heard of Aimee Challenor. Aimee is what is viewed as a bona fide transwoman. Not a man pretending to be a woman at all. Aimee has had an extraordinarily public innings. Aimee was a youth spokesperson for the Green Party UK up until the point when that partu acknowledged that Aimee had appointed dad David as their election campaign manager, in full awareness of daddys crime of kidnapping and holding hostage a small child in their attic, raping the child while he wore a nappy as he identifies as infantile or something. Anyhoo Aimee resigns from the Green Party and is whipped up by the Lib Dems where Aimee is appointed the Diversity Officer for Coventry. In the past few days Aimee has been removed from this role as they were conducting one on one online sex advice sessions with children on behalf of Prism LGBTQ+.
Put Aimee together with the egregious Lily Madigan, a trans woman accused repeatedly of sexual assault but yet the Labour youth partys spokesperson for - I fcuking kid you not - Womens Affairs, and other notable public figures like Morgane Ogar in Canada who went balls deep defending pedo Jessica Yaniv, and one really must wonder how it is that the public face of transactivism have so many dangerous and detestable people in their ranks.
Strange, that.

Think you replied to the wrong post their...? I never said they weren't or can't be dangerous - someone else may have though.

Non of that you did write is in any way connected to what I wrote.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Invisibleman wrote: »

This literally makes no sense at all.

Well, YOU made the statement - I just asked for proof.

One eyed Jack

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Transwoman or transman are acceptable terms in my opinion. It’s when people are demanding they be called real women or men that it gets a bit crazy.

There are plenty of people in society who attempt to portray themselves as the standard for real men or real women, whether it’s guys who are strung out on steroids that resemble inflatable beach toys, or women who have more rolls than Michelin man who resemble giant flaccid penises; nobody is obligated to pay them any heed whatsoever. Only if a person wants to go looking for it will they find something to upset themselves fairly quickly, and it’s usually coming from tabloid rags like the Daily Mail and social media, where there is no shortage of people who love nothing more than winding people up to draw attention to themselves. Yanniv was one of the most recent examples, but in no way would I consider them representative of people who are transgender. I’d consider them entirely representative of the kind of ignorant fcukwit oxygen thief who I don’t think should ever have been entertained by the media, but that is what they do - because outrage sells shìt nowadays, and the more people are against something, the more their counterparts blindly support it.

Similar to the shìtstorm that kicked off with this particular brand of makeup for men -


Twitter users are roasting War Paint, a make-up brand ‘specifically for men’


No such thing as bad publicity and all that.

Gynoid

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Think you replied to the wrong post their...? I never said they weren't or can't be dangerous - someone else may have though.

Non of that you did write is in any way connected to what I wrote.

It is. The line between a transwoman and a man pretending to be a woman - which is what you mentioned as being troublesome to keep out of single sex spaces - that line has been completely obliterated by gender self ID. Because of it the genie has been let out of the bottle specifically by the transactivists who campaigned for gender self ID.


I was using Aimee and Lily and Morgane as examples of highly public transwomen, who are supposedly real women. People women should not have an issue with in their spaces and roles, as you say they are not men pretending to be women. And yet there seems to be an unusually high degree of neuroticism, mental health issues and sexual aggression among even the very few highly visible trans people who campaign so strongly for trans rights above the rights of others to safeguarding. One cannot help but observe this.
I do think there are trans identifying people, and they just want a quiet life, but I wonder why such aggressive dangerous spitefull people make themselves so prominent in the overall picture. And are promoted in spite of this by politicians and media. It is very odd. Do you know why?

trihead

I was away in sweedan recently and noticed this signage outside toilets in a museum.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, YOU made the statement - I just asked for proof.

There is no proof because there is no such thing as 'psychological gender'.

Perhaps you can tell us what you mean by the term.

keano_afc

trihead wrote: »

I was away in sweedan recently and noticed this signage outside toilets in a museum.

Whats the last one, a line dancer?

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What’s to talk about though? I don’t mind admitting that physical and sexual assaults in prisons are a massive issue, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim. Essentially it has nothing to do with self-identification and everything to do with the lack of proper supervision and procedures in prisons. Physical and sexual abuse is rife in both male and female prisons, and that’s the issue that needs to be tackled as far as I’m concerned, not whatever gender anyone identifies themselves as.

There are issues of course with self-identification, particularly when it comes to healthcare, employment and education, but prison accommodation and unisex bathroom facilities are grasping at straws to argue that people who are transgender should be denied their human rights as though the outcome where there is a conflict of human rights isn’t already determined by the Courts rather than addressed in legislation, like the outcome of the recent JY case.

Ah, it's the "but women do it too" defence. Look, we all know that violence is simply not, as you say, as "rife" in womens prisons than mens. And the stats bear this out. They dont even have the facilities in UK womens prisons to deal with extremely violent offenders, because there generally is no need, most female prisoners are there for non violent offences. Not saying they are violence free utopias but they are no where the scale of mens prisons. It's not equality to expose these vulnerable women, most of whom have already been sexually or physically abused by a male in their lifetime to increased risk just to "even things up". Probably better to sort out mens prisons to make them safer instead.

And that's all I'll say about that to avoid getting drawn in to rambling multi quote replies!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no proof because there is no such thing as 'psychological gender'.

Perhaps you can tell us what you mean by the term.

The non-physical differences. To argue that psychological gender does not exist, is to argue that ideas such as men are better at tasks involving logical and lateral thinking whereas women are better at tasks involving empathy are myths.

Gender is based on hormonal activity and it effects the mind as well as the body. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you appear to be arguing that hormones ONLY effect the body - would that be correct?

To put is another way: I'm arguing gender dysphoria; which exists according to the American Psychiatric Association, the NCBI, the NHS (links below)- is not purely a physical disorder; whereas you appear to be arguing gender nonconfmity.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532313/

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The non-physical differences. To argue that psychological gender does not exist, is to argue that ideas such as men are better at tasks involving logical and lateral thinking whereas women are better at tasks involving empathy are myths.

Not necessarily myths. There may be some truth in them. But so what?

There is after all some truth that men are on average taller than women. Doesn't mean a woman who is 6 foot 2 is a man though does it?

Anyway correct me if I am wrong but it seems like you are defining 'psychological gender' as something to do with having a 'man's brain' or a 'woman's brain'? Is that right?

Can you tell me how you can tell if you have a 'woman's brain', and what the test is for it?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The non-physical differences. To argue that psychological gender does not exist, is to argue that ideas such as men are better at tasks involving logical and lateral thinking whereas women are better at tasks involving empathy are myths.

Men and women are different, there are some things women are better at, there are some things men are better at. Stop pretending we're all the same, we're not. Your ideas are so "progressive" they're actually regressive.

If we're not different why would someone feel like they were born the wrong gender, ya know cos we're all the same?

Eh?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Not necessarily myths. There may be some truth in them. But so what?

Then you accept psyhological gender exists, because that's what it is.

There is after all some truth that men are on average taller than women. Doesn't mean a woman who is 6 foot 2 is a man though does it?

Anyway correct me if I am wrong but it seems like you are defining 'psychological gender' as something to do with having a 'man's brain' or a 'woman's brain'? Is that right?

No, psychological aspects of it. Psychological does not mean that something is or is not...!!

Can you tell me how you can tell if you have a 'woman's brain', and what the test is for it?

No, because I never claimed it.

EDIT - there;s a list of them here (if that's what you're asking for) but again - I'm not offering any opinions on them or claiming anything as to their effectiveness or lack thereof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychological_tests_by_gender_difference

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And that's all I'll say about that to avoid getting drawn in to rambling multi quote replies!

I’ll be brief then - you’re talking complete nonsense.

So when you ask for evidence that:

"If it's fact, then can you point me to the research that proves that physical and psychological gender are a) connected, and b) aligned correctly at birth in 100% of cases?"

What you mean by 'psychological gender' is a set of tendencies for men and women to sometimes be good at or interested in certain things?

And you think that when those interests and talents don't match their biological sex this proves what exactly?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

So when you ask for evidence that:

"If it's fact, then can you point me to the research that proves that physical and psychological gender are a) connected, and b) aligned correctly at birth in 100% of cases?"

What you mean by 'psychological gender' is a set of tendencies for men and women to sometimes be good at or interested in certain things?

And you think that when those interests and talents don't match their biological sex this proves what exactly?

I've been very clear what I mean and don't mean. I've stated it in a previous post.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word "psychological" means - because it's nothing to do with talents or interests, and I'm not sure how you could confuse them with psychology.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've been very clear what I mean and don't mean. I've stated it in a previous post.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word "psychological" means - because it's nothing to do with talents or interests, and I'm not sure how you could confuse them with psychology.

psychological mean relating to the mind.

Are you saying talents and interests don't relate to the mind?

Jesus your own wikipedia list of tests is designed to measure attitudes, interests and talents. How else does the mind express itself?

But you have been quite clear, yes.

You think there is a lady brain and a manly brain, and that a biological male must have a lady brain 'by accident' if he likes pink, dresses and make up and isn't very good at reading maps.

That is precisely what you are saying isn't it, when you strip away the obfuscation and fancy language.

Just out of interest does a white person have an oriental brain if they like sushi and sumo, or is it just women who get to be defined like this?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

psychological mean relating to the mind.

Are you saying talents and interests don't relate to the mind?

Could be one of many factors. Genetic, hard work, enviroment.

I'm arguing psychology is the study as to why someone might have a talent (or aptitude, or chacteristic); you are saying it's the talent itself and not the person. Talents don't have minds.

Jesus your own wikipedia list of tests is designed to measure attitudes, interests and talents. How else does the mind express itself?

Read what I said about not offering opinion on said list.

But you have been quite clear, yes.

You think there is a lady brain and a manly brain, and that a biological male must have a lady brain 'by accident' if he likes pink, dresses and make up and isn't very good at reading maps.

So you haven't been reading my posts at all, and have presented a strawman argument to hide the fact.

That, or you can quote a post where I said exactly that, using the word "man brain" or "woman brain".

That is precisely what you are saying isn't it, when you strip away the obfuscation and fancy language.

No, that's what YOU'RE saying.

Just out of interest does a white person have an oriental brain if they like sushi and sumo, or is it just women who get to be defined like this?

That's generalisation, not psychology.

IN concliusion:
Psychology - study of how things relate to the mind
Gender psychology - study of how gender relates to the mind

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll be brief then - you’re talking complete nonsense.

Really?

https://www.womeninprison.org.uk/research/key-facts.php

Most women are imprisoned for non violent offences - fact

Women serve prison sentences for minor offences; 82% of women’s prison sentences in 2018 were for non-violent offences

Most women in prison have experienced physical or sexual abuse - fact

Over 60% of women in contact with the criminal justice system have experienced domestic abuse.
53% of women in prison report having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse during childhood

Male prisons are more violent - fact

There was a record high of 29,500 assault incidents in 2017, a 13% increase from 2016 and
a 93% increase since 2007. Male establishments accounted for 96% of all assault incidents,
higher than the 95% prison population proportion that males represented, on average, in
2017134. There was a 20% reduction of female assault incidents and 98% increase of male
assault incidents since 2007.

Which part is nonsense?