I thought Danielle Muscato is American and as far as I can tell still lives there.
I don't know who Tyler is.
But regardless have they entered women's spaces to assault women?
Or do you think they look rough?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I don't know who Tyler is.
But regardless have they entered women's spaces to assault women?
Or do you think they look rough?
No, I think it's incongruent that young boys are separated from their families at a traumatic time in which their life is fractured due to violence, but the same spaces would be made to accommodate trans women who present very male characteristics by GRA self-ID amendments.
I don't know why you're making out what I said to be in any way crappy. Putting words in my mouth. Traumatised women should not be made to be around male bodies.
Hang on I thought the objection was to men "simply saying they're women" to gain access to changing rooms?
Now trans women have to use a seperate space?
Will they be questioned about their genitalia before being allowed entry?
Or have to show documentation?
You understand this will affect cis women who are tall, post masectomy, present as butch or in some cases are not conventionally attractive? Some cis women have already reported being challenged when using public toilets.
Ok. But again what have Muscato and Tyler (still no idea) got to do with the point you are making?
That's exactly why it's not as simple as 'keeping pre-transition transwomen out'. Many trans people don't even go through the full transition. it's just not as black and white as some people make it out to be and while we protect women we also need to protect trans people.
Protecting one doesn't mean we ignore the safety of the other. Some people seem to draw the conclusion we shouldn't do both. And again I don't necessarily mean anyone here, but generally.
They both posted selfies from and made a big deal on social media about spending periods of time in DV shelters (which in itself is bizarre behaviour as these are supposed to be safe houses). They both have visible male characteristics (in the case of Danielle, short hair and beard stubble, and Tyler bragged about walking around in the morning with a visible bulge in their pants) and I think that this is where the line is crossed in self-ID legislation. It's likely to trigger women who reside there and so it's a line where sex should matter, not gender presentation.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse in many of your posts and I wonder what the motivation behind this is. I've personally been really interested reading the various viewpoints on this thread and some have been perspective-altering (in particular @kat.becs). On the other hand, trying to shut down quite legitimate concerns over sex-oppression, which has existed for millennia, is precisely what makes this entire debate so toxic.
ETA: my bad on getting DM's nationality wrong but the point about entering shelters remains the same.
I agree that @kat.becs has made really valuable contributions to the thread.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
So if we’re going to start referring to women as ‘menstruators’ and ‘people who menstruate’ are men going to start being called ‘ejaculators’ or ‘people with prostates’?
I'm going to read all that!Will work on a better post when I have time but for now:
https://4thwavenow.com/resource-index/ a fairly long resource list
I find https://fairplayforwomen.com/ quite comprehensive
Also some stats on why have single sex spaces is paramount
Violence against Women and Girls and Male Position Factsheets – Home Office in the media
The Home Office has published a refresh to its 2016 Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy and a Male Victims position paper. Please see below for factsheets on both of these publications, highlighting some of the key fact and measureshomeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk
Violence against women
It exists in virtually every culture in the world today. Even where it is prohibited or illegal it creeps into schools, homes, workplaces and out on to the street. </p>Violence against women is a human rights issue, and it's everyone's problem.www.amnesty.org.uk
Domestic abuse is a gendered crime - Women’s Aid
Whilst both men and women may experience domestic abuse, women are more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of abuse, including sexual violence.www.womensaid.org.uk
Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals
The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.www.independent.co.uk
Sorry not the best list but perhaps others can add more
Is there are tl:dr version
I thought someone may be able to link to a starting point outlining the GC stance. A primer, if you will. Or perhaps something that influenced their thinking.
I doubt anyone read all the attached and then came to a conclusion.
If not perhaps a gc feminist who has influenced their thinking.
In a medical context people with prostates is completely appropriate.
Can I ask a serious question here?
Why are we, as a society, all of a sudden hesitant to say “women” in reference to mensuration?
I understand that some FtM transgender may still have functioning female sex organs and thus have periods whilst identifying and appearing as male. Why does this require this use of, what I frankly find insulting, “people who menstruate”language. I am a woman in my 30s, I do not wish to be called CIS/bio/natal etc. Why can’t I just be a woman as I’ve been since I was born?
Surely this argument that “women” is not inclusive is tosh? Yes, some women do not have periods and at a certain age women stop having periods. They are still women though. Is this truly a group of women who are campaigning to have this changed?
This is the only “woke” subject I truly feel at odds with. I simply refuse to be known as “they” “it” “cis” or some thing that menstruates.
Where is my (and other women’s) right to be offended and triggered?
Ok so I've gone back through the thread to find the reference to the "Tyler character".
A screenshot of a FB post shared by twitter user @trareceipts aka Peak trans.
Can't find the poster or the post on FB. But it appears to be a joke. You may not find it funny or may think it's offensive but it is not evidence of that person being in a women's shelter. It's evidence of someone stating they are possibly facetiously.
What it has to do with Canadian legislation I have no idea.
Danielle Muscato, again nothing to do with Canada, shares a video of themselves at what they described as a "homeless shelter". That is not the same thing as a women's refuge. I used to work in housing and now work in welfare advice. Homeless accommodation is not the same as refuges or safe houses for women fleeing domestic abuse. This misrepresentation is to suggest something sinister is going on. I don't know much about Muscato and know they're a controversial figure so I not attempting to defend them as a person but to say they were at a refuge is dishonest.
And it is nothing to do Canadian legislation and is therefore not relevant to any discussion of amendments to the 2004 GRA.
A screenshot of a FB post shared by twitter user @trareceipts aka Peak trans.
Can't find the poster or the post on FB. But it appears to be a joke. You may not find it funny or may think it's offensive but it is not evidence of that person being in a women's shelter. It's evidence of someone stating they are possibly facetiously.
What it has to do with Canadian legislation I have no idea.
Danielle Muscato, again nothing to do with Canada, shares a video of themselves at what they described as a "homeless shelter". That is not the same thing as a women's refuge. I used to work in housing and now work in welfare advice. Homeless accommodation is not the same as refuges or safe houses for women fleeing domestic abuse. This misrepresentation is to suggest something sinister is going on. I don't know much about Muscato and know they're a controversial figure so I not attempting to defend them as a person but to say they were at a refuge is dishonest.
And it is nothing to do Canadian legislation and is therefore not relevant to any discussion of amendments to the 2004 GRA.
re: the women/people thing.
I don't think many trans people are calling for people to say 'people who menstruate' in replacement of every use of the word 'women'. The ones who are, are the minority from what I understand. The word 'women' doesn't need to be replaced with anything but when discussing periods I say it doesn't do any harm to say 'people who menstruate'.
I asked my son about the subject recently, given that he menstruates and it's a huge part of his dysphoria.
He said within the context of periods and when they are being discussed, he thinks 'people who menstruate' is more appropriate as it doesn't exclude anyone, but also says if women is used, while it's triggering for his dysphoria he knows it's the biological norm and doesn't necessarily think it is meant to be offensive or should be banned from being used at all.
But he says when, when periods are being discussed and 'people who menstrate' is used he does really appreciate it and enjoys seeing it because it does include him and his dysphoria isn't triggered. What DOES trigger him is people who argue and dispute it when that phrase is used, because it feels invalidating to him.
He described seeing 'women who menstrate' as "not being invited to a party that you didn't really want to go to anyway. Despite the fact you don't want to go - it's a bit upsetting seeing other people invited and included. But you get over it."
Then described seeing 'people who menstrate' and people disputing it as "being invited to a party by the host but then all the guests telling you 'actually, no, we don't want you here', which feels humiliating and is much more upsetting." He says the latter feels worse. He wishes people wouldn't really dispute it that much when it is said. Because it's not really said that often and it isn't used every time women are mentioned, just when it's appropriate for the conversation/topic.
I don't think many trans people are calling for people to say 'people who menstruate' in replacement of every use of the word 'women'. The ones who are, are the minority from what I understand. The word 'women' doesn't need to be replaced with anything but when discussing periods I say it doesn't do any harm to say 'people who menstruate'.
I asked my son about the subject recently, given that he menstruates and it's a huge part of his dysphoria.
He said within the context of periods and when they are being discussed, he thinks 'people who menstruate' is more appropriate as it doesn't exclude anyone, but also says if women is used, while it's triggering for his dysphoria he knows it's the biological norm and doesn't necessarily think it is meant to be offensive or should be banned from being used at all.
But he says when, when periods are being discussed and 'people who menstrate' is used he does really appreciate it and enjoys seeing it because it does include him and his dysphoria isn't triggered. What DOES trigger him is people who argue and dispute it when that phrase is used, because it feels invalidating to him.
He described seeing 'women who menstrate' as "not being invited to a party that you didn't really want to go to anyway. Despite the fact you don't want to go - it's a bit upsetting seeing other people invited and included. But you get over it."
Then described seeing 'people who menstrate' and people disputing it as "being invited to a party by the host but then all the guests telling you 'actually, no, we don't want you here', which feels humiliating and is much more upsetting." He says the latter feels worse. He wishes people wouldn't really dispute it that much when it is said. Because it's not really said that often and it isn't used every time women are mentioned, just when it's appropriate for the conversation/topic.
I am not aware that there is any such hesitation.
In some contexts it is more accurate to refer to people who menstruate because that includes everyone who menstruates.
Referring to "women who menstruate" excludes trans men and non-binary people.
Saying simply women in this context is inaccurate as has already been discussed. I am a cis woman who has not yet gone through the menopause and I haven't had a hysterectomy. I don't menstruate.
I've not read it all either!I'm going to read all that!
Is there are tl:dr version
I thought someone may be able to link to a starting point outlining the GC stance. A primer, if you will. Or perhaps something that influenced their thinking.
I doubt anyone read all the attached and then came to a conclusion.
If not perhaps a gc feminist who has influenced their thinking.
In a medical context people with prostates is completely appropriate.
I would say fairplay for women is the most accessible starting point though! I had a scroll though of some of the resources on the 4thwave megalist and just read the ones that stood out to me, I've probably read less than half.I've definitely read some other simpler bits but unfortunately don't save the links and can't remember what they were all called.
A good book is also the invisible women, which highlights the overlooked differencesw between biological men and women and how this is detrimental to women in many ways
Evidence of Tyler being in a women's shelter - the shelter themselves posted denouncing tranphobia: https://dewc.ca/news/statement-concerning-recent-facebook-and-twitter-postings . But what was not noted is that Tyler also posted about being delighted about making a 50-something women also in the refuge uncomfortable.
It's an extreme privilege that we are in the position to argue this in a detached way, but my concern is for women (such as the ones noted by the shelter in their statement - disabled women, women who may not speak English as their first language, older women) who cannot advocate strongly for themselves or voice their discomfort at certain situations. We can theorise all we want about the philosophical implications of men becoming women and vice versa, but ultimately the people at the sharp end of legislative reform will be those already disadvantaged economically, socially, educationally, etc.
This is where I have a problem with my concerns being aligned with right wing ideology: I am incredibly concerned for the voiceless in society. I don't dispute that trans people also require advocacy, and I would strongly support a movement to create space for this. But I don't think that it always has to be at the expense of women, and in particular vulnerable women.
I would definitely say there is a hesitation.
Okay, I have had periods (no pun intended) of sporadic mensuration throughout my life. My sister has not had a period for roughly one year. We discussed this topic and we’re not offended / don’t feel excluded by being called a woman.
I think part of it is men are often still called men, and not for example, prostate owners. There's a much bigger focus on replacing the word women.
There's also more extreme things like trying to use the word "womxn" instead, although of course I know this is a very small minority of extreme people and not something that will ever happen or that many people want.
Should women be spelt womxn?
A new spelling of the word women had sparked a Twitter backlash.
www.bbc.co.uk
If there was as much focus on finding new words to describe biological men I think the erasing of the word women would be less of a feminist problem.
One the one hand I do understand the viewpoint of kat.becs's son and why he finds it offensive, but on the other hand I find it offensive to be reduced to biology and would never refer to myself as a "menstruator" but equally I don't know what the solution is. Perhaps "women and others/those who menstruate" would be more inclusive to both 'sides'?
I don't necessarily think most trans people are asking women to be referred to as a menstruator. Such vocabulary like 'people who menstruate' only really needs to be used in context where menstruation is being discussed. I know there's' a minority especially on twitter who are calling for it to be used all the time but honestly I think a good percentage of them must be trolls because it makes no sense to use 'people who menstruate' in contexts that don't even refer to menstruation lol
You are missing the point. Say I manufacture a new sanpro product and want to market my new product. Who do I want to reach? Women? Or would I want to target marketing to all people who menstruate?I would definitely say there is a hesitation.
Okay, I have had periods (no pun intended) of sporadic mensuration throughout my life. My sister has not had a period for roughly one year. We discussed this topic and we’re not offended / don’t feel excluded by being called a woman.
Similarly if I want to do medical research re menstruation or do a healthcare awareness campaign.
And also maybe I'm wrong but I feel like saying 'people who menstruate' isn't reducing anyone down to biology/menstruation, but is actually doing the complete opposite?
- Status