81

Their aim is to turn every hard-won single-sexed space into a mixed-sex space. Women's sports, women's rape refuges, change rooms, breastfeeding support groups, single-sex health care, everything thing we have fought for DECADES to carve out for ourselves.

Having to genuflect and pretend that TIMs are women is part of getting society to widely accept a legal fiction so it will be adopted into the legal system and used in lawfare against women.

They want women to be prosecuted and punished for trying to carve out spaces of their own.

Their aim is to turn every hard-won single-sexed space into a mixed-sex space. Women's sports, women's rape refuges, change rooms, breastfeeding support groups, single-sex health care, everything thing we have fought for DECADES to carve out for ourselves. Having to genuflect and pretend that TIMs are women is part of getting society to widely accept a [legal fiction](https://www.britannica.com/topic/legal-fiction) so it will be adopted into the legal system and used in lawfare against women. They **want** women to be prosecuted and punished for trying to carve out spaces of their own.

31 comments

You might be interested in checking out this article: Women's Spaces, Women's Rights: Feminism and the Transgender Rights Movement, which analyses the legislative and policy goals of trans activists and advocacy organizations. The article was published in the Marquette Law Review (which is a prestigious law school journal).

Yes, I'm afraid you're right... although, there's so much more including: severely restrict women's freedom of association, compelling identity validation, and protecting conduct that is unrelated to gender identity using anti-discrimination law.

(pg. 17 👇)

III. WHAT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS ADVOCATES WANT: LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND ADVOCACY

This Section will describe four features of the transgender rights movement’s legal and policy goals that are particularly relevant for women’s rights: (A) to redefine sex discrimination, (B) to protect conduct unrelated to gender dysphoria, (C) to prevent sex-separated facilities from being assigned based on sex, and (D) to compel validation of a transgender person’s identity through pronoun use and other language requirements.

C. Preventing Sex-Separated Spaces from Being Assigned Based on Sex

Third, the transgender rights movement seeks to prevent sex-separated facilities from being assigned based on sex. This is not to say that certain kinds of accommodations (such as access to a single-user restroom) are not appropriate if a person does not wish to use communal facilities. However, many activists find accommodations to be unacceptable, because they are not validating in the way that admission to the opposite-sex facility is.99 Rather, advocates desire for people to access sex-separated facilities based on how they identify, 100 and reduce women’s concerns about physical safety to mere bias ...

THankyou for the link. It is good some legal scholars are writing these articles, we need them.

They want to push women back into the home, notice how its always about women, its the same old opposition, its interesting to note the first public toilet in London was by the Thames in the 14th century to get washed out by the tide and featured over 100 stalls split between women and men, but at some point later down the line we suddenly were not allowed public bogs and had to start fighting for them in the 1850s, its always the same like the tides, women fight for things or people with their heads screwed on right give us things, and then the incels moan and try to take them away to push us back under their control.

this time they are banking on female nature to exclude ourselves quietly from places we feel unsafe, that way they can blame us for it and say its all our own fault

It’s particularly upsetting when you read a judicial ruling and find them using trans jargon in their language. Drew Adams v School Board of St John’s County has “Sex assigned at birth” 14 times, whereas Grimm v Gloucester School Board has “sex-assigned-at-birth” 10 times. These are federal judges who’ve apparently guzzled the Kool Aid.

The Adams case cited for expert testimony Diane Erhenshaft, who once gave a speech, part of which was how to tell if your 1 or 2 year olds are trying to signal that they’re transgender. Thank goodness, that decision was vacated by the full en banc 11th Circuit, but it’s bad enough, what’s happening on the bench.

People are not assigned a sex at birth. We’ve known since 1905 that sex depends on whether the ovum is fertilized with a male gamete with either the X (a future girl) or Y (a future boy) chromosome. The ignorance and complacency in the decisions from the 4th and 11th circuits on the Grimm and Adams cases is appalling.

[–] no- 7 points

They also want to make it illegal for women to speak out about it and congregate without men in any capacity.

[–] Chronicity 7 points Edited

I don’t know if that’s their intent but its certainly the logical destination of their demands.

I figured this out when reading Title IX’s proposed rule for redefining sex to include gender identity. Right now, single-sex spaces are permissible for select purposes (like restrooms, sports, etc), but they are not required. The guiding principle for sports is that if there are sports for boys, then girls are entitled to sports too. This principle could be met, in theory, if a school just decided to make all sports co-ed and scrap girl teams altogether.

Under the proposal, schools will have to accommodate all gender identities, including any non-binary identity that an imaginative kid could dream up. The language in the proposed rule makes clear that if there isn’t a program or provision that is consistent with a person’s gender identity, then this is impermissible discrimination. So a school could find itself sued by catgender students if the school provides boy sports and girls sports but not a catgender division. Same with restrooms, locker rooms, etc.

Why would a school take on that litigation risk when it could just do away with all single-sex programs and still be compliant with Title IX? Just make everything sex neutral and the catgender edge lords can no longer cry discrimination. This is where we are headed if this rule is finalized.

They don't want to end single-sex spaces, they want to end WOMEN'S spaces. Men's bathrooms are fine and dandy with them.

See also how often we have formerly "men's and women's" restroom pairs turned into "men's and unisex."

[–] GenderHeretic Assigned2LegsAB 36 points

Well, illegal for women to have single-sex spaces, or any kind of gathering without male supervision.

Men will retain some single sex spaces, gatherings and patriarchal privileges.

Women's public restrooms were a major part of the early feminist movements (not to mention the current feminist movements in poor countries). When women don't have a safe, private place they can go to pee, handle their menstruation, change a baby's diaper, etc; they will be too scared to venture far from the home. They will be held close to home by the "urinary leash" without men having to do anything to enforce it.

This isn't a bug in trans activism. Its a feature.

[–] Ladylucy 13 points Edited

The UN is also trying to establish restrooms for women, in India for example and third world countries, for the very reasons you stated. It’s more than ironic that in First World countries they are supporting TIMs in women’s restrooms. Which one is it UN? Women’s privacy and dignity or males invading our spaces?

Rights for women and girls, but not so many rights that we might actually be able to get the patriarchal boot completely off our necks.

Not entirely.

They don't want truly mixed-sex spaces which any men and any women may enter. They want spaces where women and a select few men with no respect for boundaries can go. Allowing all men in ruins the whole thing. Regular men would serve as a buffer for the worst, boundary-violating men. The presence of men 24/7 also means that women will be more careful than the current status quo where we're lulled into a false sense of security. And, of course, these spaces becoming sausagefests means that TIMs don't get to be the special man surrounded by adoring women.

In the haste to carry their penises into women-only spaces, they demanded that every man be allowed into those, though.

They could have demanded access to womens' spaces for provably castrated TIMs, but that would not serve their purpose of getting to rape vulnerable women, obviously, so it never was an option.

And well, from the outside, there's no difference between a pervy man who wants to invade womens' spaces and is too lazy to don a wig, and a regular guy.

The moment the man in the women's changing room becomes a certainty, men will start accompanying their daughters and sisters and wives there for safety - after all, they can't be making the other women uncomfortable if there's already a male in there.

It will result in only mixed sex spaces, whether the TRAs want that or not.

Though sometimes I wonder if it perhaps was the plan all along to drive women out of the public sphere. Women voting and being voted into offices meant that even a Musliim patriarch couldn't just beat up his wife with impunity, there was the theoretical possibility that he would be punished for it, because laws were made to protect all women, including women who weren't allowed to leave their private home.

TIMs clearly want all laws that protect women abolished. And that will be easier once women can't participate in politics anymore.

Load more (2 comments)