skirtcafe.org

I think we are in danger of losing our reasons:

Why were public toilets built?  To offer an alternative to the problem of people urinating and defecating in public places.  They were not built as refuges for women being abused by men and they offer no safety in that respect; neither were they built to allow women to adjust their makeup or hold private conversations.  By concentrating on imaginary fears about something that has never happened, the anti-trans lobby is intent on preventing toilets being used for their primary purpose by one section of society.

If they succeed in forcing transpeople to stay at home because they daren't use a toilet, these hate-peddlers will then turn their attention to something else -- and it could be men in skirts.  The reason you are wearing a skirt won't matter any more; mothers will be told it is because you are a child molester, wives will be told it is because ther husbands are becoming women and men in skirts will be banned from public places because men (in trousers) have been known to 'flash' at women.

It might sound ridiculous now, but these haters have already succeeded in getting a British minister to publish a report which is completely contrary to her own department's two-year-long inquiry into transgender inequalty based on evidence from 26 expert witness and over 200 written submissions. Human Rights Watch has contacted the Prime Minister with their concerns about it.  The hate lobby now appears to be well-financed and organised, submitting hundreds of bogus responses to any appeal for information; it has grown very quickly from the few sad individuals who started it.

This is the kind of attention, currently focussed on transpeople, that men in skirts could do without.

skirted84, you said, "Regrettably experience over the years has shown there is little acceptance of a man openly wearing 'womens' clothes as a man,...." Well, your experience is a lot different to mine. I find that out and about in "women's" clothes no notice is taken at all. I don't think the majority of people even notice that I'm wearing a skirt or a"woman's" top. I wear vests and slaghetti strapped tops and there's no recognition. Skirts are invisible. The only person who objects is my wife so I go out skirted when she isn't around to object. She knows I do and that she chooses to ignore the fact I am grateful. I wear a skirt most of the time indoors and, I think, she has just accepted it. There are far more serious things happening at the moment for others to be concerned about a man wearing a skirt, or top, or both.

I have to agree with Dennis that people barley even notice what I am wearing and if they do they ignore it. I have been skirted 100% of the last six or seven years and in all of that time I have had only one negative moment. That was from a religious nut job that told me I was going to hell.
I was in line to check out at a Wal-Mart and the people behind me all were in favor of my skirt wearing and told the nut so..

pelmut wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:03 pm ...  A doctor who refuses puberty blockers on 'ethical' grounds is actually behaving unethically and harming the child by a failure to act.

There is a VAST difference between doing something, and failing to do something. Compelling an action should only be done with a MUCH higher standard of evidence.

pelmut wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:03 pm There are so many unique situations in medicine, that anything mandatory is going to be wrong a lot of the time.  That is why only the most general rules are mandatory and doctors are allowed to use their judgement in the individual cases.

And here we are in agreement. Sadly, society is so splintered right now that we cannot even agree on what should constitute those general rules.

Allowing judgement means there will be disagreement on both sides. Sometimes a doctor's judgement will not be what the patient wants to hear.

skirted84 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:01 pm I can only speak for the situation in Scotland and broadly the UK, but the transgender debate has become toxic to put it mildly. Regrettably experience over the years has shown there is little acceptance of a man openly wearing 'womens' clothes as a man, and more sinisterly was thought to frighten children. A few years ago there was growing acceptance you can identify as the opposite gender but in practise that means presenting AS that gender. Makeup, extra hair, female name and roughly dressing as a women your age in the same context would. Some take female hormones and have cosmetic surgery to be more convincing as women, a step I haven't taken. A particular fraught debate is use of public toilets, there is no law over here but it is frowned on if you're recognised as a man in the female room.

I fear this is far more prevalent than just Scotland. The trans movement in many ways reinforces a strict "gender binary" rather than continuing the work of tearing down the walls between the sexes, and breaking down stereotypes. Instead, trans people are encouraged to try to "pass" by taking on the most stereotypical expressions of the sex they wish to be seen as.

I've seen people in the public eye, seemingly doing fine as a man wearing female marketed clothing, from Instagram posters to B-list celebrities, who get pushed to take up the trans identity. That shouldn't be necessary. I wonder how many trans people are pushed into that identity unnecessarily.* If we just let people be people, presenting themselves as the wish, devoid of stereotypes, there would be no issues, not even bathroom ones.

A lifetime of drugs and surgery should never be the answer to "I like skirts." Wear what you want, be recognized as a man, and use the men's room. That shouldn't be a problem.

skirted84 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:01 pm Overall no it has not helped the freestyle man at all and I've seen scarcely acceptance of it outside the "trans umbrella", including non binary/gender nonconforming/queer all swept up under this banner. The vitriol being pedalled against women with reasonable concerns about unfettered access for men to previously female spaces and services is a stain on all who are seen under the broader trans category, including the more traditional "transsexuals" that have a full medical transition and quietly get on with life, down to the simple man comfortable wearing skirts.

I would like to see men in skirts be as ordinary as women in pants, but instead it does get thrown in with trans stuff. So I agree that trans attention had had a negative overall effect on men's ability to wear skirts, and will until the two are thoroughly divorced to the eye of the public.


*I'm NOT saying this is all trans people. Don't start that flame war again.

pelmut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm I think we are in danger of losing our reasons:

Why were public toilets built?  To offer an alternative to the problem of people urinating and defecating in public places.  They were not built as refuges for women being abused by men and they offer no safety in that respect; neither were they built to allow women to adjust their makeup or hold private conversations.  

Good point. However, what is the reason for having separate men's and women's restrooms? That does have to do with privacy. It may seem puritanical now, but that is the reason. Perhaps going forward, we need to build bathrooms unisex, with better stall dividers (full floor to ceiling walls) but that requires money, planning, and motivation. Right now the question is what to do with the restrooms we've got, and what they have become, beyond just public toilets.

pelmut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm By concentrating on imaginary fears about something that has never happened, the anti-trans lobby is intent on preventing toilets being used for their primary purpose by one section of society.

If they succeed in forcing transpeople to stay at home because they daren't use a toilet, these hate-peddlers will then turn their attention to something else -- and it could be men in skirts.  The reason you are wearing a skirt won't matter any more; mothers will be told it is because you are a child molester, wives will be told it is because ther husbands are becoming women and men in skirts will be banned from public places because men (in trousers) have been known to 'flash' at women.

It might sound ridiculous now, but these haters have already succeeded in getting a British minister to publish a report which is completely contrary to her own department's two-year-long inquiry into transgender inequalty based on evidence from 26 expert witness and over 200 written submissions. Human Rights Watch has contacted the Prime Minister with their concerns about it.  The hate lobby now appears to be well-financed and organised, submitting hundreds of bogus responses to any appeal for information; it has grown very quickly from the few sad individuals who started it.

Unfortunately, there have been documented cases of men claiming to be trans, and going into women's spaces causing problems. Rare, yes, but so are flashers.

Some people are genuinely worried. It's not just a "hate lobby". Real people have real concerns. They are uncomfortable with trans people, with men in skirts, etc. Some of that will subside with exposure and time. Some will go away with new generations. Some will stick around. It's partly dependent on how the group asking for change behaves. As we have seen with cops, a few bad people can taint the image of the whole group.

As to men in skirts, many guys who started out with just clothes have decided later that they are trans. So the worry of women about their man is founded in something real.

Society is more comfortable with what is not "in their face" so to speak, and most people take a live-and-let-live attitude to a lot, so long as it doesn't impact them. That's why women are okay with guys in skirts conceptually, but uncomfortable when it's "their man."

Media, from mainstream/liberal to alternative/conservative to plain social media amplifies the negative, the provacative, the insane, and the gruesome ("if it bleeds, it leads"). So it doesn't take an actual trend or epidemic, it just takes one story. Heck, it doesn't even have to be an honest story. It just takes attention...

pelmut wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm This is the kind of attention, currently focussed on transpeople, that men in skirts could do without.

Agreed.

Dust wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:28 am Unfortunately, there have been documented cases of men claiming to be trans, and going into women's spaces causing problems. Rare, yes, but so are flashers.

If this has ever happened, where is the evidence?  Certainly there has never been a single case of it in any of the countries where 'self-identification' of transpeople is alowed.  There have been plenty of cases of transwomen being beaten up in men's toilets and a few of genetic women being ejected from women' toilets because they didn't look feminine.  That situation would get even worse if people were forced to use the toilet corresponding to their birth sex: there would be bearded, deep-voiced transmen compelled to use the ladies and transwomen, indistinguishable from genetic women (except by their chromosomes), having to use the gents.

The whole toilet segregation business is a nonsense and the very real fear of men preying on women in general is being used by extremist trans-hating groups, who are falsely linking this fear to harmless transwomen and toilets as a way of manipulating public opinion.  Some rapists are black, some are left-handed and some rapes take place in public parks; we don't try to prevent rape by banning all black and left-handed people from public parks.  

Lets work towards abolishing the fear by making all toilets with individual cubicals for the things that require privacy and the rest of it a public space, no more dangerous to women or men than any other public space.

pelmut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:31 am

Dust wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:28 am Unfortunately, there have been documented cases of men claiming to be trans, and going into women's spaces causing problems. Rare, yes, but so are flashers.

If this has ever happened, where is the evidence?  Certainly there has never been a single case of it in any of the countries where 'self-identification' of transpeople is alowed.  

https://torontosun.com/2014/02/26/preda ... c9d0012ce5

I like your analysis Dust but its a sorry state of affairs. Likewise so many transmen feel beards are manlier than a scraped away and partly cut face years of shaving does. On the bathroom question there is a meme circulating of 2 bathrooms with "yelled at" and "beat up" on the doors but single (unisex) rooms may be the way forward.

Dust wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:22 pm

pelmut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:31 am

Dust wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:28 am Unfortunately, there have been documented cases of men claiming to be trans, and going into women's spaces causing problems. Rare, yes, but so are flashers.

If this has ever happened, where is the evidence?  Certainly there has never been a single case of it in any of the countries where 'self-identification' of transpeople is alowed.  

https://torontosun.com/2014/02/26/preda ... c9d0012ce5

Exactly what I suspected: a male rapist with no evidence that he is transgender or ever was -- and on the basis of that, transgender people are being subjected to persecution and prevented from using facilities that are open to everyone else including, apparently, rapists.  If someone impersonates a police officer to commit a crime, do we conclude that all police officers are criminals?

pelmut wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:46 pm Exactly what I suspected: a male rapist with no evidence that he is transgender or ever was -- and on the basis of that, transgender people are being subjected to persecution and prevented from using facilities that are open to everyone else including, apparently, rapists.  If someone impersonates a police officer to commit a crime, do we conclude that all police officers are criminals?

I'm not saying that these are "legit" trans people. I'm saying anyone can claim trans status, and there is no way to tell the difference.

As I said, they claimed to be trans. You call it "self-identification". Practically, that means they don't have to prove it. So how does a concerned citizen know if someone is trans, or a rapist pretending?

I won't look it up now, but I remember reading about cases of convicted rapists getting transfers to women's prisons. If the authorities can't tell, how does the average lady going to the restroom, who sees a possibly male bodied person enter? What about the women who complained about a naked male(-bodied person) walking around their gym locker room, only to be kicked out of the gym for complaining? (I believe in at least one case she sued the gym, but I don't remember the outcome.) These are the practical questions trans activists don't seem to want to address.

The comparison to cops is an interesting one. Cops wear a uniform, and have an identifying badge and paperwork giving them authority to operate as a cop. People can (and do) ask to see police officers' badges, and can call the police station to verify that an officer they are dealing with is legit. There are severe criminal repercussions for impersonating law enforcement.

None of this exists for trans persons. There is no requirement to "pass" or dress or look a certain way. They are encouraged (or even required) to try "living as their desired sex" long before they get their ID changed. Do you really want people asking trans people for ID or documentation of some kind when they try to go to the bathroom? Asking to speak to their doctor? And any legal ramifications seem to be against the person who questions their "gender identity", not for claiming an identity falsely, although I have no idea how such a law could ever even work.

Trans people (and others mistaken as trans) suffer as a result of all this, yes, but do not ignore the issues on the other side.

Dust wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:18 am I'm saying anyone can claim trans status,

That is true, anyone can claim anything, but it does not give them any rights they do not already have and it does not give them any protection under the law.

As I said, they claimed to be trans. You call it "self-identification". Practically, that means they don't have to prove it.

Claiming to be trans is not the same as self-identification.  Self identification is a process with legal status and can only take effect after legal and medical processes have been gone through.  What transpeople are asking for is that these processes should only be those that are necessary for the purpose and not the demeaning, expensive and intrusive process they have to go through at the moment.  If you want to change your name on official documents, you don't have to provide medical proof that you are not insane, that you have been using that name for two years and have never reverted to your old name and submit a pile of documents, including your utility bills and bank statements to an anonymous panel of 'experts' who have to decide (without you having any right of appeal) whether you are worthy of this new name.  This is what transpeople have to go through in the UK at the moment and they want it to be simplified and de-medicalised.

So how does a concerned citizen know if someone is trans, or a rapist pretending?

A transperson would be physically incapable of raping them, whereas a rapist most likely would.

I won't look it up now, but I remember reading about cases of convicted rapists getting transfers to women's prisons. If the authorities can't tell,...

That's not quite accurate, it happened one and once only.  The authorities were so terrified of being politically incorrect that they didn't perform even the most basic checks, such as why the prisoner was there in the first place.  It was an absoute disgrace, but it gives no justification for the persecution of transwomen.

...how does the average lady going to the restroom [tell], who sees a possibly male bodied person enter?

Well, if the current anti-trans legislation goes through, she won't be able to complain because that person may turn out to be a transman, obliged to use the Ladies by law.

What about the women who complained about a naked male(-bodied person) walking around their gym locker room, only to be kicked out of the gym for complaining? (I believe in at least one case she sued the gym, but I don't remember the outcome.)

One of these incidents was alleged to have taken place in my home town, something appeared in the local paper and was seized on by the national and international press.  Since then there have been several attempts to check the facts and the whole thing has evaporated: there are apparently no identifiable perpetrators, no identifiable complainants and no record of any complaints.  By way of contrast, one of the toilet blocks at a festival was cordoned-off by the police for two days while they gathered evidence for an alleged rape.  I don't think it even appeared in the local paper; it certainly didn't make the national press, let alone the international press.

These are the practical questions trans activists don't seem to want to address.

I don't know about trans activists, because I have never seen any, but ordinary transpeople address them time and again, only to be shouted down with fear-mongering lies from a well-organised and well-funded group of hate activists.

You cannot be certain that anyone is who they say they are, you can only judge them by their actions.  If a rapist wants to go into a ladies toilet there is nothing stopping him, he doesn't need to dress up as a woman; the way UK law stands at the moment he is legally entitled to be there as a man.  It is when he misbehaves that he falls foul of the law, whether that is in a ladies toilet, the local park or in the stairwell of a block of flats.  Excluding transpeople from toilets will not have the slightest effect on that.

The comparison to cops is an interesting one. Cops wear a uniform, and have an identifying badge and paperwork giving them authority to operate as a cop. People can (and do) ask to see police officers' badges, and can call the police station to verify that an officer they are dealing with is legit. There are severe criminal repercussions for impersonating law enforcement.

None of this exists for trans persons. [...] Do you really want people asking trans people for ID or documentation of some kind when they try to go to the bathroom?

That is exactly what the hate campaigners demands are leading to, not just for transpeople but for cispeople as well -- otherwise how will they be able to decide whether the bearded deep-voiced woman who walks into the Ladies is a man or a just a transman who is legally obliged to be there?  How will they know whether to call the police if they suspect that the woman who has just popped in for a pee might be a transwoman -- they wouldn't want to risk prosecution for wasting police time if she just turns out to be a predatory lesbian who was hoping to seduce their teenage daughter.

There is no requirement to "pass" or dress or look a certain way.

Should there be?  The haters would no doubt like to see us wearing a yellow star (or a pink or a blue one) and have our transgender registration numbers tattooed on our arms, but present society hasn't sunk to that level yet.

They are encouraged (or even required) to try "living as their desired sex" long before they get their ID changed.

It is precisely that requirement that self-declaration is trying to get abolished.  Why should we have to be subjected to the indignity of living for two years as a freak with a false name before we can even apply to get our names on the list for such meagre help as is available?

Trans people (and others mistaken as trans) suffer as a result of all this, yes, but do not ignore the issues on the other side.

There are very real fears around the behaviour of some men towards women and even more towards transwomen, but these are not valid reasons for persecuting transpeople and making their lives more difficult.  The issues have been stoked up by a barrage of lies which have been repeated so often that a lot of people now belive them.

In the countries that have introduced self-declaration so far, there have been no [zero] incidents of transpeople molesting anyone in a toilet or of anyone claiming to be trans in order to do so.  That puts those fears in perspective.

Thank you Pelmut for addressing these crazy accusations about trans folk. If anything, it seems in my limited experience that the people who are indeed trans have done a great deal more work, assessment, soul-searching than most of us ever do; and as a consequence are some of the most enlightened, tolerant, and considerate folks about. If anything, it seems there are a few militant "feminists" who seem to think only cis-gendered women can be 'real women' and have 'real' sensibilities, or be 'real' feminists -- now that is scary! But overall it seems the trans community though subjected to many horrors, operates on a higher plane than most so-called normal folk!

Gracias,

I spent way too much time putting together a response to Pelmut's last post. I was becoming frustrated. It was getting too long and cynical. I set it aside and won't be making a point by point rebuttal.

The logical fallacies and contradictions in that post were astounding. But in the end it was canned responses and talking points. Somehow he managed to both refute himself, and miss my entire point.

I have issues with "both" sides (although there are actually more than two) in this debate. They are talking past each other and and shouting without listening. I've spent a lot of time reading, to try and understand all sides. Unfortunately, while we all speak English, we aren't all speaking the same language when it comes to this stuff. Nor have we dug down to find common ground to start from. We can't have an honest debate until we do. That was what I was trying to do, find common points we could agree on and work up from there. I apparently failed.

Below is take two, the shorter, less pointed (and hopefully more coherent) version:


There are bad actors in this world, and any change in laws and culture give them new openings to do evil deeds. Transgender issues are no exception. I tried to show that this had already happened. In return, I got a circular argument about it not counting, because the bad actors involved aren't really trans, because they are bad actors. (See also "no true Scotsman"). But that wasn't the point. Bad actors exploited the system trans activists are trying to build before it was even fully in place. The bad actors could be trans or not, either way it doesn't matter. And there is no way to know which they are, until it is too late, anyway.

Extra protections are being put in place for LGBT folks, just like what was done for women and ethnic (or "racial") minorities. While that may give them short term gains, it doesn't deal with the root problems, and may ultimately exacerbate them, because it breeds resentment. Generations have gone by since the Civil Rights Act here in the US, and yet we still have racial issues. And it seems they are getting worse.

The LGBT movement needs to stop this "affirm me or get sued" nonsense. Silence is NOT violence. What happened to just wanting to be left alone to live your life?

Religious conservatives need to stop pulling out their Bibles and citing chapter and verse to non-Christians. They need to address the actual moral and social issues in a way everyone can understand and discuss in a meaningful way.

Feminists need to stop. Stop the entitled BS. Stop acting as though women are some superior race that can do no wrong.

All sides need to stop pushing for legislative (or judicial) fixes to social issues. They don't work. Never have, never will.

I could go on.

I don't have answers but what is being proposed (by both sides) has been tried in other contexts, and failed. Miserably.

I would like to see some radically different solutions. Ones that go back to the root problems in society, that date back to before any of us had heard words like "transgenderism" and "feminism." Problems centuries old, that we likely won't see fixed in our lifetimes, but we can try.


I thought here, we could be open minded, and think outside the box. Men in skirts is an outside the box idea right now. As a common sight, it would ease the pressure to conform and "pass" placed on the trans population. It would not be a full fix, but it would be a step in the right direction.

There was also discussion here (maybe not this thread), of reimagining and going back to the basics of what these facilities are, instead of what they have become. This is probably the direction we will have to go, long term. At the same time, what we have in place now is the way it is for numerous reasons. We shouldn't be throwing things out without taking the time to understand all of those reasons.

Dust wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:27 pm I spent way too much time putting together a response to Pelmut's last post. I was becoming frustrated. It was getting too long and cynical. I set it aside and won't be making a point by point rebuttal.

I appreciate your frustration because I feel it myself, there has been far too much misinformation in this area and most of it has been deliberately spread by hate groups feeding false stories into the media.  My frustration comes from hearing these lies repeated as 'truth', taking a great deal of trouble to show them up for what they are, and then having to listen to them repeated all over again by the next person.

Bad actors exploited the system trans activists are trying to build before it was even fully in place.
.

The LGBT movement needs to stop this "affirm me or get sued" nonsense.

These are examples of misinformation having taken root and flourished:  
The term 'trans activists' was coined by the media to discredit anyone who tried to put the trans person's point of view.  There is no formal trans activist movement, only a lot of trans individuals who do their best to protest at the way they are being treated when things get too bad.  Occasionally a few noisy protestors claim to be representing us, but among the trans mutual-support groups that I know of, there is general disapproval of such tactics and a general agreement that they don't represent us and are only doing us harm.

I have never come across any transperson saying "affirm me or get sued", (perhaps it is something that happens in the U.S.?).  Where there have been cases in the U.K. resulting in dismissal, they have invariably been because of bullying, not because any sort of affirmation was demanded.  Accidentally misgendering someone causes no offence, but deliberately and repeatedly misgendering them after they have asked to be addressed correctly is a form of bullying -- it is no different from repeatedly referring to a colleague by offensive names.  Action is usually taken reluctantly after all attempts at mediation have failed, but when these stories appear in the press they are presented as a violent over-reaction to a single incident.  It is only by reading the court proceedings that the true picture of prologed abuse and bullying emerges.

Extra protections are being put in place for LGBT folks, just like what was done for women and ethnic (or "racial") minorities. While that may give them short term gains, it doesn't deal with the root problems, and may ultimately exacerbate them, because it breeds resentment. Generations have gone by since the Civil Rights Act here in the US, and yet we still have racial issues. And it seems they are getting worse

.
I agree that extra protection leads to resentment, but we aren't asking for extra protection, just the same rights and protection as everyone else.  The right to use the public toilet of our choice, to dress as we choose, to walk down the street or get on with our work without being harrassed and to not live in fear of dismissal or rejection for no valid reason.

It would be much better for us and everyone if 'trans' were not a special category and the laws and coventions applied equally to everyone.  Transpeople should not require special laws to protect them from physical or verbal assault -- everyone is protected from assault but until recently there has been a blind eye turned to attacks on transpeople as if the attacker is somhow exonerated if the victim was trans.  That is what these 'extra' protections are for, not to give a greater level of protection, but to emphasise that the law applies equally to all types of people trans, black, gay etc.

Similarly, transpeople do not enjoy any extra exemptions under the law.  Claiming he is trans does not give a man any extra protection if he commits a sexually-motivated crime -- it just attracts the prurient interest of the press who represent it as yet another example of the dreadful way transpeople behave.

I thought here, we could be open minded, and think outside the box. Men in skirts is an outside the box idea right now. As a common sight, it would ease the pressure to conform and "pass" placed on the trans population. It would not be a full fix, but it would be a step in the right direction.

I agree, but occasionally it backfires and men in skirts are subjected to some of the prejudice and abuse that is commonly directed at transpeople.  The answer is not to distance yourself from transpeople, but to work towards reducing the prejudice and abuse, which usually turns out to have its roots in ignorance or deliberate misinformation.