To think we should all boycott John Lewis until they respect their female employees

I'll carry on pointing out how oppressive this ideology is to women and girls, as long as I can.

We seem to have been told repeatedly that male people are female people because they believe they are. And that we have to accept this with no evidence at all presented.

Yes. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I just read back. It seems that we have been admonished again for not believing that there is any validity, because there is no evidence ever to support, the claim that a male can ever be a female person (which some people attempt to hide behind the word ‘woman’).

We seem to have been told repeatedly that male people are female people because they believe they are. And that we have to accept this with no evidence at all presented.

Well, those who choose to believe that a male can be a female person are very free to do so. What they are not free to do, it to attempt to shame any other person who rejects this belief as being an unfounded, unevidenced belief.

It does seem to have gone backwards somewhat

Providers can exclude trans women from single sex spaces if it’s a proportionate means for a legitimate end.

All single sex spaces work on this basis, it's not about "trans". Other males are excluded based on these same single sex exceptions. There is nothing in the EA itself which gives any of these males a positive right of access. Activists have written guidelines that say they are. They can be unwritten without a change in the law. The Lady Haldane legal judgment which currently is the standing one but likely to be challenged both ways due to an upcoming court case which will test this, is that without a GRC a "trans woman" is legally a man for the purposes of the EA.

Yes, policing this has challenges, but please do stop misrepresenting the law and gaslighting women here that this group of males as a whole are "allowed" to use women's spaces and it's all fine and dandy with most women. They are not any more allowed to use them than any other male, but the law doesn't prevent any man from accessing women's facilities, it's a social contract. Many males don't care about that, or what women think.

Again, only males with certificates are considered "female" in any sense under the law, and this obviously is a legal fiction and they can also be excluded, but the bar is higher.

Maybe people should stop all the personal attacks on those they disagree with them there wouldn't be so many.
(Which the majority were)

You can’t be a trans woman unless you are assigned male at birth. That’s different to ‘being male to begin with’ as you put it.

There's no such thing as "assigning" a sex at birth. Sex isn't decided at birth, it develops much earlier. What you are claiming is exactly "being male to begin with" and indeed forevermore, as it isn't actually possible to change sex.

Goodness! Was this not pointing out the significant dissonance that the majority of female employee’s opinions were disregarded for the sake of pleasing supposedly a tiny number of male employees?

And that it is indeed bigoted to ignore the needs of female people
to prioritise the demands of male people?

oh dear…

Yes. Good point. I should change this to say ‘it has now been reconfirmed to be meaningless’.

If JL expected trans women to be excluded from women-only spaces because of the small number of cis women who have an issue with it would be bigoted in the extreme.

Genuinely curious, do you think this makes you sound "kind"? @FredericC

I don't know, but knowing how completely mad everything is now, I'm inclined to believe it. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please do share.

The letter on the blog. Was it definitely written by an ex-JL employee, and is it an accurate description of JL policy?

The term 'cis' is now meaningless

While taking on board your point about changing definitions, I don't think it was ever meaningful.

Apologies if I have missed it, but has this been verified?

Has what?

Also, since there are plenty of transwomen who also identify as 'girls' don't forget that age and maturity of the body is also now a meaningless categorisation under those who come into the 'trans' category too. Or are we not supposed to accept ‘littles’ identities but accept a male person declaring they are female in any way?

And if we are supposed to accept these male people’s identities that declare they are 3 year old girls, why? And how does that impact on schools?

By the way, based on posts from another thread where a poster assured us that cis women are what we should be talking about when referring to two male boxers who competed in the female category of boxing in the Paris Olympics, I decided that we need as many women who read these threads to understand just what that term means.

The term 'cis' is now meaningless because it also now includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes, ie. a male person with a difference of sex development that have testes or testes tissue. Such as Caster Semenya.

Therefore, female people have no unique words that describe just those female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes.

None. There is no word left for female people. Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’.

Because 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.

2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women: Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis = 1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **

and 3 Any person who has a female body^^

Trans = 2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Do people see the issue here? There is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is now shown to be meaningless.

Yet we still get posters telling us we need to use it out of respect? Respect for which people? Because to me that demand looks like misogyny to me.

If JL expected trans women to be excluded from women-only spaces because of the small number of cis women who have an issue with it would be bigoted in the extreme.

The majority of women, according to polls, disagree with you. Most women want males to be excluded from women only spaces. It isn't about their trans identity, it's about their sex.

Apologies if I have missed it, but has this been verified?

This is great!!!!

So traumatised female people need to reframe their trauma, get the fuck over it and shut the fuck up, get help for their ‘mental health’. And male people should just have their philosophic belief demands complied with, in case they feel unhappy….

Well done in capturing the inherent discrimination against female people so well in your post.

Thank you!

Good for JL recognising trans women are women. If any employees have trauma to such an extent they can't use a toilet that may also be used by a trans woman (which would rule out shared disabled loos for starters) and are unable to be alone in a room with a male without exacerbating trauma then they need to see their GP ASAP to explore mental health treatment and be given workplace adjustments in the meantime. The solution is not to try and impose your own narrow view of gender and sex on others, who have every right to use the facilities that align with their own gender.

If JL expected trans women to be excluded from women-only spaces because of the small number of cis women who have an issue with it would be bigoted in the extreme.

I don't usually shop there but I might have a browse next time I'm nearby and start getting my cosmetics from there rather than the usual shops I frequent :)

These threads always focus on toilets as it's easier to handwave away women's objections.

And of course, it is important to note that this is not just toilets, it is changing rooms as well.

And while we are on the topics of 'loos'.

Just a reminder that toilets are there for the many unique needs of female people, needed because of their female body.

No male can ever experience life as a woman. They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman.

Even when they 'act' like a woman, they are acting as they believe a 'woman' should act. Which is fucking misogynistic!

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way.

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is. They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life).

How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

Using single sex spaces should never have been about someone’s philosophical belief that they are male or female.

If you choose to share a male person’s philosophical belief that they are somehow a female with the same needs as female people, that is just your belief.

It is fine that you have it.

No one else needs to comply with a belief that cannot be backed with credible evidence in anyway.

Here are some places to start with that evidence that this group of male people commit sex crime and violence crime at the same rate as female people so you can make that correct comparison.

Here you go, someone worked it out using the census data too.

There are 48,000 transwomen.

Of that 30.4 million women, 125 are currently incarcerated as serious sex offenders.
1 in 243,000 Of the 48,000 transwomen, 82 are currently incarcerated as serious sex offenders.

1 in every 585.

https://x.com/mar2vickers/status/1611484662093828127

And here you go, this was presented to parliament and I don't believe anyone has ever shown the information to be false.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Ministry of Justice 2020 Data

The question of whether transwomen match male or female patterns of criminality is specifically addressed by the 2020 FOI referenced by Fair Play For Women (who have submitted evidence to the Committee). This is first time there has been official data to compare the rate of sex offending in 3 different groups. Men vs women vs transwomen. The hyperlinks below link to the FOI spreadsheet.

MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).
Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending rates in men and women over the same period.

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3% 13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%

and here

Michael Biggs, ‘The Transition from Sex to Gender in English Prisons: Human Rights and Queer Theory’, SocArXiv, 17 May 2020

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/43f2t

I am looking forward to someone posting the evidence that this group of male people should be treated any differently for safeguarding purposes for the safety of female people than ANY OTHER MALE PERSON.

In fact, I would welcome someone posting the evidence that a male person at any stage of their transition has the same or lower risk of committing a violent or sex crime as ANY OTHER FEMALE PERSON. And if you cannot post this evidence, why do you believe that this group of male people should be accessing ANY female single sex space.

And it is not just about safety. It is also about privacy and dignity as I and many others have said.

Male people have form for using female people as resources for their own needs of validation, acceptance etc. Not just in prison but this can be extrapolated to be the case everywhere.

https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/she-was-just-like-a-lassie-analysing-the-views-of-cis-women-in-cu

"trans women don’t offend at the same rate as men, no, trans women in women’s loos don’t endanger women, no, single sex loos would not make women safer - quite the opposite"

This post is remarkable.

Please post the evidence that "trans women don’t offend at the same rate as men'. Actually, scrap that. For an adequate safeguarding risk assessment, for that group of males to have been granted access into the female single sex spaces, the correct comparator is that that group of male people commit sex and violent crime at the same rate as all female people in the UK.

Please dadjoke, you have been in these discussions for a very long time now. You should have these statistics at hand, or you should have studies that show this.

"trans women in women’s loos don’t endanger women"

There has been incidents already where including male people in female people's 'loos' has indeed endangered female people. And plenty where they have been harmed by this group accessing female people's 'loos'. Privacy and dignity do matter as well. As does female people excluding themselves from public toilets, leading to exclusion from public life.

"single sex loos would not make women safer"

Please do give details how including male people with gender identities in female single sex loos makes female people 'safer'? This is a logical fallacy. Because if those male people are so targeted in life, then by that logic, including them in female single sex toilets will just add to the risk for female people. After all, aren't we being told constantly that abusers will just 'walk right in'.

But I am all for seeing your reasons for this remarkable statement. Please clarify with details so we can understand.