To wonder if there's any actual evidence that's trans women are not safe in male loos?

Did you actually read the post that was linked to the sign that you are now referring to?

Can you explain what the relevance of your post in relation to the original post being referred to, ie. my post? Would you like to explain what anyone is ignoring and would you like to comment on Sarah Baker's threats?

Would you also like us to provide many more photographed and video'd acts of threats and intimidation made by male people with transgender identities (you know the 'tiny, vulnerable group'?

We can even specifically tailor them to be only made towards female people if you like? It will take less than five minutes to accumulate a lot of them. Published by the very people, specifically male people, demanding access to female single sex spaces based on their philosophical belief. Just let us know and I know I am happy to oblige.

Just in case you failed to understand the original point being made and how irrelevant who the person was that was holding the sign compared to the police officer who allowed themselves to have a photo taken with a sign that called for women to be afraid? I mean... I can explain the relevance in more depth if you wish. Just ask.

If there's no right way to be a man or a woman, in what way is a transwoman a woman? What 'womanning' are they doing?

They're not a woman by biology. And if there's no right way to act out being a woman, what is it they're doing that makes them a woman?

Either you think being a woman means being an adult human female. Or, you think being a woman means acting out sexist stereotypes of what women wear and like. What other ways are there?

And why are politicians posing for selfies with them?

So how do you know that person was a transphobic infiltrator and not a transperson? I mean, are you saying all the rape threats, death threats, assaults and signs threatening death, pain and rape to women who do not agree with trans ideology are the work of infiltrators? In that case, why is the trans community not shouting from the rooftops and in all media outlets condemning and decrying these “infiltrators “?

Baker's Wikipedia entry is nauseating.

It describes him as the longest serving trans prisoner and tries to effect a brave freedom fighter vibe.

He's not Nelson fucking Mandela. He was convicted of attempted murder, among other things.

Infiltrating Pride events with signs designed to make trans people look bad isn't really something gender critical feminists do.

Apart from anything else, trans activists don't need anyone else's help to look bad.

Oh so a trans woman murderer on licence telling women to be afraid and you reap what you sow, for daring to want to protect women's single sex spaces is considered fine by the trans community then?

I have no idea whether the person in the second link is an infiltrator or not because I don't know who it is.

But I do know that Sarah Jane Baker is a violent man who is publicly inciting violence against women for wanting single sex spaces.

Which 'you all' seem intent on ignoring.

I wish people would read things rather than just parroting stuff. She wasn’t attacked for being trans, looking trans, or because she was confused with a trans person. She also wasn’t attacked in a toilet.

She was attacked by two MEN after LEAVING a toilet. They asked if she was a lesbian, so they knew she was female. When she said yes, they then attacked her. It was an act of homophobia and male violence.

So, ironically, the story you misunderstood and used to support your point does the opposite. It shows women are unsafe around men. Trans women are biological men. Trans women commit offences at the same rates as men, not women. They commit sexual offences at much higher rates than men who are not trans. My source for this is the UK government’s own recent statistics on trans offending rates. Give it a google.

No it’s the second link, which the poster referred to quite specifically and which you all seem intent on ignoring

Wait, are you claiming that Sarah Jane Baker and his band of merry moob flashers are not trans woman but are transphobic infiltrators?

Wowsers.

The perfect reply

What is the relevance of the discussion of non-binary identities? That group of people are still male or female even if their philosophical belief rejects the sec category they materially belong in.

Hence female single sex provisions exist for all female people and only female people, regardless if those female people choose to reject their sex category based on their philosophical belief.

Have we been given the exact differences between males with and without transgender identities yet? So that we can understand why those male people are no longer male people? Or did the discussion get sidetracked to non-binary identities ?

Gender reassignment refers to a specific legal process by which a biologically male person can become legally female or a biologically female person can become legally male. There is no such thing as changing your legal sex to non binary.

It's not a technicality. You can't take an expansive interpretation of the law to include identities which have no legal status in the UK.

What struggles do people who identify as non binary face? The struggle to be taken seriously? Hurtful eye rolling? What rights do they not have?

The only difference between the "struggles" faced by the person in your example and thousands of women who have changed their names upon marriage or divorce is that the women didn't have a temper tantrum about it and sue their employer for damages worth about as much as a modestly priced house.

Quite the money spinner.

But the cases brought by Ryan Castellucci ended in s decision that in the UK non-binary gender identity does not legally exist.

Although a similar case to the Taylor v Land Rover case might succeed today on the grounds of harassment (as cases alleging harassment on any other grounds might well succeed), it would be unlikely to succeed on the grounds of gender reassignment. The GRA only recognises reassignment from male to female and female to male, as was made clear in the Castellucci judgements.

So if the employee was non binary, why were they dressing in women’s clothes? Surely they should have dressed in non binary clothes? What are women’s clothes anyway? If a man wears a skirt, surely that is a man’s skirt.

Dismissively batting away a real struggle and calling it a “technicality”. Christ. There are loads of these, and it IS discrimination.

In AB v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, a tribunal held that an employer which failed repeatedly to update its records to refer to the employee’s post-transition name (“deadnaming”) had subjected her to direct gender reassignment discrimination. Indeed, the tribunal found that despite the employer being given a number of months’ notice of her intended transition, the employee had suffered a “long and painful struggle” to change her name on the employer’s records and systems, a process which took over two years from her transition.

I doubt the Supreme Court would have reached the same conclusion, given that non binary/gender fluid identities have absolutely no legal status in the UK.

This is bad law. It's just that no one is going to appeal a tribunal judgment in circumstances where someone was bullied at work, purely on a technicality.

They are literally descriptors of sexist stereotypes. Based on the SEX categories of humans.

In Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, an employment tribunal ruled that a gender fluid/non-binary employee was covered by the definition of gender reassignment. Ms Taylor, who usually dressed in women's clothing, was subjected to insults and abusive jokes at work and did not receive managerial support. Her claims for gender reassignment discrimination, harassment and victimisation were successful, and she was awarded £180,000 in compensation.

Transgender identities are not based on any biological markers and are therefore based on philosophical belief. A belief that someone has about their identity. That doesn’t change their biological sex.

And therefore should be treated like all other philosophical beliefs.

It exists, and yet no one can explain WTF it is or why anyone should care.

The stereotypes that restrict female people’s lives are based on sex stereotypes. Not gender. They are sexist stereotypes and have been part of female people’s oppression for millennia. Oppression based on negative sexist discrimination.

Saying a man is a man it seems

Err… I think you’re getting sex and gender mixed up again. Those words represent gender. Which is a load of made up bollocks mainly used by men to keep women in boxes. Sex is the binary and immutable category that everyone is born into. And yes that includes people with DSD.

Why do people need specific rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of something that doesn't exist?

I don't have a specific right to protection from discrimination on the basis that I am a Scorpio, or that my favourite colour is orange.