People apparently support trans

I'm sure if someone was of malicious intent, they would not be worrying about the sign above the toilet.

Most women I speak to think transgender means post operative transsexuals and they are quite supportive. Once I point out that 80% plus of trans women have fully functioning penises they very quickly change their minds. Unfortunately this issue is passing most people by, they don't even think about it which is exactly what the TRAs want. We need to fighting.

The point that many women don’t realise when saying they’re happy with self ID trans people in women’s toilets and changing rooms is this:
Self ID gives every rapist, flasher, voyeur and paedophile a free pass to enter female only spaces where vulnerable girls, teens and women are potentially alone and in a state of undress.
These men do not have to be “trans” at all, merely self claim to be. They can leer, ogle, expose themselves- and if the woman calls the police SHE will be arrested for “transphobic hate crime”.
Now do you see why we need spaces separated by physical sex, not some nebulous “gender identity” nonsense?

"Is the suggestion that many women are keen to see random men's flaccid penises while they are pissing out of them backed up by anything?"

not that I know of. I'm just guessing as a man that would be the first thing you'd say if women were allowed access to a toilet with cubicles and urinals - and you were objecting.

Unless they do away with the urinals, surely that's the first objection men would make?

Whilst I completely agree that this is what would happen, it does rather prove our point.

Asking men exactly why they would be uncomfortable would reveal the identical reasoning of privacy, dignity, feeling of vulnerability, etc. Except they have even less reason as women don't pose a risk.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325623-Jess-Bradley-a-government-advisor-on-womens-rights-suspended-by-NUS-over-indecent-blog-Part-iii

Incidently I've just shown a picture of jess bradley to my DH who immediately said in shock "I know him from , he's that guy who once made out with my ear and wouldn't stop sticking his tongue down it when I asked him to stop". My DH often a mentions this incident and its clear he didn't like it and has stuck with him. He had now idea jess bradley had transitioned by self ID ing but was not surprised. Adds quite a bit of weight behind what I think we could be dealing with in self IDing transgender people....

Turph - we had that situation in a local pub recently. A girl was violently ill in the ladies and only one girl on the bar so we had to use the men's until more staff came in an hour later. Didn't bother me. If I need to go I am going.

Really don't see why I WOULD have an issue. We are all just going there for a pee at the end of the day. There is already a lot of neutral facilities that have been like that for decades without batting an eyelid. Used 1 this morning in a small cafe.

The objections.could be turned back on themselves: worried your willy might be seen? A: own your prejudice or B: use a cubicle to pee.
Embarrassed? See answers A and B.
I can't see men arguing they're at physical risk from women. Perhaps MRAs might feel at risk of "false rape accusations". Again it highlights legitimate concerns women have, so is useful. The fact that it complies with the law and is not discriminatory helps too.

I just had a talk with my young cousins (16 female, 12 male).

They seemed to only agree with transpeople idwntifying as female using the femalevtoulets if they received some kind of ID card that certified they had gone through some kind of treatments for 5+ years (aka no self ID and only those who truly believe they want to appear female).

I can't say I don't see their logic as they also agreed that it would be uncomfortable for women to see male genitals especially if they have been a victim of abuse.

I'm glad to see young people aren't all anti or pro and are using their brains to get engaged.

"Is the suggestion that many women are keen to see random men's flaccid penises while they are pissing out of them backed up by anything?"

not that I know of. I'm just guessing as a man that would be the first thing you'd say if women were allowed access to a toilet with cubicles and urinals - and you were objecting.

Unless they do away with the urinals, surely that's the first objection men would make?

I enjoyed an evening out recently at a bar in the Netherlands. There were 2 sets of toilets - one was unisex, the other was women’s. Most women went to the ladies tbh.

"Replacing sex with gender is like replacing modern medicine with prayer."
Doing it to yourself is bad. Doing it to someone else is inexcusable.

thebewilderness agreed.
As for urinals, men's toilets also have cubicles. Normally fewer than in the women's toilets but they're there. So feasibly you could use the men's as a unisex toilet.

A number of establishments have maintained the privacy and dignity of men's loos while making the women's loo mixed sex.

They should have to mansplain why they did it that way instead of the other way round.

We never have split facilities on the basis of gender identity. It's sex. As such transwomen belong in the gents, transmen in the ladies. Choosing to segregate by gender makes no sense. Where would people who (like me) don't have a gender identity go?

Is the suggestion that many women are keen to see random men's flaccid penises while they are pissing out of them backed up by anything?

@Turph

but it's not a counter argument because the gents have urinals.

I don't want men in the women's bathrooms to be clear - I'm just saying what will be said by those who don't equate them.

in fairness, I wouldn't blame them if they used that to argue against it.
Exactly. That's why it's the perfect counterargument. It's not discriminatory, either.

Turph, I think men would say that women will come in there to get a look at their junk.

in fairness, I wouldn't blame them if they used that to argue against it.

Making men's loos mixed sex but leaving female as single sex would be an option.
This is a brilliant idea and a good talking point. In practice, women would not choose to use the gents (huge queues notwithstanding). Men would be at no extra risk. The gents could be redesignated as unisex and the women's could stay single-sex. Imagine the convoluted logic needed to argue against that.

I'm afraid I'm also under the impression that most people think "transgender" = "post op transsexual" and I suspect they will have answered on that basis.

It would be interesting if we could conduct a nationwide survey somehow, to see what people understand by the term "transgender".

I think most people on this board are actually pro trans-people. Just anti trans-activists - the ones who demand open access to everything female in a very aggressive manner.

Quite frankly, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to change the systems that safeguard women and girls.
When you convince me that your system - which relies purely on an internal declaration of identity that by your own definition is fluid - is better than what we have now, then I will agree to accept self-ID.

But we are nowhere near that, and in fact the more I think about it, the more I learn about trans activism, the less I think it's a good idea.

Bring back the transsexuals who just wanted to live quiet lives, and let's talk about the most difficult subjects (prisons/refuges/health care/etc).

Quite frankly, I've had enough of grown trans/non-binary males causing a huge fuss and acting in a threatening way because they find being asked to use the men's changing room a gross human rights violation... I mean, I am sorry about their hurt feelings, but... Where is the perspective and common sense here?

Is our society so without trouble that complaining about sensible single-sex policies - put in place to protect women and girls - is now the kind of "political activism" that gets lauded by the media?

Personally I have no problem with sharing certain spaces with transsexuals (toilets being an obvious one that I don't really care too much about). But there is an enormous conceptual difference to saying we should think carefully about exceptions to our rules of single-sex facilities, and saying we should rid ourselves of any rule-book altogether.

My answer to this depends on what definition of transwoman is being used tbh. ost operative transsexuals (who I expect most people think of when hearing 'transwoman') I have no issue with using female spaces (though prisons and such..is a lot more difficult)

I still think the majority of he public think transgender means transsexual.
This ^^

I support post op transwomen using female spaces (but not accessing female sports categories etc).
I don't support any self IDing individual with a penis identifying their way into my sex segregated space.

I will support the rights of trans people to live free from persecution and discrimination. I will not accept women's rights being eroded to appease a very loud and aggressive bunch of TRAs who seek to silence women.

It all depends on what people understand by 'trans.

I would suspect that it would more accurately be:

72% of females support transsexual women using female facilities and services

Even amongst GC MNers, I suspect a majority would support this (though I appreciate many don't), apart from certain specific areas; like all women shortlists and women's sport.

I think an overwhelming majority of people would have an issue with self ID in its most extreme proposed form.

As many PPs have said, the broader implications of 'I am whatever I say I am' style self ID go a lot further than toilets.