Are we imagining things?

It’s absolutely relevant. We’re discussing the impact of self I’d on women. That’s what posie was discussing on the video. It’s not two separate issues. It’s all part of the same issue.

I don't think it's derailing; the issue has been addressed. No, you can't enforce any checks. Self-id would just make it harder for anyone to challenge someone in a sex-segregated area and easier for someone who gets off on that type of thing to do so.

Sorry, cynical. It's Friday night, there has been beer.

Er, yeah. That completely unrelated video. Some more sceptical than me might call it derailing. Oh no wait, I AM that sceptical.

Why are you discussing India et al on this thread?

Because she appears in the video posted a few posts back. We’re discussing the video.

Why are you discussing India et al on this thread? Apart from being yet another trans issue, the subject matters are completely unconnected. Diversion

It's weird. It's almost like you don't want to talk about the very real fact that no reasonable society would take any steps whatsoever to "make sure no men get into our loos" - as the OP puts it. Beyond general civic interactions with others, that is.

I wonder why you'd rather talk about India than how loopy the whole idea of toilet passport checks is. Or is there an alternative suggestion? I don't hear anyone offering one. And I have asked.

How very strange...

have accidentally almost wandered into the men's on at least 2 occasions because whenever a place tries to be "creative" and deviate from the standard symbols I can get a little confused. I was stopped both times before I walked in by a male security guard.

Gads, praise be to that ever vigilant security guard protecting the gents like that - whatever they're paying him, its not enough. (wonder what they keep in there ?....you work for the CIA or somefink ?)

What union is this?

Rat, do I really have to explain about bystander challenge being a layer in the Swiss Cheese model of security again?

If I, or a passing man, don't dare challenge a male person entering the ladies' loos for fear of being called "transphobic", we lose a vital cheese layer. For all I know, that male person could be Muscato or Drummond and a) identify as trans whilst still having a very male presentation and b) be willing to take legal action, public shaming, and generally make my life hell for asking whether they'd taken a wrong turn.

Totally. I mean that whole discussion boiled down to “but look, India is nice, isn’t she pretty? And she’s had a hard time so you should be nice to her”. They really couldn’t work out what the issue was.

They really are dim, aren't they?!

They simply are unable to think beyond “but I know a trans woman and she’s lovely, how can you say mean things?”

Urgh. They have to be two of the dimmest tv presenters around.

Eamon Holmes just scored an own goal for the trans lobby on This Morning by supporting a male gender fluid police officer being allowed to do an intimate body search on a woman.

We have rules to say this is not permitted. The mechanism to enforce it has been removed.

Also: if you have rules but do not have any mechanism to enforce them, there are really no rules.

Well precisely.

It appears to me that in the case of toilets, short of some sort of passport border control on entry or vigilante toilet police, no matter what rules anyone would like there to be there is no viable mechanism to enforce them.

So it's a polite recommendation then, isn't it. Always has been, always will be. Toilets; that's kind of the bottom line.

If you can't say 'are you in the right loo' to a man because they are not actively doing anything 'wrong' and might ID as a woman; then you don't live in an equal or egalitarian society

I'm pretty sure I expressly said you can say "are you in the right loo?" to anyone - in fact I went as far as to say it was obvious that you "can"

If you can't say 'are you in the right loo' to a man because they are not actively doing anything 'wrong' and might ID as a woman; then you don't live in an equal or egalitarian society.

This.

Also: if you have rules but do not have any mechanism to enforce them, there are really no rules. They are reduced to some polite recommendation, that's all.

If you can't say 'are you in the right loo' to a man because they are not actively doing anything 'wrong' and might ID as a woman; then you don't live in an equal or egalitarian society.
You live in a male dominated society where men cannot be challenged by women.

I have accidentally almost wandered into the men's on at least 2 occasions because whenever a place tries to be "creative" and deviate from the standard symbols I can get a little confused. I was stopped both times before I walked in by a male security guard. Both times I was in "gender neutral" clothing. If someone who looks like a man walks into your toilet you tell them this is the ladies' room and politely ask them to leave. Likewise for the men's.
This is how it has always worked, both social conventions and more formal security guards will intervene to keep spaces same-sex segregated.
These safeguards are what we will lose, as well as legal backing for protecting such spaces.
I think if I now kicked up a fuss and said I was a man, I would have to be allowed in the gents.
Now Jess Bradley, our non-binary trans woman alleged exhibitionist flasher, will have every right to use our changing room and expose their penis in front of women getting ready to swim if they want to. Likewise Christyl Knight, convicted paedophile, can come in legally and mingle with the girls. And Ian Huntley, if he formally transitions and is ever let out of prison. These are just the high-profile cases that have been in the news. I really do not like the idea of being in a changing room with any of these individuals, actually, because they are all male.
All of these people could be categorically told to use alternative spaces if we actually implemented same biological-sex policies for female-only spaces, with reasonable third-space provision, therefore keeping women and girls safer. There are very few people out there whose sex cannot be easily perceived, especially after speaking to them. Trans men pass more easily, and they are the ones actually taking the risk onto themselves by using the male facilities, not potentially imposing a risk on others if we go by statistical analysis of average criminal propensity of each sex so I don't think it's the same issue. They are of the lower risk category demanding access to a higher risk one, whereas the complete reverse is true for trans women. However, males should actually also be consulted as to whether they care! But because open access for males puts females at more risk, this debate is so trans women focused.
But people don't seem to care about the rights of women to maintain their boundaries.

Calm down, Rat. That's something of an overreaction to me asking for clarification of your standpoint. I quoted the wrong bit of your post - my reply was really to the bit where you said:

Short of ID checks for everyone it's simply a case of if you look like you're in the right room no-one looks twice, right?

So I was asking for clarification of what you thought was appropriate in the case of someone who didn't look as though they were in the right place.

But insisting to someone simply going about their business that you're quite sure they're a man because they look like one, even though they say they're not, and they're not doing anything to warrant what could very well be your totally incorrect assertion and confrontation, well no.

I take it from this comment that you believe that any man can enter the women's toilets and should not be challenged, because if he insists he is a woman, we are compelled to believe him, even if he is clearly male. Do you not see a problem with this?

I just got

I just berated on fb for stating that women had fought for our spaces for years and now men wearing a dress depending on what day it is, demand to access the spaces we fought for.
I will say I did explain on fb that I feel for normal trans people for who the tra's are making this so hard.

The argument back was 'fuck off'.