If this thread was started today it would have very different responses

It's not repressing another group. It's continuing to restrict a group known to be a risk factor. Because the idea that "You can't ever stop all cases of abuse so just adjust your clear 'no' a little, to be kind" is really, really stupid.

I'm sorry you feel that the work women are doing here to explain the issues to you is not adequate, but it has been discussed quite comprehensively already.

To the OP, my ex-boyfriend likes to dress in women's knickers and bras and be humiliated. That's the only way he gets off. He also watches extreme porn. His fantasies include being seen and humiliated by women in women's spaces. This would give him a sexual thrill.

I don't want men like him to be able to exploit a loophole in the law to access vulnerable women who haven't consented to be part of someone else's sexual kink.

I wonder, op, if you see the point in sex segregation in the first place?

Men as a class are a threat to women. We can't tell beforehand which ones specifically are a threat. Therefore, in vulnerable situations, where there is no other gatekeeping, we keep them all out. For teaching and midwifery etc, there is other gatekeeping in place. (As a former teacher and a woman, I was very much encouraged never to be alone with a student and had to keep the door open if such a situation ever arose.)

We keep men out through social convention - if a man tries to enter a women's changing room everyone knows something's up and tries to stop him. Allowing some men in because they have a grc makes this social gatekeeping impossible because no one is going to check the certificates of every person going into a toilet, changing room etc.

I'm sorry to hear you were assaulted by a woman. This is no reason for a race to the bottom and to do away with current protections.

Why did GC start objecting to all transwomen using their desired facilities?
Why did Stonewall decide to include cross dressers, autogynephilic males, and people such as Karen White, under the description of transwomen?
The answer to the second question should lead to the answer to the first, in a quite straightforward and logical manner.

How will it minimise it?

No part of the GRC process has anything to do with the risk of violence.

It is not a consideration.

Are you one of those people who believe “I identify as a woman” is an incantation which results in a magical transformation & rebirth?

Picklemepopcorn Some facilities, when shared, effectively make them unavailable to women- shortlists, sports, awards, refuges. This is an excellent point.

We have found out more about the beliefs which underpin the demand to use facilities of the chosen sex. What we are being asked to believe is, well just not believable. For example:

• All trans women ARE women because they believe they are

• If someone comes out as a trans man, they have always been a man, even when we knew them as a happy little girl, or when they gave birth. They were a boy/man.

• Everyone has an individual gender identity, innate and internal, but unconnected to the sex of their body. This part of a person's sense of self should be given special status by the law.

• Sex (the fact of being male or female) is a cultural construct, or it is a spectrum not a binary, or otherwise it is irrelevant to whether someone is a man or a woman.

These things are magical thinking. We are being asked to believe them and to say out loud that they are untrue is transphobic.

As that became gradually clearer and clearer, people started changing their opinion.

The harm is perpetuating the lie that it is possible to change sex.

I feel that Germaine Bunbury may have previously addressed many of the points that Early is raising...

I do NOT want a fight, I want a discussion. Every time I try to discuss I get jumped on by posters, so without saying ‘ladies please be nice’ I will address now that I am not a man, a spy or a TRA.

So you know this is an emotive issue for gc women here because you have discussed it here more than once and yet you 'do NOT want a fight'. That does sound a lot like 'ladies please be nice'. Because a lot of us here (not all) feel sold out and unprotected we may get angry about it. There may be some disagreement too because despite the 'MN hive mind/echo chamber' trope we are individuals who each bring our own lived experience to the table and have our own opinions.

But of course if there wasn't such a serious problem with male violence we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

OP, I'll repeat:

Could you show us some links to transactivist fora or pro-Stonewall places you have been talking about this? I'd love to see their reactions to your even-handed critique.

Because otherwise, I'm going to assume this thread will follow the same tired pattern of "just asking an innocent question" through all the canard transactivist talking points to you getting angry and flouncing off to ice a cake. And, since we all do that every day around here, it's just too boring for me to bother with again.

So again: when you pose these questions to Stonewall-supporting fora, what sort of reaction do you get? Could you show us some links?

There is no way of telling. Zero. And no-one will ever, ever agree to flashing ID. You can't. It's a direct violation of their human rights to a private life

Exactly. Also, we can’t expect young girls to request such ID from males. Remember those 13 year old girls who chased Eddie Izzard out of a female bathroom after he got changed in there? He called them bigots.

What is the percentage of woman abused by (holding a GRC) in women spaces as opposed to women being abused by women in women’s spaces?

I am trying to understand, I do not want an argument.

The reason this doesn't work is because you're not allowed to ask to see a GRC. It's illegal. It's outing.

There are only 5000 people with a GRC. If you had to flash your ID, before entering the loos, hardly anyone would even notice because the number is so small.

However, as long as the Self ID doesn’t, I don’t see a problem with those with a GRC using the facilities.

There is no way of telling. Zero. And no-one will ever, ever agree to flashing ID. You can't. It's a direct violation of their human rights to a private life.

Currently, the amount of women abused in toilets by trans people is incredibly low

What number is acceptably low? What rate do you think is acceptable in order to protect transgender people’s feelings over our safety exactly?

I don’t think that denying any trans person the right to use the facilities of their desired sex is the way to stop all harm to women

That’s not the intention of it! I think most intelligent people understand there isn’t a magic wand that will stop ‘all harm to woman’. It’s about assessing risk and minimising it.

And again, I’ll keep pointing out that women’s comfort and feelings are also valid and we can obviously see they are male and many women aren’t comfortable with that. My teenage daughter isn’t, my elderly mother certainly isn’t, and I am not.

Why aren’t you addressing women’s feelings, along with the safety issue? You’re very involved in respecting the feelings of trans and their need to be validated. But nothing from you about how women are just simply not comfortable around male bodies in intimate spaces.

gah does not not does.

Irrelevant anyway for this true believers - men who transition have the same rate& pattern of criminality as those who do not. The inconvenient fact is that the price of paper doesn't change anything other than their ability to access potential victims.

The GRC-process does assess future risk of violence (even assuming that it could be remotely accurate anyway).

How does it do that?

It changed for me when I found out that someone with a penis would be able to access female only spaces , win female only awards etc and that I wouid be an evil bigot for saying I was not ok with this.
I don’t believe that Transwomen present any more danger to me than any man and they should be allowed to do any job they choose and are qualified/trained to do but by allowing Transwomen who are biologically Male into our spaces it leaves the door open for any man who wants access
I will also never say they are women, although I am happy to use preferred pronouns and treat Transwomen with the same respect they show me. ( or lack of)

The scarce data available suggest that transition does not change male pattern violence, though. Not even SRS does the trick

Which is another concerning thing itself, the lack of data.

Someone with a GRC has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived solely as a women for more than 2 years and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.

The scarce data available suggest that transition does not change male pattern violence, though. Not even SRS does the trick.

Someone with a GRC has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived solely as a women for more than 2 years and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.

How is that in any way protective against male violence?

The GRC-process does assess future risk of violence (even assuming that it could be remotely accurate anyway).

People with a GRC still retain their genitalia.

What is ‘living as a woman’?

The gaslighting 🤦🏽‍♀️

I’m not blaming feminists for this! I’m saying that people took advantage of the transgender title, i do however think that grouping all people together as one is not healthy. And that goes for stonewall and those opposing transgender people

Good. Could you show us some links to transactivist fora or pro-Stonewall places you have been talking about this? I'd love to see their reactions to your even-handed critique.