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

You might also wonder why transactivists were so determined to lie and be sneaky.

It's because they knew people would not accept it otherwise.

The protected characteristic gender realignment, is an example. Most people think that means surgery, because of the word realignment. Or something a little more concrete than saying it out loud.

I think it all needs to go back to biological sex.

So if we are to be accepting of transgendered people in our female space then I would far prefer to be accepting of trans identified females than males.

All female spaces to be female only.

It's very easy to measure this in sports, prisons, hospitals etc.

Back then the two transwomen I knew never claimed they were women. They were transwomen, they knew their experiences were not mine and vice versa. They were both aware they were being treated as women out of courtesy and knew that while they had had surgery to remove male sex organs, they had been raised and socialised as men and would never have formative female experiences as girls and young women like being afraid of rape and sexual assault and getting pregnant. I have no problems with transwomen like them using bathrooms, changing rooms etc. But neither of them would ever have dreamed of putting themselves forward for women's awards, scholarships, sports, that kind of thing - because they are not women, they are transwomen.

When activists started insisting that transwomen ARE women, that anyone who disagreed was transphobic and should be hounded out of their jobs, and pushing for self-ID, that's when I feel the shift in opinion really occurred.

Exactly. It's not women who have thrown transsexuals under the bus. It's stonewall and transactivists.

You're targeting the wrong people. In fact you're blaming the very people who predicted this.

You might search the threads where the feminists on here are telling the transwomen on the thread to speak out, because they are going to get caught in the backlash.

It was as plain as a pikestaff.

Transsexuals are getting thrown under the bus. But not by women.

Not all men are a danger to women but we still sex segregate. And what evidence we have suggests transwomen commit crimes in the same pattern and to the same magnitude as other biological men.

but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

I don't think you could say that as a blanket statement. There are quite a few women who think that midwives should be women (therefore, not men), so that women in labour aren't in a position where they have to explicitly ask for a female midwife instead of the male who has turned up to discuss checking dilation, or put up with a situation where they are extremely vulnerable and unhappy with their care provider because they think they'll be branded a trouble maker for requesting a woman.

Which then leads on to the whole "Under Self ID, would women be allowed to refuse medical treatment from a trans HCP on the basis of them being male bodied, or would that be transphobic? If women aren't allowed to request a female (vice versa for men) when presented with a trans HCP, why are they allowed to refuse the opposite sex who don't have a trans identity?" can of worms.

May I suggest, politely, that you spend an hour or two searching existing threads?

The best way to get a feel for this is really to read what is already there.
Posters are generally extremely helpful, but in essence they are constantly retyping and re-explaining to new poster after new poster and there are multiple threads all duplicating effort and time.

You will of course get answers on your own thread, because posters are generous.

But it's a good idea to do some legwork yourself also.

My personal feeling is that women were inclined to pretend 5 years ago that they were comfortable with men (when they often were not)
That women thought this was a few hundred men (when it is now in the millions)
That women thought that these were men with surgery (and we now know they are not)
That women thought this was a concession they could give OR NOT (and now we know it is not)
That women thought these transgressions would stop at Marks&Sparks loos, not include men claiming changing rooms, showers, all female only spaces
That women thought sports would be exempt
That women thought that this would just be imposed upon grown women, not little girls
That women thought that they could still assert their own sex over a man's declared gender

So much has changed

Women have realised that being of the female sex no longer has legal protections or legal meaning, and that gender has utterly replaced it.

That wasn't what women were signing up for when they uncomfortably agreed to pretend it was OK for a man to be in their toilets.

Women are just no longer prepared to lie and pretend to benefit men at our own expense.

I think the change for me came when I realised the difference between transsexual and transgender. I don't see how a person can claim dysmorphia and yet remain intact.

Women don't have penises.

I'm another person who didn't have any problem with dysphoric, post-op transsexuals sharing women's spaces.

I'd always have objected to a transvestite using those spaces. Now we aren't allowed to make those distinctions. Now anyone who claims to be a woman at that moment is supposed to be allowed access. I find that horrifying. A line has to be drawn, and that line ought to be no penises in women's spaces, regardless of how the owner of that penis feels or identifies.

If you had asked me five years ago I'd have said of course there isn't anyone who believes themselves to be a woman but wants to keep their penis. It's a logical absurdity. Since then I have been proven wrong so many times.

Also in response to the question in the OP, trans now covers pretty much anyone who doesn't strictly gender conform. So whereas before there were (not many) medically diagnosed people whose mental angst was alleviated by transitioning, now we are in the ridiculous situation where anyone can declare they are trans without changing a single thing about their behaviour or appearance. So how the hell are we meant to know who is genuine and who wants to do us harm?

Within the last five years or so the trans movement has been the very definition of the term 'scope creep'.

Exactly this. I've no particular desire to throw old school transsexuals under the bus but I'm afraid they've been used as much as women have. Third spaces is the only compromise I will even consider now.

Don't blame feminists, OP: as I do keep saying - blame Stonewall.

No women should have to share a communal dorm or shower with someone who has a penis; no one who has a penis should use women only spaces and services.

How did it reach the point where women can be vilified for saying this?

There are websites which coach people on what to say and what not to say in order to get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. I wish I had taken a screenshot of the one I was directed to on here quite a while ago. If you're worried you're going to do yourself an injury due to the excessive masturbation as you imagine yourself as a woman, you are clearly not suitable. His fellow forumites didn't tell him that, just advised him to keep that bit quiet. Even the current system is not without abuse potential, and this has been acknowledged in Parliament.

My point as I said was that, we are not accepting of transpeople in these spaces because men are ‘‘dangerous’ but statistically, you’re far more likely to get abused/groomed by a man in a position of trust than you are by a transgender in a toilet, so where is the line between stating all men as a threat and campaigning for regulations around who could be a threat?

But then we're back to Chesterton's Gate aren't we? We have SEX segregated spaces for a reason, so while of course 'not all man are like that' instead of 'campaigning for regulations around who could be a threat' it makes far more sense to keep single sex spaces as they are. The reasonable people on the planet will of course have no issue with that.

I, for one, had not clear idea of what trans meant. I 'believed' the 'born in the wrong body' narrative and thought it sounded horrific and poor them.

I say 'believed' because I don't think anyone actually believed that - it was more I believed that these individuals believed that.

What changed for me was a growing awareness that wokeness was a Trojan horse that allowed dudebros and their allies to talk circles around the reasonable concerns of their former allies. Then once the TRA movement swelled with people who didn't have the vocabulary to construct a carefully woke argument and had no interest in recruiting feminist allies it was revealed to be chock-full of transparent misogyny. So 'die c*s scum' was kind of a tipping point.

And at some stage it dawned on me that the ongoing concerns of radical feminists included such tedious and 'unsolvable' problems as dv and sexual violence and how could that ever stand up against stunning and brave Jenner on the cover of Vanity Fair? Jenner in a corset = wow, how wonderful and liberated, and how wonderful/liberated I am for recognising and praising this marvellous new world! Rape =

Maybe it was the threats of murder and dismemberment from trans advocates to feminists that made people think 'hmm no thanks rather not share a shower with you'

Within the last five years or so the trans movement has been the very definition of the term 'scope creep'.

The GRA when originally debated flew under the radar of most people but we can see now that those politicians who were involved raised questions and pointed out issues that have indeed turned out to be very prophetic.

Everyone was reassured that the process was water tight and we would be looking at a tiny minority of people (around 5000) who would be seeking a legal fiction of changing sex.

Now self ID is on the table combined with Stonewall's trans umbrella definition (which includes pretty much anyone at this point) we are potentially talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who might self ID.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the repercussions of that are huge in a vast number of areas.

So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

Many women don't want a male midwife.

The key is choice. Women decide their own boundaries. They're not decided by men, or men who identify as women.

Only 5000 people have a gender recognition certificate. The number is vanishingly small and therefore negligible.

If it was 2 million, no matter what the reason for transition, it would be completely different.

Men identifying as women retain male pattern violence. It doesn't matter whether they have gender dysphoria. In fact, in the only study of its kind, the men did have gender dysphoria.

But historically, the numbers have been incredibly small.

Now they're not. You can blame Stonewall for widening the umbrella, not women for noticing it.

You can blame the memorandum of understanding, pushed by transactivists, where affirmation is the only option. Therefore a GRC is unlikely to ever be refused.

I understand why people want to make a distinction, but it's moot.

Too late.

*Who has said transgender people shouldn’t be in these positions? That’s a lie. Do not twist things please.

I don’t know who said that, I certainly didn’t say anyone did*

So why bring it up? You’ve just grabbed that out of thin air and it hasn’t even happened 🤦🏽‍♀️

1. The aggression and misogyny shown by many extreme trans activists has made women be very wary of them being in safe spaces
2. The male midwives and professionals have gone through training, been assessed and have a track record. There is also recourse if there is poor behaviour
3. The non acceptance of any man I think is driven by several factors. a) The high level of sexual misconduct by males in societyb) the realisation by many women over the last few months of the overall levels of misognyny in society and the desire to be free of it by having adult human female only spaces c) reaction to the hate of the trans cult. d) desire to hold onto the hard won protected right female sex only spaces

My point as I said was that, we are not accepting of transpeople in these spaces because men are ‘‘dangerous’ but statistically, you’re far more likely to get abused/groomed by a man in a position of trust than you are by a transgender in a toilet, so where is the line between stating all men as a threat and campaigning for regulations around who could be a threat?

Seriously, what? Are you saying we should open all spaces to being mixed sex then? Because, if the risk is higher elsewhere we should just open the doors? You’re making a pretty weak argument that doesn’t make a lot of sense at all.

there has been a number of posts almost bluntly saying ‘a man is a man, if you were born a man you can never access a woman’s space’ so to me, this comes accross as saying that even if you medically have gender dysphoria or have surgery or have lived as a woman for 50 years

But in some cases, that is true, even if you have GD and surgery, should you be able to compete against women in sport, even though your body still has 90% of the advantages that male bodies have over female bodies?

So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

Because Stonewall now places all transsexuals and transgenders and Autogynephiles and cross-dressers and self-IDing-rapist-paedophiles under one umbrella, and says we are no longer allowed to differentiate between them.

That wasn't GC women who did that, it wasn't the transsexuals who did that. It was Stonewall and men with dubious motives who used genuine transsexuals to get what they wanted, and ruined it for everyone in the process.

I was also fine with the old status quo. My sibling's best friend is MTF post-op trans and I watched the process she went through 10y ago to transition. I also worked with a similar individual. I am more than happy to call both she and use the bathroom with both. Both are comitted to living as women, neither have a functioning penis and both are respectful of the fact that they have not experienced female socialisation and dont have the biological realities of female biology to deal with. Neither claim to be better or superior to biological woman (though one does play conpetitive female sports to a high level, including inflicting some nasty injuries grrr).

These people have been quietly getting on with their lives for over 10 years. They don't cause me or other biological women any issues, that I am aware of. I know nothing about their sex lives or sexual proclivities, other than they both have relationships with gay men, because they dont talk or blog about it. This is very different from the newer (younger) breed of trans activists who seem to be sex and porn obsessed with a variety of fetishes between them who spend their time shoving it down your throat on social media and seem to have lost all sense of boundaries and, in at least one case, still have a penis, because they wave it about. I know not all men are like that, I know not all trans are like that, but once they have a legal right to womens spaces, how can you tell which you're encountering?