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

you’re not entitled to use woman’s spaces as it’s dangerous for women

That is one reason. I’m not sure what you find hard to understand about that. Again, most with a GRC retail genitals and of course other physical male characteristics which pose the same threat as any male.

Another reason that’s just as valid: women’s comfort. Everyone alive today is used to sex separated spaces. That’s what the majority are comfortable with. You cannot force women to suddenly be comfortable with male bodied people getting changed next to them. I’m not sure why that’s so fucking hard to comprehend?! Do you get dressed next to your brother? Dad? I don’t and I simply am not comfortable doing so with any man but my husband. It’s really odd to me to somehow make out that that is unusual or discriminatory, when it’s entirely reasonable and very common.

if you medically have gender dysphoria or have surgery or have lived as a woman for 50 years - you’re not entitled to use woman’s spaces as it’s dangerous for women.

How many fit that criteria? Also, how do I know that a transperson has being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, has medically transitioned and lived as a women for a number of years?

The person referred to in the other thread is a transman. GC feminists in general think transmen are confused woman, and hence have no objection to them using women's bathrooms. The responses might have been different if the OP had referred to a transwoman. That said, they do not seem to be as polarised as things are now.

I would however (saying this as a disabled person so it is relevant) perhaps support those who have sex dysphoria having access to disabled toilets - as I can see the understanding that such a mh condition is disabling. But not any old random person who calls themself trans.

but we don’t say that men can’t be in positions of trust? Such as teachers or doctors or gynachologists?

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

What has actually been said is, women should still get a choice of female doctors and should expect the doctor to actually be female.

I’ve never seen anyone on MN day they shouldn’t be teachers. That’s ridiculous.

I notice the thread you linked was in AIBU, it might have had different responses in FWR.

But I agree with Lang comments.

That’s one thread, 5 years ago. Many of us didn’t know most with a GRC kept their genitalia. Most women are socialised to be accommodating and often its only when a few brave voices start saying something that other women feel comfortable revealing what they actually think. There are many reasons there might be a change, if indeed there is one- it’s not enough just to use one thread as evidence of this shift in thinking at all, we’ve not had a consultation before.

Personally, I’ve never been ok with someone of the Male sex being in intimate spaces, taking women’s places in politics, being included in female crime statistics, being included in female sports.... but now there is a big effort to force this on us legally, I’m now speaking out in a way I didn’t before.

Personally, while I may have been "nice" quite far ago in the past, I've always found the idea of "living as the opposite sex for two years" to be ridiculously sexist. So even while being nice, I found it offensive that "woman" is not only used as a costume, but expected to be so by the hcps who dealt with it.

It's becoming a moral stand point about the politics of this 'identity' versus the biology as much as anything, regarding women's safe spaces, sport and lesbians. The fact that the majority of trans women have a penis has made people think more carefully about safeguarding, along with documented predatory behaviour. This shouldn't be representative of trans people as a whole at all but as will any safeguarding, the tiniest loophole is where it goes wrong.

On an individual level people don't feel threatened or are less likely to be, unless they have specific reason to be or are in a vulnerable position.

there is a trans rapist who now has a GRC after a court case. It is happening. Hope someone else can provide link

OP this statement by a group of transsexuals highlights the trajectory of this issue.

transsexualwomen1.blogspot.com

For me personally one of the biggest turning points (beyond the numerous examples of trans ideology be abused by individuals) was the discovery that Stonewall had been actively lobbying to remove sex as one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

Women and girls are true screwed if that goes, Stonewall know that but campaigned for it anyway.

1. most women didn't realise the full implications of the extremist transactivist agenda, or indeed that the extremist transactivist agenda was the one driving public policy change

2. the behaviour of extremist transactivism has been so aggressive and abusive it has managed to radicalise thousands of women, who are now robustly asserting their boundaries and understand that their previous compromises were a one way street

(Bold fail!)

*And now they want to increase the number of GRC holders from 3000 MtF to about 500,000, with their penises, male aggression and entitlement, and hatred of women who disagree with them all on display.

So, sorry, but my answer is now No. They pushed me too far.*

Yep. Exactly this.

We don't know in most cases, and never can know in real life.

I cannot know if the Male looking person coming in to the changing room has a GRC or not. I'm not allowed to ask them. It's a thought crime to wonder.

Gulags, that Stonewall umbrella has a lot to answer for.

When I make myself vulnerable in a confined, private space (toilets, changing rooms), i do so on the basis that i am almost certainly safe from attack. As soon as Male bodied people are free to access that space, then statistically my safety plummets. That isn't a feeling, it's a fact.

I was also fine with the old status quo.

Transactivism has changed beyond recognition. It no longer represents transsexuals with the medical diagnosis of dysmorphia. The groups that it now represents advocate policies that are in direct conflict with female safeguarding.

I stand with transsexual people but cannot support such campaigning. Many transsexual people don't support it either.

Because people have become more informed, and the language and situation have changed. My stance has shifted quite dramatically just over the last 3 months, for example.

Lisa Muggeridge sums it up nicely, e.g. in this video:

So why are a large proportion of MNers against someone who holds one, being able to access facilities of their desired sex?

I was happy to share with GRC-holding transwomen. I had assumed that meant they no longer had a penis, and that they were vulnerable males with gender dysphoria.

But now it's not allowed to be only those who have a GRC. It's every male who says he's female. Toilets, prisons, changing rooms and sports now go on the basis of self declared gender identity, not a GRC.

And now they want to increase the number of GRC holders from 3000 MtF to about 500,000, with their penises, male aggression and entitlement, and hatred of women who disagree with them all on display.

So, sorry, but my answer is now No. They pushed me too far.

Some facilities, when shared, effectively make them unavailable to women- shortlists, sports, awards, refuges.

When men muscle in on those facilities by 'becoming women', then they lose all credibility and I lose all patience.