Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Help! Evidence required re correspondence with a Green

60 replies

midcenturylegs · 14/11/2019 20:17

He has stated "I do not agree with restricting toilets and changing rooms to biological females only. I have yet to encounter any tangible evidence of any harm caused by law abiding pre-operational trans women using female bathrooms. Enforcing a biological women only rule would be hugely intrusive for all women, causing real harm."

Can anyone please provide links etc. We are chatting via DM

OP posts:
CeridwenTheWitch · 14/11/2019 20:30

About how terrible unisex facilities are for women: www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

Original poster
midcenturylegs · 14/11/2019 20:29

And 3)

It is important to clarify that there is no law on pronouns. I would expect my staff to respect the pronouns of colleagues. Once again, I have yet to encounter any tangible evidence of how respecting someone’s pronoun causes harm to the person doing the respecting. In contrast, harm is caused to someone if their pronouns are not respected.

Could anyone please provide examples of where people have been chastised for not using pronouns etc

OP posts:
Oncewasblueandyellowtwo · 14/11/2019 20:28

My phone is shit op so can't search quick enough but check this site:
transcrimeuk.com/?s=Toilets+

GrinitchSpinach · 14/11/2019 20:28

First link I posted demonstrates the increased incidence of assault and voyeurism in mixed-sex facilities. Risks posed near 100% by male people.

Second link demonstrates longer term follow up of male people who have gone through transition, showing that they retain male-level population risks for crime.

YourOpinionIsNoted · 14/11/2019 20:26

Someone better will be along but surely he's in the "no true trans" argument? In which case any examples you give he'll dismiss as not really trans so don't count. In which case I'd be going with a) who is actually covered as trans by the stonewall umbrella, ie. fucking everybody, and b) how do the women in the changing room / toilets tell whether it's a 'law abiding pre-op transwoman' or a pervert/predator?

MIdgebabe · 14/11/2019 20:25

Currently people with the sex women are probably self excluding. That's repeating what happened in the past...which is another reason for the introduction of things like sex separated loos....to ensure all women (sex) could freely and fully participate in society

MIdgebabe · 14/11/2019 20:23

The problem obviously isn't with law abiding pre operative trans people.

It's a problem with none law abiding people who may or may not identify as or be trans. Their gender is not relevent. Their sex is .

Currently there is a simple system that separates female from male. Although it can be abused / ignored it's quite hard because people can accurately sex other people.

The reasons for the separation of the sexes are wide and varied but include respect and dignity for women who have been abused and reducing the incidence of sexual abuse

As to the later. Once you have unisex facilities ( which is what gender divided facilities are ) then there is loads of evidence of increased sexual abuse

Original poster
midcenturylegs · 14/11/2019 20:20
  1. on the question of other protected spaces he has said

"Rape crisis centres maintain the ability to turn away any abusive service users, to protect other service users. This behaviour-based approach effectively protects all service users without excluding people based on their identity – as demonstrated by a comprehensive 2018 report based on testimony of professionals in the sector: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/stonewallandnfpsynergy_report.pdff_"

I know there's lots of literature and proof at hand but I really want to floor this b4astard right now

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.