Please help me with links for local FB knobhead

That will be his mother, his sisters, his wife, his daughters and his aunts then won’t it?

There’s was a list going round on twitter five yrs ago or so, probably still is or is easy to find through fair play for women or similar, that states the number of attacks on women and girls from (just) transwomen and I’m sure those from all men also, from after the changes to laws in the US.

Toilets are not just about attacks though. It’s Muslim women who can no longer go out because they need private spaces to change, it’s older women’s dignity who feel uncomfortable with men in their space, it’s young girls starting their periods made to feel uncomfortable with having a teenage boy in the next cubicle listen to her change a pad, or having to wash blood off her hands in front of boys. (Of course these things effect all women but these points tend to hit home more than us ‘normal’ women feeling uncomfortable about this).

"Pee faster"??
And yet these same people have endless sympathy for a group that includes men who dress up as women because it gives them a stiffy.
It's a strange hierarchy of sympathy.

I would also add that in every country in the world that doesn't yet have separate toilet provision for female people, they are raped and murdered when they do go to pee precisely because men the world over know w are uniquely vulnerable at this moment.

That is why separate toilets for men and women are recognised as one of the most important measures to keep women safe and to enable them to fully participate in society by international human rights organisations. In other words, you either believe that women are fully realised human beings with the right to equal participation in public life or you do not. If you do, you accept that they have different needs from men which must be accommodated. I mean how small-minded of these Facebook dudes to deny women such an important means of social inclusion when it hasn't cost them anything at all until now anyway to stay out of our toilets.

Not a ridiculous distraction. Blokes showing their complete ignorance of women's lives.

It's a basic biological function and because of our biology women are more vulnerable than men as we have to undress to pee, unlike them. We take about three to four times longer than them just to pee and cannot easily defend ourselves when attacked due to having to partially undress.

But that is not all we do - one in four of us are menstruating at any one time, dealing with that takes even longer.

250,000 women in the UK miscarry every year, the vast majority of miscarriages involve a toilet at some point, more often than not these are public toilets. This is distressing enough without having to be expected to deal with the loss of our privacy in front of the opposite sex at such a time.

We also have caring responsibilities which means we spend even longer in the toilets than men because we have to help those we care for in managing to go to the toilet or having to actually take them, undress them, clean them up and dress them again. If nappies or adult diapers are involved it takes us longer still.

Should these particularly vulnerable people, that is small children, the disabled and the elderly also "just pee faster" for the comfort of men?

And why are women expected to accept to at best feel uncomfortable and at worst be put at risk for something that isn't our problem? The much fairer solution would be for men to stop making men who do not fit in the manbox feel uncomfortable in men's toilets.

Turn it round.

Suggest that if they as men stood up and defended transwomen then the TW wouldn't be terrified of using a gender neutral gents. What are they doing to make the men's gender safe?

You're trying to convince them of facts. And they probably don't not believe them, it's just, ultimately, they do not care.

Pee faster?
Well there we have it. What a load of scrotes.

Perfect response!

I am so fed up with men assuming women only have reason to fear assault and rape, and anything short of that is fine.

Men are capable of pretending ignorance of ‘the male gaze’, while simultaneously ogling women’s bodies.

I do not want any male looking me over in any changing room, or even women’s toilet, even if they never touch me. We still have a human right to privacy and dignity, even as most men feign ignorance of these concepts.

Boundaries aren’t bigotry.

Bloody brilliant point, User. That's it at its most fundamental: social conventions.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-49113620 or maybe
www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/voyeur-caught-filming-woman-tried-3593969?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar or what about
www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/brian-melucci-north-shields-tesco-16427055?fbclid=IwAR2O8WtuqiNbW4lYjLKQk1Lq9x8z2ppIfttMWezOnEqytxqbLvp1Ze9o0IQ or lets ask this seven year old how she feels about it?
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-13/anthony-sampieri-pleads-guilty-to-raping-seven-year-old-girl/11205884

That took me 30 seconds to find.

I very much like children using hostility. The children know they have boundaries

Great post user. Exactly

Will a female sign on the door stop a predator? of course the piece of paper itself doesn't stop a predator. What it does is to make the social expectation clear. That means that any man entering anyway is clearly breaching that expectation, is suspect and can be objected to.

For example, when my son's class go swimming at the local pool a paper sign is put up on the communal changing rooms saying 'children changing do not enter' so anyone else using the other part of the pool uses the general cubicles. Of course the paper sign doesn't magically stop paedophiles coming in but if a random adult were to come in (none have tried) there would be immediate alarm and the children would react with hostility and get a teacher/attendant who would deal with the situation. It's not the paper itself, it is what it signifies and the action that results from its breach.

This policy that is being pushed is to remove the meaning of the female sign, meaning that it loses the power to signify anything. Once you have done that then the social convention breaks down and women lose the power to object.

That's an extremely good question, Theinebriati, which should be asked more.

Women fought for our spaces, away from men, for many reasons - privacy and dignity among them.

Why are we suddenly expected to allow males into them, because of their internal feeling of gender identity?

One argument the Libdems have thrown at us is that transwomen have used women's spaces for decades - it's so misleading. Some of the old-style transexuals may have - especially if they passed - but they are a very small number compared to the people counted under the (Stonewall) trans umbrella now.

This trans umbrella is a very new thing, and a whole new kettle of fish. Should any man who says he identifies as a woman gan access to our spaces?

Fact is - whilst ibdems are looking out for an 'oppressed minority" (I dispute that actually) - they're not looking out for women - whose oppression is recognised and written into law, under the Equality Act. None of this is good for women. How can it be? - our rights are being made available to born males - and so diluted or removed from us. I'd be tempted to ask "what's in it for women?" And I bet I'd be told to be kind.

Why does it have the reach the point of assault before it becomes reasonable to us to object?

OP
Scroll to the bottom of this site and you will find numerous examples:

www.peaktrans.org/sex-segregated-spaces/

What's a predator?

Could it be a guy with a cross dressing fetish who uses the toilet but accidentally doesn't lock it?

I reckon a female sign stops that one.

Almost 90% much, it seems.

Perhaps because men in women's facilities raise alarm, and are out of place - whereas in unisex, they do/are not.

No, but it will make it easier to spot and challenge one

It generally does, according to research. Regina.

Will a female sign on the door stop a predator?