Government says it is too complex to make changes to the GRA to include non binary

In fact, we know from other surveys that most women think a "transgender woman" is a "post-op transsexual".

We know from this one, as when they were specifically asked about non op, they mostly said no.

Once again the conflation of transgender and transsexual.

The assumption by you is that people answered the YouGov survey positively based on them interpreting "transgender women" as post surgery. That's borne out in their different, negative answers when they were specifically asked about males who had not had surgery.

In fact, we know from other surveys that most women think a "transgender woman" is a "post-op transsexual".

And the solution therefore is to push transexuals back into male spaces, and ignore the repercussions?

The repercussions for women were ignored.

The Equality Act allows for legal exclusion. We are all entitled to discuss those boundaries.

Surgery is a massive diversion when identity is invoked as taking precedence. Until identity is taken off the table 100 percent push back is inevitable.

Once again the conflation of transgender and transsexual.

They are not the same thing.

They are to me, when it comes to males in my spaces I don't make any distinction.

So it is a significant number of women that believe allowing MTF trans people to use female facilities puts them at risk. Another 26% are undecided, with 46% thinking they do not. So that is 54% of women who have reservations on the grounds of safety about allowing MTF trans people to use female facilities. There are also other reasons to prefer female only spaces than fear of sexual assault by males. Privacy and dignity.

Once again the conflation of transgender and transsexual.

They are not the same thing.

There's a difference between consent, consensus and policies forced onto women.

Your perceived or real entitlement to be in women's spaces and opportunities, is not based on consent.

Here is what YouGov say:

"Women tend to reject the argument that allowing transgender women to use female facilities puts them at risk. By 46% to 28% women say that doing so does not present any genuine risk of harm."

So it is a significant number of women that believe allowing MTF trans people to use female facilities puts them at risk. Another 26% are undecided, with 46% thinking they do not. So that is 54% of women who have reservations on the grounds of safety about allowing MTF trans people to use female facilities. There are also other reasons to prefer female only spaces than fear of sexual assault by males. Privacy and dignity.

There are about 34 million women and girls in the U.K.

The ones who don't mind sharing are welcome to share mixed sex spaces with males. What they cannot do is give single-sex provision to males, because that is there for the female people who do not consent to sharing.

Please engage with the points people have made when people have taken the trouble to explain why they disagree. You just keep repeating that some women consent. So? I do not. Many women on this thread, do not. Millions of women do not.

Please re-read what I said.

I understand perfectly well what you said, thanks.

All the arguments you are making apply equally to the Stonewall gang.

What is according to EHRC?

It's not "one person"confused, how dismissive and arrogant.

Must we resort to name calling?

Please re-read what I said.

I said "the notion that".

And no, it isnt a third of women according to EHRC.

You think that a female person who doesn't mind should be able to end that single-sex provision for the whole class of females, because that particular female doesn't mind a particular male. Even when other females, for whom that provision is for, do mind.

Exactly. It's not a reasonable expectation.

I simply disagree with the notion that the second one person says no that becomes a no for everyone within that class.

But that’s how single sex spaces work - or should do. They’re to protect females as a class from males as a class.

And there will always be arguments made for exceptions, always attempts to erode our boundaries. We know that.

Fionne Orlander’s tweeted about using men’s toilets with no problem.

You didnt consent to Stonewall. Neither did I.

Great, but that wasn't the point.

I simply disagree with the notion that the second one person says no that becomes a no for everyone within that class.

It's not "one person", how dismissive and arrogant. It's about a third of all women who strongly object and also the ones who haven't given their consent because they don't know what they think, or didn't understand the question. That's literally millions of women.

So yes, it's a no.

There is already a rule of "No" in place, because it is a single-sex space/service/sport.

You think that a female person who doesn't mind should be able to end that single-sex provision for the whole class of females, because that particular female doesn't mind a particular male. Even when other females, for whom that provision is for, do mind.

BlueLipstick, I'm sure there are plenty of post-op transsexuals who are fine with those transitioners without a grc using women's facilities.

Plenty of women and post-op transsexuals are okay with transgender people in women's sports.

Who gets to draw the line?

Which is exactly what the likes of Stonewall say, about all people under the trans umbrella having access. It's not hard to see why women like us are very weary of being told what we do and don't consent to, surely?

Stonewall do not speak for me. They never have. I'm a victim of Stonewall as much as anyone else. I am almightily pissed at the way Stonewall have hijacked transsexualism to cater for a very different agenda.

You didnt consent to Stonewall. Neither did I.

You are saying "some women don't mind, so I should be able to do it to all women even if they don't want it".

Which is exactly what the likes of Stonewall say, about all people under the trans umbrella having access. It's not hard to see why women like us are very weary of being told what we do and don't consent to, surely?

*Well, you're demonstrating here that you don't.

You are saying "some women don't mind, so I should be able to do it to all women even if they don't want it".

Which is a very clear demonstration that you think women's consent is optional.*

I am doing no such thing.

I simply disagree with the notion that the second one person says no that becomes a no for everyone within that class.

You are saying "some women don't mind, so I should be able to do it to all women even if they don't want it".

Which is a very clear demonstration that you think women's consent is optional.

Lots of women wouldn't mind sharing with a male who was 10.

Lots of women wouldn't mind sharing with a male who happily married and would never hurt a fly.

Lots of individual males are lovely and safe and wouldn't do any harm to a woman. We don't let them in though. We do do exclusion of males on the basis of an individual male's particular characteristics, it's a blanket rule for all males. The nice harmless ones get kept away too.

It isnt the majority.

I would not be counting on that. If I was a group in this situation, I would be actually making very strong campaign moves right now.

If you have not noticed, the more this topic gets discussed between women, the more the past prevalence to accept any male into the female toilets is disappearing. Because they realise that they were never asked and are actually uncomfortable with it. Particularly in this porn era.