To wonder why an MP is lying about womens bathrooms?

I'm not campaigning for anything.* I'm saying MPs shouldn't spread misinformation.*

Sure you are. And instead of looking widely at this very broad issue, you just happened to pick a single, very specific example on a very specific topic, on which to base your disingenuous saccharine-coated misogynist rant.

Has Robin ever answered the question as to whether they think women should have the right to female sex only spaces or not? If they believe there should only be mixed sex prisons,refuges, shelters, why don't they just come out and say that the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act should be removed?

I don’t know. But I sure would like Robin to answer whether when a mixed sex toilet provision is made and a clearly signed ‘female single sex toilet’ is available for the females, whether they think a transitioned male would disrespect the needs of those females by entering into that toilet.

If they respect it, what policing other than what we had for the past century would be needed?

It almost seems like these extremist activists cannot see how transphobic that argument they make about policing really is. It is almost like they cannot see how insisting on having to police toilets if properly signed and other provision made for mixed sex reflects on them and their community.

Well they wouldn't need policing if biological males stayed the fuck out of them, would they?

This is the heart of the matter, that many male people have no respect for the boundaries of women and girls. Decent male people do, but sadly there are many who aren't.

Has Robin ever answered the question as to whether they think women should have the right to female sex only spaces or not? If they believe there should only be mixed sex prisons,refuges, shelters, why don't they just come out and say that the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act should be removed?

I mean, we are constantly told males who identify themselves as not male are not denying their body’s sexed material reality.

By the way, I mean this to reflect the many gender identities they might have. Because ‘woman’ we are told is not the only gender identity a male might identify as.

And again, as there are so many other gender identities, we should stick to toilets being for sexed bodies and not reflective of gender at all.

Otherwise, a cat gender person would surely use a litter tray or the park or garden.

So, if toilets are clearly signed in the future that the female toilets are only for females, then any male who has used the toilets in past will respect that decision then?

I mean, we are constantly told males who identify themselves as not male are not denying their body’s sexed material reality.

If mixed sex toilets are available, and a sign placed stating ‘female single sex toilets’, there will be no males accessing those toilets. Males will fully respect the sign? Any male, however they identify, that enters that space will be doing so with ill intent and can be removed by security or reported to the police.

All good?

Or are we going to have transitioned male posters tell us that our female single sex spaces and our need for them are not worthy of respect and they will use them regardless. Even though they are carefully signposted and mixed sex provision has also been provided.

Surely ‘policing’ from disrespectful males won’t be needed because transitioned males will respect the needs of others and simply not use those facilities.

Surely it would be transphobic for any poster to suggest those transitioned males would be so disrespectful, and to then need policing?

As always I note which threads our visitors turn up on & which they don’t….

Well they wouldn't need policing if biological males stayed the fuck out of them, would they?

Pretty brave if you ask me, if a little reckless, as no telling what the male may do to anyone objecting. That's why most women wouldn't say anything, just get out sharpish.

If you lot could only see how profoundly irrelevant you are to most people

And if you actually believed that you wouldn't be investing so much time and energy here, would you?

137 - 137! - posts from the OP would seem to indicate they’re investing a lot of time and energy into something apparently irrelevant, wouldn’t it?

If you lot could only see how profoundly irrelevant you are to most people

And if you actually believed that you wouldn't be investing so much time and energy here, would you?

If you lot could only see how profoundly irrelevant you are to most people who do not spend their time obsessing about toilets, you might stop imagining that anyone will care about your little boycott

The hilarious thing about this gem of a comment is that if ‘us lot’ were actually as ‘irrelevant’ as this poster likes to think, they’d be saying ‘go for it! Boycott to your hearts content.’

The thing is, these couple of sentences actually reflect the underlying issues well.

As pp have said, this poster has invested two days of hatred into this thread. And has used many manipulative tactics that simply show that if they actually thought deeply about it, they know what they are advocating for is simply not supported by the majority of the UK population.

Not out of hatred or phobia, simply because the majority of women, those with a female sexed body, have their own valid reasons for not wanting to use mixed sex toilets. They might use them because there are no options, but they prefer female single sex toilets. Men too seem to prefer their own single sex toilets.

The ‘profoundly irrelevant’ is all projection. The extreme activists realise that outside of their group, the wider population want to be kind where possible but don’t support these activists claims that gender is prioritised over sex where sex matters.

That must be hard to accept. That they as a group are the ones that are ‘profoundly irrelevant’ in many ways despite their lobby power that they gained when Stonewall got on board. Look at what has happened in a few short years really since Stonewall changed their focus. Organisations are dropping out. Because there has been a very real over reach and the public are not supportive of those over reaching claims.

If we were ‘profoundly irrelevant’ this OP would have simply laughed and produced evidence links to prove that they had all this public support behind them.

They haven’t, because they won’t find them. Over 80%, maybe even 90% of transitioned males retain their penises. And many still have full use of them. As evidenced by the porn sector that is growing, of some of these males masturbating in female toilets. (Want evidence, go and Google it yourself, the links we post get deleted… because activist posters don’t seem to want those known about maybe)

And as additional evidence their penises work , the rather large number of these transitioned males with pictures of their masturbatory efforts on twitter. (Be aware readers if you are on twitter, be very careful just which profiles you click on to see their profile and timeline. Even some of the political party affiliates!)

It is consistent. As soon as the respondents in public and properly randomized surveys are asked about allowing males into toilets and changing room with penises, the numbers are no longer supported. I believe that even OP has that boundary, although I might have misread that post.

Yet.

That poster is here deriding, dismissing, derogating women stating their boundaries. They have now stepped up to demonising and monstering.

Why? Who benefits from this?

It was long established on this thread that OP spun the twitter outraged interpretation on those tweets to their first posts. They were declaring misinformation was being spread, hypocritically while misrepresenting the tweet and thus spreading misinformation.

This tweet:

“I was at the Barbican yesterday where there were male toilets, disabled toilets, and gender neutral toilets. I asked where were the female toilets as I am not gender neutral I am a woman and they laughed in my face. Women are being erased.”

No. We are not ‘profoundly irrelevant’. We are but the tip of the iceberg of people who wish to retain female single sex spaces. The very depths of the iceberg is beginning to show now and extreme activists, like OP, are realising they have to use dishonest tactics to try to chip that iceberg down in size. Because they realise the general population have only ever been supportive on the surface but are now realising the implications of that support.

The conversion of toilets and changing rooms into mixed sex. And as several people have confirmed on this very thread the marginalisation in some facilities of female single sex provision if they are still even provided. Marginalised by being hard to find for some users, and maybe too hard to get to.

And yet, so much hate being delivered here on this thread for people who simply refuse to toe the line trying to be dictated by lobby groups and heavily invested self-identified media influencers.

Women saying no truly seems to infuriate some people, doesn’t it?

I know which of us will have done more for women.

Come to work with me for a day.

Come see the carnage gender ideology has wreaked upon the funding for rape crisis centres.

Come see the number of funding streams we can no longer access because we do not include men in our women's centres.

Come see how much of our remaining funding we already share with centres that do cater for men - that still isn't enough because we don't allow men inside our specific centres.

Come see how many men it takes to cause the 40% drop in funding for a local crisis centre and refuge (hint: None. We haven't had a complaint, we send all men to relevant spces, we even give them a lift). We just can't tick the box on the funding applications that says we include men in our female refuge.

THEN talk to me about who is doing what for women.

Until then TRY LISTENING!

If you lot could only see how profoundly irrelevant you are to most people who do not spend their time obsessing about toilets, you might stop imagining that anyone will care about your little boycott.

Says the person who is so obsessed by toilets they started a thread about them and has spent 2 whole days arguing with all and sundry about them.

You need to get a hobby.

Oops.

Why in the hell does she thinks that usher gives a crap why she won't use the gender neutral toilet

Oddly the last time I was at Union Chapel the usher I asked where the loos were said, without any prompting- "there's loos over there, but you won't want them, they're gender neutral. The ladies are there"

Sazzasez
That’s grim. Have you complained?

My local Arts Centre has 3 loos on the ground floor: men, wheelchair access, (single cubicle) and “all genders”.

There’s also a men’s loo on the lower floor, which is the level at which you can exit the auditorium.

There IS a women’s loo. To get there you climb up 2 flights on a long steep narrow stair, enter a corridor which never seems to be lit except by a fire escape sign, and it’s there.

I used to use it but my knees are not really up to it now.

So last time I was there the “all genders” loo (2 cubicles) had piss on both seats & the floor, and the sanitary towel machine had been ransacked & soggy towels strewn about the place.

It’s disgusting & the provision is completely inadequate.

Eloise Stonborough works for Stonewall and her linked-in states "LGBTQ+ rights advocate with specialist expertise in contemporary trans rights and the global anti-gender movement." She has a very clear agenda which is in conflict with women's rights.

As the OP feels all Tories lie, I feel similarly about Stonewall representatives. After all they were actively campaigning to remove all single-sex exemptions from the Equality Act and then lied about it. So why should any woman trust anything a Stonewall representative says? They're proven liars after all.

Waitwhat23

Hang on wait. We are not the feminists according to this OP.

Only the OP knows who should be included in feminism. Because it sure as fuck does not seem to be women centring females in the OP’s world. It seems anything but. It seems like they pay lip service to including all females, but when the questions are asked….. it is just more disparagement. (Yes , OP I know the meaning of this word too! It works along with derogation!)

So … OPs feminism doesn’t include all the groups of female humans. Just the chosen ones that seem to match their political agenda.

Same old, same old.

This is what is so grimly amusing about 'intersectional' feminism.

'You're not an actual feminist unless you include all females! Including males!'

'You're excluding religious women'

'Oh well, (cough) erm well, they shouldn't be religious!'

'You're excluding disabled women'

'Oooh, strawman, strawman! They can just get the lift, amirite!'

It's amazing how much all this inclusiveness excludes women.

You keep railing against someone having to walk up or down half a flight of stairs to get to a womens bathroom.
How does someone know to walk up or down stairs if staff on more than one occasion have failed to give directions when asked?

I've always found the Barbican unfriendly in all sorts of ways. I feel sorry for female staff who work late and have to find their way to public transport in the dark when the audience have gone home. I haven't been there for years and will continue to avoid it if it has no female facilities. Lots of venues are much nicer.

Ummm - the Barbican has lifts.

No one is asking people with mobility issues to walk up several flights of stairs.

FFS - looks like there's no straw man you guys won't cling on to.

Try getting to the lift from the auditorium and then to accessible loos in a busy interval, or in the stampede at the end of a performance
Just admit it, you don’t give a shiny s**t about disabled people either, do you? They’re being terribly inconvenient, getting in the way of your monomania.