Transwomen v. deceptive men are a threat

I think that is the threat. I don't for one second believe Isla Bryson is a transwoman. To me the threat is men pretending to be trans, not actual transwomen.

Brk said: And the only thing I know about a transwoman other than their superior strength is that they have body dysphoria, which is a mental health issue.

Many men who identify as transwomen don't have "body dysphoria" - they're quite happy to retain their male bodies intact. These are heterosexual cross-dressing fetishists who have upgraded to transgender status now that they can benefit from the "be kind" enforcers, which means they can also indulge their fetish in public, rather than the privacy of their bedrooms.

Some of these men freely admit that it sexually excites them to present as women in women's toilets and changing rooms etc. In the topsy-turvy world of trans ideology, the very worst men to have intruding into women's spaces - those that do it for sexual kicks - can now claim this motive actually "entitles them" to be there.

Excellent post.

The vast majority of transwomen excluded are honourable and lovely people.

I don't recall anyone ever citing any research that would support such a claim, so I suspect that there is a PhD going begging.

Or do you mean, "I would like to think that . . . etc."

The vast majority of transwomen excluded are honourable and lovely people.

And any transwoman who is genuinely honourable & lovely will recognise that they should not be encroaching on women’s spaces, and won’t do it.

This is about safeguarding not about transwomen. We have safeguarding in place for vulnerable adults (which includes women) and children not because we believe that all teachers or sports coaches or vicars or care workers (or transwomen) are abusers etc but to minimise the risk that someone with the intention to harm can have access to vulnerable groups.

There is no Teachers Rights Group complaining that not allowing male teachers into girls changing rooms is labelling all male teachers as predatory.

This is about protecting women and girls and if that means a tiny minority of people don’t get free reign to over ride over safeguarding policies (many of which only appeared after awful scandals) then so be it!

All men claiming to be women are being deceptive, some are also deceiving themselves. What you've got is either a man claiming to be a woman or a man claiming to be claiming to be a woman. Both are men stepping over women's boundaries, both are unwelcome in women's spaces.

What other not true things might such a person try to pressure you to pretend?

that doesn’t really hurt?
I enjoy it when you behave that way?
I’m really happy with the relationship we have?

some who is trying to force you to pretend something that isn’t true (say, ‘I perceive you as a woman even though you’re a man’) is by definition being controlling and pushing your boundaries

they are not a reliable person

Males can be gender dysphoric. Males can be sexually abusive.
Males can be gender dysphoric and sexually abusive.

Being “genuine trans” does not lessen the likelihood of being sexually abusive. I’ll be generous and leave it there.

You do have to wonder how they expect GC people to make any sense of this distinction.

Perhaps it's: "Men really pretending to be women, vs. Men pretending to be men pretending to be women."

Either way, all these nonsensical problems can be avoided by identifying people by their sex, and ensuring that women can retain safe single-sex spaces.

IMO the entire threat/security discussion is a convenient red herring brought up by TRAs. Reduce the problem down to merely being about security, then argue it's not fair to make general rules based on a few bad apples. When in fact problems are of a much more general nature and women have the right to basic privacy in certain types of spaces, in particular where communal nudity is involved (changing rooms/showers/saunas.)

The problem with TW/TM etc is that they are obsessed with gender, sex and themselves. To them it is inconceivable that people are just not interested and can really do with a break at getting this ideology & pronoun rules shoved in their faces.

But at the end of the day they are pretending to be someone they are not &, like the tale of the scorpion & the frog, men will be men, it is in their nature. No matter how good the wig, thick the makeup and frilly the dress.

Women's rights can't exist without the right to enforce our boundaries.

All trans, whether ‘men’ or ‘women’ are frauds. If by dress or behaviour they attempt to deceive and/or gain an advantage.
Which they do.

@PurpleBugz as a middle-aged Lesbian I've met quite a few transwomen (men).
I can tell you whether they were straight (m-f) or gay (m-m) they all acted like entitled men.

I can tell you the true trans I met, who loudly announced to my Lesbian social group "I got my penis cut off, yay!" Was a horrible male sexist creep.

Cutting your penis off changes nothing.
Do you think Alan, Sarah-Jane Barker is
lovely and kind?

Men pose the threat. To the safety, privacy and dignity of women in changing rooms, public toilets, hospital wards, prisons, etc. And to fairness in women's sport.

It's men that pose the threat.

The whole 'but surely those lovely TW are very rarely a threat' argument is for the hard-of-thinking. It's about men, however they are dressed, however they identify... because no one can tell a predator in a dress from a 'genuine' TW. It's pretty damn obvious.

The concept of "fraudulence"/"deceptiveness" is a red herring.

There's no externally verifiable way to define what it "feels like" to be a woman and no way to verify whether what any particular person feels about themselves is "correct" even if such a definition could exist.

Whether or not a specific individual meets such a definition, if it could exist, could only be based on what they say and do, and that may or may not be honest but whether or not it is is irrelevant.

When men are excluded from something it is not because all men are dangerous or predatory or whatever. The vast majority of men excluded are honourable and lovely people. The vast majority of transwomen excluded are honourable and lovely people. The exclusion isn't a judgement of whether they are honourable and lovely, or whether they have lied about their feelings, or whether those feelings are correctly "feminine" whatever that means. The only externally verifiable fact is whether or not they are male (and that is not affected by dress, or hormone treatments, or surgery)

If there's a legitimate reason for something to be single-sex then whatever that reason is applies to all males regardless of gender identity and regardless of whether their professed belief in themselves as feminine is honest. But the point is that those transwomen excluded are no more being insulted/demeaned or under-suspicion than any of the perfectly lovely male-identifying men who are also excluded.

Theoretically a predator might have just as "honest"/"genuine" feelings about their gender as a perfectly lovely non-predatory transwoman. Their honesty/genuineness is not a useful measure of whether they are a threat even if it could be measured. Their exclusion is not therefore a judgement on their honesty/genuineness.

It's not just about safety. It's about privacy and dignity too.

Whilst I would feel 'safe' sharing a changing room with, for example, my friend's husband or my father in law, I still wouldn't want to share that space for reasons of privacy and dignity.

That's why Starmer's promise of 'safe spaces' is not good enough. It has to be single sex spaces.

Even with the so-called "genuine transwomen", the fact that most of them insist on access to spaces they know are intended to be female-only, despite being well aware that many women are uncomfortable with this to say the least, is already an indicator of dubious intention. It's a violation of boundaries if nothing else.

Becoming a modern type of eunuch isn't the same as actually being a woman. It's very unreasonable to expect all women to accept this as somehow being equivalent.

What @Sh4rkAttack said.

It’s unhelpful to talk about “genuine transwomen” as if some people are born with an innate desire to wear skirts and make up, and others are born with a desire for trousers and no make up 🤔 and it’s insulting to all that women go through, to define us by how we dress.

Also, if I find myself in a small enclosed space without witnesses, and a woman is there, I do not feel unsafe. I know that if she attacked me, we are physically equal enough that I’d have a good chance at getting away.

If however I’m in that situation with a transwoman, I do feel unsafe. If we had a physical fight, I’d have zero chance at defending myself enough to escape. A transwoman can easily physically overpower me or impregnate me; a biological woman cannot. And the only thing I know about a transwoman other than their superior strength is that they have body dysphoria, which is a mental health issue. Do I feel safe being confined alone with someone when the only two things I know about them are that they are much stronger than me and have mental health issues? No, I do not.

By that mad bit of logic, Karen White and Isla Bryson and Katie Dolotowski and many, many others, are not 'real' transwomen.

Are they going to be stopped from 'doing it' then?

Are you going to not be allowed a GRC or to self ID if you have a record of sexual assault on women? Stripped of your GRC post offence? Stripped of the right to use women's spaces?

When Karen's out on parole (I think Katie is now) who is following them around to make sure they don't go into to a women's space? And who makes them stop, with what consequences?

And the ones who wank in the toilet cubicles and take videos to put on social media because being in a room with women with their knickers down peeing is such a thrill, or the ones who stuff your just used tampon up their bum, or wave swords around in toilets, or take selfies of self in toilet WITH WOMEN.... you know, the ones using women as props, often in sexual experiences? Is that ok? Do they have to have a full conviction before we say they're not TW or do we worry about the fact that this a bloody awful way to encourage men to treat women at any earlier point? Basically what's the body count/degree of injury and harm needed before it's no longer ok for a man to use a non consenting woman?

It's batshit. It cannot be done. And the phrase deceptive men is a very unfortunate choice of words for his argument there.

I get what you mean OP but my hard line after years of following this issue is no man, regardless of appearance or intent, in women-only spaces. (I think that's a Sall Grover line originally).

This. It has to be a blanket no. Single-sex spaces, your sex determined by your chromosomes.