MPs who believe ‘women have a penis’ will be named and shamed ahead of general election

There are several males in women's prisons in England, Wales and Scotland.

However I still don't understand that trans women would be taking anything away from cis women. Trans women aren't the ones perpetrating violence against cis women (as a statistical average - I know there are cases in existence), they aren't discriminating against cis women or in any way infringing on our rights as far as I can see.

Males as a group present a statistically far greater risk to women than the converse.

But leaving aside the risks of violence, women are entitled to privacy, dignity as well as safety.

If a woman who has been raped should request a female HCP/forensic examiner, do you think in that circumstance it's fine for a transwoman to treat her?

"Trans women aren't the ones perpetrating violence against cis women (as a statistical average - I know there are cases in existence), they aren't discriminating against cis women or in any way infringing on our rights as far as I can see."

I suggest you have a look at the % of males with trans identities in the UK prison (actually this has been shown to be the same in other countries as well).

Can you point us to what has convinced you that males with trans identities are not perpetuating violence against women?

Any evidence at all? Any evidence that you can find that a male with a trans identity has a lower risk than any other male in the UK population of committing a sex crime against a child or a female person?

No?

So, why do you believe this?

'many males' - there was one. There is zero evidence that there is a tidal wave of male prisoners waiting for some sort of change in the law (?) to re-assign themselves as female to then go into female prisons and assault the inmates. Our prison system has far bigger worries to contend with.

Also Lisa Nandy is an idiot. Just because one idiot says something idiotic doesn't mean we should hold back from engaging in how to protect a very tiny marginalised group in a way which doesn't hurt others.

All but a tiny tiny proportion of radical trans rights activists would agree that housing biologically male sex offenders alongside female prisoners would be a bad plan.

Trans people are actually one of the safest demographics in the UK.

It's entirely up to you what you choose to talk to your MP about, of course.

"More broadly and to my original point there are so many other things I'd rather talk to my MP about which would impact women."

Excellent. Go out and do just that.

This is a board specifically set aside for discussions about sex and gender and the impacts of prioritising male people's demands over female people's needs. If you don't want to discuss those issues, there is a completely separate feminist chat board where those discussions are not allowed.

That you cannot see the impacts is irrelevant to the reality that there are negative impacts. If you are genuinely interested, I suggest that you read the many many pages of threads on this board to help you understand the issues.

One male user in a rape crisis centre for women basically shuts the entire thing down. As Edinburgh Rape Crisis told their female users, "reframe your trauma".

One male in a women's changing room at the gym changes everything.

Even if you have no qualms about stripping off in front of a strange male, lots of women and girls do.

As a subgroup I would argue that trans people are far more discriminated against and subject to hostility and abuse than any other subsection of our society.

No, that would be women.

Can you make the same point without ‘cis women’

Many women find it offensive on mn

For ease, here are the single sex exemptions as allowed in the EQA2010 -

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Despite single sex rape crisis services being explicitly allowed in the legislation, the only rape crisis service in Edinburgh and the Lothians which offers any single sex rape crisis services is Beira's Place, which is solely funded by JKR. Any funding from the Scottish Government for such services is dependant on them being mixed sex. Even just one additional single sex group is not allowed.

And this is being replicated across the country.

It's very much a feminist issue.

Of course - I'm a woman, and a feminist.

However I still don't understand that trans women would be taking anything away from cis women. Trans women aren't the ones perpetrating violence against cis women (as a statistical average - I know there are cases in existence), they aren't discriminating against cis women or in any way infringing on our rights as far as I can see.

As a subgroup I would argue that trans people are far more discriminated against and subject to hostility and abuse than any other subsection of our society. And it's such a tiny number of people.

More broadly and to my original point there are so many other things I'd rather talk to my MP about which would impact women.

Then you really have not been listening.

Lisa Nandy declared very publicly that she would be happy for a male rapist to be housed in a female prison estate. She is not the only MP.

Many males with trans identities use the legal fiction of their changed identity documents to tell everyone that they are now 'female' and therefore access every space, every award or opportunity set aside for female people to assist female people to achieve their full potential in a world that still subjects female people to negative sexist discrimination, every group - social, professional or support. Those male people declare that they are fully female for all purposes. They are the ones influencing policy.

Have you not seen this? That they are absolutely arguing that they are female.

And of course, some women will self exclude from a space as soon as it is mixed sex.

So, one male can prevent many women from using a space. Consider some religious faiths forbid mixed-sex spaces, for example. Consider rape victims usually prefer a single-sex space, to put it mildly, in a survivor's support group. It only takes one male.

I'd suggest that the reverse may also have a detrimental affect on men. With the numbers of young women deciding they are trans, and assuming this is something they maintain into adulthood, at some point the data will show a remarkable reduction in prostate and testicular cancers in the male population. Clinics and specialist may no longer be required in such numbers. Research funds for medical treatments will be moved to other, more pressing, areas, such as early onset osteoporosis in this "male" population.

Oh, and "cis" isn't appreciated round here. Its "woman" and "man".

Because currently there is ambiguity about the legal standing of excluding males with the GRCs or intending to get GRCs from female single sex spaces. That is one of the major campaigns currently underway.

Because there is also significant issues around the medical treatment pathways for children and how our children are treated at school by well meaning teachers.

You seem focused on using scarcity as a reason to allow these issues to harm women and girls.

Can you please tell us how many women and girls would you consider to be an acceptable number to be negatively impacted by prioritising male people's gender identities over the needs of all female people to be protected against the impacts of negative sexist discrimination, injury and other concerns such as sexual assault or sexual abuse? Is there a number that you have in mind, considering we already have a long list of women and girls already adversely harmed?

God are people still using 'cis' 🤮.

Some try to pretend that 'mixed gender' maintains 'separate sex'.

That is an impossibility.

As soon as a male is in a female space, it's de facto mixed sex.

I'm not suggesting anything, just trying to understand what the concern is here. I have honestly never heard anyone, MP, Trans rights activist or anyone suggest removing the categories of male and female entirely. It would seem to me that it would be within the powers of the medical establishment to exclude non-cis women from medical literature.

BUT even if that was impossible (which it blatantly isn't, and I don't think anyone is suggesting it is) we're talking about a fraction of a percentage of women. Not enough to skew gender pay gap data or medical studies?

Single sex spaces are covered by the Equality Act.

Have you read it?

Do you understand that women are disadvantaged in society? Or are you here arguing that men are also victims of discrimination?

If you cannot define women and girls, female people, in law and policy to be a unique and separate group of human beings, how then do you create laws that protect all female people (of any gender or age).

"And classifying a trans-woman as female doesn't make any cis-women less women?"

How does classifying a male as a female improve the lives for female athletes? How do you suggest that protects the needs of women and girls to be safe and have fair competition?

How does classifying a male inmate as a female inmate and therefore admitting those male people into a female prison improve the lives at all for those female prison inmates? Particularly since a large % of those male people seeking admission into female prisons are sex offenders. Do you think this is acceptable?

How does classifying a male person as a female person and accepting that male into a female rape crisis centre group or a female refuge improve the lives of those female people who have suffered significant harm at the hands of other male people? Do you think that male inmates should be included in female only rape crisis centre groups and services and female refuges? If so, why?

Do you think it is acceptable that a male teen who identifies as a 'girl' should share sleeping accommodation and shower facilities with female teens at an away trip where they have to share sleeping & shower accommodation? If so, why?

Do you think it is acceptable that a male over the age of 8 years old is naked in a communal female changing space with girls or women? If so, why?

I suggest that yes, you are missing something.

Now I think you're the one being deliberately obtuse with the reference to sport and changing rooms :-)

Those things are not defined by our legislature. They are determined by culture. The 'sliding scale' argument could be used to say that in a society which permits alcohol everyone will end up smack addicts. We are living proof that you can permit some things (eg: addictive, harmful substances which can kill) but not others and people mostly respect that boundary.

I don't see that there is a huge groundswell of anyone other than a teeeeny tiny minority of campaigners who would advocate that all sport is mixed, or even that trans women be allowed to compete alongside cis women. I don't even see trans women in sport arguing they should be allowed to compete against women other than a few tiny little outliers.

Equally with changing rooms. There are so few trans women! And if one wanted to get changed in the ladies changing room at Zara at the same time with me that would probably be... just fine? Like I'm trying to think how often, living in London, a trans woman crosses my path and it would maybe be once a year tops. It's not like there is a swarm of invading blokes waiting rubbing their hands ready to come into our changing rooms?

Because if you include biological males in surveys, tests, facilities and research for women, the results are meaningless.

Gender pay gap? Disappears if you count males in there.

Differences in heart attack symptoms? Don't be silly, now we're counting males in the results for women, they're exactly the same.

Womens crime suddenly looks just like men's crime in terms of type, severity and ferocity.

Don't be stupid.

Genuine question though but again... why?

Protection against discrimination on gender should apply to anyone right? Like I have two sons and if they wanted to go into early years education I wouldn't wish for them to be discriminated against because of their gender?

Equally I wouldn't wish for anyone to be a victim of sexual or partner violence. Those laws don't need a different definition of women and men as both are victims and perpetrators. Far more women victims than perpetrators but I don't know you would need specific laws to recognize that per se. Getting to a place where no one is a victim or perpetrator of either is I think, a question for our society and culture rather than the law.

If we have a legal system which is totally gender blind, would that really make things worse? Obviously police and so on need to be trained on different issues arising with different groups (eg: male and female models for engaging in coercive control my differ) but that isn't just a male / female thing - it would include cultural sensitivity and many other things. That's just decent policing.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse I just don't get what we think is at threat?

A Skeletor and He-man double act on the website would be awesome, especially if they announce each politicians answer with 'by the power of grey skull' 😁