Restoring Sanity Takes Time - Helen Joyce

No female person previously was expected to share a single sex space with a male person. There is a very significant difference between 'feeling uncomfortable' with another female in the space versus a male being in the space.

Safeguarding is based on assessing the risk associated with the sex of the person in question. There is a valid reason for this. It is based on the risk of male people committing sexual offences.

Can you please link us to the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less risk of committing a sexual offence than any other male person in the UK?

Then, can you please link us to the evidence where a male at any stage of transition has less or the same risk of committing a sexual offence as any female person in the UK?

If you cannot, why can't you?

Honestly.

The fucking misogyny of it never ceases to amaze me.

"Women may not like men in their space when they're getting undressed, but unless there's actual harm, defined by me, then they have to fucking suck it up"

Such feminism.

@izimbra - I'm sure you can provide us with statistics of natal women convicted of voyeurism and flashing and comparable statistics of natal men convicted of voyeurism and flashing to back up that theoretical possibility.

Really?

You don't think women, who want a single sex space, being ignored, their consent being overridden, and their boundaries being violated is harmful?

Does any part of you, ever, think about the women in this scenario? You, who seem to have an opinion about feminism?

20% of women will be sexually assaulted or raped. When they are taking their clothes off, it's the work of a second for a man to intimidate them by his presence. He doesn't have to do fucking anything.

But guess what? What exactly do you think would be the characteristics of a man who went into a female space against the women's consent?

Overrode their objection and ignored their boundaries?

Do you think, for one tiny second that the women might not want that man removing his clothes, in their space, when they are at their most vulnerable and he knows it.

Are you male?

but a cisgender woman who was actually being a voyeur and a flasher in the same space wouldn't be?

A woman isn't going to be flashing her cock, is she?

@DadJoke you continue to confuse "attacking trans rights" with "defending (natal) women's rights".

We all have to share public spaces with people who make us uncomfortable in different ways. That isn't coercion and isn't harm, in any meaningful sense.

It is, because we are being told that our need for a single sex space when women are routinely disadvantaged and harassed by males is outweighed by a male's claimed "woman" identity. It's coercion, violation of boundaries and profound disrespect for women and girls.

Confused - do you mean that if a transwoman is using a women's changing space she's automatically guilty of being a 'voyeur' and 'flashing' by dint of being trans, but a cisgender woman who was actually being a voyeur and a flasher in the same space wouldn't be?

In every case in the BSA, women's support for transgender rights is highter than men's, and that's aside from the large poll which showed, of every group, it's lesbians who have the most postive attitude to transgender people. These were standard samples which reflect the number of transgender people in the population - so a tiny fraction.

You clearly didn't read what I said. I suggested that in every way but one left-wing feminists oppose their allies on feminist issues. Otherwise, I would have said literally the opposite of what I said below.

"The only thing left-wing gender critical feminists have in common with these groups is attacking trans rights, and that seems to trump every other feminist goal."

I see. So a woman being retraumatised finding a male in a space they believed was safe and only female is having their 'harm' dismissed and redefinied as 'them not liking it and not actually harmed'.

Women and girls who don't have confidence that their needs are being met will self excluded. This has been evidenced in the past. You have now declared that this too is not 'harming' them.

So, you have on one hand demanded evidence of harm, or 'hurt' so I also assume that means physical harm, from women. And absolutely no demand for evidence of harm of exclusion from any male who wishes to enter that they would suffer using either a unisex toilet or the male toilets.

You have prioritised a male person's feelings over female people's needs. This prioritisation is misogynist by the way.

They're following the wrong religions - old skool uncool ones rather than the new special religion.

We all have to share public spaces with people who make us uncomfortable in different ways. That isn't coercion and isn't harm, in any meaningful sense.

Apparently @ForCoralFox has no problem with the exclusion of Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women from spaces that can no longer be guaranteed to be single sex.

No it's not.

Because men who wanted to be women have always existed. But we didn't say they were actual women and that sex is irrelevant!

Rachel Dolezal benefited from accommodations that were reserved for black people, on the basis that they are discriminated against. Discriminated against by white people, people like her.

she was utilising the fact that she wasn't black, to benefit from racism!

in the same way that men are are taking awards meant for women. Designed for women in order to address the sexism that women face.

Look at the film awards. As soon as you take away the categories male and female, guess who wins? Clue, it's not women. That's sexism.

Look at sport. As soon as you allow men to play women's sport, women won't win. That's biological reality.

You seem to imagine that ignoring the sexes will eliminate sexism. It doesn't. It just hides it. Neither will it eliminate men's physical advantage.

And your friend? If they are not, to you your mind, inhabiting any female stereotypes, why do they think they are a woman?

What is your honest answer to that? And please don't say, you'll have to ask them. Using your entire imagination, what do you actually think could be the reason?

They don't have any female biology, and have not grown up with a female body, so it's not that they are identifying with.

So what is it?

Anti trans people talk about how feelings should not be prioritised

Ok, if feelings aren't being prioritised there are zero grounds for these males to be validated as "women" so we should just stop doing it.

Being used as a non consenting prop in someone else's fetish used to be considered a harm.

Last I looked, voyeurism and flashing were crimes. And for good reason. I assume you'd like to legalise them.

Your doctor is basically the only person who needs to know your biological sex, which forms part of the picture alongside a lot of other information, when providing healthcare.

No one is actually harmed by being in a changing room with a trans woman who is minding their own business.

"Trans women" are male, and there is psychological harm involved with coercive behaviours.

But this is absurd. We can't move forward from the fact that 100% of the physical risk of reproduction is carried by the female. It's great that medical advances have reduced the risk and some of the pain/discomfort, but it will never be eliminated and it will never fall on a male. I've had three pregnancies and two births and although I came out the other side basically unscathed and I'm very thankful for the healthcare I received, it was incredibly relevant to my life that I was the female in the couple. My male partner had a wildly different experience.

The female reproductive system will never be irrelevant to a woman's life, even if that woman never actually experiences pregnancy or childbirth herself.

@DadJoke talks about the causes of gender identity. Here's another brought about by self-ID.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/05/spanish-soldiers-change-gender-benefits-for-women/

Sorry don't know how to create an archive link but here is the beginning of the article.

Spanish soldiers and policemen are changing their gender in order to access benefits intended for women, an investigation has found.
Spain’s Left-wing governmentt_ introduced a self-ID law in 2022 that made it simple to transition formally, while at the same time boosting benefits for women in the military and security forces.
Since the change was introduced, 41 men have become women in the Spanish territory of Ceuta in North Africaa_. Only four of that number have changed their names.
According to a report in online newspaper El Español, the vast majority of the 37 newly registered women are employed by the military or the police.
‘On the inside I am a lesbian’
Roberto Perdigones, an army corporal who registered as female in the last year, now earns more money and lives in superior accommodation.
“On the outside I feel like a heterosexual man, but on the inside I am a lesbian. And it is the latter that counts. This is why I made the legal change to become a woman,” Corporal Perdigones, who continues to sport a beard, told El Español.
Sources close to Ceuta’s security forces said male officers are changing their legal gender in the hope of gaining promotions.
Advertisement

Corporal Perdigones said “positive discrimination” was an incentive for becoming a womann_.
“For changing my gender, I have been told that my pension has gone upp_ because women get more to compensate for inequality. I also get 15 per cent more salary for being a mother,” he said.
The corporal explained that he was planning to sue for shared custody of his 16-year-old son because he thought his new gender status will give him a better chance in the courts.

No one is actually harmed by being in a changing room with a trans woman who is minding their own business. They may not like it, but they are not actually harmed, unless we have radically redefined what 'harm' means. Anti trans people talk about how feelings should not be prioritised, yet claim that harm is being made to feel uncomfortable, rather than actually hurt in any way.

And how do you see female people having their sex category removed moving forward with reducing this mortality rate?

Please give us some specific examples how you see this being done using your objective of removing the sex definition of female people.

Having a different view on feminism

Denying that sex is ever relevant to feminism is certainly a "different view". However ridiculous many modern "women's" organisations are, could you let me know where you got this idea from that it is the "purpose of feminism to bring an end to people being defined by their sex"? Genuinely interested whether it's a particular thinker or just something you came up with.

@ForCoralFox - do you understand that a black person might have a different view of that?