Emma Barnett and Gillian Keegan.

Datun.
That's a very good and full answer. Thank you. I still ask, if nobody is aware that a transwoman is in the toilet, then how will anybody be upset?

I assume you will say something like, the mere fear of it. And that makes sense.

Whether it is believed by people here or not, I know for a fact (and no I am not going to present evidence), that there are undetectable (for want of a better word) trans women using female toilets, and nobody else in them at the time, has been aware of it and hence not upset at all.

So it seems to me that to stop that, all trans gender people should all be made easily identifiable, and also making transgender transition illegal, would solve the problem in the longer term.

2020? Keegan has always been a TWAW believer. As recently as 2023 she, as Secretary of State for Education claimed the there was no need for a legal definition of of "girl".🤯

I was shocked by her appointment to Education by PM Sunak in 2022 who at that stage had said he knew what a woman is.🙄

No one has suggested that being transgender should be illegal. Why should they?

I have. Because so many people seem so vexed by the very idea of transgender. Keegan says she accepts transgender women as if they are fully transitioned. But clearly some here consider all transgender to be no more than an impersonation which threatens the dignity and safety of women. So why not make transgender illegal if they pose a threat in any way at all?

Ok, I haven't seen that. 5 out of 6 were fooled.

What other alternative? Reform? They won't win.

Toilets are designed to accommodate biological functions.

Women's toilets are designed for far more biological functions than men's. It's not just pissing and pooing, obvs.

Women have to deal with many issues. Menstrual issues. Flooding. Blood on their hands, their clothes, underwear. They have to deal with leaking breasts when they're breastfeeding, again a clothes issue, underwear. Morning sickness. Many women throw up regularly in the toilets, for weeks on end. Most miscarriages happen on the toilet. Etc.

Men, no matter what their personal self-image, will have zero experience of any of this. The entire situation will be completely novel and beyond their limitations.

Women will feel self-conscious at the best of times, even in front of other women who have been through the exact same thing. But the last thing they want to have to deal with is the presence of ignorant men.

Especially men who don't respect their boundaries or those men who are quite happy to violate their boundaries through deceit.

Women's biological functions, and the spaces they need in which to do them, are not therapy for dissatisfied men.

No one has suggested that being transgender should be illegal. Why should they?

There are alternatives to vote for that are neither Labour nor Conservative.

Sorry, but I watched that Miriam documentary. One man was filmed saying that he thought Miriam was trans whilst on the programme, this footage was even included in the documentary, the producers then evicted him because he had already guessed.

Not sure why you are altering facts?

It may well be considered butchery, but it works. It's no more artificial than a fake replacement hip joint is it? And nobody objects to those, do they?

"The sensitivity of the penis can be divided into two components: on the one hand, we have sensitivity to touch, heat and pain – that is, the sensitivity we have in any body part. On the other hand, we have erogenous sensitivity, specific to certain parts of the body, such as the penis or clitoris. Both sensitivities are present after phalloplasty. The first, thanks to the union of a nerve from the phallus to one of the nerves in the leg. The second, thanks to the union of a nerve from the trans man’s penis to a nerve from the clitoris."
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/phalloplasty-for-gender-affirmation

Nobody care to answer these questions then?

Should being transgender be illegal?

Who will you vote for, Starmer or Sunak?

'Endowed' just doesn't fit with butchering healthy bodies.

surgically endowed with a functioning penis (PHALLOPLASTY)

"Functioning". What function, exactly? An organ which is not an organ, but a flap of skin harvested from elsewhere on the body. Which has to be made mechanically "erect". Which does not ejaculate because a transman is a woman. Does the transman climax during phalloplasty "intercourse"? In what way is it "functioning"?

So many questions, so many quote marks.

Given that Labour will win a landslide victory in the coming general election, who will you vote for?

Starmer or Sunak? You know where both stand on transgender issues.

Starmer maybe being a bit coy lately, but it's clear what he really thinks.

Obviously I can't give you evidence of people, who bar an internal examination, you couldn't tell were transgender. Clearly they don't go around advertising it.

But as an example, even though the Transwoman called Miriam hadn't had genital surgery, 6 men on that tv reality show were completely fooled. And they got pretty close up and personal. One later claimed he knew along, but I think that claim was to save his reputation.

I'm approaching this from the middle. I haven't made up my mind on the subject.

You didn't answer my question.

Is it suggested that all transwomen use the women's toilets rather than men's, especially to spy on or threaten women? I assume since you use the word sneaking, that you do think that.

"Are we going to have laws that say, if a man 'passes' as a woman, he has the right to be in female only spaces?"

No of course not. It would be unworkable, not least because few toilets even have an attendant to check.

And so, as I suggested earlier. If all transwomen are a threat, then we should surely have a law that makes being transgender (impersonating a woman) illegal. Make it a prison offence.

Isn't that the best solution? Outlaw being transgender.

Are we going to have laws that say, if a man 'passes' as a woman, he has the right to be in female only spaces?

That would mean that we are allowing men to be in spaces that are design to exclude them. The whole point of these spaces is that they are for women and girls, not for men.

The idea that its ok for men to use these spaces if they 'pass' for women, is not going to work. For a start, 'passing' is subjective at the best of times and once in a women only space, differences will be more apparent. Also, if any women sharing the space know its a man that automatically excludes him, doesnt it? A man cannot pass undetected and be a known man.

If a transwoman who does pass, and some do, absolutely completely, bar an internal examination

That’s a big claim, and unevidenced.

They don't pass. Never did. HTH.

Considering the growing number of specific categories on PornHub of trans-identified men (and male chancers) filming (and live-streaming) themselves doing all sorts of unpleasant things in women-only spaces, I’d rather keep the spaces for females only. It’s bad enough worrying about hidden cameras in changing rooms and toilets without having to make things easier for voyeurs.

@JanesLittleGirl

These perfectly passing transwomen still give themselves away when they tie their unicorns up to the sinks.

It's very telling that you haven't engaged with the analogy I made to get you to think about privacy, dignity and consent and why it would matter that males are sneaking into women's spaces without women being aware, and instead have made up a load of random scenarios of your own.

It's an example of privacy being violated without my knowledge and as such is a perfectly valid analogy.

These points are all covered in depth elsewhere on this board and only tangentially related to this thread. It's very clear which side you're approaching this from.

Spying on somebody in a private space isn't analogous at all. Obviously, you wouldn't be content with anyone spying on you in a cubicle, trans or not trans.

My assumption is that trans people use the toilet to relieve themselves, like most everybody else, not to spy on other people there.

Is it suggested that transwomen use the women's toilets rather than men's, especially to spy on or threaten women?

And as a matter of reality, many things happen in life, that had one been aware, one would have been upset. But never being aware, were never troubled.

Delete/ignore the word "other" then. Replace it with the women there who are not transwomen

If a transwoman who does pass, and some do, absolutely completely, bar an internal examination, uses a women's toilet, and the women there who are not transwomen have no idea, then, why does it matter?

It's more of a mouthful, but it doesn't alter the question.

If nobody is aware, how can anyone be upset?

Let's assume then, that ALL transpeople should only be allowed legally, to use their birth sex toilets.

How will a fully passable trans woman, be prevented from entering and using a women's toilet? Should all women be required on entry to present proof that they are women and not trans women? Or only trans women? And then how would the attendant know always, who to ask?

It seems to me that the only way, would be to prevent ANYBODY from ever transitioning.

Make transgender itself, an illegal act.

Or put a limit on the degree to which they could transition, so that none could ever pass. And then it would always be obvious who is trans and exclusion would always then be a simple matter of recognition.

And perhaps a visible tatoo for those who already pass, just so there can be no hiding and they too can't escape the net.

I have no adherence to any particular part of the debate. As noted by you and a previous poster. I'm new to this discussion. And since this was started about Bartlett quizing Keegan in an ongoing debate about trans issues, I joined in.

I'm asking not stating. I'm exploring the views and arguments.

Also, your adherence to the ideological belief that some males are women is pretty clear. Males aren't "other women".

@24Jules

Here's an analogy for you. If someone drills a hole in the toilet cubicle I'm in, and peers at me, but I never know they could see me, do you think it would matter?

If they are getting away with it (using women's toilets) with nobody knowing, why does it matter?

If a transwoman who does pass, and some do absolutely completely bar an internal examination, uses a women's toilet and the other women there have no idea, then, why does it matter?

It seems to me, that this is a FAR bigger, and vastly more complex subject, than the narrow debate it has so far been, anywhere in the media or anywhere else that I have seen or heard it discussed.

We've been discussing this issue here in those terms for many years.

Would it be acceptable for that person to use a female toilet etc , if nobody knew, that she was actually a transwoman?

No of course it wouldn't be, but those males are more likely to get away with it with no one knowing. However, most of the males that claim they pass, don't.