“There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour.”

No?

This is why we don’t bother to protect children from paedophiles. Oh but hang on, we do! Just women that have to suck it up, is it?

Just reposting this question for chris as we have a new page. I would like an answer, but of course, the poster is free to ignore. I just don’t want them to miss the question.

The rapist is a man who isn't trans, and would still have entered regardless what the rules are regarding what trans people may no or not.

I’m not sure how you can make that claim. Are you able to read his mind?

The point that has been made over and over again is that if any man can claim to be a transwoman, which is de facto the case, thanks to Stonewall, than any man can enter the women’s toilets and not expect to be challenged. His criminal behaviour has been encouraged and enabled.

I don’t find the message “look, you can’t stop us dudes raping you, so you should at least make men who identify as women happy. Also, you can’t stop us raping you.” very reassuring tbh.

It's got a everything to do with preditory men. And highlights why we need to keep doing all we can to keep ALL MEN out of women's spaces regardless of how they identify or what certificates they have.

Christinapple

Right, so how do women keep unwanted men out of their toilets?

What's the magic word??

Confirming yet again that the problem is 'man' not 'trans' - except when a man is claiming that being trans means that long-established rules do not apply to him.

And that if that point is conceded it means that the rules no longer apply to any man and cannot be enforced.

Women-only spaces do not exclude transmen aka women, because 'trans' isn't the problematic thing, 'man' is the problematic thing.

How many additional women or children do you see as acceptable to be harmed in any way before you support alternative solutions for the group of male people you support, or maybe you belong to, and allow female people to have single sex spaces that are just that, single sex.

And for clarity, female people are only those with bodies formed around the production of large gametes regardless of the production status of those gametes.

We know that male people will attack us and cause us distress whether those male people say they are transgender or not. No matter how they present themselves to the world.

People using that weak argument miss the entire point. Why do female people now have to be exposed to even more risk in their single sex spaces?

We fucking already knew about the male people who just walked in before, but now we have an additional layer of risk that we have to be exposed to.

And yet, we get posters berating and shaming women and girls for raising this very point. Because a group in society has declared some male people should be exempt from safeguarding protocols based on no evidence at all to show those male people have a lower risk of committing violent or sex crimes as any other male person.

The main point is though, there is no evidence that those male people have the SAME or LOWER risk of committing violent of sexual crimes as female people in general.

https://thesun.ie/news/13932055/woman-raped-tesco-supermarket-toilet-man-cubicle/

This is nothing to do with trans woman. The rapist is a man who isn't trans, and would still have entered regardless what the rules are regarding what trans people may no or not.

It feels like ground hog day.

However, if it means that a new batch of readers see how easy it is to counter these arguments with logic and fact, then I am all for it.

But it really feels like we are on constant repeat.

Plus women and girls could tell others there is a male person in there and alert others.

Most rapes and sexual assaults are planned and thought through . The majority are not just spur of the moment . They select their victim knowing they won't be believed or can be easily silenced or have no protection as in another male who will beat these cowards or no strong support networks such as family members in positions of authority. People do what they think they can get away with .

"Why would he bother? Women's bathrooms have no magical barrier stopping men from walking in."

The "magical barrier", and we all know that this kind of language is used to try to make it sound silly and unimportant, was a known boundary, that was respected and enforced if it was broken.

Up until recently if I was in the local Nuffield women's changing room which is open plan with only 1 tiny cubicle that's always in use, and I was in a state of undress, if a man had walked in and got his cock out then I would have been able to tell him to get out. I would have had the backing of the management and of every other woman in the room.

Now that man just has to say that he feels like a woman, the managers will call me a bigot, the other women in the room may or may not back my stance that I do not feel comfortable or safe being naked in front of a naked male stranger.

That is what happened I am now no longer able to trust that the women's changing room will only have women in it and I have no power to challenge the inclusion of males in that space.

The only option available to me is to no longer use the Nuffield gym, so to self exclude and that the option other women are facing too.

Some based on their religious beliefs, some based on trauma, there are a huge variety of reasons why women may not feel comfortable or safe being naked or vulnerable in a confined space with a male.

Societal expectation used to be that men did not do this, and that if they did, women could and would feel confident to challenge them.

And if the man didn't leave when challenged the women could get the manager or the police - who would throw the man out, not the women awful transphobes.

On second thoughts, they probably know exactly what they're saying.

I think that's very possible.

So according to you, a man can just walk into a women's toilet if he wants to attack women or girls, therefore Katie Dolatowski doesn't exist.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-sex-offender-who-attacked-29765751

A man would never pretend to be a woman in order to prey on girls, therefore Andrew Miller/ Amy George doesn't exist.

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-miller-jailed-for-20-years-for-abducting-and-sexually-assaulting-girl-in-scottish-borders-12983829

Societal expectation used to be that men did not do this, and that if they did, women could and would feel confident to challenge them. This expectation has been deliberately and officially dismantled.

(I’m often surprised to read these arguments that directly contradict the point that the writer thinks they’re making.)

Yes!

We're told all the ways that women can't keep men out (there's no magical barrier, you can't do genital inspections, you can't tell, they'll come in anyway).

And the person fondly imagining they are occupying the moral high ground, appears entirely unaware that they are actually describing boundary violating, entitled, dominating, abusive behaviour.

On second thoughts, they probably know exactly what they're saying.

She’s still in post.

That is shocking to me

They used to have something like a “magical barrier”, that’s the point.

That would be one of those "social constructs" the queer theorists go on about a lot - as if something being a social construct was a particularly profound insight.

Some social constructs are a good idea (such as having some spaces be female-only); others are a bad idea (removing all barriers from male predators, or giving funding and attention to queer theorists).

A preditory man is a preditory man whether he wears a wig or not. And yes men in women's spaces does bother me. I put the privacy, safety and dignity of women and girls before men and their hurt feelings every time. The magical barrier is knowing that the good and decent men stay out of women's spaces. If we see a man (wig or not wig) in a women's space we know he's not good and decent and should not be there.

Women's bathrooms have no magical barrier stopping men from walking in.

They used to have something like a “magical barrier”, that’s the point.

Societal expectation used to be that men did not do this, and that if they did, women could and would feel confident to challenge them. This expectation has been deliberately and officially dismantled.

(I’m often surprised to read these arguments that directly contradict the point that the writer thinks they’re making.)

Edited to say: That’s a response to chris, not the person quoting them