Some strange contradictory arguments from the TRA side

A trans woman will use a cubicle in a male toilet. Unless you happen to have a man who is hell bent on beating up men in dress then this is not an issue and I think in reality this would be very rare.

Men in women's space is quite an obvious safeguarding issue (especially in a school) and I think most women would have an amount of fear in an intimate female space without mentioning basic dignity. Toilets should not be a venue for male affirmation of a fantasy.

Dual sex toilets may be a way forward but until then having single sex toilets is a right enshrined in law. I also think people trying to trivialize this by saying we are have trade wars and Russia to deal and we are talking about toilets are deliberately trying to erase the strength of women s feelings and therefore is misogynist.

Thanks Colourless. Yes, we definitely agree on that!

I've been assaulted too as stated upthread and don't have a problem with the euphemism but duly noted for those who do.

Men will be violent against other gender non conforming men. This is not a problem for women to sort out. There we agree.

Except they HAVE been accepting them since the 80s and gay acceptance is running at 86%
[Source: 2019 Pew Research Center poll]

So it's a minority who dislike it and an even smaller tiny minority who are causing a problem....

Why don't men stop bullying people? End of problem.

All that the SC has done is reasserted that women have human rights, and a small and very noise proportion of the country is heartbroken and outraged that women have said 'no' to accepting men in their spaces.

Here, here!

I know that's not what pps on this thread are saying, but it is precisely what a lot of TRAs and allies are saying.

'Men won't accept gender non conforming men, therefore women have to accept them'.

It is possible that a man who is gender non conforming will meet hostility.

The solution to this does not ever include allowing that man to use women as human shields, or comforters, or passive validation tools.

Women are not to blame for men's prejudice, and it is not up to us to surrender our rights in order to appease, please, mollify, protect, validate, gratify, comfort, or excite men.

OK @ColourlessGreenIdeasSleepFuriously but my point was please don't use the term "collateral damage" as a euphemism for victims/survivors of attacks. Just say what you mean, i.e. "Unfortunately, I think we have to recognise some people on each side will be attacked" (which seems to be what you mean?).
I and other posters on here have been assaulted in toilets and private spaces and we'd rather not be referred to dismissively as "collateral damage".

So why did you bring up gay-bashing? This isn't about gay men, it's about men who say they want to be women, or who think they are women, or are pretending that they think they are women. Many of them (possibly most) are heterosexual.

And if men's toilets are dangerous places, surely that's something that men need to do something about. How do you expect women to stop men being violent to other men? We can't even stop them being violent to women. We're not going to let all the vulnerable men into women's spaces just because other men are violent to them.

Male violence is a problem. It's up to men to sort it out.

Do as we say: Don't use the term transwoman without the space it's disrespectful, don't use the term trans-identifying man/woman it's disrespectful, don't use the term man/woman with a trans identity it's disrespectful, don't define people by parts of their anatomy it's disrespectful

Do as we say: You chest feeders, cervix havers, pregnant people, birthing people, vagina-owners, menstruators, CIS WOMEN!!

But gay men aren’t entitled to use women’s toilets.

Of course not. And nor is it just like being gay. But I can understand why some types of men are at threat in the men's toilets. That is not saying they should be in the women's either.

So TRA are going to use every argument under the sun to get around this court ruling and I think everyone should be wary of this.

Well it's an argument.

But so far the TRA arguments have been so stoooooopid and short sighted do we REALLY need to worry that much?!

Well if it's ' just like being gay' then there's no problem with the gents then is there?!

But gay men aren’t entitled to use women’s toilets.

Exactly! Women's toilets aren't a safe haven for any random bloke who feels threatened in the gents' for some reason. Women's toilets are for women!

And please @ColourlessGreenIdeasSleepFuriously don't use the term "collateral damage" if you mean people being assaulted/attacked. Call it what it is.

If they think they pass as women then they won't have a problem still getting into the ladies' toilets.

If they're now worried about being stopped it shows they know they don't pass.

It can't be both. Either you look exactly like a woman ("I'm a lay-dee") because you now "are one" or you don't look like a woman because you know you're a man.
Which is it?

But gay men aren’t entitled to use women’s toilets.

There has been research that shows that mixed sex changing rooms are less safe for women.

I’d be interested to know if there has been any research into whether they are more safe for men?

As for passing etc. I think blokes seeing a man in a skirt will think'bit weird bloke in a skirt having a piss......wash hands and think about work/meal/next beer'i.e. men will not bad an eyelid and just think the behaviour is a mild strange. There will not be some carnal lust that overpowers the average guy to molest a man in a ill fitting wig.

This is where I disagree with the terf POV. I mean, gay-bashing is definitely a thing. Unfortunately, I think we have to recognise there will be collateral damage both ways.

Where should they go now?

Exactly where the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities told them to go.

What part of what she said was unclear?

If they don't like it they need to campaign for a change in the law and secure the rights they think they need through democratic means, not undemocratic ones.

The point of the law is not to recognise gender - or any identity.

The default is that sex discrimination is illegal. It is only legal when particular criteria are met.

Non binary people have a sex - just like everyone else - so they are impacted by the EA, but not more so than they were in March.

They certainly have the right to argue that a particular instance of sex discrimination is illegal or unnecessary, just like anyone else, but the judgement has confirmed that sex relates to male/female, not masculinity/femininity. If anything that seems like an improvement for them.

Why are people still platforming this porn activist?

and we can all play that game ‘I know an old lady who would rather die than be on a ward with men’ that’s how it works isn’t it? Emotional blackmail top trumps ??

You know the expression 'to wear your learning lightly'?
That's what you've been reading for the past few pages😂
Not just lightly, but brightly and wittily; ditto those who lightly, brightly and wittily revealed their various certs with equal good humour.

I❤this kind of interaction on FWR!

So TRA are going to use every argument under the sun to get around this court ruling and I think everyone should be wary of this.

One argument put forward in parliament was that a containment who was a trans woman had been using women's toilets for 30 years so where should they go now? Firstly one could argue the man in question shouldn't have been invading female spaces and now is a good time to consider women's rights and see how behaviour should be adjusted. I might have sped on a road for 30 years but if a speed camera is out in place I can't just say this is unfair.

As for passing etc. I think blokes seeing a man in a skirt will think'bit weird bloke in a skirt having a piss......wash hands and think about work/meal/next beer'i.e. men will not bad an eyelid and just think the behaviour is a mild strange. There will not be some carnal lust that overpowers the average guy to molest a man in a ill fitting wig.

On the other hand men in women s spaces does present an obvious place for potential assault with no CCTV and no witnesses. If nothing else the presence of man in a space where women are in cubicles in a state of partial undress is hugely intimidating to some maybe the majority of women.

The arguments like pp have said are not based on logic but on increasingly shrill voices to emotion through breath taking displays of self pity.

But how are they affected by the Supreme Court judgment?

If anything they should be happy about it because it will most likely lead to more unisex toilets, meaning they no longer need to have a crisis of conscience every time they need to pee.