Ian Dunt’s concern for the sacred caste

I have heard of but haven’t read, so thanks for that suggestion!

Wateraid does some great work with women. I was worried in the past about a little about blurring of women’s into mixed sex spaces, but I think recent stuff is good.

Years ago I sponsored Plan to put girls toilets in a village in Africa. They said single sex toilets meant more girls went to school. Bizarre that in this country, girls weren’t guaranteed single sex toilets in school. The Supreme Court judgement will make sure that happens.

@Keeptoiletssafe I'm sure you know about it but I highly recommend the book 'The Big Necessity' by the wonderful Rose George - basically about toilets and waste disposal around the world. She’s been brave in standing up for women on TwiX and suffered the usual consequences. But I just wonder where she'd ever start with writing that book today, things have changed so much. The chapters about young girls and women facing rape in rural India etc as they venture out to find somewhere to use a toilet are terrifying and heartbreaking (but it’s a great read nonetheless)

It’s actually easier than that. Precisely because people collapse in toilets then the body is in the way of the door opening, there’s a (retrospective) ‘safety’ feature of being able to open the doors outwards from the outside.

Only with a full height cubicle, if you are the occupant and are just normally going to the loo, you can’t see the feet of the person unlocking and ask them why they are opening it. With a gap it’s protecting and giving the occupant a warning too.

Look at 2.4c and 2.4d in Document T

I'm still shocked to my core when I hear that argument put forward.

That people think it's acceptable to proffer such callous, casual misogyny. It's so telling.

It's the "women get raped anyway so it doesn't matter if they get raped more" argument, and I don't understand how anyone can use it and think they are acting decently.

No you can’t keep men out, but why would you think private mixed sex spaces are the way forward?

Quite. 'You might not be able to keep all men out' does not mean 'Therefore we must invite all men in'.

The problem with ceiling to floor doors is that they make it harder to get in in an emergency. People who are about to collapse often feel unwell beforehand so they go to a toilet cubicle. If they collapse in there, it is much harder to reach them or get them out with no gap.

Toilet and changing room doors and locks aren't really supposed to be impossible to break down, for that reason. They are more to give privacy and let people know it's occupied when they use a normal level of force to open them. If you really wanted to kick the door in, you usually could. That's why it's important not to have men skulking around the communal sink area when women and girls are in there.

If someone cannot safely go to the loo…they are effectively unable to leave their home. They cannot work. They cannot socialise. They cannot participate in political meetings. They cannot attend church. They cannot go to court. They have effectively ceased to exist in public space.

You’re just describing what already happens because of toilet design changes. What about ‘go to school’, Mr Dunt? If you have a school that has cubicles built for privacy (as per DfE standard specification for all toilets) then the most vulnerable children with invisible disabilities, though who self harm, those who are doing drugs which can lead to seizures (spiked vapes), those being assaulted, those having medical emergencies eg. strokes etc are unsafe. Children can literally ‘cease to exist’.

This is really scary for those who have disabilities - there is a knowledge these designs are dangerous.

What is the common reason in schools for changing all the toilets into mixed sex? So they can be gender neutral. And mixed sex toilets designs are always private. Some of the newer schools boasted all gender neutral toilets.

This is why the Supreme Court decision is so important for so many people. The DfE know now that schools have to provide single sex toilets. Now the DfE should go on to say that the standard design for single sex toilets has at least a floor-to-door gap and so private cubicles have to be specifically listed and justified - NOT the other way round. Safety first.

Being in a correctly designed single sex loo could save lives, anyone’s life, at their most vulnerable.

As for assaults, do some research. There’s many FOI requests from police forces about what goes on in public loos and school loos. Rapes are committed by males. No you can’t keep men out, but why would you think private mixed sex spaces are the way forward?

You’ve never thought about women’s or children’s safety? Or the medically vulnerable?

If you want to be really progressive, you need to campaign for mixed sex spaces with door gaps. Good luck with that.

How the flip can a (transwo)man look more like a woman than an actual woman does?

They don't, obviously. He's making it up. They will be 6' bearded transmen who sing bass when he wants to employ the Transman Gotcha (fully addressed in the SC ruling, which he will not have read) and "intersex" when he wants to spread misinformation about DSDs.

When women weren't allowed to vote or go to university, nobody had any worries about how to enforce it.

I’m pretty sure it’s “different” so the rule will be just for us. We can call the police or security if we are made uncomfortable by threatening behaviour, but that apparently doesn’t apply to them.

What was it they said to us when we pointed out the dangers of men (inc ladymen) in women’s toilets?
Theres nothing to stop men going into women’s toilets anyway
and
If a ladyman with bad intentions tries to harm you you can always call the authorities.

So, now it’s clarified that all kinds of men need to use the men’s, why doesn’t the same apply?
I mean a bad man could have entered the women’s facilities at any point and attacked a lady man. At which point he would have been within his rights to call the police.
So surely he can still do that in the men’s if something bad happens?
Or was that rule just for us?
So confusing 🫤

That reads like an article by Sylvia Pankhurst , updated a bit of course @Szygy . Irony bypass material...

Exactly @Kucinghitam

I think it is mighty handy to have a few drive-by (disappointingly unBrave&Stunning) scolders for any undecided lurkers.

👉 "How can we police which lovely laydeez use the loos without invasive inspections?" = People-of-gender will break the law deliberately, and knowing that are overriding other users' informed consent.

👉 "No laydee would go to all the trouble of transitioning just to invade female spaces" = Demonstrating utter ignorance that activists haven't been forcing policies of self-ID on every place, or thinking that mandating extreme surgery and lifelong medicalisation is a Kind position to take?

👉 "Laydeez are laydeez because they're ladylike, except in sports (or sometimes, it is Kindly acknowledged, rape crisis/prisons)" = Proving that they don't really believe the lie themselves, but just want to claim moral superiority and policing of speech over those they want to call Bad People.

There is no universal assumption that men have a right to use women’s facilities now (or vice versa), and most don’t have the resources that enable extensive face feminisation surgery and ‘passing’.

If the goal is better access to toilets, realistically that means more unisex facilities, balancing that against the needs of people with other protected characteristics.

Trans people would be better served if their ‘advocates’ engaged properly with the issue instead of dismissing all discussion as toxic.

Yeah all these centrist/lefty men who are supposedly all about rationality and the 'science'.

They abandoned that very quickly when it suited them, didn't they? 🙄

If someone cannot safely go to the loo…they are effectively unable to leave their home. They cannot work. They cannot socialise. They cannot participate in political meetings. They cannot attend church. They cannot go to court. They have effectively ceased to exist in public space.

I mean you’ve almost got to admire the chutzpah of it. Not only have they tried to wrestle the words 'woman' and 'female' away from us, they’re now appropriating the urinary leash with almost the same language used by the valiant women who first campaigned for access to toilets in the 19thc. Men (of course) had full access to public loos since they started to exist but that’s not good enough, now they want ours as well. The sheer fucking nerve of it.

And as for Ian Dunt…..I just can't. He was one of the only things that kept me sane through the Brexit insanity and it’s like he’s been possessed now. Him and Adam Buxton - is it some kind of mind virus or what?

I think I misread a mildly ironic post, but still, just to underline the point ;

How the flip can a (transwo)man look more like a woman than an actual woman does?

The woman is a woman. What she looks like is what a woman looks like.

He is a man. What he looks like is what a cosplaying man looks like. Usually obvious, often promoting an offensive stereotype. But not like a woman.

I'm sick of it always being a trans rights against women's rights problem.
I'll fight for womens rights until the end of my days. I simply don't care what trans people do or don't do. It isn't my problem.

Genital inspections of course, do keep up, we have done this. Obsessively.

@urbanbuddha Yesterday 23:26

He's not trans, as he said on several occasions; he's a man with a DSD, which he lied about, repeatedly.

How terribly transphobic of you. Don't you know that if you SAY you're trans then you're trans. End of. Acceptance without exception - remember?

Welcome to TERFhood.

I can't remember where I saw it, but someone on twitter was complaining about how Dunt used to wang on about "objective reality" a lot during the Brexit stuff, but seems incapable of recognising it where transwomen are concerned.

You do understand though that there cannot be degrees of being a woman? There has no be an agreed definition in law? For women to be protected in all our single sex spaces which includes DV shelters and hospital wards? To have categories of ‘womanhood’ is what would be nonsensical

And what does 'living as a woman' mean?

Questioning and clarifying your vague statements is not 'toxic'.