"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 3

What do you mean by "abused" in this context?

Well take my situation - I'm in several lesbian groups and the Supreme Court judgment seemed to indicate that trans women could be barred from these groups, if they consist of over 15 members I believe, I'm sure someone will correct me. Now we do accept trans women who assert a lesbian identity to our groups, and they have been very valuable members who have contributed a lot in terms of organization, participation and support for all other members. Some have been with us for over a decade. It would be a real loss to us and to them if they were forced out of groups that they have been a welcome part of for years. That would just seem to be callously cruel.

No. You’re not quite getting it. What material benefit will women get for allowing males with a trans identity into their spaces. You’ve done a lot of waffle about helping transpeople. Now what about women? What do we get out of this?

The reality is that gender self ID laws have not been abused in the countries that they have been implemented in.

Can you show me evidence to the contrary?

The reality is that gender self ID laws have not been abused in the countries that they have been implemented in.

Can you show me evidence to the contrary?

I've already referenced the potential problems for women that could arise out of attempts at implementing policy. Namely that there could be harassment of women that appear more masculine and invasions of their privacy.

The Supreme Court also incredibly outlined scenarios where transmen (females in GC understanding) could be banned from using both male toilets as they are not male biological sex, and female toilets if they look too masculine, potentially leaving them with no facilities to use. Although I believe the Supreme Court suggested that option should be available to them they will understandably feel incredibly nervous now about using either men's or women's toilets as the Supreme Court has said they could be barred from both options. This is an incredibly harmful impact on born females.

Although my position clearly appears out of step on Mumsnet FWR, it is in line with the approaches of the best countries in the world for women, in highly respected international comparator tables. The top countries in the world for women who have solid track records over decades of strong performance for women have seen fit to make this decision - after so many years of so many good decisions for women why do you suddenly think that these countries are suddenly now making a bad decision for decision? There is no evidence whatsoever that since their implementation of gender self ID there has been any harm to women.

In general the better a country performs for its most vulnerable members, the better it also performs for women; that is what these countries are showing. And when a country starts dissembling rights for its most vulnerable populations, sure enough women are just a little bit further down the line of being negatively impacted themselves. Trump's America will be a worked example of this in the next few years.

@suggestionsplease1 Why do you think some males are less of a threat to women than other males?
Why do you want to give some males, but not others, access to single sex spaces?

You can illustrate your reasons with a chart if you want

@suggestionsplease1 Why do you think some males are less of a threat to women than other males?
Why do you want to give some males, but not others, access to single sex spaces?

You can illustrate your reasons with a chart if you want

I've already referenced the potential problems for women that could arise out of attempts at implementing policy. Namely that there could be harassment of women that appear more masculine and invasions of their privacy.

The Supreme Court also incredibly outlined scenarios where transmen (females in GC understanding) could be banned from using both male toilets as they are not male biological sex, and female toilets if they look too masculine, potentially leaving them with no facilities to use. Although I believe the Supreme Court suggested that option should be available to them they will understandably feel incredibly nervous now about using either men's or women's toilets as the Supreme Court has said they could be barred from both options. This is an incredibly harmful impact on born females.

Although my position clearly appears out of step on Mumsnet FWR, it is in line with the approaches of the best countries in the world for women, in highly respected international comparator tables. The top countries in the world for women who have solid track records over decades of strong performance for women have seen fit to make this decision - after so many years of so many good decisions for women why do you suddenly think that these countries are suddenly now making a bad decision for decision? There is no evidence whatsoever that since their implementation of gender self ID there has been any harm to women.

In general the better a country performs for its most vulnerable members, the better it also performs for women; that is what these countries are showing. And when a country starts dissembling rights for its most vulnerable populations, sure enough women are just a little bit further down the line of being negatively impacted themselves. Trump's America will be a worked example of this in the next few years.

I've already referenced the potential problems for women that could arise out of attempts at implementing policy. Namely that there could be harassment of women that appear more masculine and invasions of their privacy.

The Supreme Court also incredibly outlined scenarios where transmen (females in GC understanding) could be banned from using both male toilets as they are not male biological sex, and female toilets if they look too masculine, potentially leaving them with no facilities to use. Although I believe the Supreme Court suggested that option should be available to them they will understandably feel incredibly nervous now about using either men's or women's toilets as the Supreme Court has said they could be barred from both options. This is an incredibly harmful impact on born females.

Although my position clearly appears out of step on Mumsnet FWR, it is in line with the approaches of the best countries in the world for women, in highly respected international comparator tables. The top countries in the world for women who have solid track records over decades of strong performance for women have seen fit to make this decision - after so many years of so many good decisions for women why do you suddenly think that these countries are suddenly now making a bad decision for decision? There is no evidence whatsoever that since their implementation of gender self ID there has been any harm to women.

In general the better a country performs for its most vulnerable members, the better it also performs for women; that is what these countries are showing. And when a country starts dissembling rights for its most vulnerable populations, sure enough women are just a little bit further down the line of being negatively impacted themselves. Trump's America will be a worked example of this in the next few years.

I've already referenced the potential problems for women that could arise out of attempts at implementing policy. Namely that there could be harassment of women that appear more masculine and invasions of their privacy.

The Supreme Court also incredibly outlined scenarios where transmen (females in GC understanding) could be banned from using both male toilets as they are not male biological sex, and female toilets if they look too masculine, potentially leaving them with no facilities to use. Although I believe the Supreme Court suggested that option should be available to them they will understandably feel incredibly nervous now about using either men's or women's toilets as the Supreme Court has said they could be barred from both options. This is an incredibly harmful impact on born females.

Although my position clearly appears out of step on Mumsnet FWR, it is in line with the approaches of the best countries in the world for women, in highly respected international comparator tables. The top countries in the world for women who have solid track records over decades of strong performance for women have seen fit to make this decision - after so many years of so many good decisions for women why do you suddenly think that these countries are suddenly now making a bad decision for decision? There is no evidence whatsoever that since their implementation of gender self ID there has been any harm to women.

In general the better a country performs for its most vulnerable members, the better it also performs for women; that is what these countries are showing. And when a country starts dissembling rights for its most vulnerable populations, sure enough women are just a little bit further down the line of being negatively impacted themselves. Trump's America will be a worked example of this in the next few years.

This is a great question. What's in it for us?
Shame you never got an answer

Yeah....nah.

To repeat what I have said before, there is absolutely no evidence of increased risk to women as a result of gender self-ID processes. You are talking about speculative potential, but you have zero empirical evidence.

Are you not interested in the facts?

No. I mean what benefit do women as a whole get from allowing their spaces to become mixed sex? You are wanting women to give up their sex based rights to single sex spaces. What’s in it for them? You’ve focused a lot on how it will benefit males. Now explain how it will benefit women as a whole.