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

These, perhaps, are the worst group, but it must be remembered that for every Commander Waterford, there’s a Serena Joy standing behind him, ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.

So much this.

@suggestionsplease1 you have said upthread that you think that the trans women in women's prisons have used self ID to access women in prison yet don't seem to join the dots to understand that men may do the same to access women in other single sex spaces.

And that we have the protection of single sex spaces precisely to stop the bad actors whether they have true trans identities or otherwise from gaining easy access to women.

Don't you see what you are doing to women when you dismiss the needs of actual women in favour of a group of males some of whom you acknowledge use this identity to deliberately access women in what should be single sex spaces?

But if women’s toilets are so full of female sexy offenders, wouldnt males with a trans identity be unsafe? If women’s toilets are so dangerous, surely it would be wisest if males with a trans identity used the make toilets. I mean, if sharing spaces either makes is fine for women, surely it’s even safer for males with a trans identity right?

I have lots of empirical evidence about toilets.
It’s very time consuming and depressing to collate.

Aren’t you?
It is a fact that the design of toilets becomes private when it is not single sex. This means it’s less safe for all but particularly women, girls, boys and those medically vulnerable.

Even if that were true (it isn't), it doesn't matter.

There's nothing that justifies trans identifying men getting special privileges and entry into women spaces.

the fact is that UK law disagrees with you.

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?

Why do you want male sex offenders to have access to male toilets?

It's not a false attribution at all.

Given we have take the decision to keep men out of women's spaces for safeguarding reasons, what justification is there for exempting one group of men from that?

Basically you are saying that men and women should always be mixed because it’s nicer for men even if it disadvantages women

you do know that female sex offenders are rather rare whereas male sex offenders are incredibly common

if you analyse the ONS data ( self reported on assault rates as opposed to assaults that have gone through the criminal system ) you could easily get to 1 in 10 men had probably committed a sexual offence - that’s assuming men commit multiple offences

anyway I have heard your proposal and I reject it
as does my husband and I expect most decent men

This is just another false attribution.

I could ask you why do you want female sex offenders to have access to women's toilets?

The only plausible answer to this is 'so that men can get what they want' - surely?

I mean it seems to have passed some posters by that women have been, and continue to be, ignored when it comes to the impact of public policy. Why they think anyone suddenly thought “we should definitely consider the impact on women and girls” when it comes to this particular area is anyone’s guess.

Which brings us back to this

We have been unable to find evidence that any mechanism was put in place for evaluating the impact of the change on the experience of women and girls, for example in relation to single sex services and spaces. This may reflect the wider context: in 2014 the European Agency for Fundamental Rights ranked Denmark as the EU country with the highest occurrence of male physical violence and sexual assault against women.
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/06/18/lessons-from-denmark/

@Tandora
I've enjoyed our conversation so far. Seems you missed my last question.

In the absence of a person telling you their sex is there any way to correctly determine their sex?

Why do public toilets have door gaps?

‘ChatGPT said:
Public toilet doors often have gaps for a few reasons, even though it might seem odd or uncomfortable. Here are the main reasons:

1. Safety & Security: The gap allows people to quickly see if a stall is occupied, which can help prevent unnecessary knocking or waiting. It also makes it easier for someone to notice if someone inside the stall is in distress, unconscious, or in need of assistance.
2. Cost and Practicality: Doors with gaps are cheaper and easier to manufacture. It’s less material and effort to install, which is often a consideration for public spaces that have many stalls.
3. Ventilation: The gap provides better air circulation in the stall, which helps to prevent unpleasant smells from building up. Ventilation is particularly important in public restrooms, where air quality can be a concern.
4. Maintenance & Cleaning: Gaps make it easier for janitorial staff to check if a stall is being used, and they can also help with easier cleaning since they allow access to the corners of the stall.
5. Reducing Privacy Concerns: In many cases, the gap actually helps prevent some people from getting too "comfortable" or trying to take advantage of the space, though this is a controversial theory.

Interesting it says ‘Janitor’ so that shows American bias. American toilet door gaps are huge and they have them along the sides too - so there’s a difference too to the U.K. I think the rest of it is applicable to this country.

As single sex toilets are the only ones regulated to have door gaps in the U.K., from the above I conclude:

These single sex toilets are safer, more secure, are easier to assist if someone is distressed or unconscious or distressed, cheaper to build, easier to maintain, prevent smells and increase air quality, easier to check if someone is in there, more hygienic, and increase the turnover on users (handy for lessening queues). They are less private.

The data I have collated over the last few years agrees with this.

So let’s look at increasing privacy without decreasing health and safety. Firstly we don’t have gaps at the sides and the gaps aren’t 30cm plus like some in America. 15cm is generally considered enough in this country. We can make the waiting area in front with sinks single sex. That helps with women because it’s overwhelmingly men who spy. Men spy on men but it seems to be from the top (they stand on the toilet in the other cubicle). So ways to stop that maybe to make people more aware of who is around so the door resting in open positions.

But also there’s so many small cameras hidden in toilets nowdays that there needs to be ways of stopping this more riskfree voyerism. Making toilets totally private to give men all the time to set these devices up is not a good idea. If they have to go into a single sex area first, that’s going to make them even less likely to try. There has also got to be an awareness that the locks on public toilets aren’t ‘secure’ - they are not designed to keep people out completely - due to safety reasons. It’s a good idea to know if anyone is outside your cubicle door.

It terms on comfort, I feel more at ease in a single sex toilet for all the reasons above.

The design we’ve left with is the standard single sex design that’s been used for decades around the world. Because, taking everything into account it’s the best design.

BUT it relies on single sex being single sex.

Exactly.

What is the justification for granting this one group of men exemptions to the rules that apply to all men??