How did we get here?

I'm quite enjoying the image of Howse mistaking a bull's ear tags for decorative earrings and trying to milk it.

Clearly the sheep need a questionnaire to rate their behavioural traits on a Likert scale. I don't know how else the farmer could proceed.

The sheep near me (rural) have in recent weeks been seen in their tupping accoutrements, ready for the season. Perhaps Hows thinks the farmer goes around and asks them their gender identity to determine which sheep does what?

Hang on, it was you who posted this study. Are you now saying you disagree with it?

TBH I'm confused as to what it is you are saying

I did appreciate the reappearance of predatory lesbians, I was rather missing them.

Lesbians sexually offend at higher rates than straight women are you suggesting they too shouldn't have access to women's bathrooms?

Given that a sexual offence is 99 times more likely to have been committed by a man than a woman, the sexuality of women who are accused of sexual offences seems rather irrelevant.

By this logic it's also 'harmful' for men & women to work together particularly when they are alone which is often the case. See where this logic goes?

To clear guidance in the EA on when a service may be segregated by sex.

Apparently, we are still at that point of a poster desperately trying to convince women that stereotyped or even just ‘averages’ on some self-reported data collection mechanism are a reliable categorisation tool.

That ‘averages’ are somehow considered boundaries for the access to single sex provisions.

Goodness, how would the city dwellers cope?

I've been to rural areas. That's the place where male and female animals are kept in different fields, and male animals with massive balls are kept in a field by themselves. I'm told it's dead easy to determine which animal goes in which field.

Absolutely! How will civilisation survive with less fashion / cosmetic / jewellery stores?

Well, if Western economies start "spiralling" because you lot are shunning women's fashion, make up & jewellery stores, I hope you realise it's all your fault

(I admit I did laugh out loud at that particular gem)

I have only lived in major cities since late teens. I still probably dress like OldCrone mentions. Imagine women shunning fashion, cosmetic and jewellery stores? Whodathunkit? Still a woman though.

If only it was a new theory tested each day. But alas, it is the same tired theories that have major flaws or don’t even come close to the reality.

It is just rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

And yet you're still a woman?
How can that be? 🤔

😄The clock strikes 11pm and H appears

I do think we're being used as a sounding board for gender studies class theorising

Ahh - the nightly Howie howling at the women again. 😀 It's becoming a bit of a routine.

I see we're back to the old - "if you refuse to undress for men in a changing room / toilet, then you must be in favour of sex segregated workplaces" argument.

Poor Howie. Sad times and all that.

And tbh, someone who believes there are physical signifiers of proven reduced risk of harm to women surely has a duty to explain to women specifically what these signifiers are?

All this "it's to do with what they look like but I won't tell you what exactly" is unhelpful.

Whether or not trans identifying men are more or less of a threat than other men is irrelevant if there is no way to differentiate between the two or even define what it means to be trans.

Any coherent argument needs to acknowledge that there are only two options - mixed sex or single sex.

There is no option of women + trans identifying men because nobody can be excluded from that group.

All this "I saw two people doing things differently therefore my guesses at to what inner gender someone is are what should determine whether a person is a man or woman" actually is a little bit illuminating as to the muddled viewpoint of some men.

It's similar to "I see some people who, based on their clothes and hair, don't look like the men that I imagine are the ones who assault women, therefore what's the problem? "

Whereas many women know that there are smiling, or long-haired, or jewellery-wearing - whatever secret factors form the 'assessment' - male people who have had their elbow on a woman's throat, or stood in a doorway preventing them from leaving, or killed their children.

The asymmetry is very clear.

I got the impression that the FILIA conference was a bit of a turning point, with more MPs prepared to recognise that it's not just a case of toxicity on both sides. Roșie Duffield îs no longer the only labour MP who will speak openly about women's rights.

Also the O'Flaherty letters will have infuriated many.

In partial answer to OP's questions, I offer Janice Turner in The Times today:

No one bears more blame for gender ideology capturing public institutions and the global erasure of women’s rights than Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights. It was he who convened in 2006 a private meeting of NGOs, lawyers and LGBT activists in Indonesia which drew up what became known as the Yogyakarta Principles.

Key among these was the idea that biological sex as a legal and political construct should be wholly replaced by gender identity. No one at Yogyakarta raised for a second the impact upon women or girls, and yet its precepts trickled down through the UN and human rights bodies into national governments and transnational institutions like the International Olympic Committee.

It is because of O’Flaherty that rapists could be housed in women’s prisons and female athletes made to compete against males. British feminists have been unpicking the ensuing mess for over a decade, culminating in April’s Supreme Court ruling that sex is biological reality. So O’Flaherty’s last remaining weapon is to accuse Britain this week of breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, which is still suffused in the misogyny of Yogyakarta.

There is no further context needed to support the statements you keep making. People can always go back and check for context from the original threads and posts. It doesn't change the pattern.

Gosh.... imagine that though! female people are constantly being dehumanised and demonised by male people who are demanding access into female single sex provisions. Yet female people are not retaliating to being so dehumanised and demonised. Plus, it has now been shown in testimony in at least two court cases, that it doesn't matter how female people 'frame' their words, just verbalising the concept that male people should be excluded from female single sex spaces in any way is considered enough for intimidatory action to be justified in some people's opinion.

The asymmetry is very clear. Again, if you did not intend to be intimidating female people with your posts, then maybe you need to stop doubling down and defending what you posted.

Another repeat post. It seems we are really just cycling through the same posted theories and links that never quite provide the answers that you believe they do.

Luckily when you are discussing the harm principle, you are referring to safeguarding.

Safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people. There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.

-Violence.

-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.

-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.

-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.

-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.

-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).

-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for single sex spaces. Therefore when female people are talking about why they need single sex spaces, they are generally referring to a wide range of 'harms' that is not limited to physical / sexual assault. Those other harms are not reportable and are very rarely studied. That does not mean though that they are not significant and can be dismissed as you have attempted to do.

And again you forgot about consent.

Shall we go back and copy and paste pages of posts from your failed attempt to convince women that if they need toilets sex segregated they should be demanding segregation in the workplace?

You've described your "assessment" as something that's indistinguishable from "guessing".

No criteria, no checking if it's ever been correct, no logical steps, largely if not entirely based on appearance. Possibly underpinned by stereotypes on whether they are "nurturing" etc, although obviously you haven't been able to actually set out your working here.

That's the best you can do at determining the inner gender identity that means someone is a man or a woman?