Aren't transpeople still a tiny minority?

I wasn’t trying to suggest anything apart from the potential possible misinterpretations of the data. For example the percentage of transwomen prisoners who are sex offenders is very high but we cannot infer that this means that transwomen are more likely to be sex offenders than men. It may well be true but it may be well not be. We cannot tell.

The point of the question was whether or not it is a minority issue - not a rehashing of the trans v women debate.

And yes I think that we may need to reconsider how we think about risk and how best to allocate money towards that. For example, a lot of the issues raised to do with things like house burglaries etc - realistically by now the met does think it's a non issue a) because it's pretty rare; b) they dont investigate them. In practice, yes people shut their doors in London but actually you are very unlikely to get burgled in your own home ( it is much cheaper and more effective to nick your phone - the profession of house burglars has sort of died out - the most people do is nick your parcels from outside your house - and if you are nothing will happen to you, same with rape or even shop lifting. All those things are pretty much legal now and some of them has also kind of died out. We worry about them because of historical memory rather than reality.

We continue to perceive certain risks due to habit and also fund things as much out of habit as actual risk.

We also tend to worry about things in the news rather than actual risk. It's not scaremongering - it's a harsh look at risk, perceived risk and actual tackling/management of those risks.

So you’re fully aware of the UN’s position on single-sex toilets in some areas then. You were just being deliberately obtuse. Good to know.

(‘write about’ rather than do anything, I imagine).

The problems of inadequate staffing are not relieved by adding in ‘no guarantee of same-sex care’. The reverse.

The UN's definition of the Global South is both well out of date and frankly racist. Guess how I know about it - I write about it.

And now we have the 'if a man is going to rape, a sign won't stop him' fallacy argument too. Let's just get rid of any safeguarding attempt.

They are really all coming out on this thread.

but because statistically you are unlikely to come across them

So many things we can stop worrying about or legislating for because as individuals we are unlikely to come across them….

Statistically I am unlikely to get pancreatic cancer so let’s stop funding treatment of it.
Statistically I am unlikely to be killed by a drugged driver so we should do away with drug driving laws.
Statistically my taxes are unlikely to make any difference to the funding of the health service so I should stop paying them.
Statistically I am unlikely to die in a house fire so forget smoke alarms…

There’s a UN definition of the Global South if that helps you. ‘Parts of’ would probably be more accurate. The parts that the aforementioned UN campaign for single sex facilities in. Or the ‘not as civilised as us’ parts as you clearly feel they are.

(China’s position as part of the Global South is very much debated, although if you want to cite a country that employs mass detention and forced labour camps against its own people as an example of best practice you do you)

Now we have the 'there are bigger issues' distraction tactic while not acknowledging that the inclusion of male people in female single sex provisions is a contributor to many of the bigger issues.

"We can talk about the question of toilets and changing rooms - but the reality is that there are barely any toilets or changing rooms left anywhere regardless of gender because there is no cash."

This is just hyperbolic now and using catastrophising to again distract the discussion. Yes, there are less government provided public toilets, that does not remove the significant issue of who is using those.

Ahh... the old there are so few fallacy.

"It is a minority issue as the chances of any one of us coming across this issue is unlikely."

I have trans people in my daily life. I am sure that many people have. You seem to be the one who is ill informed.

'Actually it is everyone else misunderstanding stats and not me."

you do seem to be the one misunderstanding stats and safeguarding.

@MarieDeGournay

the concept of transgenderism is damaging to women in that it destroys the category 'women' by including in it members of the category 'men'.

But the only reason it has the power to do this is that it resolutely refuses to treat itself as a concept, which individuals can believe in or not as they choose, but insists on being a true description of material reality. And so far has got away with it, putting itself in the position of Mary I, able to declare Protestantism 'untrue' by punishing its adherents (also see Communism, 1984, etc, etc).

The only logical desirable endpoint is one in which transgenderism is treated as a belief system like any other, with believers and non-believers required to accommodate each other exactly as we do for other beliefs.

Diverze can post whatever they want.

You seem to be under the illusion that just because they have a child who identifies as the opposite sex they deserve some kind of bravery medal.

What is actually brave is standing up for women in a society that has collectively swallowed an ideology that is harmful to women and girls and benefits perverted men. Because it creates huge holes in safeguarding.

Reorganising society to make a small number of people feel better about believing a lie is harmful to everyone. It's not about 'lacking empathy'.

"I want to get to a position of saying 'trans people are going to be mentally healthier if they aren't overly invested in "being perceived as" the other sex and "having the perceived privileges" of the other sex. In return, they deserve respect, dedicated spaces and dignity'.

I get that.

However, there is an inherent sexism about declaring that someone is not the sex they are. Just dismissing this with 'they know who they are' doesn't actually go to the very heart of the categorisation that they are rejecting and making.

And any person who requires any other person to use opposite sex language for them is heavily invested enough in being perceived as the other sex. I, and other women, do not consider it respectful at all that any male person uses female language to describe themselves. That is not respectful and it violates female dignity and causes harm in many ways collectively.

It is certainly not a minority of TRAs who are saying women’s boundaries should be ignored, that our language should be appropriated, our services destroyed…

Agree, I assume these are the trans people just trying to live their life that Diverse is thinking of. One is a nurse and another, a doctor. Normal, respectable roles with a lot of responsibility.
Why does Diverse think they didn't find a 3rd space to be acceptable?

Exactly

This is not difficult.

People are pretending not to understand

The minority thing is a red herring.

only a minority of men rape and assault women. But we can’t tell which ones they are so there is a blanket ban in women’s spaces.

only a minority of sports people indulge in doping, but we can’t tell which ones so we test everyone

only a minority of adults abuse children but we can’t tell which ones so we have secure child protection in placethat expects everyone to have DBS if they want to work with kids

only a minority of people will try and rob me but I can’t tell which ones so I lock my doors at night

only a minority of car trips culminate in an accident but I can’t tell which ones so I always wear a seat belt.

its all ‘because we don’t know’. And with transwomen we can’t know. Just like with all the other men.

I thinnk the numbers of cross dressers has long been under-estimated; but the trans movement has now given them permission and confidence ( even kudos) to do so in public, and encouraged many to take it 'full time'.

So you do have access to public toilets but feel unsafe using them at certain times - fair enough but why should that mean that other people ie women should feel unsafe in them all the time because you make male access easier?

If women feel they are unsafe all the time I assume usage will decrease and then there's even less reason to keep them - making your access issues even worse?

Social convesntion used to mean seeing men who weren't cleaning or with a reaosn litoring or entering womens toilets would raise concerns or illict a reponse - now after many years of breaking that convesntion it offers less protection but it never meant men would never enter just that commnunity eyes would clock that and maybe intervene - that visblity tends to deter on the spur crime as much as anything.

I suspect that is how the Left manages the cognitive dissonance of being 'pro trans' but also 'pro- muslim/anti-western imperialism' at the same time.

Considering the OP was defending their gentle trans friend by lying (either the poster was lying or the person who told the poster was lying) about an interaction with Kellie Jay Keen on another thread where many of the same discussion points were posted at the time, I suspect they have heard every single one of the discussion points and has dismissed many of them.

Did you completely miss the Sandie Peggy case? Darlington nurses? Edinburgh rape service?

Noone here is against 3rd spaces! It's the TRAs who won't accept it as an option.

Why do you think FWS went to the Supreme Court? It wasn't because they hated trans people. It was because the TRAs were insisting that trans identifying males should be allowed in women's spaces.

You are arguing with the people who have been pushing for what you are suggesting for over a decade.

Ah, the prosecutors fallacy.

There are more men who don’t identify as trans so they as a group present more of a risk. But that tells us nothing about individual risk. When it comes down to individual men, those who claim to be women are several times more likely to commit a sexual offence than men who do not.

And how are you defining these people you are calling 'women'? Are you suggesting that they might be more vulnerable than other people, and if so why?

The attempt to remove women's rights is not a marginal issue.

You can argue the toss about when single sex services are appropriate, but women's rights depend on sex being clearly being defined in law.

Not that old chestnut. Sure, a sign won't stop everyone, just like speed limits don't stop everyone from speeding, doesn't mean you should do away with them completely, does it?