Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

It's uncontroversial that the gender critical movement was created in & is substantially strongest in Britain. And there's been a lot speculation of why this phenomena is so captivating there. Hierarchy & class social structures being a long lasting historical cultural feature is probably the culprit in my view.

Ben Elton once was asked why it was he married an Australian rather than a British woman & his reply was British women in his experience were obsessed by class structure so that was one of the reasons.

Interestingly JKRowling made some interesting admissions in her recent Witch Trial podcast where she talked about how much class impacted her at school & college because of the poverty she experienced in her life. And yet now she clings ever so tightly to a hierarchical structure.

It's a funny thing that sometimes the thing that we seek to escape from we perpetuate because of an unconscious learning. I notice this in some immigrants from baltic countries where they wanted to escape authoritarian landscape but their own political views have authoritarian consequences. Learned habits however fought die hard it seems.

None of your anti-British spite alters the fact that insisting trans women are women is an eccentric niche belief in the history of the world and is not and has not been shared by the vast majority.
Cultures that traditionally make place for a "third gender" stop short of the final folly and allow people to recognise the difference. The third gender lives "in the manner of a woman" but is a category in its own right, not force-teamed with women against self-evident reality.

Seems 'Mother Nature' doesn't apply globally. Sorry.

And it's exactly because of attitudes like this that Britain is in a shambles. The Tavistock fiasco being blamed on the 'gender bogeyman' rather than an underfunded mismanaged incompetent health system is one of many examples. And it's always the same sort of bigoted bias that obfuscates the underlying causes that prevents real progress. See immigrants being now blamed for Britain being a dysfunctional economic & social basket case.

And they place themselves on highest perch imposing their repeated failed judgements of how other countries should operate? They want to disturb the social cohesion & rights of otherwise peaceful contented countries with their long historical bigotries as some sort of grand model?

Seems somethings never change.

It's not Britain you're up against. It's Mother Nature. Sorry.

This issue is clearly a culturally import that was manufactured top down in Britain that's being heavily pushed & funded abroad. That this isn't your personal intention is irrelevant to what's being attempted here which is a colonisation of the cultural & political space of other countries.

Nah mate.

I just want the sex discrimination act to be put back to prioritise sex where sex matters in Australia. And for single sex provisions to be made single sex through law if needed so that all male people are excluded from single sex provisions above the age of children.

Your accusations of my ‘colonisation’ really are irrelevant. As is the accusations of British arrogance in my case.

As to your attempt, yet again, to deflect women’s attention to your very own political priorities, well, that seems to fit that arrogance description well. As does this statement:

“In other words, mind your own back yard first….it certainly needs tending.”

It is not 'contestable' that male people with a transgender identity are a safety risk

Clearly it is given its legal for trans women to use female public restrooms in many countries & jurisdictions globally including in Europe, Scandinavia, Asia & North America so any tenuous speculation regarding prison data made is obviously not reflective of safety concerns in all of these countries. Again there are no broad movements in them to change laws which is the ultimate barometer of safety concerns.

And I do hold 'cards' in the Australian discussion, being an Australian and all. So, no. I am not 'colonising' anything and it is rather offensive to suggest that I am.

You aren't just advocating for a system to be imposed in Britain but for an imposition of a British system upon the rest of the world which in essence a form of colonisation. Of course this isn't anything new for British arrogance that always seems to end in tears.

Perhaps your time might be better spent on what forces have enabled Britain to be riddled with mismanagement, poverty & crime that have created their burgeoning prison system that's being exploited to push political pet projects home…and abroad rather than deal with the real underlying causes.

In other words, mind your own back yard first….it certainly needs tending.

Just dropping in to express my admiration for everyone who's still got the will to live after dealing with Gretel's interminable shifting goalposts and imaginary predatory pregnant women. You'd think he'd be too busy eradicating poverty to waste our time for a week trying to get men in the ladies', but it seems, as always, he knows which class of humans should be off doing that before they get to do anything else.

If all trans-identifying men had some innate goodness that magically prevented them from ever committing a crime, I would still not want them in the ladies.

Apart from the issues of privacy and dignity, there is no way we can tell the difference between an angelic trans-identifying man and a man who is a sexual predator that only pretends to be trans. Because they’re both men. This is what safeguarding is about.

The conversation has moved on but I thought this might adress some of the “sex recognition is based on gender stereotypes” nonsense.

Assuming that is true, what measures would it be reasonable to take to prevent would-be abusers from ordering fake breasts (such as we've seen a couple of alleged TW wearing to work!), putting on a dress and going into female changing rooms to get an eyeful, or worse?

IOW how would one test for the reality of the "transness" as opposed to the femaleness?

So I see the argument has moved now from being 'far right influence' to trying to invoke colonial influence because the UK labour party has supported the biological definition of female and the need for female single sex provision to be kept segregated by sex.

I am waiting for these posters to provide us with a detailed logical premise as to why a group of male people, which the prisoner statistics show do not even come close to having the same or lower rate of being convicted for sex offences, will somehow have a lower rate or the same rate of sex offence 'offending' as female people.

There really seems to be something disconnected in how some people wish to try to undermine safeguarding principles. The statement that it is somehow 'contestable' that those male people as a group should be considered to have a risk of committing sex offences higher than that of female people is laughable.

Of course, physical harm is just one aspect taken into consideration for safeguarding decisions.

Any argument containing the lie, "Transw are a subset of women" can be discounted in its entirety, in my opinion.

Exactly this.

I get some people will find that difficult to accept but the stats demonstrate clearly why men as a sex class must kept up of women's spaces (in this respect - there are others obviously).

Men who say they are women are just as much a risk as any other men.

For men who say they are women in prison, 60% of them are in there for sexual offences compared to 20% of men who do not say they are women.

So actually 3 times as much of a risk as other men.

It is not 'contestable' that male people with a transgender identity are a safety risk. Safety risks are also not the only reason for safeguarding to exclude all male people either.

It is not an acceptable act of civil rights resistance to negate the consent of female people using a female single sex provision. If you believe it is an act of righteousness for a male person to make a conscious choice to negate female people's consent in that way, it really is just another example of how you do not understand safeguarding and consent.

And I do hold 'cards' in the Australian discussion, being an Australian and all. So, no. I am not 'colonising' anything and it is rather offensive to suggest that I am.

The same safeguarding and consent concerns happen across the world, it is not UK centric. It could be said to be female centric. So, examples of how different countries deal with this same situation is important to understand and to work through.

@Gretel346

You can answer the question because you know exactly what behaviours are exhibited by men as a sex category and why those behaviours must be kept out of women's spaces - but to name them would challenge your thinking and undermine your belief system, and so you're choosing not to. I would have been surprised if you had - this obfuscation is a familiar pattern of response from people who trample on the rights of women.

Your permission structure would allow those same men into any womens facility that they wanted to get into to escape those men. Top work!

Typical behaviours vary in the sex category between sub groups. So no, can't answer the question. But if you're attempting to lead this horse to a 'violent behaviour' narrative my counter to you would be that permission structures don't change that. I would also say the overwhelming amount of abuse of women occurs from men known to women in their or the women's home.

What like in a prison cell?

Perverts are now a sterotype of men who say they are women? That's very transphobic.

I never report anyone, only spammers.

I prefer to ask and see what the response is.

You went straight to 'report me' rather than 'oh I see, yes classing women as a subset of humans that includes women and men who say they are women is completely mad/deranged/unhinged, it makes me look ridiculous, I won't do that again'.

Nor do women have to fear men……unless they are alone with them.

Permission structures don't tend to hold much power over abusers.