Good Law Project to report Sex Matters over 'deviant' remark

I think maybe you're just posting articles and philosphical points off a kind of cheat sheet, and you don't actually know the context of any of this stuff.
One of Paglia's contrarian assertions was that wealthy young women at liberal arts colleges in the USA would find it empowering to engage in sexual / sexualised labour for pay. It's pretty seedy, but she could be dreadfully edgelordy. And there were young women who wanted to show they were cool, sex positive feminists and not one of those daggy old safetyist feminists, who engaged in camgirl work and similar. They weren't motivated by a need for money, these were wealthy young women. It was a deeply strange chapter in the histoy of third wave feminism. I assumed you'd know what I was talking about because you linked to the Paglia article.
Rest assured, I wasn't making any reference to the debasement of society. Just of academia.

I was thinking more like year 9? Perhaps that's why no answers to some pretty pertinent questions- they have very little life experience so far ?

I can't believe I need to explain this.

Please don't. You have delighted us long enough.

Except that "sounding board" implies an intention to listen to feedback. I don't think that's happening.

Oh, now you are just spoiling someone's argument with facts. You meanie!

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/new-poll-shows-most-people-prefer-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms/

The vast majority of people prefer single-sex toilets and changing rooms and, even when you dig down into the younger generations and the Green voters, it is only ever minority numbers (well below 50%) that think transgender people should use whichever facilities they prefer.

I suspect this thread is being used as a sounding board for some kind of university dissertation/thesis

the mother would certainly have kicked up a row if an obvious male had walked in after the child

Until recently we have been moving away from that assumption, and towards the idea that it is wrong to question anyone's gender identity.

This certainly seems to have been the policy of the courts and police, although I think guidance has now changed?

It’s getting more and more laughable and absurd. I’m off as well.

At least people may look at this thread and see who is thinking of health and safety of everyone. It might change people’s minds on which design of toilet to install and for that, I am grateful.

I have to go and do things now.
When I come back, will Baileyonice have replied to my direct questions?
I know I can be annoying, a bit like a 3-year-old constantly asking 'But whhhyyyyy?'
but it's the way my mind works - dig down to the basics of an issue, see what the foundation is, and is it solid? because if not, the edifice won't stand.

In this case, what is the reasoned argument for changing the established configuration of men's/women's/ accessible, which works for the huge majority of the population?
So far the only answer has been 'arguments against the EHRC guidance', but no indication of which one.

Just to add to that, a reminder that recently men (who identify as ‘transwomen’ on entering the women’s toilet and ‘detransition’ on leaving the toilet) have been convicted as men, of crimes such as sexual assault and voyeurism on women.

edit: they didn’t make any attempt to look feminine or like a woman btw

Baileyonice. is there any way you can bring yourself to accept the words "one female child of ten being sexually assaulted in a public lavatory intended for women only is one female child of ten too many"?

Not all rapists or would-be rapists confine their raping to their own homes, even if it is statistically more likely that they will.

In this particular case the offender was a man dressed as a woman. He might not have been able to get into the facility past the child's mother if that had not been the case; the mother would certainly have kicked up a row if an obvious male had walked in after the child. Morrisons' staff might even have gone in and removed him before he had time to assault and terrify that child. (And good for the child, who fought back and escaped even when threatened with a knife; but I wouldn't stake my life, or even tenpence, on her not having nightmares about the events.)

So you are going back to the argument that there is no need for single sex toilets, this time because you think that it is unlikely that a crime will be committed in a public toilet.

But that wasn't what I asked.

I think you said that you understood that some women were wary of sharing public toilets with men, but then said

rather I don't hold the same safety risk expectations from trans women

How would one know the difference?

Hallelujah you are almost getting it.
PRIVATE.
look back at my picture
which ones private?

I don't have strong feelings about toilets.

I just think Keeptoiletssafe makes very good arguments about toilet design, it's clear that many people don't want to share toilets with the opposite sex, and per the Equality Act, that is all the justification you need for toilets to be single sex.

However, what really, really doesn't make sense is the argument that some men should be able to use women's toilets because they are safer than men's toilets if any man can use them. That is just an affront to logic.

Discomfort is a subjective thing though. Many women don't feels comfortable in women's open change rooms & aren't afforded the dignity & privacy they need so this isn't a consistently held argument.

I'm hardly an expert but Paglia seems to me to be saying, consistently, precisely the opposite; she had considerable dysphoria about the gendered social role she was required to play, but thinks it ridiculous and unacceptable to have to change your recorded sex, still less modify your physical body, in order to live your life the way you want to. Many of us born in the 40s felt the same.

You're still relying on what you've previously called 'safetyism'.
I repeat my question - if the men's/women's/accessible configuration works for the majority of people, what it the argument for changing it?
You haven't explained that yet.

'Risky' men tend to conduct their 'risky business' aka as sexual violence with women they know in private settings not public toilets because they aren't private hence the word 'public' & on the odd occasion they do attempt to abuse the ladies the last thing they worry about is 'permission' structures. But one thing they do concern themselves with is being discovered so you won't be able to identify them regardless of how masculine they are in appearance because they have the basic savvy to know to strike in isolated environments.

I can't believe I need to explain this…….

And the majority position in the U.K. favours the majority position on MN rather than your fringe one, funnily enough.

Do you mean the EHRC guidelines related to the Supreme Court's clarification of the original law, to confirm that it meant what it said rather than what a completely amateur and extremely biased organisation claimed it meant?

I agree that it might be argued that they try to weasel out of saying what it is absolutely clear should be said. And they do it at great length.

Of course, you are free to use mixed sex facilities when they are available.

Plenty of women have had unpleasant experiences with trans identified or cross dressing men in women's facilities, even if you have not. Again, it is not all about safety in terms of direct physical or sexual assault, more so about dignity and privacy and feeling very uncomfortable with the 'otherness' of a male person in a space you had thought was for female people only.

Which one? By whom?