Not sure if this has been mentioned.

I am seeing a lot of the new ruling allows "cis" men to prentend to be trans men and enter the women's toilets,

A niffty bit of bait and switch continuing along the lines of "cis" men are the enemy, we are all "girls" together.

The bit that I found amusing in this is that it was a trans woman fioming in the women's toilets after the guidance came out.

I have fallen in love with 'proportionality/balancing rights' which is a legal term. This is true but only when constraining the power of the state over the individual.

There's been quite a bit of "using opposite-sex toilets isn't actually illegal".

Which ignores the fact that service providers and employers have certain legal obligations in that area; and that if somebody kicks up when the provider or employer has asked them to comply, they are in the same position as any other disruptive service user or uncooperative employee, i.e. the fact that their stroppiness happens to be toilet-related becomes fairly irrelevant.

I haven't used my rabid pitchfork since last autumn to stab errant lawn leaves. It's probably pretty rusty by now.

g. Transwomen Men who identify as trans say they will just use the ladies anyway.

I think the emerging tactic is "It's too hard to say no to trans people's desire appropriate opppsite sex spaces as identity props so all spaces will become Gender Neutral. You will lose Women-only spaces altogether and serve you right!"

Otherwise known as "If I can't have you no one can". An age old classic of Patriarchal rage.

How many times just on this board have we been told that 3rd spaces are 'othering and transphobic' and the mere mentioning of them is akin to genocide.

Anyone who doesn't believe me, just google 'Mumsnet third spaces' and you'll see that nothing less than the complete capituation by women has been acceptable to TRA's.

It's only now, when they have finally gathered this isn't going their way, that calls for 'a reasonable, kind solution for all' are being touted.

And at this point, women's patience has worn out. We're no longer prepared to deal with over indulged toddlers who treat the word no as a personal slight.

But why would using the facilities provided for their sex make anyone miserable?

Presumably this comes down to a handful of reasons.

1). They don't want to face up to the reality of their sex. This is very unfortunate, but it isn't societies problem to solve. If this is the case, they need therapy.

2). They get a kick out of using women's spaces for reasons of power or fetish or some combination of both. If this is the case, then I'm sure you'll agree we do not owe them any sympathy or accommodation.

3). They would be genuinely unsafe. I've never seen any evidence for this, but if it's the case, the. It's the argument for third spaces. However, I fail to see why lecturing women to accommodate these men is the answer here. Surely the men making other men unsafe in the toilets are the problem and therefore need to be dealt with. It's not women's problem to solve.

So while I am a for third spaces if required, I fail to see what 'diversity of belief' we should be accommodating here.

It's all either delusion, mental illness, fetish, nasty attitudes to women or terrible behaviour by other men. There is absolutely nothing here that women should feel pressure to facilitate.

👍🏼

Also known as "Fuck you female people. Who cares whether you have legal rights or not? We don't. You don't deserve the rights you have being respected, and we don't care how that makes you feel because trans people and how they feel matter so much more than you" 🤬😡🤬😡🤬

Mixed/Gender nuetral spaces were brought up at the start of this.

And it is worth remembering that it was the trans lobby that shot the idea down because TWAW #Nodebate etc.

So once again we are in this position because of the trans lobby but you will never hear them admit to it, cause its all transphobia.

That will teach me not to read and post in haste.

Single-sex facilities must be upheld even if there is no space for a unisex option to be added.

People who have altered their bodies and are uncomfortable using the facilities for their sex might need to do a bit more planning to ensure that unisex facilities are available at their destination or nearby enough to use during their trip. People with disabilities have to plan like that all the time, or decide not to go to certain places where their needs are not met. People with congenital disabilities or disabilities due to accidents have not made a choice to alter their bodies, yet they must plan like this. Why can't people with trans identities plan a bit? They always have the option of using the facilities for their sex, after all.

I am still not against additional unisex facilities being added, where possible.

But it’s not our job, I don’t really care either way sad long as all men stay out of the women’s.

I’m not ok with it either, but it takes some of the wind out of the TRAs’ sails and I don’t think decision makers will agree to making them use the men’s.

Most years people gored to death by unicorns have worse stats than murdered TIM in the UK.

It's hard to be ok with it because their beliefs are sexist and deligitimise the self knowledge of female people who just see ourselves as female.

Basically it sends the message that it's ok to see other people as sexist gender stereotypes - or at least the message if you do happen to see other people as sexist gender stereotypes, we don't want to make you uncomfortable by insisting you leave your sexism at the (toilet) door so we'll play along.

So it's hard to see that sexist belief being treated by venues, service providers, employers etc as reasonable and something that has to be accomodated.

If GN is presented as "people who don't care about sex" that would be different, but it isn't. It's drawing lines between people based on assumptions about their personality which unlike the risks that lead to some things being segregated by sex don't have any empirical evidence to.support them, just trans people's sexist ideas.

It's very Wheesht for Indy.

So women can have single-sex spaces, but only when the special men are fully satisfied, is that what you are saying?