UK radical feminists; what to do?

The sexism of Genderists is so obvious you can see it from space.

Two structures can be seen from space: the great wall of China, and the great wall of Genderist bullshit they desperately keep shovelling higher and higher trying to shore up their bizarre belief that some men are really women because of feeling all womanny on the inside 😂

The point is habits die hard for some. Colonisation & imperialism isn't just limited to resource & land grabbing but invading the psychological space based on that old chestnut cultural supremacy.

I'm still curious why it's ok for Australia to do "dunny policing" in sports, prisons, refuges and hospitals, but not in toilets and online spaces. You said it was obvious. Explain it to me.

We're all clearly way past the inclusive model you'd like to push on us, if your country has single sex sports and refuges. Now we're just quibbling about the details.

Because the potential for harm in such situations outweighs the benefits. Competing rights require balancing.

You don't seem to understand the concept of pros & cons existing are particular to circumstances that need to be weighed for the most effective outcome to be achieved.

invading the psychological space

Hilarious. And yet here you are, lecturing British people on a UK website. Who's invading which psychological space now? Or are you somehow "punching up"?

You don't seem to understand the concept of pros & cons existing are particular to circumstances that need to be weighed for the most effective outcome to be achieved.

That's just a longwinded way of saying there is an explanation. I want to hear what the explanation is. Why, in Australia, women's toilets (and apps) can include men, but not hospital wards, prisons, or refuges. You said it was obvious. Lay it out.

The context of this thread is comparisons between countries so I'm simply offering my opinion of how & why we differ. That you interpret this as 'lecturing' is purely a function of your own inability to accept other people's entitlement to views that challenge your own. Like I said upthread, there's a fascist undertone to this whole caper that goes hand in hand with imperialism.

OK. I'm now fully telt that I'm a fascist imperialist. Not lectured, mind you, but an opinion has been offered, which I must accept as others are entitled to their views. Let's move on. I still want to hear the explanation for why Australian men can enter women's toilets, but not women's single sex refuges, play in women's sports, or be placed in women's prisons.

I point out that this was claimed as obvious, so a succinct explanation should be no trouble.

I'm not privy to the legalese that underpinned such laws but I suspect in terms of hospitals & refuges, women are more likely to be in a state of serious physical & mental recovery so their recovery outweighs the benefits to housing trans women with them. For prisons I assume the potential for criminality (given we are dealing with criminals) increases exponentially the potential for harm so its less risky to house them together.

I'm not privy to the legalese that underpinned such laws but I suspect

Waffle and fudge. Waffle and fudge. Twenty minutes ago it was obvious. Now it's something you can only suspect.

I think you're having difficulty answering this simple question because the fact is that even in Australia nobody belives trans women are women: if anyone really believed that then there would be no reason not to allow "trans women" into women's sports, refuges or prisons.

If you have even a single case where natal women can go and men who identify as women can't it blows to smithereens the whole TWAW schtick. And then there's no reason to allow trans-identifying men into any space, service or app for women at all besides pandering to the feelings of men. The whole edifice is logically incoherent and disappears up its own ass.

What's obvious to someone with a modicum of brain cells that hasn’t been infected with phallophobia is the potential for harm dictates access not what might or might not be between someone’s legs.

This is incoherent and doesn't address the issue of why in Australian law men are always considered harmful in a women's refuge but cannot be considered so in a women's toilet or an app for women (where there is equally enormous potential for harm.) You claim that the answer is obvious, yet you cannot explain it. I say it's not obvious, and it's not obvious because it's actually (and obviously) false.

If you can't tell the OBVIOUS difference in risk between quickly using a locked cubicle in a busy public environment or a dumb app to sharing an unsupervised room alone overnight while being in a state of recovery, 'explaining' basic logic till you are blue in the face won't help.

You should hear from @keeptoiletssafe why mixed-sex toilets are a bad idea from a safety point of view.

Your characterization of public toilet usage is fascinating: quickly using a locked cubicle in a busy public environment

For those people whose toilet usage is not quick - for toilets not in a busy public environment but which are remote and infrequently used - or infrequently checked - does your calculus change? What if the locks on the cubicles are damaged on Tuesday, but repaired by Thursday?

Your putative refuge has unsupervised single occupant bedrooms. But my refuge has only communal sleeping, and is carefully supervised. Except on Sundays. Her refuge is daytime only, but it does have group counselling sessions. Why are you not certain that the only correct way is a refuge-by-refuge, day-by-day, case-by-case or man-by-man analysis? These are reasonable questions, aren't they? What ever happened to obvious?

You're also concerned entirely with safety. British law recognizes reasons for single sex services as safety, dignity and propriety. Perhaps Australian law doesn't. How about you? You don't care about women's dignity? Or propriety?

You aren't listening. Harm has to be balanced & specific to how the prevailing culture views harm. Just because there maybe 'potential harms' or odd occasions of harm sharing public toilets with trans women the pros & cons still need to be balanced. And harm to natal women in terms of increased scrutiny & harassment is one of those harms that many women would consider more important than 'dignity'. In fact many would argue there is no dignity in othering people for self invented 'preciousness'/dignity. We don't tend to indulge ourselves with the same 'airs & graces' as across the pond over here.

This isn't an issue in Australia purely because its not Australian's women's experience to be 'harmed' by trans women in public toilets….let alone even notice them there.

This is simply a manufactured issue that is being imposed rather than a grass roots concern.

Sal Grover has been all over the media with her attempts of this issue gaining traction all to no avail for a reason: Australian women don't care.

“quickly using a locked cubicle in a busy public environment”

Not everything a female person using a toilet facility does is quick or is behind a locked cubicle door. Toilets need to be useable for all purposes that female people use them, not just for some who don’t have the wider range of needs.

Harm has to be balanced & specific to how the prevailing culture views harm

What harm's do men identify as women come to that needs to be balanced out by denying women their same sex spaces. Why do women have to bare the brunt of this rebalancing why can't those who are doing the harming be made to change their behaviours.

Do Aus lesbian's care that they have to accept male bodies into their dating pool, and validate them as lesbian's. Because if man says he's a woman he is, just like that, and if said lady man fancies women, then he's also a lesbian, just like that. Not that anyone's imposing this view on them of course, heaven forbid no, that's colonialism.
Using Wikipedia to back up your claims means your claims are baseless.

All this just to give some deluded and/or demanding men what they want, it's fucking insane.

What harm's do men identify as women come to that needs to be balanced out by denying women their same sex spaces. Why do women have to bare the brunt of this rebalancing why can't those who are doing the harming be made to change their behaviours.

Harm/rights balancing or proportionality is a general rule that doesn't just apply to women. In fact many women would argue that the harm of being scrutinised & harassed for not appearing feminine enough is not worth the exclusion of trans women.

Do Aus lesbian's care that they have to accept male bodies into their dating pool, and validate them as lesbian's. Because if man says he's a woman he is, just like that, and if said lady man fancies women, then he's also a lesbian, just like that. Not that anyone's imposing this view on them of course, heaven forbid no, that's colonialism.

Lesbians like most groups aren't an ideological monolith with many supporting trans women inclusion to their spaces & its not as if they are forced to date them.

equalityaustralia.org.au/reject-trans-exclusion/

And it still all doesn't explain why a trans woman can't use men's toilets since it all doesn't matter anyway.

I may be being extremely thick here, but could @Gretel346 just simply explain for me why we have separate facilities for men and women at all, and why in that case a subset of male sex people should be allowed in to female facilities when other male sex people are excluded?
How can someone saying 'I'm a transwoman' suddenly mean they qualify and how do you prevent those men with nefarious intent using that phrase to gain access? What would be the objective test?

...and if I assured you that my DH is a very nice man (he is) and no risk at all to women, should he also be allowed to access women's facilities? (Not that he would because, well, he is a very nice man).

There's no test or qualification because it's not an issue of concern & has never been. To exclude people you kind of need there to be an actual problem that bothers people which isn't the case here. In fact this 'concern' has only been in the media from anti trans activists in the very recent times for only a few years which points to a manufactured issue rather than a real one.

Well that is blatantly untrue, google Katie Dolatowski for example.
I still want to know why you supposed feminists twist yourselves into argumentative pretzels just to give men what they demand? Why?

Wow. Maybe Australia is just behind the curve on the trans stuff?

Maybe it didn't yet see an explosion of young autistic kids being told that because they feel they don't fit in with externally imposed stereotypes they must actually be trans rather than quirky and therefore need drugs and surgery to perfectly health bodies?

Maybe it hasn't had people who have had male advantage growing up and in education transitioning late in life then claiming women's prizes (which exist to give women encouragement to pursue careers in certain fields where they are under represented.

Maybe it hasn't had Isla Brysons yet?
Has it not had a Lia Thomas situation?

'Excluding people' => Excluding men from womens spaces.