"Our customers won't do this because they aren't DECEITFUL" ??????

[SuitedandBooted]

Yes, it is in the Daily Mail, but

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5565999/Row-female-compartments-transgender-people-pits-Churchills-grandson-against-Mumsnet.html

Just how the hell can Serco vouch for everyone who uses this service?
Women will be perfectly safe sharing a sleeping carriage with ANYONE as there is a button they can press?

Hello Mr Soames, Real World calling!!

Most sexual offences are not rape. And most sexual offenders either do not go to jail at all, or do so for very short periods of time. As a society we choose not to pay for long term supervision of sexual offenders. Worboys is an extreme case, from a legal point of view. Most sexual offenders get nothing like the sentence he got. Trust me, I’m as angry about that state of affairs as anyone else. But that’s how much society thinks of the safety of women and children.

Stillscreaming, not looking at sexual offending as a whole is skewing your statistics. Rape is only part of the story. Men with a fetish for dressing as women commit a whole range of different sexual offences. I would rather have spaces where I have a right to be free from all of those offences.

We can't tell what sex everyone is from looking, I've attached a photo of a trans man, who would be sharing the women's loos with sex segregation, I'm sure he's not a sex offender but the lines have already been blurred if he's weeing next to us.

What a novel argument! This problem applies to a teeny tiny group of people. If trans people pass that well (which most of them categorically do not) they can access the spaces of the opposite sex without comment, can't they?

Does anyone remember Claig?

Prolific poster on political issues ?

We will no longer be allowed to even question the presence of a male in female space. Nobody is going to think twice now about a man going into the ladies.

I wonder if voyeuristic crimes will go up as well. It will certainly make it easier to plant cameras even though it already happens.

Apparently secondary school girls, and I have one of those, now dress to avoid upshots by boys in schools www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e3c3da6-3203-11e8-9cf6-8fd69d6da6df. I expect that's what will end up happening with loos and changing rooms - women and girls changing behaviour.

I wouldn't buy a sleep birth on this line knowing what I know now it’s not an option anymore– I’d look at flying instead. Clearly and sadly for customer choice the company don't care about losing some custom.

However it’s only a result for all women if the jail you are locking him up in isn’t a women’s prison, full of vulnerable women. Which it will be following self ID.

The Prison Service have made it clear that they are aware that there is a cohort of prisoners who will claim to be trans for perceived 'privileges'. The Prison Service have made it clear that they are well used to dealing with prisoners who fake other conditions for 'privileges'. I don't accept that the Prison Service's brain will dribble out of its ear, in relation to amendments to the GRA. It's possible for prisoners to be held in prisons that don't correspond to their legal gender. That's happening now. Trans women with a GRC are still held in the male estate, if that's the place deemed most suitable for them. There is no reason to believe that will change.

If you are suggesting that because of self ID, the parole board would lock people up for longer, due to difficulties managing the risk, you are wrong, as they wouldn’t be able defend that decision against a human rights challenge.

So, although there has been no case law, you are saying that proposed changes in legislation, the details of which we don't know, will preclude some licensing conditions that are currently in place? I don't think that anyone is in any position to 'know' that.

Does anyone remember Claig?

You keep asking this when I post, if you suspect I'm someone else, please report or stop doing it, it's tedious.

Do you know what, privacy, dignity. These are compromised. Safety is the headline but my saggy bum and old bra are not happy at sharing with a strange man. So it will cost me more.

And this is wrong. We are more than 50% if the population yet we have to make 100% of the compromises.

It's not about if we can twig trans Stillscreaming, that is a strawman and you know it.

It is about if we, as a society, continue to protect female space and sex-segregation as a means of protecting women, or if we're going to throw all women under the bus to coddle a small group with mental health issues.

That's happening now. Trans women with a GRC are still held in the male estate, if that's the place deemed most suitable for them. There is no reason to believe that will change.

How do you know? The whole basis is being watered down.

Stillscreaming, not looking at sexual offending as a whole is skewing your statistics. Rape is only part of the story. Men with a fetish for dressing as women commit a whole range of different sexual offences. I would rather have spaces where I have a right to be free from all of those offences.

I'd also like a space where we could be free from all of those offences. However, we see from the video evidence above that we don't have that and never have had.

The question is, will the situation get worse in the event of self id? Do we have evidence that it's got worse in Ireland, Malta or Canada?

I've been given a video that might show that trans people might be responsible for 0.000031% (over 4) of rapes over the last 40 years. I've been given a link to a right wing blogger, who make a lot of unevidenced claims that women have been sexually assaulted in the aisles of supermarkets because they have gender free loos. I've been given an example of a pervert placing a camera in a women's loo. However, I've not actually been given the evidence I've asked for.

There are countries that we can reasonably compare ourselves to, that keep trustworthy crime figures and have self id, where is the evidence that women are less safe under those laws? I'm quite happen for the evidence line not to be rape, I agree that there are other types of odious sexual offences. I'd be happy with evidence of any of those.

I’m suggesting that if the law passes as it is being campaigned for, there will be consequences for the management of sex offenders. Unless specific amendments are made, which they won’t be unless we speak out about our concerns. And those amendments would only deal with convicted sexual offenders, not the majority who are never caught, and who will find it easier to access victims. And who do exist.
And the fear will stop a large percentage of women having equal access to services such as sleeper carriages. Don’t forget we live in a society where victims are judged for participating in high risk activities, like walking down a dark road alone. Soon we will be judged for using a public toilet, or buying a ticket for the train. That judgement starts to exclude women.

Some TRAs are making a huge deal out of the prison rules that say a female prisoner can be held in the male estate if she is exceptionally dangerous. Prison instructions for trans prisoners can be downloaded here - scroll down to '17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders'.

The prison service go by legal sex, first and foremost. They're not allowed to ask to see a GRC but they can ask for a birth certificate (the sole remaining thing a GRC is good for). If a prisoner has a female birth cert (original or obtained via a GRC) they will be housed in the female estate unless they present an exceptional risk, in which case they may be moved to a men's prison, purely because this is where the facilities are. They will still be housed separately from men and will be accommodated in line with PSI for female prisoners. TW prisoners with a GRC are treated as female in all circumstances.

There is case law directly referenced in the prison rules linked above that says that even if a tw is in prison for attempted rape, if they have a grc and hence a bc that says 'female', they must be sent to a women's prison. The bar is very low as we have seen in various cases that have made mainstream media.

I said a right to be free. As in a space where a person who should not be there can be challenged and removed. I’m not suggesting that no assault ever occurs in a public toilet, just that at the moment I have a reasonable belief that those using it legitimately don’t pose a threat.

Do you know what, privacy, dignity.

Yep. So sick of all of the different important reasons for sex segregation being ignored and women being told to suck it up as long as they are not actually raped.

It's not about if we can twig trans Stillscreaming, that is a strawman and you know it.

The photo I put up was in reply to a PP's claim that we are all made safer by sex segregated spaces becasue we know who should be where, that if we see someone who appears male, we know that person's reasons for being in a sex segregated bathroom are nefarious.

I'm trying to point out, that things aren't as clear cut as they once were, we can't look and assume that we know someone's sex. We can't test for sex in loos and, even if we could, it's no guarantee of being safe.

Don’t forget we live in a society where victims are judged for participating in high risk activities, like walking down a dark road alone. Soon we will be judged for using a public toilet, or buying a ticket for the train. That judgement starts to exclude women.

This is exactly the problem. It scares me.

So sick of all of the different important reasons for sex segregation being ignored and women being told to suck it up as long as they are not actually raped.

Yes this!

However, I've not actually been given the evidence I've asked for.

Lol. You don't really need evidence do you? The depths men go to to access women and girls, it is blatantly bloody obvious some will use the potential Self ID to gain access to women's and girl's spaces.

If women and girls don't need sex segregation then why do we have it in the first place? Why did we even have female toilets? Why create female, male and family changing rooms? Why?

Because of men. Anyone who doesn't see this is either wanting that access, or just bored with life and arguing for the sake of it.

We do not have to provide you with evidence.

assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4327114/2017-05-12-Fleming-Amended-Complaint.pdf

Yep. So sick of all of the different important reasons for sex segregation being ignored and women being told to suck it up as long as they are not actually raped.

I would go so far as to suggest that people focus on these other reasons when arguing with the hard of thinking. It comes down to the misogynistic idea that women's feelings and concerns aren't important and can be ignored while men must always be taken seriously and appeased. They can't handwave it away so easily by appeals to a lack of evidence that they will personally accept (i.e. not from a gender critical site) as they do when safety is mentioned.

The Prison Service have made it clear that they are well used to dealing with prisoners who fake other conditions for 'privileges'. I don't accept that the Prison Service's brain will dribble out of its ear, in relation to amendments to the GRA.

But if the law is changed to mean that any man who says he is a woman is a woman (TWaW) - no different to me - then no one will be able to stop it.

The Prison Service is not above the law.

I’m suggesting that if the law passes as it is being campaigned for, there will be consequences for the management of sex offenders. Unless specific amendments are made, which they won’t be unless we speak out about our concerns.

I think that people should speak out about their concerns. I think that there are absolutely legitimate concerns in some areas. I think that there is also a lot of prejudice and if legitimate concerns can be differentiated from prejudice, then the legitimate concerns have a much better chance of being listened to.

I don't think that the changes to the GRA should be a free-for-all but I know that I don't have any group that I'd feel comfortable standing with to voice any of my concerns. I've got a few transsexual friends who also have concerns but they're not willing to voice them because they know that anything they say will alline them with groups who would deny their very existence.

No one wants male sex offenders given easy access to victims but throwing the entire trans community under a bus becasue of the 'indignity' of sharing a space with them is unacceptable. There has to be a bit of reasonable ground in the middle and the narrative that all trans people are sex offenders/dangerous isn't in that middle ground.

I'm trying to point out, that things aren't as clear cut as they once were, we can't look and assume that we know someone's sex. We can't test for sex in loos and, even if we could, it's no guarantee of being safe.

So because some very convincing Trans women manage it now, we should just say - "Oh, we can't stop everyone, it will be OK!" How is that even an argument - you can't remove all risk so why bother at all?

If I walk in the changing rooms in my sports centre, and there is a man stripping off in there, I can get security, and he will be removed. I doubt it would matter how good his make-up was/wasn't - he would be removed.

Under the the proposed changes, he only needs to say, "But I am a woman, I feel I am!" , and he will be allowed to stay.

Maybe you don't have any problems with this scenario, but many people do.

No one wants male sex offenders given easy access to victims but throwing the entire trans community under a bus becasue of the 'indignity' of sharing a space with them is unacceptable

Why don't you consider women's privacy and dignity important, and yet male feelings to be very important? Why are women's rights to sex protections "unacceptable"?