to think this is sexism, when no-one asked women, yet women are negatively affected?

[TruthOnTrial]

I am trying to understand how rules in schools, gyms, public toilets and sports have been rewritten, negatively affecting women, without reference to women?

Does it even matter what women think? Does society not care?

Or am I just being incredibly naïve to expect to be asked about things that impact my life and possible risk for me and my DC?

@burnedtoast

you said I'm also of the view that very few sexual predators are going to go to the trouble of dressing up as a woman just so they can enter a 'woman only space' to attack a woman. Not when there are so many other opportunities to do that. I feel more at risk of that walking back late or night or sat on an empty train carriage etc.

So women, pah. But how about attacking children? This study from Oxfordshire published in 2010 shows that a small but significant number of men seen by NHS gender reassignment services were "seeking gender reassignment to facilitate or normalise paedophilia. This latter small group described gender reassignment as a means by which to increase their intimate contact with children, which they viewed to be more socially acceptable in a female role."

"SEEKING TO FACILITATE OR NORMALISE PAEDOPHILIA"

www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/6B5F217162ABD9B3189F2EB82787034E/S1758320900012695a.pdf/gender_reassignment_5_years_of_referrals_in_oxfordshire.pdf

And these men were just the ones whose motives were discovered or who let on during interviews. Obviously most would (and I am certain do) hide their paraphilias. (meanwhile their allies seek to normalise and minimise paraphilia and fetish in the public's mind - see Pride and fetish)

The treatments these men wanted might involve nothing but gaining a GRC, or anything from wigs and laser treatments and feminisation surgery, to hormones and genital reconstruction BUT could be as little as wigs and facial feminisation and ZERO genital surgery; meaning that the man could attempt to pass as a woman visually but keep all his male sexual organs and functioning (which he fully intends to use for all its practical purposes).

And is it a great deal better if he does not have his penis but abuses children in other ways? Psychologically or physically.

So how do you feel now Burnedtoast, knowing that men were willing to approach NHS gender reassignment services with the aim of more successfully abusing children?

Are you happy deciding that children should have to bear that risk?

Are you going to speak to his child victims and say to their faces that you were happy to take the risk because... what.. you think the poor trans males have such difficult lives and its such a tiny percentage of the population anyway.

Is this still hysteria? Or is this child safeguarding?

The gender reassignment and GRC process does not involve much psychological analysis (certainly not any rigorous or long term assessment and does not require surgery) and so is easily gamed, but is slightly better than self ID which is the most insane idea I have ever heard.

I think you need to cool it plattercake. I don't have to agree with you and your confrontational, aggressive approach is not appropriate.

Firstly, I hadn't read that research when I made my comment so you can't extrapolate my opinions on the OP to that. Of course no one wants to see a situation where men are manipulating the ability to call themselves a woman to abuse children. And the same applies to abusing women. But, sexual violence (to whoever) exists everywhere. It is not only in changing rooms by a man with a frock on. As I said, our local pool has communal changing rooms so the risk is already there. The fact is very few men are going to want to walk around dressed as a woman. And fewer again are going to carry out a sexual attack. Of course it would be horrendous if a man carried out a sexual attack facilitated by being able to access a changing room. But, let's not forget that risk is already there. Plenty of men carry out sexual attacks in their 'male' roles. Eh, teachers doctors, scour leaders, priests. I would go as far as saying sexual violence is far more likely by men in normal male roles, than by men dressed as women.

So, yes. I do think there's alot of hysteria going on.

you will be in no more danger from them than you would be from anyone else using the facilities.

If this was the case why haven't all toilets, sports etc always been mixed sex?

so why hold the door open for him? That's what self ID does - it makes things a whole lot easier for abusers.

People being with their own sex when in a vulnerable state is a perfectly acceptable reason for single sex wards. I have just this week had someone tell me of being in a mixed sex ward and waking up to find a man pissing in the sink next to her bed.

A man sticking on a frock is just as likely to commit an attack - in fact there's evidence that he's more likely to (nearly half of trans identifying men in prison are sex offenders, a far higher percentage than non-trans identifying men.) There is no way for a woman or girl to know if he's 'true trans' or a predator. So - out he stays.

Burned can I ask your view of the following...sticking with the changing room scenario for now ... if changes to the GRA go ahead as the militant population of the pro-trans view would like and a man can certify himself as a woman online with very little gatekeeping. This man is now able to use the ladies changing room (not the mixed sex changing village) and can walk around naked whilst young girls are in there getting changed also. His male genitalia is fully intact.

Would you think that's ok?

Sorry that sentence was too long and badly structured. Hopefully you get my drift

MNHQ - please explain why my post was deleted.

@MNHQ and why was mine deleted?

Oh, I know Burned - someone has kicked off about my 'man in a frock' comment. FFS.

Perhaps we should use "Pip" (as in Bunce?) to refer to such individuals? >awaits post deletion <

Pretty poor MN, this discussion has remained pretty civil and balanced ( a rare thing on MN these days) even though posters on both sides of the debate feel strongly.

I don't think men are any more likely to be strutting their stuff naked than they do in the mixed changing room I currently go in tellmewhenthespaceshiplands. So, no I'm not going to fret about your made up, unlikely to happen scenario.

As I said.

Hysteria.

Just to clarify, I'm not about to start being drawn into this ridiculous sensationalism going on. I don't have a problem with 'men' getting undressed in the cubicle next to me. I base that on my experience of already using mixed changing rooms that so many of you clearly haven't. I don't buy into the theories of men attacking women and children and running about naked in changing rooms . I'm not saying that won't happen, but my argument is it already can happen. Men and boys already go in changing rooms together. Or does that not count? I'm afraid I just don't agree with you and that's the end of it for me.

You're being ridiculous MNHQ and somewhat hypocritical when you consider some of the language and insults flying about on this board. Our conversation has been civil with no insults. I have one view, they have another. I don't have an issue with that as I'm sure they don't. It would be a dull place if we all agreed.

Burned in our local leisure centre the changing rooms are communal. I have huge issues with adult men changing with my daughter, and I would guess all the Muslim women attending the women's swim session would also have an issue with this.

As a suggestion, if you're really anxious about men entering the loos, maybe start a campaign about how every single public toilet I've been into in the UK recently has a sign saying "these toilets are cleaned by male attendants". The odds of meeting a man in the lav due to that are a shed load higher than meeting a trans woman but for some reason the MN are never that bothered about that.

And if you're concerned about sexual assault, maybe push for better lighting in public parks where you are an order of magnitude more likely to be attacked that in a mixed sex swimming pool changing village or whatever.

Or is that not as satisfying as having a go at a trans woman?

Do transwomen put a sign outside the women's loos letting women know that there's a male person in the loo? No?

Why the actual fuck do you think those signs are there, bat? They are there to let women know there is a male person in the loo, so they can choose whether or not to use that loo.

Jesus fuck, I can't actually believe I'm having to spell that out to you.

I don't understand the 'how can we be protected' bit. Protected from what?

How the hell will you know if a transgender person is in the cubicle next to you? Do the places you shop at request you to drop your knickers before you enter the changing rooms to check for tackle/no tackle?

I think you are confusing transgender and sexual predator. not at all the same thing. The poor person wants to try on clothes not rub their willy on you.

This is the modern version of straight men disliking gay men because they worry a straight man will be treated by a gay man the same way a straight man treats women.

Stop being a prat and mind your own business. It REALLY doesn't effect you.

Cassian yes, what you said.

Self ID will be like a green light for that kind of predatory behaviour. It's not hysteria. I mean, if a man can don a dress and become a lady once a week and win a spot on the FTs Top 100 women in business list, you're telling me predatory men won't look to use this to their advantage?

And with respect this is my business and it absolutely could affect me or my daughter.

I think you are confusing transgender and sexual predator.

do you think sexual predators do around with a big sign or their foreheads saying 'I'm a sexual predator' whothedaddy? I'm pretty sure they don't.

Why are you putting trans people on a pedastal like this? Do you think that's an intelligent thing to do?

I'm at a loss as to why my inoffensive post was deleted.

I do wonder whether there is a lot of reporting going on from those who are pushing one particular agenda.

What always strikes me about this subject is how womens' views are redacted and controlled, as well as dismissed.

It is notable when you compare it to the type of posts, not on this forum, but on a typical newspaper forum, which can contain many heavily abusive and discriminatory towards women, but are allowed to stand.

Both in my local shopping centre and gym there us a sign on BOTH male and female toilets that says cleaners of both sex may enter. I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that this is a female only phenomenon.

IncandescentShadow you accused another poster of being aggressive arrogance, having a nasty tone, gaslighting, being bossy and preachy for disagreeing with you. I didn't report it but I'm not surprised it was deleted

I'm also of the view that very few sexual predators are going to go to the trouble of dressing up as a woman just so they can enter a 'woman only space' to attack a woman

They don't have to 'dress up like a woman', they just have to self identify as one.

Can you not see that this would be open to all kinds of abuse by predatory males?

Changing area should remain divided by sex not gender and the obvious reason which is because persons of the male sex are much more likely to be physically or sexually aggressive. There is nothing controversial about this statement, there is a ton of scientific evidence plus crime statistics supporting it.

The reasons the sexes have always been separated when undressing or while vulnerable, such as in hospital is for protection and reasons of privacy and modesty.

Why is it the class of people MOST likely to be sexually harassed and attacked (biological females) are the ones who are expected to redefine their class NOT based on sex and biology?

Women are vulnerable BECAUSE of biology.