Starmer, JKR, what's most important to most women?

[PupInAPram]

In my more than 60 years, decades of being a single working parent, many experiences of being on the bones of my arse, Labour Party policies have made huge beneficial differences in my day-to-day life. Worrying if there is a man in the next toilet or feeling uncomfortable with a trans woman has literally never been on my radar. If I'm making a decision about voting for the politician who can bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, it's Starmer every time. I wish JKR would just pipe down.

In an environment where women are falsely assured that trans identifying males pose no risk to them, of course they will gather and share as much evidence to the contrary as possible. This is not saying all trans males are predators, just that they appear to be at least as likely to be as any other male.

I've never gathered evidence that scorpions are a danger to toddlers, but if politicians were planning to set them loose in nurseries I would.

Trans women are also vulnerable to violence from men.

i have no doubt this is true. But if men are at risk from other men, why is women's problem to solve? Why aren't we holding men to account to treat their fellow men better?

What do you want her to be, someone shallow who jumps on any recent trend to try and stay relevant ?

I disagree.

Why does it need to be quicker? It is a big fundamental change being asked for it should be scrutinised.

Of course it is self-id by the back door due to the level of secrecy granted to the provision of the certificate, that has been the case from inception and despite the warnings it would be abused it was still pushed through by Labour.

Trust them on this? Not bloody likely, their record shows they can't be.

The politicisation of the debate was driven by the likes of Stonewall not GC campaigners. You know that but just like to blame GC campaigners for reasons known only to you.

Op, what are you views on males being put into female prisons, or males competing against females in those sports segregated by sex, such as swimming, running etc? Or may be you don't give a stuff because it doesn't affect you.

The Venn diagram of people who claim to see a transwoman in a single-sex safe space and feel uncomfortable and the people who would have called homosexuals “shirt lifters” decades ago is certainly not.

Stop trying to close the conversation down by calling women with concerns bigots.

My toddler can spot them a mile off

I've had this happen too!

What I'm wondering, given that a few tw have been dotted about in TV adverts aimed at women, and it's pretty obvious that they are tw. . . .

What are we meant to make of this? Are they chosen because they are the most likely to 'pass' because if so, they don't, or is it that we are meant to see that they are tw? If the first, they don't, and if the second, viewers will see how obvious it is that they are men so what would be the point of that?

It's sad really, because you still don't get it do you.

No one is "being taught to be afraid of transwomen now".

We basically all have eyes and ears and can recognise who is male and who is female. There's basically no difference between a man and a TW, sorry. There just isn't.

It's not about trans. It's about women.

It's basically exactly the same message as the "safeguarding" that gets trotted out.

The biggest risk to women and children is men. Yet we aren't insisting no men cam be teachers, no men can be gynaecologists etc.

Regarding men, "safeguarding" means we do screening to identify high risk men and prevent them being in those positions, and we put in other measures to protect the vulnerable (e.g. chaperoning). Then we accept the remaining risk.

For trans people, people campaigning for "safeguarding" appear to mean banning trans people entirely from any situation where there is risk.

Very striking double standards in how we treat the risk from violent men vs how we treat the risk from trans women. Which is ironic as they are the same thing.

Probably not the first to bite, but ok then
What is the violent man in a dress?

I know I’m stating the bleeding obvious, but it’s possible to be supportive of trans right whilst also believing it to be important that some spaces are protected by sex.

Trans women in the WI - absolutely
Trans women in women’s refuges - absolutely not.

Let’s embrace change and have neutral spaces.

You have only “seen” the ones who look masculine. That’s my whole point. Plenty of trans women are feminine and unnoticeable as trans.

How would you know ? Oh c'mon

Exactly 👏

If that were to happen to me, I would ask for a chaperone.

Would I be able to do that with an obviously male nurse with a "she/her" badge, or would I be called a bigot?

You are deluded, this just isn't true.

But a violent man in a dress in the toilets is not a trans woman.

Why not? What criteria do they not fulfil?

Exactly. The issue of consent, womens' and girls' right to boundaries, and to be able to participate in democratic discussion when it is proposed to remove or change these rights, is at the heart of what this is about. I think this is a big glaring red flag issue about democracy as a whole and the hard fought for rights of the female half of the population being dismantled. For me, that is not a "minority" issue or a "culture war" and it certainly isn't "toxic" to want to talk about it.

If you're personally okay with something, particularly concerning males with you intimate spaces/services or situations, does that automatically give you the right to consent on behalf of other women who have openly said they are not okay and to override that? Do you think they should just be "re-educated" to be "cooler" with mixed sex, for example? Because that is what a lot of gender activists are advocating. I consider that coercive.

If you're a gay, lesbian or bisexual person, say, who is perfectly happy with mixed sex groups including heterosexual males who identify as lesbians, is it okay for you to shut down, shame or threaten any other lesbians who want to meet without any other males (including those who id as transwomen) in their groups? Again, that is what a lot of gender activists are doing right now and appear to consider this a righteous activity. Is it a human right for heterosexual males who identify as women to be accepted by lesbians as lesbians? Do lesbians have the right to boundaries on this?

Is it okay to threaten, menace and prevent individuals and groups of women who do care about this from meeting, speaking about their legal rights publicly, or target their employment, even though if it goes to court it will be found it is illegal to do so? Is it okay to 'deplatform' them, to claim they have views they don't have, in order to get them to 'pipe down?' Would those of you who think JKR should "pipe down" be okay with this happening to you if you spoke up about any of the political issues you personally care about?

This is NOT a minor issue. The tactics that have been used here should worry everyone who cares about democracy and their own human rights.

Oh so you’re banning male teachers in all-girl secondary schools then?

We can’t ban all men from places where women are vulnerable because women are vulnerable to men’s violence everywhere. The move to try to create safe spaces is just admitting that in the real world, we are never safe from men.

Those saying that trans women are just women living their lives need a reality check. They aren’t women and they never will be.

😆No. If you believe otherwise, you're kidding yourself, I'm afraid.

You do know that most humans are brilliant at recognising the sex of an individual as one of the first cognitive patterns they learn, don't you? Facial recognition is very, very strong, even in babies. Animals are also aware. You're deluding yourself if you think most TW "pass." It's fantasy.

God people are so horrible. The hatefulness spouted on here is disgusting.

For trans people, people campaigning for "safeguarding" appear to mean banning trans people entirely from any situation where there is risk.

I thought trans people wanted to all be removed from situations involving any risk which is why the activists are so insistent on allowing people with penises into women's spaces in the first place.

The move to try to create safe spaces is just admitting that in the real world, we are never safe from men.

So why on earth would we take those safe spaces, when women need them most and allow in any man who 'says he's a woman'?

OP, you clearly haven't done your homework here....

JKR set up Volant and Lumos charities and has donated to the Labour Party.

A rational, intelligent and worldy wise woman your age recently said to a group of men and women (of which I was one) that her thoughts on the matter were that "If transwomen don't understand why biological females sometimes require protected single sex spaces, then they aren't truly identifying as a woman at all."