To let you all know :Jane the mntter held keir to acct, brilliantly on radio today and it's viral.

[JaneVapeman]

Unfortunately I can't link to her clip, but she's a star and a hero. She pinned him down and cut through the "twaddle". I am a swing voter and would have been proud of a mntter holding any mp to account on an important issue like Jane did. Jane is/was even trending on twitter.

💥

Fine. That's your view, to which you are entitled. I gave my view, and I'm entitled to that too.

And you'd know to get out immediately - run, scream, whatever. Women are now being coerced into not prioritising their own safety which might prevent them acting fast enough to save themselves from being attacked.

You may not like Rishi Sunak's wealth but it does mean he isn't beholden, bought and paid for in the way that Kier Starmer is.

That's hilarious. This is the man who won't call out racism because the racist in question gave his party £5m.

that's completely disconnected from the reality of your day to day life or mine.

Err, how could you possibly know whether or not it’s disconnected from the reality of my day to day life?

I wish she'd have let him answer. I wanted to hear what he was going to say.

I bet izimbra · Today 14:42 post will be deleted but whilst it stands it shines a pure clear light.

Given that there are only 50K transgender women and 5.6 million businesses in the UK, it's an issue that many companies will never have to deal with. I'm guessing what you want is for any business with a transgender employee to tell them they're banned from using women's spaces at their work? And you think this will have marked impact on women's safety in those specific offices and nationally?

Not entitled to use women's spaces which they are not. Women's safety, privacy, dignity and comfort is a legitimate aim and is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Alternative provision made for the transgender employee if required.

I would suggest you read about the NHS nurses but you'll no doubt dismiss that as a trash report too.

You mean in the rare likelihood that they actually spot a transgender woman (or a woman they suspect is transgender) using their facilities they can challenge them to give evidence of their biological sex (how?) and then ban them from the women's changing rooms?

Wouldn't it be nice if TW could be trusted not to access women's facilities and request and use alternative provision. The sex of TW is blatantly obvious in 99.999999% of instances no need for them to give evidence.

Normalising men in women's spaces does a huge disservice to women.

Seeing a man in the changing room would have instantly marked him out as a predator but now women will have to pause and wonder if that man "identifies" as a woman and are they at risk of being charged with a hate crime if they challenge him.

What a shitty thing to do to safeguarding.

We did hear what he had to say. He said he helped women as the DPP with good work on rape and domestic abuse 20 years ago.And that is his excuse for now championing “safe spaces” for women which really means there are men in them.

The reality is, any man, trans or not, can walk into a womens public toilet, rape a women, and probably nothing will happen to them anyway so there is already nothing to stop men doing this.

But there is. Is it infallible? No, but there are deterrents that are now being stripped away. It’s Swiss Cheese Safeguarding. When a sign says ‘women’s toilets’ (for example), it’s a sign that not only says who that bathroom is for, it’s gives women the right to say to any obvious male in there ‘you cannot be in here’, it gives a firm bases of complaint to others when they report a male was in a female bathroom, flags them as someone being inappropriate. Take away the acknowledgment of what a woman is, it’s taking away that right and voice to point out ‘this male should not be in the space’.

How can Starmer represent women. He doesn't even have the courage or the integrity to state what a woman is

Or the plain bloody common sense.

Sorry I cross posted with yours and you put it far more eloquently!

Yes I work in safeguarding and it is reprehensible that this is happening. And we all know that the men who muscle their way on in there are the exact ones we do not want to be sharing with - they have no regard for women.

And the follow up question if the answer is Yes, they have that right - How do we tell if a the person has one or not?

It's self-id in all but name.

Well there it is.

Yes let this stand for all to see.

And then they'll be blamed for not doing enough to protect themselves.

Truly sorry to hear about your daughter. You really don’t see the connection between the tragedy of rape and men’s access to women’s spaces?? Given that the 90% of sex offence complaints in changing rooms and the majority of sexual assaults in NHS wards take place in mixed gender spaces? The NHS breaches the mixed gender ward rules 44000 times a year according to their own figures. And NHS trusts had recorded more than 35,000 cases of rape, sexual assault, harassment, stalking, and abusive comments in the 5 years up to 2022 across all NHS settings.

You just know there will be a court case where a woman attacked in a changing room will be asked what she was wearing.

izimbra · Today 13:07
"he will open the floodgates to allow trans people into biological sex spaces."

'Floodgates'?

You understand that there are at most only about 50K transgender women living in the UK?

Ok, so working with your figure of 'only 50k transgender women' - my local leisure complex had ~3,200 members not long after its opening according to the local council. Say half of those are women, that means that if one transgender woman is using the women's facilities there, that means they are now mixed sex facilities for ~1,600 women. In reality the number will be far higher as there are many facilities for non-members - function rooms hired out to local groups, a library, children's soft play and a nursery.

So no, the relatively small number of transgender women does not mean this is a small problem.

And that doesn't take into account the difficulty of keeping any particular biological man out of women's spaces if it became acceptable to let some of them in because they identify as transgender women.

The argument that some transgender women have been using our spaces for ages so we can't now stop them is bollocks. Should things never change? Thank fuck they do, otherwise I'd be without my career & would've lost custody of my children post-divorce. It's not even as if the existing use of our spaces was something we had agreed to - no-one asked us. Depressingly, I doubt we'd have been listened to anyhow - there are plenty in authority who are still refusing to listen.

We more or less turned a blind eye when it was a handful of people practically crippled by dysphoria who would do everything thing they could to avoid drawing attention to their sex.
Then along come Stonewall's trans umbrella that meant it was no longer a few dysphoric men seeking women's spaces but a whole spectrum of trans identities included those who are very happy to display their maleness in women's spaces, those who get a sexual kick from dressing as women and those who regard themselves as lesbians.
The boundaries were pushed beyond 'they just want to pee in peace' to them wanting to access every female space, event and experience and if they can't experience to expect women not to either.

You want legislation to criminalise this tiny group of people in order to provide a powerful disincentive to them to continue to use these spaces

I want the GRA repealed, PC of GR binned, and for it to be an offence to conceal your sex.

Ideally the whole EQA of the would go too, and we'd revert to the previous legislation on race, sex and disability discrimination which was just fine. Before anyone comes back about the PC of maternity, that comes under sex. Women would have been protected from discrimination there due to our sex. Same goes for breastfeeding.

The EQA and GRA have formed the most dangerous Trojan horse, which has been used to entirely dismantle safeguarding, enable and allow men's rights activists to attack us, and sew social division. They both need gone.

I too am sorry to hear about izimbra's daughter and I am sure it has ruined her life, a DBS is not infallible but that doesn't mean we should do away with them.

It is also pertinent to note that provision of a GRC erases the person's previous history and this impacts negatively on DBS checks. Haven't heard Keir Starmer mentioning closing this gaping loophole in his rush to reform the GRA.

I am also sure that the woman who was raped in the hospital and then gaslighted by the hospital for a year has had her life ruined. Yes, izimbra you did dismiss it you claimed it was a trash report, it was suspect, you didn't believe it.

Women's safety, privacy and dignity is put at risk by allowing men into women's spaces, any men even those with GRC's.

I am perfectly happy to be on a hobby horse of protecting women and girls and their rights.

How does it work for men who don't identify as women? They stay out because they and we both know it's not their place, and by and large most men are decent, if somewhat clueless about what women's lives are really like and therefore why these things matter.

How should it work for men who do identify as women? Exactly the same way.

Why then is it so hard to accept this is the solution? Why do those who supposedly speak on behalf of trans women credit them with so little decency that the question is always "how can you stop them?", the assumption that they will knowingly go where they should not be?

What we need is not legislation to directly criminalise men (including men who identify as women), but a re-establishment of the social contract, a recognition that trans women are not women and however they choose to live their lives they have no more entitlement to women's resources than any other man, and the right for women to sue providers who do not provide single sex provisions due to the implicit sexism of creating an environment that is hostile to women.

And no one needs to inspect anyone's pants, a concept that we somehow seemed to manage without despite having separate male and female facilities as a matter of course, right up until some men decided the rules don't apply to them.