To think that releasing crickets at a gay rights conference, specifically to shut them down, should be considered a homophobic hate crime? Somehow these people are crowdfunding to do it AGAIN

[Zahariel]

The optics of having to fumigate a hall after gay people used it to speak about their rights being eroded should not be lost on anyone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13950839/Trans-activists-release-bags-insects-LGB-Alliance-conference.html

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/suspected-trans-rights-activists-disrupt-lgba-conference-with-live-crickets/ar-AA1s9JHH

This is CLERLY A HATE CRIME - yet it's being reported as trans rights activists, not anti gay hate mongers, I can't really understand why not

No one cares if someone is trans usually. But in certain situations it matters.

That's pretty much what you said.

What do you mean by ‘presenting as a woman’?

Is it certain things you are thinking of, such as?

It doesn’t matter. The ones who identify as women will use the women’s loos and the men the other. If men want to “pretend to identify as women” well go ahead- why would anyone do that anyway ?

And third space for women who want to ensure only natal females- however they manage to police that.

But in certain situations it matters

it matters in terms of their own personal medical issues. Nothing else

I suppose it might matter for data tracking

You don't think sex matters for
Prisons
Sports
Rape crisis groups

prisons- no. But I think there should be separate facilities for sexual offenders.

sports- no. There’s a debate to be had around testosterone testing (I personally don’t support it)but it wouldn’t necessarily have to centre whether someone was trans.

rape crisis groups- this is the only one where I think there is real sensitivity. I think a natal female only space for rape survivors on request is a must. As long as there are services for trans women too.

It mattered to the PP who suggested toilets to be divided in that way. Who was very clear the women's toilets were for women and transwomen only, and neither she nor the transwomen should have to use unisex toilets that men can use. I believe transwomen having to share toilets with men was described as transphobic, but it's hard to keep up when nearly everything was being described thus.

If anyone can use these 'women's' toilets, they're not women's toilets, are they?

And can you really not think of any reason why a man might pretend to be something he's not, in order to access women's spaces?

And can you really not think of any reason why a man might pretend to be something he's not, in order to access women's spaces?

not really no. If men want access to women, there’s plenty of ways to get it without pretending to be one .
We don’t have any gender checks on toilets as it is and it seems to work just fine.

It worked fine for Katie Dolatowski, yes. Not so fine for the two pre teen girls he sexually assaulted in the women's toilets at Morrisons.

As PP have said, women are nine times more likely to be sexually assaulted in mixed toilets and changing rooms than in those which are women-only. The outcome of making women's single sex facilities available to anyone other than natal female people is an increased risk of natal female people being harmed. Why would anyone be ok with that?

That’s one incident. Horrible, but one. Right now we have women and men’s toilets. Women’s toilets are for women and they are available to trans women if they chose to use them? I don’t understand what you want to change and how to intend to police it ?

I can’t remember the exact wording tbh. I’m not involved in recruiting people.
The options for the first question would be something like man, woman, non-binary, other. And then yes, no for the second question. I think then if the second question is no then either they’d be automatically excluded or asked further questions depending on what the research is and who specifically is being recruited.

.....

I'll address this to the lurkers instead.

Single sex exemptions/exceptions -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Sports

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/14/5

Rape crisis services

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/resources/ERCC-Review-Report-FINAL1-.pdf

And prisons? It's difficult to even know where to begin. It was only last December that the SPS agreed not to house violent male sex offenders in the female prison estate in Scotland. Violent males still AOK though because, well, men's feelings. Despite the remarkable uptick in sudden onset prison gender dysphoria.

You’d probably understand it all a tiny bit more if you’d bother to read the thread.

How many little girls sexually assaulted by a transwoman is too many, for you?

And it's not one, it's one of many. How many transwomen have been assaulted in men's facilities? Afaik, none. They are perfectly safe in men's facilities, ask for instance transwoman Fionne Orlander who has written about it.

Why do you think women's safety is less important than transwomen getting what they want?

I have read it. Again, I don’t get what you want to change and how you want to police it? Or do you just want to be angry at trans people and wish they would go away?

At the moment we don’t have a sex free for all in terms of toilet / changing facilities- we have men’s and women’s. Nor do we force trans people to use the toilets associated with their natal sex or try to police this- how would we?

prisons- no. But I think there should be separate facilities for sexual offenders.

Do you mean you’d house a male in a cell with a woman just due to gender identity?

Obviously not a single one is ok. But nor is it ok to portray all trans women as potential predators because of one incident involving a trans woman. I’m sure there have been many instances where women have assaulted other women in toilets and men other men, and plenty where trans women have been assaulted by men of course.

Well if you ‘don’t get it’ after 800 odd posts, where pretty much all of your points have been addressed, more than once, then there’s not much else that can be done for you. Except to fill up the thread as you wished.

🤷🏼‍♀️

WELLL BOY DID THIS THREAD GET INTERESTING.

Can I remind people that the subject of this thread isn't about toilets.

It is about the creeping of trans activism into militancy and extreme actions which are into the land of the criminal.

Yet somehow it ended up being pages about toilets. Not about WHY the militancy which has ultimately driven this push to replace sex with gender and the resulting need for the LGB group concerned feeling a need to establish because their LEGAL sex based rights were NOT BEING UPHELD IN LINE WITH THE ACTUAL LAW.

Then somehow we see various individuals demonstrating a desire to control and comment on what posters on MN talk about.

I talk on MN about things that affect me and that I have experience with. Others will do exactly the same. They will bypass other subjects because they aren't emotionally invested in them in the same way. I have certain subjects I am passionate about. This is ok. No one has to justify this.

BUT the point comes back to power and control once again. And trying to create this idea that being passionate about a subject - which you may have a real connection with - is somehow shameful.

No one would come on MN and berate someone for only posting about SEN issues and how it affects them.

Women posting about women's issues? Well there's a long history of MRAs actively trying to target and disrupt discussions on MN. Lesbians talking about lesbian issues? Well look at this thread.

There's a theme.

Once again, I will remain the casual observer, this is a thread about a militant attack trying to silence people saying things, within the law and about their OWN RIGHTS (no one elses) that this militant group don't like and have tried to UNLAWFULLY AND ANTI-DEMOCRATICALLY disrupt.

All it does is demonstrate a problem. Its not MN. Its not women speaking about their lives and experiences. Its people wanting women to not speak. Women speaking is dangerous. Women might get dangerous ideas from talking about their own lives.

It is the reason MN has ALWAYS been a target. Long before this as a subject was on the political radar. Because there are those out there who do not want to deal with and acknowledge the lives and lived experiences of women. Women with their own opinons and thinking for themselves have ALWAYS been shamed for it.

It is fascinating to see in real time in 2024.

No there are not 'plenty where trans women have been assaulted by men of course'. There are none. None at all.

Women and girls have been harmed by adding males with gender identities into women's single sex spaces. No males with gender identities have been harmed in men's single sex spaces. So why would you support the option where someone is harmed over the one where no one is? Unless you think transwomens feelings are more important than women being safe from sexual assault?

When I said that in a large cohort trans people wouldn’t affect the overall data, I meant that they would show up as outliers at analysis and therefore be removed. No matter how they identified, if they were different than the cis-women in whatever factor was being measured then they would be excluded.
As I said previously, I don’t include trans women in my personal research, because I look into the effects of the menopause, which trans women do not experience.

That’s exactly how I feel engaging with people who can’t, don’t or won’t grasp why women don’t want to share their single sex spaces and sports with men, regardless of how that man identifies or how nefarious (or not) their intentions are, or why they are angry at being forcibly compelled into an ideology they don’t have to believe in if they don’t want to (see pronouns).

No trans women have been assaulted by men ?
Actually bonkers that you think this.