A man undressing in front of a woman without her consent is an act of intimidation and control. Men do not acquire consent by identifying as women

[SernieBanders]

How and why has it become anything but voyeurism and control?

What on earth can be done to reverse the madness?

Trans staff should always be given dignified, adequate, separate changing spaces. Females should never feel cowed, silenced, intimidated into putting up with a man looking at them half naked.

Background.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/why-scots-nurse-sandie-peggie-has-taken-nhs-fife-to-tribunal-over-dr-beth-upton-transgender-dispute-4974664

(Phrase inspired by a tweet from x.com/SonyaDouglas )

In an earlier post you asked whether Dr Upton had 'had the surgery yet' which makes me think maybe you're not aware that the vast vast majority of transwomen have no surgery and never intend to get surgery. There isn't a 'yet'.

and as I have said before, I believe until they DO have the surgery, they should not be allowed in women's spaces. So I agree with you and others that he should NOT be allowed in women's change rooms.

Oh.. I see. We have now moved on from 'male people should have to have surgery' to 'but how will you enforce it'.

The same way it was enforced in the past. That there is a social contract, because places like public toilets never had guards and police standing outside them before. But male people who respected female people stayed out of those spaces, and if a male person was found in a single sex space, it was most likely correctly assumed that they were there to harm women and children.

They were asked to leave, or the female person left the space and raised the alarm, or stood outside and told other female people not to enter because there was a male person inside, while contacting someone with the authority to make that male person leave.

And situations such as in NHS Fife, NHS Darlington etc would have had the ability to have clear guidance that everyone was expected to follow and if not then at least their employment would be terminated.

No ridiculous suggestions such as 'genital inspections', ID checks to enter or whatever you have just brought in as a suggestion. Unless you think that that was what we did in the past.

Are you suggesting that male people who have transgender identities will not respect a law or policy that states clearly that they cannot enter female single sex spaces?

I can count this post as the 'genital inspections' square on my bingo card surely?

As has been discussed above, we don't need guards asking to see inside knickers. Humans are really good at clocking each others' sex in person. It's a split second judgement we don't even consciously know we're making usually. Women are better at it than men. Some humans are not so good at it, eg those who are 'face blind ' or those whose neuro-divergence means that they rely much more on black and white categorisations like 'long hair makeup heels=woman'. But as a species, we're good at it.

Plus, if transwomen respected women and our need for single sex spaces, instead of using us to support their own wishes, we wouldn't need to enforce it, would we?

Yes I did read it all. I understand what you are saying. I don't disagree.
I was just adding the source of cis and trans from chemistry and my opinion re size of gametes.

Who is a 'genuine' one?

And what reason?

I never mentioned a motivation for them to be entering a female single sex space. It does not matter WHAT reason they want to enter the female single sex space. They should not be there and they should not have to have brutal surgery with the carrot of this magic female single sex space access as part of the reward.

No amount of extreme body modification makes a male person eligible to enter a female single sex space.

😁Of course they won't! Do rapists respect a law or policy that says they should not rape?
If you want female-only spaces to be safe, then you need to consider how to enforce that. I agree they should be safe spaces but how do we enforce it when there are men out there who are using ideology to access those female only spaces?

A genuine reason to have the surgery. You implied they have the surgery to get access to women only spaces. The genuine MTF folks don't have it to access women only spaces.

Ok. Your link to the relationship with cis and trans is irrelevant. The terms are not fit for the purpose of describing humans.

And if you don't believe that human's are categorised by what gamete production role their bodies are formed around, that is your business. I prefer to read the work of developmental and evoluationary biologists and medical professionals to learn from.

the work of developmental and evoluationary biologists and medical professionals
I agree and they are still saying things like

"Understanding how genetic factors (like chromosomes) trigger the development of male or female reproductive organs in different species, including the role of sex hormones like testosterone and estrogen."

and also

"Recognizing that sex is not always a binary concept, with variations in chromosomal makeup and hormonal profiles leading to intersex individuals"

The post you quoted detailed how we used to be able to enforce it - no men went into women's single sex spaces unless they were there for a bad reason. Therefore, any woman who came upon a man in a single sex space could raise the alarm and others would help her. Sandie Peggie is a perfect example of how that social contract has been destroyed - when she raised the alarm, she was treated as the aggressor and she was punished. Gender ideologues destroyed that system, not women, no one asked us.

And the way to stop men using ideology to access women's spaces is to stop allowing any men, no matter how surgically altered/frail/sad/nicely made up/ kind/ scared/ unhappy/confused or anything else they are. If you say any man, even one, can come in, they can all come in. As is now playing out.

By allowing female people to react the way we used to react whenever any male person entered the space that they should not be entering. As I said.

There are plenty of ways that we used to do it. The thing about all safety issues is that we are never perfectly safe despite taking even the best available steps to prevent harm from happening. That is unrealistic. Burglars will still get into your house despite the locks that we put on doors and windows.

Making the statements you did is like saying to someone, well, you may as well not even bother closing your front door because you will never be 100% safe. We can only make spaces as safe as possible within reason.

Having law changes and policy changes and making sure that these are very well publicised for an extended period, having signs up stating that a space is single sex etc is a start. We have to undo all the expectation that some male people have that they should be in those spaces.

I mean, another great start would be to have the very opposite of the signs that have popped up in some areas in the UK where they say that women and girls should not question people who look like they should not be in those spaces, and to re-educate girls and women that they should indeed leave if they feel unsafe, that leaving is not a offensive act but it is a valid reaction if we feel concerned and uncomfortable.

I don't know if you ever saw the ad from the Victorian government in Australia, but the opening scene of the ad was designed to educate through shame any woman or girl who was in a lift alone with a male person and felt concerned and distressed and that they should not leave that space in case it hurt that male person's feelings. A fucking shocking ad when you consider it. But the reality is, this new 'education' that has happened over the past years needs to be reversed. Female people should most definitely feel confident to leave a single sex space (or any) when a male comes into it.

But there really is quite a few things that can be done. However, nowhere will be 100% safe. That should not stop us from having those single sex spaces though.

Even people with differences of sex development can be categorised as either male or female. Indeed, most differences of sex development, even those such as 5ARD that Caster Semenya has been verified to have, are either male or female specific.

By all means, post the links where you got those quotes. Let's have a look at them.

Sex is binary. There are only two sexes in humans and within those sexes there are a huge variation in body variations. Still only two sexes though.

And yes, chromosomes and hormone profiles make up two of those indicators that I referred to. Body parts also make up another one of those indicators.

If a body has testes and not ovaries, they are phenotypically male. Even in a body has ovotestis, that body can be determined with care to be either male or female.

And as I said up thread, using the word 'cis' to mean people assigned female at birth who are not trans, it is inaccurate. As we have discovered in the many discussions over the past decade's Olympics where we end up discussing male athletes who have differences of sex development who are entered into female sports events.

Caster Semenya is often described as a 'cis woman'. Semenya is male with a difference of sex development - 5ARD that only is found in male people. Semenya is not a female person and this has been medically verified. Still described as a 'cis woman' though. Thereby rendering that term meaningless in any discussion concerning female single sex provisions.

Its about conflict resolution when we as a social animal always inspect the humans around us in any environment.

First impressions are usually correct or not are fixed within seconds.

So

You are ok with some castrated males in your changing room.
¤ Provided that the castration was done with the sole purpose of gaining entry into the changing room.

You do not want some females who have undergone a double mastectomy in your changing rooms
¤ Once the mastectomy was done with sole purpose of gaining entry into the Mens changing room.

The current expected social behaviour is :
:: if you are a man you stay out and
:: if you choose to look like a man you stay out. This is due to the risk created by men entering spaces which should be Women only.

And yes the result is
▪︎ that women who choose to alter their bodies are then depending on men to make a space that included them. Or go about organising a new space for themselves.
▪︎ that women reject men from womens spaces so men need to solve male violence in male spaces. Or go about organiaing a new space for themselves.

That ^^ is self policing the space by the individual who knows their own sex and who choose to follow the social rule.

You are claiming that you are unable to look at an adult human and sex that person to a degree of accuracy.

[Others will say 'what about Lesbians' because any women dressing more mascline must be a Butch Lesbian.
And as above females who opt out by action.]
Anyway...

You want to add an exception to the rule and allow some men in.
But you cant sex so set a third rule.
That is a target beauty standard based on what an ideal woman looks like and an allowable degree of differentation.

So you will not object to some of the castrated males who seek entry once they reach your beauty target.
You will want to exclude some castrated males who seek entry but fail to reach the target you have set.

Your selection rule is
□ meet target and be female and not have 'that' double mastectomy reason
□ meet the target and be male and be castrated to be allowed in
This rule is not a social standard.

But your rule creates a point of conflict

You gard the door by being in the space.

And you agree that you have a righ of access as you pass your own criteria.

K is male, castrated, but fails your beauty test.

If he had passed you would change beside him.

You need a way to enforce your rule
so you request K leave and K will not
so you request via management (a gard with an appeal process who agree he is a man) and K will not leave
so you request via management via the legal authority (the police with full legal powers) who can forceably remove K.

You gard with no need for you to look in anyones underwear.

And K has an obligation to prove K meets the female ( not being castrated nor being passing enough for a beauty test ) provision in law if and where that exists.

Most men will chose not to break the social expectation so your rule will not be needed. Most women will pass on the beauty standard alone so you wont object to them.
Most other women can sex to a very very near 100% degree of accuracy so management will eject K without a problem and allow most females in with no problem. So chances of you to ever need State involvement will be low.

When self regulation fails society reacts to adjust to the new normal or by enacting clear legislation to prevent and punish poor choices.

Eg
Outraging public decency
The separate offence of outraging public decency is when someone does something lewd, obscene or disgusting in the presence of at least two members of the public.
https://www.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/indecent-exposure-flashing-offending-public-decency/

^^ catch all law that is subjective to what is the social norm.

So at the moment self regulation is failing society and to such an extent that it is outraging the public and they are actively debating what is or is not decency.

In the case of the employer choosing to adding a contract term that a female employee must change in a room with male U at all and with male U but not male V.

So its like you call the police and they pushed you into the room with K and insisted you cant come out until you change beside of K.

If you are going to go down the fungi coral, or clown fish route can you at least link to semi-scientific reviewed that is not open source.

different species

not always a binary concept

are not useful components in the argument you are trying to articulate.

If we're talking about clownfish, can we talk about the male cuttlefish that pretends to be female, hides in the group of females, and releases his sperm when a dominant male comes along and the females release their eggs in response to the dominant male?

Oh damn I went to bed and missed the part where people with DSDs get dragged into an argument which is nothing to do with them, to prop up gender ideology.

People with DSDs are still male or female. Their medical conditions aren't any kind of gotcha to prove why men with special feelings are really women, any more than the fact that some women have mastectomies to treat or prevent cancer proves that others should have them to treat their unhappiness at being women.

Using people's rare medical conditions to try to justify allowing some males to access provisions only meant for females, is really low.

No we cannot stop all rapes. We cannot stop men entering female spaces if they are determined to do so. Katie Dolatovski springs to mind. He raped a little girl in a female toilet in a supermarket.

But this doesn't mean that we throw open the doors and tell men they're welcome, especially if they've got a desire to cross dress and pretend to be women, something which has a well documented sexual element, and punish women who say it's not right.

As for genuine - what does that even mean? That there's no sexual element?

There's ALWAYS a sexual element. Some just hide it better than others.

Do we have to go back there [edit:] fungi amd fish CheekySnake unless the fate of many bingo cards may depend on the existance of Japanese Red-heads as well as Celtic Red-heads?

TRA have already deemed that type of discussion transphobic as the it is only "gender" ones inner state of being which matters.
Amd if the employee has a changable man"s inner state of being gender he needs a male Mens' changing room one day and when the employee has a changable woman's inner state of being gender she needs the a female Womens changing room another day.

Firstly, I suggest you go back and read the post that you believe that mentioned any motivation behind a people who has a transgender identity getting these brutal surgeries. I believe that you have just read motivation into my post that is not there.

What is true is that some people fall back onto the 'if they have surgery they can do x' argument, but really all those people are doing are creating the environment where a people who identifies as transgender feels intense pressure to have these treatments.

No person should have to be having brutal surgeries to fulfill someone else's idea of how 'genuine' they are.

A question that I have asked many times, including asking on this thread is:

What is the difference between a male person who elects to have their penis and testicles removed based on their philosophical belief in their identity or a male person who has their penis and testicles removed due to injury or disease. And thinking further, what about male detransitioners? Why should one get access to single sex spaces for female people and the other doesn't?

Again? Who is 'genuine' and who is not? You are now arbitrating who genuinely has a transgender identity and who doesn't.

And are you specifying penis and testicle removal, do they have to have a false cavity created in their pelvis too? What about those who consider themselves non-binary male people and just have the nullification surgery but do not identify as 'female', under your thinking do they qualify for accessing the female single sex spaces? Would just testicle removal be enough in your eyes, but then do you know there is a whole group of male people for who there sexual fetish is to be castrated, but is that enough to qualify under your policy?

Do you understand that your statements about male people having surgery to have to qualify to be a 'genuine' MTF folk has rather a few issues? But mostly being, to what end? They are still male people and they should be now and should have always been excluded from female single sex provisions.

And of course, it cycles back to the fact that even male people without a penis and/or testes can commit sex offences and other harmful acts against female people. There is also no statistical evidence that shows that a male at any stage of transition has the same risk profile for committing those crimes as female people. In fact, the evidence shows that male people with transgender identities have the at least the same level of risk of committing sex offences as all the other male people in the UK.

So what is the point of doubling down on 'genuine MTF folk'? They still carry the same risk as any other male person for safeguarding purposes.

Having your penis and testicles chopped off does not 'qualify' any male person to be a female person. Female people are not simply surgically altered male people. That is the impact of your assertion and it is actually rather misogynistic.

Clownfish? Did you mention clownfish? This seems timely then!

or is it a bat?

Remember, a man who believes he is a bat is just that, a man who believes he is a bat. He is not a bat. It doesn't matter how much fucking harder he tries to be a bat than a bat, he can never be a bat!

And maybe this one works here as well:

x.com/jk_rowling/status/1871203721977495860?s=46

Clownfish thread with JKR for a laugh

Oh, I particularly like this reply.

"I suppose a reasonable compromise would be to offer the legal status of "clownfish" to [those] who want it. They would be entitled to all the rights and privileges ordinarily given to clownfish. These don't include access to women's spaces and sports, among other things."

If people cannot answer the question:

What is the difference between a male person who elects to have their penis and testicles removed based on their philosophical belief in their identity or a male person who has their penis and testicles removed due to injury or disease. And thinking further, what about male detransitioners? Why should one get access to single sex spaces for female people and the other doesn't?

Have they thought about why they cannot or won't answer it?