Of course women will be safer

[HardyKoala]

Following the Supreme Court ruling. I’m flummoxed by the amount of women I considered intelligent friends, posting rubbish about how women are actually no safer and this ruling is just anti-trans. I just don’t understand how intelligent women are coming to this conclusion.

The main argument seems to be that men will be men and will still rape and assault.

Of course they will.

But now, they can no longer just assert ‘I am a woman’ and automatically be able to enter women’s spaces unchallenged to do this. And this did happen, a few examples below.

They will no longer be able to enter women’s changing rooms and film teenage girls naked. They will no longer be able to enter the women’s toilets in Morrisons unchallenged and sexually assault a 10yr old girl. They will no longer be able to be housed in women’s prisons raping vulnerable women in the shower. This will all stop.

Yes, I do understand the negative impact on a few trans women and I feel for them, but why should ALL women put themselves and their daughters at risk for this tiny minority? I just don’t get it. If you’re campaigning for anything, campaign for 3rd spaces surely? But don’t campaign to allow any man the right to enter women’s spaces.

I have no issue with trans people in any way (I know a few) but I just can’t understand this argument that all women should be more at risk. Of course most trans women aren’t a threat. But men pretending to be women for access to women ARE a threat. And this ruling makes it harder for them to rape and assault us.

The amount of friends I’m seeing posting this rubbish has thrown me. I feel like I’m in an a weird alternate reality.

Can the 37% of people who say I’m being unreasonable articulate why? I genuinely want to understand as I don’t get it. Maybe I am wrong, but I need to know why!

Women are now going to be put on situations where they have to prove they are biologically female to claim the protections that we are entitled to. For example, several police force have now said that male police officers will strip search trans women (and by extension, any woman they think is trans who doesn't happen to be carrying her birth certificate to prove that she was female at birth).

Because you've started yet another anti-trans thread.

Things will be better in my area as the local domestic abuse organisation has used a transwoman/man to run support groups and it’s meant many woman don’t want to attend.

he seems to want to insert himself into as many female only spaces as he can and it’s creepy.

sadly the organisation doesn’t give a shit.

Thoroughly agree with you.
OF COURSE men will still be men and OF COURSE I'm still not safe, but we're all safER.
My particular beef (because of experiences when younger) is over girls' and women's toilets. Being able to "relax" in a cubicle without being spied on (or listened to) is a MAJOR plus.

Totally agree with you.

@FebruaryUsername of course men should be searched by male police officers. Where was your outrage at women being searched by trans identified male officers? That abuse is now over.

This seems incredibly unlikely. They’d be open to a sexual assault claim. They would get the on call medic to verify.

Also, how many times have you been strip searched in your life? Do you think this is a major issue and key reason to allow men access to women’s spaces?

Additionally, previously a trans police woman (with a penis) could strip search women and they couldn’t refuse. Is that any fairer?

I look forward to women scrutinising other women about looking ‘female enough’ and having trans men in female toilets.

Eh?

A. This is my first post on the matter
B. Is this your articulation of why I am wrong?

Prisons yes, rape crisis centres probably, but I don't share your optimism about many other areas of life.

There is not the actual or social enforcement of many things anymore. Staff often are not empowered enough or supported by managers. Or ending separate female and male spaces may be the way that some organisations avoid issues. Never mind the failing courts system or those who don't want to pursue matters to that extent.

Then there will be those events and places where it is made clear that those who identify as women can use women's spaces (and as male, men's spaces), where the organisation will not change its policy. It is made clear, no one is in doubt, but it does not address the issue of women's safety.

Do you really think this will happen in reality though? That women are going to stand around debating if people are ‘woman enough’?

In reality I assume a trans woman who lives her life as a woman and looks like one will continue to use the female toilet. No-one will really care. Ditto trans men.

What can’t happen though is a bloke, presenting as a bloke, demanding to use the female changing room at the swimming pool because he ‘identifies as a woman.’ There are many instances of this having happened. See my previous post for example.

These arguments feel disingenuous as they just won’t happen in reality

But women weren't challenged for looking female enough before stonewall started all the self ID crap so why would it be a thing now? We've just gone back to how it was and was always meant to be! This is invented bollocks.

Nonsense. How often did this happen before the equalities act? Never. Men used men's, women used women's. It's within living memory, not some ancient myth.

I feel great sympathy for the majority of trans women who probably want to get on with their lives in peace.

But self-id allowed any man to say they were trans and enter women's spaces. Including the dangerous ones. So of course yanbu to say the ruling makes women safer.

Is there a link to that?

This attitude is a major part of the problem. Labelling anything that is pro women as anti trans.

Agree. I’m not anti anyone. I’m pretty left leaning and liberal and wish everyone to live their lives safely and as they please. For me, this includes women being as safe as they can be around men. Which this ruling facilitates.

yanbu of course it is safer for women.
anyone using the argument “but trans men can use female only spaces” is missing the point entirely

From a service provider point of view, it will, without fear of litigation, make it easier for staff to protect women by challenging perverts, chancers and men who wish to control and limit women’s freedom to associate. Previously, under self ID, they would have falsely claimed to be trans.

There is usually something about a trans woman that betrays the fact that "she" is actually a man. Too tall, broad shoulders, voice too low, masculine face shape, clothes or makeup too loud, masculine walk, just generally male aura. No need to doubt or check a bio woman.

I think people will largely still use whatever facility they have been using.

But now if a woman is made to feel uncomfortable by a penis in what should be a female changing room, she won't be sacked for saying so.

Nonsense. This doesn't even make sense.

This was a United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling, reaffirming that the provisions in the Equality Act that allow for single sex spaces and services apply to biological women and do not extend to holders of GRCs that declare them to be women.

A UK birth certificate does not (and hasn't for many years) reliably stated the sex of the bearer at birth; every country of the UK reissues (not amends) the birth certificate upon receipt of the GRC, either automatically or on request, so if a GRC is not proof of sex, neither is a UK birth certificate.

Of course women will be safer, thank you @HardyKoala and trans men have gained rights. It says a lot for the status of both that TAs’ first reaction is to condemn, threaten, vandalise and piss on things.

There have been plenty of posts by women on other threads that said that they have been challenged in changing rooms because people thought they were men. Just because you have a limited definition of femininity, doesnt mean that women don't have problems. You've even used too tall as a way of telling a man from a woman FFS!