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.

Mine has showers that are see through glass but a middle bit is tainted glass but you can still see a blur. They also have huge gaps on the bottom, and the tainted bit isn’t that tall. i’m quite tall so my boobs nearly go above the tainted bit. I’ve complained, I’m convinced they have them to put people off using them.

What part of ‘it doesn’t personally bother me’ suggests I’m speaking for anyone else but myself? That’s just my opinion that I wouldn’t feel threatened in that situation and that’s you knowing absolutely nothing about me and my experience with men.

It's fine - don't worry we'll sort it out.........

you actually want male presenting people in the ladies loos now.

Women, no matter how feminine or masculine they look, belong in the women’s toilets. It’s not about “wanting” them in - it’s about wanting men out

To just go in the women's toilets as a man and claim to be a trans man is far easier than putting enough effort in to be a convincing trans woman to get in to the ladies.

Like o say this isn’t a new problem - we’ve been dealing with men pretending to be women for years and the law didn’t back us. Now it does.

You made it easier for them!

Because it would have been so hard before! Stop gaslighting feminists - the ruling changed the game for women for the better and the toilet issue is a drop in the ocean compared to what else this ruling will bring.

The only way this would be a victory would be if trans men had to stay out of women's spaces too, but they don't, for some reason you all want male presenting people in the women's. You couldn't make it up!

Well you have made it up - who says anything about “wanting”? This is about protecting women and correctly defining sex.

Oddly enough, the violence is only coming from one side - the side you support. Think on it.

Honestly, I doubt this. Unless you're saying your mate REALLY looks like a bloke.

They’re not as smart as they think they are with the deflection. We see them.

This is your response to same gender/same sex violence?

Sides?

Quite. They really are just pulling out the dregs of their arguments now. Maybe they’ll give up soon.

Please link to the placards saying "the only good trans person is a dead trans person". The only violence comes from the side - and yes, it is a side - declaring that trans rights must be protected at the expense of EVERYTHING else. In short, men aren't taking "no" for an answer, again. What's astonishing is the number of women supporting them.

trans men may some times be lawfully excluded from female-only facilities because they appear male.

Absolutely this.

And then it says "absent this exception" underneath, which means "unless an exception were made", which would mean "unless an exception is made because this is a biological woman".

I talked about my experience of being assaulted by women. Ciswomen. You don't care because apparently it's the wrong kind of assault. I'm not safe in a bathroom with the likes of you.

My bingo card is about half full already. Just waiting for the “pee in peace” and “man haters”

Take the advice we usually get from the benevolent TRAs then - if you don’t want to share with us stay at home

Nobody actually thought these women were men, though. They said it to belittle and shame Michelle, Serena et al. Nobody, for one second, genuinely believed these women were men.

It’s terrible that you got assaulted in a bathroom - another good reason to advocate for 3rd spaces - but women belong in women’s bathrooms. Even the (very very rare) violent women.

That makes no sense.
All trans men are biological women.

Spoken by hateful cunts. Usually men. All the more reason to protect these women from them

I responded only to your claim that you are "seeing violence with which binaries are enforced". I have asked to see proof of this violence, as I have yet to see any violence regarding enforcing a binary, and yet plenty committed by those trying to blur them.

I didn't write it! Perhaps it means depending on the circumstance, an exception would be made. You'd need to ask a lawyer.

Your selective response erasing and minimising my serious trauma which is by no means unique. I am going to try to hide this thread.

This is from Michael Foran’s sub stack. I trust his interpretation :

The Supreme Court also addressed the position of those who “pass” as members of the opposite sex and whether they could be excluded from single-sex services intended for their natal sex, as is the case with those trans men who are biologically female but, having taken testosterone, have masculinised their appearance [221]:

Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception.

This means that trans men do not have a legal entitlement to use male-only facilities because they are female and may some times be lawfully excluded from female-only facilities because they appear male. The only prudent solution in those situations is for service providers to offer a separate service for transgender people.

I hope you are being paid well and in real life have a lovely name like Anastasia.