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.

I am interested how that type of proof is given for things like domestic violence shelters. It would have to be some sort of medical wouldn't it? You can't rely on identification and birth certificates.

So, you just used a hidden laugh emoji on a serious post instead of engaging in a constructive way. Well done.

No one is going to be genital inspectors, @TogepiSunso no need for concern.

Original birth certificates, or any reissue while still a child, should still be fine.
Or, you know, your eyes and ears.

Transmen will continue to use male toilets. No one cares. they will use the cubicle end of. There are no safety issues as men don’t stand around in toilets chatting.

issues are prisons, swimming pool changing rooms, rape centres, hospital wards, trans women medical staff doing breast scans etc. girl guides, etc. it’s transwomen in female spaces.

I think you should go back to my post and you will see I answered questions, and then I asked you one.

You seem to have missed it in your rush to call me patronising and declare that you don't believe female people have a high likelihood of correctly sexing male people. Based on your personal experience.

Nice one

I’m not sure how the Supreme Court result will keep women safer from the examples you posted since they are all in the USA or Canada and most of them occurred when the perpetrators were identifying as male. They changed gender at a later date in most cases.

This is an excellent example of why we can’t seem to have a sensible discussion about this issue. People share these bollocks “infographics” they’ve seen on Facebook. A site that has been legally reprimanded for purposefully spreading rage bait misinformation.

I support the ruling but a sensible conversation would be great. & further discussion about how to keep women and girls safe. For every story of a trans “woman” harming someone in a women's space there are a 2000 of “cis” men harming women in women’s spaces. & that was happening looooong before there was any sort of acceptance of a trans person using a women’s space. It isn’t a new phenomenon that’s arisen due to trans rights.

So I can’t say I’m feeling a whole lot safer no. I’d wager nobody here has been attacked by a trans woman but everybody here will have had a scary experience (likely far more than 1) with a “cis” man. I’m not sleeping any sounder tonight.

I'm not sure what your point is?
A paedophile can still go in the toilets unchecked. There are male and female pedophiles who offend against both boys and girls.

I didn't mean 'genital inspectors' when I said a medical. The poster said you'd need proof for access to domestic violence shelters, I was asking what proof as documents we commonly use for ID can be changed. I was thinking some kind of blood test I guess.

50 years ago women and girls wore what they wanted. We didn’t have to wear pink. We wore our brothers clothes, rode green bike not pink, had short hair, long hair, messy hair. Some of us looked like tomboys. Some of us looked like our brothers in dungarees. Yet no one ever challenged us when we walked into the women’s toilets. Why would anyone now challenge a women who wasn’t 2025 classically female.

Original birth certificates

But those get changed, no? I had to order my birth certificate online recently as I misplaced mine. If you'd had yours changed by GRC then it would come with your "new gender" on it when you order it.

My point is we put safeguarding in place to try and protect more vulnerable members of society. You seem to be of the opinion that offenders are going to offend so no point trying to safeguard them

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks they can walk in to a public space or a woman's space and decide who is trans and who isn't. How often does this happen to you?

No. It isn’t.

"I support the ruling but a sensible conversation would be great. & further discussion about how to keep women and girls safe. For every story of a trans “woman” harming someone in a women's space there are a 2000 of “cis” men harming women in women’s spaces. & that was happening looooong before there was any sort of acceptance of a trans person using a women’s space. It isn’t a new phenomenon that’s arisen due to trans rights."

This is another one of the arguments that we have seen used for years. It is about the overwhelming number of 'men' who harm women and girls. And it is absolutely true that the number is overwhelming.

Why though would you allow a loophole to allow any group of male people to access female single sex provisions to allow additional opportunities for female people to be harmed?

There are already laws in place for the general male population. And yes, there is a horrific lack of preventing those crimes and that harm.

Why though do women and girls need to wait until those crimes have been reduced?

When then will we be allowed by people saying there is more important issues to come back and address the loopholes that have been created?

This ruling means again that we can talk about ALL male people with the confidence that no groups of male people have been treated as specially exempt.

Why can women not work on multiple fronts and do both? We do this with many things, why is it that these male people get priority by some people that say we should leave this until later?

How many additional female people being harmed will be enough before we can address the situation for those who are saying that we should be focused elsewhere?

I’d wager nobody here has been attacked by a trans woman

That’s a wager you would lose, @LucyMonth . And also within my family, attempted rape. It turns out men offend like, well, men regardless of gender identity.

The point is that 99% of sex offences are carried out by males. Before the SC ruling, in the last few years it became very difficult for women to challenge a male in a women’s loo or changing room. Now we can, once again.

8-10 years ago any male in such area could correctly be identified as either a flasher or a Peeping Tom. Then the TRAs made it so that perverts couldn’t be challenged and ejected.

It won’t be 100% but women and girls are now much much safer than they were in these spaces, once again.

Right but nobody ever checks anyones entry in our local restaurants, cinema or pub toilets so what has this changed? People aren't saying they disagree with the ruling they are trying to understand how it works in practice?

So, you won't answer the question that I asked you before you asked me more questions. But I am still patronising and worthy of an abusive hidden laughing emoji while you cannot comprehend that there will be female people who can correctly sex male people?

I will ask my question again though. Maybe you will deign to answer it.

Do you or do you not think that female people should be able to have female only single sex spaces?

TBH it isn’t the male-looking people with the beards and tattoos who necessarily worry me in the ladies. I can’t say I’ve ever seen one, I have seen TM would are obvious and always strive to look ‘manly’ but are clearly women.

It’s the men dressed in “women’s” clothing who are so obviously men that irk me. They all have a uniform look - a vain effort to look feminine with a bad wig and even worse make up, and over feminine clothes. But also with a 5 o clock shadow, prominent Adam’s Apple, man hands and stand 6’1” tall. It’s this entitled colonisation that is carried with these men - the “blokey” looking women don’t bother me one jot.

You would lose that bet about no one here being abused by a male person with a transgender identity.

Yep. There’ll always be a section of society who think that feminism is all about the men

We know who should not be in a woman's space.
Men.
It's not rocket science.

But it would be better to allow TiM officers to intimately search women? 🙄

Actually I do think womens spaces should be for biological women. I just don't see how its going to feasible to put this in to practice which is what I mainly said about five posts ago. Which is mainly fine for you as apparently you can spot trans people anyway so that's not a problem for you.