To wonder if there's any actual evidence that's trans women are not safe in male loos?

[Evedence]

I feel, as a FWR lurker, that I would have seen linked articles to bank up the fact that trans identifying men aren't safe in men's loos, and therefore that's the rational why women should budge up and accept trans identifying men in their spaces.

I'm pretty sure with a quick Google I could fund evident that trans identity men have made women's spaces unsafe (Kate delowski? The one who worked for a charity and made a masturbation video).

So AIBU to wonder what hard evidence there is?

“I don't believe in the existence of any genders. They're all made up. But non binary is the silliest of the lot.”

Why do we have words like:

Feminine
Femininity
Masculine
Masculinity
Womanly
Ladylike
Manly
Gentlemanly

What do they describe ? It’s not sex. It’s behaviours and traits stereotypically associated with people of those sexes. AKA genders. Unlike sex which is immutable, genders can be fluid and nonbinary. All men and women are degrees of those words above, some more than others. Some have strong traits associated with their opposite sex, this makes it very abundantly clear that gender as a concept exists, and exists in a nonbinary way.

Cool. But none of this takes precedence over sex.

Stereotypes.

They describe stereotypes.

Harmful stereotypes.

The same harmful stereotypes that feminism was supposed to liberate women FROM.

But now people who identify as feminists think those stereotypes are what defines a woman.

People who believe they are non binary just believe they are different and special, not like the rest of us boring people. But they're not. They're just the same as everyone else. And just as binary as everyone else.

Exactly, they define stereotypes. Stereotypes which define binaries. The reality is much messier. By insisting on binaries you’re very
much reinforcing and perpetuating those stereotypes.

One binary remains reality. Human sex.

No, you have this exactly backwards.

By suggesting a man is 'really a woman' because they align with stereotypically female traits, you are suggesting that alignment with societal stereotypes is more important than biological reality.

There is no 'right' way to be a man or a woman.

This part of the discussion is in response to somebody who doesn’t believe gender exists.

Gender exists, the existence of these stereotypes makes that clear.

Quite right, there is no “right” way to be a man or woman. So trans and nonbinary identities are absolutely legitimate, given that there isn’t a “right” way, and should not be discriminated against.

It's not me "insisting on binaries". It's hundreds of millions of years of mammalian evolution.

The reality is not messy.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is confusing.

Being a man or a woman comes down to biology.

What do you consider discrimination?

Concrete examples, please.

Why do people need specific rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of something that doesn't exist?

I don't have a specific right to protection from discrimination on the basis that I am a Scorpio, or that my favourite colour is orange.

Err… I think you’re getting sex and gender mixed up again. Those words represent gender. Which is a load of made up bollocks mainly used by men to keep women in boxes. Sex is the binary and immutable category that everyone is born into. And yes that includes people with DSD.

Saying a man is a man it seems

The stereotypes that restrict female people’s lives are based on sex stereotypes. Not gender. They are sexist stereotypes and have been part of female people’s oppression for millennia. Oppression based on negative sexist discrimination.

It exists, and yet no one can explain WTF it is or why anyone should care.

Transgender identities are not based on any biological markers and are therefore based on philosophical belief. A belief that someone has about their identity. That doesn’t change their biological sex.

And therefore should be treated like all other philosophical beliefs.

In Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, an employment tribunal ruled that a gender fluid/non-binary employee was covered by the definition of gender reassignment. Ms Taylor, who usually dressed in women's clothing, was subjected to insults and abusive jokes at work and did not receive managerial support. Her claims for gender reassignment discrimination, harassment and victimisation were successful, and she was awarded £180,000 in compensation.

They are literally descriptors of sexist stereotypes. Based on the SEX categories of humans.

I doubt the Supreme Court would have reached the same conclusion, given that non binary/gender fluid identities have absolutely no legal status in the UK.

This is bad law. It's just that no one is going to appeal a tribunal judgment in circumstances where someone was bullied at work, purely on a technicality.

Dismissively batting away a real struggle and calling it a “technicality”. Christ. There are loads of these, and it IS discrimination.

In AB v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, a tribunal held that an employer which failed repeatedly to update its records to refer to the employee’s post-transition name (“deadnaming”) had subjected her to direct gender reassignment discrimination. Indeed, the tribunal found that despite the employer being given a number of months’ notice of her intended transition, the employee had suffered a “long and painful struggle” to change her name on the employer’s records and systems, a process which took over two years from her transition.

So if the employee was non binary, why were they dressing in women’s clothes? Surely they should have dressed in non binary clothes? What are women’s clothes anyway? If a man wears a skirt, surely that is a man’s skirt.

But the cases brought by Ryan Castellucci ended in s decision that in the UK non-binary gender identity does not legally exist.

Although a similar case to the Taylor v Land Rover case might succeed today on the grounds of harassment (as cases alleging harassment on any other grounds might well succeed), it would be unlikely to succeed on the grounds of gender reassignment. The GRA only recognises reassignment from male to female and female to male, as was made clear in the Castellucci judgements.

Gender reassignment refers to a specific legal process by which a biologically male person can become legally female or a biologically female person can become legally male. There is no such thing as changing your legal sex to non binary.

It's not a technicality. You can't take an expansive interpretation of the law to include identities which have no legal status in the UK.

What struggles do people who identify as non binary face? The struggle to be taken seriously? Hurtful eye rolling? What rights do they not have?

The only difference between the "struggles" faced by the person in your example and thousands of women who have changed their names upon marriage or divorce is that the women didn't have a temper tantrum about it and sue their employer for damages worth about as much as a modestly priced house.

Quite the money spinner.

What is the relevance of the discussion of non-binary identities? That group of people are still male or female even if their philosophical belief rejects the sec category they materially belong in.

Hence female single sex provisions exist for all female people and only female people, regardless if those female people choose to reject their sex category based on their philosophical belief.

Have we been given the exact differences between males with and without transgender identities yet? So that we can understand why those male people are no longer male people? Or did the discussion get sidetracked to non-binary identities ?