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?

Funny, isn't it? 🤔

Well, as a masculine looking girl and teen, I was a bit put out. But looking back, I realise that women were attempting to keep their spaces single sex. So, if it happened now, I would do as I did as a girl / teen and reply that I am a female person and in the right spot.

But considering today I got misgendered in the supermarket by someone only half looking at me, and she tried to correct herself and still called me 'sir', I think I am confident that I would simply smile and keep it simple.

Third spaces have already been created: for disabled people. So it can be done.

The question is whether there is a real need and desire for it to be done.

Factually speaking, there are two sexes, everybody is either one or the other, and both those groups are already provided for. Able bodied trans people can access toilets which already exist for members of their own sex.

If that isn't acceptable for them, they need to convince the rest of society that there is a need for additional gender neutral spaces, and perhaps more importantly, they need to commit to using those spaces where they exist, rather than deliberately breaking the law and continuing to use spaces for the opposite sex.

Say the quiet part out loud

Whats your number?

How many women?

How many women going about their daily lives can come to harm (where just keeping men out of womens toilets stops the harm) is an OK number of women sacrificed for your ideology?

FYI the UK prison data rates is just about as clear a peer-reviewed data set as any available.
They are the men who caused such serious harm in either public or private that they were sent to face a public trial for causung harm.
They were subjected process which demands a high bar of proof before being found guilty by the Court system and sent to prison for the harm.

And that's the ones actually sent to prison.

Then we will have those convicted of violent or sexual offences but not sent to prison.

Like this one
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/05/tanya-howes-norwich-trans-paedophile-avoids-jail-hearing/

Or this one
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/27/hammer-wielding-wine-thief-spared-prison-transgender/

To be honest I think this argument can just be stripped back to men with Ockham’s razor. Women are less likely to be violent or harass people in public bathrooms. Men are likely to be more confident to say something or even hurt someone. I certainly would rather leave a restroom as opposed to confront someone or risk getting into a physical altercation. So trans women and trans men probably feel safer in women’s bathrooms as opposed to men’s bathrooms.

I imagine that for them it’s like walking through a dodgy alleyway - there’s an implicit element of risk if they are in men’s restrooms

I’m not really sure what the answer is as it seems to be an emotive topic for everyone. I think the most idealistic solution would be individual restrooms but that’s not practical. In fact I think the law around this in England isn’t really that practical because I’m sure a lot of employers/retailers/restaurants etc don’t really know how to confidently manage their restrooms with respect to this and stay on the right side of the law. So what the public ends up with, is a mismatch of attitudes from people winging it.

It can be stripped back further and much more simply
Women only spaces are for women only

1. women are not human shields for men scared of men's facilities. We don't let young, elderly, frail, gay or learning disabled men in the women's facilities because they feel unsafe in men's facilities.

2. businesses don't need to make any decisions about this now as the supreme court has done it for them. They just have to obey the law, no winging it required.

1. I never said otherwise
2. I don’t think it’s that straightforward else there wouldn’t be as much discourse around it. I imagine businesses that outwardly are seen as taking any side, face controversy hence why most are on the fence. I have certainly seen anger directed at facilities if they are outwardly women-only or trans-inclusive.

In short, transwomen are more at risk from men than women
Men are also more at risk from men than women. Everyone is more at risk from men than women - that's why we don't want men (people with a penis to be completely clear!) in our loos - regardless of how they like to identify.

This is no longer about 'taking sides' in the court of popular opinion. It's about obeying the law. And what that requires is not ambiguous.

On your second point, the discourse you speak of is in its death throes, now that there is legal clarification. No more fence sitting necessary.

I am gobsmacked at the amount of people who seem to think following the law is optional. It is not.

Many people break laws regularly. Drivers in particular.

You're just proving my point here @HangryLikeTheHulk

It is a deliberate act to enter into a female single sex space as a male person.

People can be caught speeding because of inattention and not a deliberate act.

A more accurate comparator is trespass when there is clear and bright and in your face signage and someone has entered anyway.

Totally echo your feelings @Helleofabore

It is a very deliberate act, particularly now, since the Supreme Court ruling

This !
Many men feel a bit on edge faced by a wound up drunk in the pub bogs on a rowdy night, should they all come in to the Ladies loos ?

The ruling deliberately made efforts to say that this should not be interpreted as removal of trans inclusive provision - it is still up to organisations to interpret.
for example - some brighton charities still have gender based spaces and not single sex spaces, because they argue that single sex spaces are provided elsewhere by similar organisations.

The issue with not providing single sex spaces is that you then fail to be inclusive of other groups. Orthodox religious women for example. So big challenges ahead for any organisations choosing to do that. 🤷‍♀️

as i said..... charities who know services are replicated elsewhere. Its still ok to be a gender inclusive gym. or a walking group. or a talking therapy group. Because people who want trans-exclusionary groups can find them in my town. My city is inclusive, of everyone. Because we have multiple groups because of awesome people

wouldn't it be great if everyone who had "opinions" about services and who they should cater to actually put money/time/work into it like those of us who actually do the bl**dy work....

If organisations can offer male/female/third options, then they're covered. That's not excluding anyone, job done and they minimise legal challenges from any direction.

I think that's what GC women have been arguing for years now. If the trans community want third spaces they need to campaign for them. Rather than try to muscle in on women's spaces that don't belong to them

that's not even slightly what i said or what i meant

women's charities in my city include trans women because the have an aim that isn't impacted by trans women's presence

"It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex"

So if there is other similar provision in the city (and in the same org) that is single sex and equally accessible, they are not in conflict with the law.

Big Up Bless Brighton

Well we will see how that works out for them. I can't think why an organisation would choose to exclude groups of vulnerable biological women when there are ways of accommodating everyone, but we all make our decisions and face the consequences.