To think that, under the threat of "Let the war begin", there should be specific laws against male's entering female private spaces (and vice versa)

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

After being told they will not be allowed to enter female toilets, changing rooms, clubs and other private sexed spaces, men have vowed to "fight" or be arrested “multiple times”

https://archive.ph/tdkd0

"Let the war begin. Fingers crossed. You need to fight for all of us globally. It’s a war."

I think it is reasonable to have a specific crime for this sort of violation of rights and privacy, rather than Outraging public decency, Voyeurism, Exposure/ indecent exposure.

It seems clear that without firm dealing with, men are going to violate these spaces again and again.

Which things specifically would you like evidence of?

Then men aren’t “living as women” when they use female facilities then, are they 🙄 it’s your silly claim, not mine. Perhaps you should go back to your logic class, it failed you.

Any one of your fanciful claims about “trans” please.

You choose.

This response from Tandora has a very childish "I know you are, but what am I?" feel to it.

There is no substance whatsoever to your arguments Tandora, there never has been.

I said that using female facilities is part of living as a woman in society.

in the same way that eating applies is part of a healthy diet.

the NHS is riddled with people who claim all sorts of inaccuracies around men being able to be women!

social transition is not possible - how can a man participate in society as a woman - whatever they do they are still a man - a man called she / a man in a dress / a man...

still a man!

It’s part of living as a woman for women in society. For men it’s about accessing a female space because they want to, for a variety of reasons, some less palatable than others, but all selfish. Regardless of “identity”.

How does that work in conjunction with the trans umbrella, no acceptance without exception and convicted sex offenders managing to get a GRC?

Only I'm a big confused seeing as it's quite clear that being transgender has been so monolithed by Stonewall.

Yet, somehow our friend here wants to pretend this is the case.

Further than that how the heck does 'being a condition' work with Self ID where you don't have to go anywhere near a doctor to declare yourself the opposite sex and demand all these legal protections?

Indeed.

Would like to be a fly on the wall if Tandora went to trans Reddit with this transmedicalist concept of “trans”

Further than that, how does that work with males who say things like they have a cervix, that sex is a nebulous dog whistle and they are biologically female and others still who insist that they have changed their biology cos they took some drugs.

Are actual females supposed to accept this condition that makes these males lie and insist that we go along with this lie?

Tandora is dangerously close to a puritan true trans ideological line here. Which at times is somewhat Terfy in nature.

Do you think biological sex is a “nebulous dog whistle”, @Tandora?

And one which isn't remotely reflected by the trans movement in the UK at present.

The NHs is absolutely not riddled with doctors who deny that trans women were registered male at birth, or May have XY chromosomes or testes etc etc. they can acknowledge these bodily factors while also recognising/ affirming the reality of trans experience and “treating” it in the best way they know how .

Depends on context and how it is used.

It the context of abeing under oath and insisting you are biologically female when you were born a man.

The only people who have ever accused me of being “terfy” are gender critical feminists on mumsnet..

I don’t understand what you mean here.

Do you mean DU insisting she is female? Do I think it’s a dog whistle for a trans woman to assert that she is female? No.

Of course you don't.

The lengths you will tie yourself in knots to avoid the question and to spout utter bollocks is quite fascinating to watch.

No, in the sense Upton claimed. Is the concept of biological sex a “nebulous dog whistle” as he asserted?

I have come to the conclusion that anyone willing to tell The Big Lie, hasn't read a lot at all.

Not general knowledge.
Not science.
Not history.
Not politics.

Or anything about anything much either really.

Can you give me the full statement and it’s context?