Is Andy Burnham reasonable to say only a small minority of women object to men being in their toilets? YABU he's right, YANBU he's wrong *titled tweaked by MNHQ at OP's request*

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15830845/Andy-Burnham-men-identify-women-use-female-toilets.html

'I don't think that's a majority view. I think it's a minority view and quite a small minority view, actually. But it is a view so you can't completely ignore it. Possibly they might be women who have experienced male violence at some point in their life. I don't know, that's one way of looking at it.'

I think this is a far bigger issue than who pees where. It is at heart whether female people are allowed to have any social, legal or political existence in our own right.

I think women are half the human population and we matter as well.

I think anyone who thinks it's ok to decide the thing that makes men and women different is our minds not our bodies is (a) sexist as fuck, and (b) still hasn't actually given an argument why the people who do have female bodies can't also be recognised and supported in our own right rather then being lumped together with the "womanny-minded" people.

I think any politican who truly believes the above is a sexist fool, and any politician who doesn't truly believe but makes the statements he thinks he needs to is a craven snivelling opportunist who has just shown the world he will throw anyone under a bus to get what he wants.

Either way, certainly not a man that women should vote for.

I've hone from being a lifelong labour voter to absolutely not touching them.
Respect my sex if you want my x.

I agree with you. Though Burnham clearly thinks his views trump women's views with no need for discussion.

He seems to believe he is going to "save" the Labour party and that the Makerfield election is the most important in our lifetime. Not him. Not ever.

I have no problem with a trans woman using the female loos. But I’m in the minority, not the majority.

Well, he can fuck right off.

When she says TWAW, she knows that she is k
lying but she thinks it makes her progressive and kind and polite, so she has decided which services she thinks women can do without in service of this supposed progressive kindness.
She knows she's lying, so she knows everyone else who says it is lying too.

Her mistake is in thinking that everyone else will also accept that it's a lie at the exact same point that she does (in her case, sports and prisons). She is relying on everyone tacitly and silently accepting that it's a lie and reaching a point where they no longer indulge it. We, of course, know that they do not, and want the lie to be endlessly affirmed everywhere without exception. Even while they say that we can't have single sex spaces because we can't physically enforce them perfectly everywhere without exception...

And of course, she can't continue to claim that TWAW if she accepts that for some purposes they're not. She is making multiple mistakes:

1)Lying

2. Assuming everyone else will also tacitly admit they're lying and that this lying "kindness" will go both ways and people will accept reality where it suits her rather than expecting all the lying "kindness" to go one way

3. Assuming that everyone who does stop the lying "kindness" will do so at the exact same point that she does.

The Mail headline says he backs men using women’s toilets. But that’s not what he says in the quote- he says it’s a minority view & which should be respected.

the point is that he reveals himself as an arrogant prick who doesn't care about women or reality.

No, women have the right to female single sex spaces in certain circumstances ,regardless of how many women Andy estimates object to males accessing their female spaces is absolutely irrelevant.
He seems to be saying lets do away with female single sex spaces because he thinks only a minority of women want them ,i disagree i think the majority of women want some female single sex spaces in certain circumstances for many reasons eg: privacy ,dignity, comfort, safeguarding, respect for religious and cultural practices, the avoidance of trauma) i cant think of a single reason to do away with female single sex spaces ,can anyone think of a reason?

Has he explained why the fuck he imagines we even have seperate facilities to start with? What, we started with toilets for people wearing dresses and people wearing trousers and somehow they accidentally got labelled "men's" and "women's"?

Your opinion on sharing toilets with a trans woman isn't really relevant as there would be no way to exclude any man. The only choices are single sex or mixed sex.

Then he is a fool. Could he manage better any of the current challenges facing Starmer? Unlikely.

Question for you - would you be OK with all men using the women's loos?

There are far more women in the country than trans women. What happened to Labour being “for the many not the few”?

He ambition has long been to be PM

He has answered in a way I think he thought sounded progressive was more attractive to many voters

I think at the time he probably believed this was the more popular answer but I am quite sure his answer would be more ambiguous now

for some the damage will be done ...

It’s a bit of a paradox for me.

The only TW I dont mind using the bathroom are the ones who dont want to use it.

The ones who demand access obviously dont respect women.

If he can't talk clearly about something so basic, why would we believe that he understands anything else?

If he is going to brush aside this, what else is he prepared to ignore for political purposes?

One of the clearest examples of male entitlement I've seen in a while - his belief that he can tell us what we think goes beyond mansplaining....

It reminds me a bit of the rather awkward moment in the Darlington tribunal when the male EJ and the male briefs were discussing what is and isn't acceptable behaviour in the ladies - which, if their discussion was anything to go by, is nothing the actual women who go into ladies would recognise.

This is what really annoys me. Why can’t politicians say what they think, rather than saying what focus groups tell him he ought to think? I want politicians who have their own views and can defend them because they think they’re right, not politicians who say whatever they think will make them most popular.

In fact the whole reason we are in this mess is that Keir is unwilling to tell the truth about the financial mess the UK is in and do things like getting rid of the triple lock and reducing welfare because he’s worried it would make him unpopular. I’d like a grown up in charge who takes the right decisions no mater how unpopular they may be.

Oh, it reminds me of when a male boss of mine angrily complained "why do the women take so much longer in the toilets than the men?"

He said he believed it was a "minority view" that men shouldn't use women's toilets.

Thereby implying that it is a majority view that men should use women's toilets.

He also said that the minority view probably comes from women who have suffered some form of trauma at the hands of men, thereby implying that women who haven't suffered trauma (ostensibly in the majority) don't hold the view that men shouldn't be using the women's toilets.

So, only if you are a woman who has suffered trauma, should your views be taken into consideration, and even then, only as a minority view.

'If they don’t see a problem with men using ladies toilets then why do they have a problem as trans women using men’s toilets?'

Trans people and their allies cannot or won't answer this.

We get lots of minimising and sneering about 'why do you care it's only going to the loo you silly women!' with absolutely no explanation of if it's 'only going to the loo' why they can't go in the mens.

'He said he believed it was a "minority view" that men shouldn't use women's toilets'

He believes

I hope they wipe the floor with him at the fake by election.

And why are all those women wearing trousers queuing when they could be using the trouser toilets?