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.'

Even if that is the case in their heart of hearts (and I doubt it).

You understand that you and your friends don't get to consent on behalf of everyone else?

Unfortunately some women have been groomed to believe that men's desires matter more than women's rights, dignity and safety. These types of women do not get to speak for me.

A summary of all 40 pages as we approach the end of the thread.. ( I really think any thread that reaches its limit should have this zipped up summary at the end...)

---

The overwhelming majority of posters are against what Andy Burnham said. Not
mildly against it either. Properly angry about it.

The main objection is not just “I don’t agree with him”. It is that a man is telling women that women who object to males in female toilets are only a “small minority”, and then appears to frame those objections as something linked to trauma or fear, rather than a perfectly rational concern about privacy, dignity, safeguarding and boundaries.

The rough shape of the thread looks like this:

• Big majority: Burnham is wrong, patronising and out of touch.
• Big majority: Women’s toilets/changing rooms are single-sex spaces for a reason.
• Big majority: This is about sex, not identity.
• Big majority: If males can enter female spaces by saying they identify as women, the boundary becomes unenforceable.
• Big majority: Women should not have to prove trauma before they are allowed privacy.
• Large number: This shows poor judgement and may damage him politically.
• Some: This issue matters, but may not decide elections because voters also care about money, services, immigration, housing, etc.
• Tiny minority: Some women personally do not object to trans-identifying males using women’s toilets.
• Tiny minority: Mumsnet may not be representative of wider opinion.

Most posters here are not saying “we are scared of trans people”. They are saying female-only spaces exist because sex matters. Toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, searches and sport all rely on sex-based boundaries. Once you replace sex with self-identification, those boundaries stop being clear or enforceable.

And the “small minority” line is the bit that really grates. It sounds like a male politician trying to minimise women’s objections because he finds them politically inconvenient.

There are some dissenting voices, mainly saying either “I personally don’t mind” or “Mumsnet is not representative”. Fair enough, those views exist. But in terms of volume on this thread, they are a very small minority.

The thread is overwhelmingly anti-Burnham on this point. A fair description
would be: a wall of women saying no, with a handful saying they do not mind, and a few saying it may not matter electorally.

Are you on trans threads telling them that they need to be nice and show empathy towards women who have a different life experience than them? That women have lost so much in the last decade+ and its such a positive on their mental wellbeing that they are having their dignity restored?

Or are you just telling women to have empathy?

If you are placing yourself in the position of being the good person in the middle make sure that is exactly what you are doing

And yet, the UK polling using different polling agencies all seem to show the exact opposite in relation to male people accessing female single sex provisions.

If the majority of your friends think male people over the age of about 8-10 years old should be accessing female singe sex provisions, perhaps you choose to be surrounded by people who only think like you do, perhaps the people you consider close enough are not telling you the truth, or maybe there is another reason.

I haven't asked any of my friends but I think it's not a major issue for them as far as I know
.

Despite your OP name I’ll feel that you are absolutely thrilled with the success you’ve had with this thread. it’s solely an anti-labour thread. It’s allowed all the right wing newspapers and writers to say what an awful man Burnham is. You know the law has changed or if you wanna be finicky the the previous law has been clarified. You’re just stirring up a pot because you don’t want Burnham to get in. It’s weird how nobody else sees that or maybe they do I haven’t read the entire ridiculously long thread but you succeeded you’ve got people going. How easily people are manipulated.

Suppose for a moment that you and Andy Burnham are right, and 9 out of 10 women are fine with transwomen, i.e. men, using women's toilets. The remaining 1 woman is not OK with this, maybe because she wants privacy from men, maybe because she is worried about voyeurism, maybe for religious reasons, or maybe because she has been raped and is terrified to have strange men in the next cubicle while she is in a toilet.

Whose views should prevail? The ones who don't care (but also presumably wouldn't care if males were excluded), or the 1 in 10 who now has nowhere single-sex to use? It's obvious surely.

She didn't make Burnham say that though. It's all on him.

He's had ample to to clarify his position since the SC ruling. But ... crickets

As the say on here, when someone tells you who they are, believe them

He said that years ago when everyone was saying that anyway everyone in government was saying that and before the new law came out and was clarified.

Would you seriously vote for a right wing party and all the destruction that will bring upon this country because someone said something years ago?

Has Burnham said anything recently to say he's changed his mind or stated his current view

Yep, this is me, #BOOM and the Labour government falls.

All Labour has to do to get back all the votes they lost is to say women can keep men out of their loos. That’s it. Easy. One sentence but….

I think it's Andy Burnham himself and the Labour party that have brought this situation upon themselves. This thread has given us the opportunity to voice our objections to his opinions and actions.

Edited to correct grammar

😂What? Labour loyals just can't see it / don't want to see it, do they? It does explain why Labour are tanking so badly though.

We shall see. Alternative to labour is the most outrageously misogynistic party that’s ever appeared on the surface of this country. But we shall say if the British reputation for clear thinking wins.

Perhaps the labour party need to wake up, and treat the population like they matter, by addressing their concerns. Instead of gaslighting them. As you kindly exemplify.

I don't know about you, but I like to think that any future PM will be able to recognise the definition of sex categories.

This is not an 'anti-labour' thread, this is a thread pointing out that Andy Burnham is not a good candidate for Westminster if he has not changed his understanding of what is the definition of female people and to understand that female people have unique needs that need to be addressed with single sex provisions.

It seems rather incongruous that on one hand you are telling others how easily they are manipulated, yet you seem keen to maintain a tribal approach to politics.

Firstly no not everyone was saying that. And why would that make it okay?

Secondly he's had eons of time to reconsider and he's said nothing.

Trying to get everyone to ignore labour's misogyny isn't working. It is necessary to challenge them on it.

If a candidate that has a serious chance of being PM could not define what group of people were female a few years ago, as a well educated adult, what other things is he discussing that he has his own personalised definitions for?

How does him not being able to define a female person using a scientific and provable definition make him trustworthy on anything else.

Which party said women can't assemble without men coming along?

Gonna tell you right now it's not Reform but it is or has been Labour.

I think people should make judgements on parties actions, not on smears.

Labor just have to stop being misogynist wankers. Shouldn't be hard right? Then they can hoover back up all those votes they lost by being mental and treating women like second class citizens.

@Onmytod24

"All Labour has to do to get back all the votes they lost is to say women can keep men out of their loos. That’s it. Easy. One sentence but…."

This is literally it. I want to vote Labour or Green. All I need is a clear statement that whatever trans people feel it has nothing to do with body sex, shouldn't be treated as interchangeable with or a replacement for body sex, and shouldn't even be using the language of body sex. Trans "women" may feel genuine in themselves but take away sexist ideas about how women feel or think and trans women in reality are no closer the women than any other man and that does matter.

All I want is that honesty.

Point me to a link where a Labour or Green leader makes it clear they understand and respect that and that party has my vote, no contest.

(Oh, and I'm not voting Reform under any circumstances BTW. Before you get all finger pointy)

Yes. but imagine if you lived in Makerfield. What choice do they have? Labour and greens think men can be women. no vote I suppose. I'd be livid if I lived there, the arrogant way they're being treated by Labour.

Absolutely on your side on all of this, but am very willing to hold my nose for whoever makes the strongest stand on this (not that it matters in Brighton, might as well vote loony party)

At least your Lloyd Russell whatsis face has disappeared now.