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’m another member of this small minority (budge up folks it’s getting crowded in here). I like many of Burnham’s policies but there’s no way I would ever vote for a misogynist who thinks same sex attraction is a genital fetish.

Transwomen ARE men. There’s no difference between them and any other men. Except there is some evidence that actually they are MORE of a danger to us than other men.

And if cubicles keep us safe then transwomen will be perfectly safe in the men’s faculties right?

This. I certainly wouldn't vote for him now, he sounds uneducated about a subject which is so important to so many women.

Nothing cheers my day up more than a man telling women what they think. Pulling statistics out of his arse and presenting them as fact. Andy Burnham can fuck right off.

Im sick of saying this but any women who would be fine with a biological man in the toilet with them GOOD FOR YOU. That doesnt mean the rest of us would be ok with it. That might be because of previous sexual assault or rape, religious reasons, or we simply do not want a man in the same private space as us and that is our absolute right, protected by law.

Transwomen are not women. I respect their right to privacy but not at a cost to biological women.

I'm hoping he loses the by-election, frankly.

He’s completely tone deaf.

What’s the difference between a man pretending to be a woman from a man pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman?

What they’re wearing is irrelevant, they are men. If cublicles are so safe they can use one in the men’s. None of my male colleagues or the males in my life are likely to attack me either (as sure as I can be on that), I don’t want to piss or change near them. Privacy and dignity play a part too.

I it’s definitely not the minority view for women as I don’t know any women who would want men in their private space.
I can’t say a man’s view means a lot on this subject though.

Most men do not assault females. They still do not chose to use the female facilities because they know it would cause women to feel uncomfortable. They also may understand that once you let one type of man in, it will become increasingly difficult to prevent the dangerous ones from coming in.

We have separate spaces because 1) women are most likely to be attacked by men 2) when they are alone 3) increasing risk when they remove their clothes 4) and because they have over twice the upper body strength meaning women cannot defend themsleves when they are attacked.

Males who wish to use female spaces either don't care about the safety and welfare of women or for nefarious purposes. They are red flags.

Why do men think they have the right to use women's toilets. Wearing a dress doesn't automatically mean a man becomes a woman. The whole thing is utterly nonsense.

Andy Burnham is an idiot.

He deserves to, the way he's swept in assuming they'll vote for him. Disrespecting the electorate. Labour does as Labour is, I suppose.

I'm curious. On the continent, there are a lot of toilets in public spaces (airports etc) with cubicles and both the man and woman sign on the outside, i.e. they are unisex. Doesn't worry me at all.
Just to add, I don't know anyone who is concerned about this.

I wonder if, as PM, Andy Burnham would remove us from the Geneva Convention? After all, that clearly states that female prisoners must have entirely separate accommodation and sanitary provisions from males. I’d love to ask him if he believes that the safeguards in the Geneva Convention represent a minority view and, if so, would his Government continue to uphold those provisions given that he believes they are wrong.

Basic facts here:

women who don't object to mixed sex toilets (and by extension changing rooms, hospital wards, rape crisis services, refuges, denial of same sex health care professionals even post rape, and being strip searched by a man who identifies as a woman, the use of the word 'toilets' just hides and trivialises all the rest of the package) will be happy in the gender neutral additional toilets.

The women who do and are reliant for access to society on single sex, can go on having single sex.

Everybody happy, equality of access, wtf is the prob Burnham?

Why deride and attempt to silence those women? The ones who would have nothing at all and no access to society (mostly from minority groups) if all women's spaces are for men? What is the point of that?

Strange I have never ecountered this unless it is a single room with a toilet.

We must be going to different place on the continent.

Of all Andy Burnham’s beliefs this is the one that matters least to me.

I travel a lot and I’ve never encountered this. How many women have you asked if they want single sex spaces to remain so?

I've just got back from Spain and it was prevalent at the airport I was. And somewhere else.
As I said, it is cubicles. Lockable door. Man and woman sign on the outside. It's the same at Heathrow terminal 5 lounge also

Maybe if you realised that when they talk about toilets, they also mean changing rooms, showers, women's hospital wards, school changing rooms and all the rest, you'd be more concerned? They really don't want people to realise they mean all the above with access to unconsenting women and girls undressing.

Burnham can fuck right off, even if he believed it’s only a small minority (which isn’t true, it is the majority) is he saying a minority of women don’t matter? Actually that’s a stupid question, of course he thinks women’s views don’t matter whenever they differ from men’s views he’s Labour 🙄

I can assure you I'm not making this up, why would I.

I was just talking about toilets actually.

I also grew up working class and I (and everyone I’ve discussed this with) do not want men using female single sex provision. No matter how they identify.

I agreed with you. Women prefer these toilets to having TG men in them.

However, in huge airports with thousands of people their simply isn't the floor space to accomodate this reality.

In Melbourne airport there are male and female toilets, accessible toilets and gender neutral toilets.

To use this argument in this context implies that it is feasible for all situations and it isn't possible.