AIBU to suggest emailing Andy Burnham about access to women’s toilets?

[UnDeuxTwuh]

Aibu to suggest you can email Andy Burnham if you are what he calls one of the “tiny, tiny, tiny number of people” who believe that men including “transgender women” should not be allowed to use women’s toilets.

[email protected]

Perhaps if he gets enough emails he’ll see he is not right.

Don’t overload poor old Portsalut with all that pesky logic, it sounds like they are struggling to cope with the idea of women as full human beings in itself, let alone having actual rights .

Dying with laughter at the notion that trans identified women look more masculine than trans identified men.
Its like you've never seen either.

Considering that of the men incarcerated the division is that 67% of trans identified men are in for sex offences as compared to 13% of other men. It's VERY clear that they are substantially more dangerous to women and children per capita than other men.
This makes some sense as these are generally men with fetishes and/or mental health problems who are happy to disregard women's boundaries and become extremely threatening towards women when denied.
I shall therefore continue to consider then as at least as much of a potential threat as any other man. You can do what you like, but you don't get to tell better informed women than yourself what we are allowed to be concerned about.

Ah the "but intersex" argument

TIMs are not men with DSDs, they're just men and all DSDs are sex specific. A disorder has occurred either along the male development path or the female development path.
This is not relevant to men using women only single sex spaces.

Trans Identified women are not men though. And quite frankly, do not look like men in real life. Just as trans identified men do not look like women.

There is no evidence that trans identified men are at any risk in men specific spaces. There is however, evidence that they CAUSE a risk in women's spaces. Assaults and rapes HAVE happened.

You are talking out of your arse.

Its not @LiviaDrusillaAugusta who is uninformed about DSDs. It's you. See my previous post and perhaps do some actual research rather than repeating nonsense you saw on Reddit or X

Well there we go, any woman not sufficiently feminine enough can now be reasonably asked to prove her sex.

Link

it may be legitimate to ask individuals to provide confirmation that they are of the eligible sex by proportionate means. Evidence of such concern might include the individual’s physique or physical appearance, behaviour or concerns raised by other service users

Men are not a marginalised minority. And men who identify as women are definitely not marginalised in the current climate. Indeed they seem to be positively lionised. Their every demand has been pandered to at the expense of women's safety and dignity. And when they are told no, they become dangerous and threatening. No truly marginalised group would react that way.

Object rape exists. GBH exists. Murder exists.
A penis is not required.

How about Michelle Martinez (previously Miguel) who raped a 10 year old girl in a bathroom? Or Lexi-Rose Crawford who has been jailed for the SECOND conviction of child sex abuse? Or Katie Dolakowki who sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl in a toilet at Morrisons? ‘She’ also previously tried to film a 12 year old girl in the toilet at Asda. Want me to carry on?

I think you just hit TRA bingo in one post

That's some impressive bullshitting.

Can you link to where it says women have to be ‘feminine enough’ please?

I’ve done a search on the whole document and the only thing that comes up on that word is feminine hygiene products.

Don't be ridiculous. There are no degrees of being a woman. Either you are one or you aren't

Are we certain he CAN read?
He certainly can't read a room anyway

The italics piece refers to service users having concerns about other service users based on physical appearance.

Well yes. But that doesn't mean other people may not question your sex, seeing as how we don't walk around with genitalia on show or sex at birth tattooed on foreheads.

In the vast majority of cases it would be obvious the second the woman opened her mouth.

Fixing this comes back to men. If men do the right thing and stay out of women's spaces, there will be no need to question anything. Men broke the social contract, they need now fix it.

I’ve seen this a lot by TRA’s losing their minds about ‘cis’ 🤮 women who look masculine getting grief in toilets (which has only just started apparently 🙄).

If you actively CHOOSE to present in such a way that you might be deemed to be the opposite sex based on sex stereotypes, why would you be offended or surprised to be challenged in a space that you’d expect to be challenged in, where women might feel vulnerable?

If he gets in Îd rather he prioritize the care system as mentioned in his speech today.

How would you know that someone that looks like a woman isn’t a woman .Women’s changing rooms maybe but in a toilette?

Sounds a bit victim blaming to me. Why shouldn't women dress however they want? If that's jeans, baggy t and shirt hair, does that mean you have to put up with abuse? What a weird take from someone who apparently wants safe spaces for women. But only women who like a certain way clearly.

Ok. Own up. Who sent the batshit signal out!?!

Challenging someone in such a space isn’t abuse. Women should dress however they like, that’s what being GC is. If I chose to present in such a gender non-conforming way, I wouldn’t care if someone approached me. It would be clear the minute I spoke that I was a woman, I’d prob love the fact they were standing up for their rights.

My post was about TRA’s speaking on behalf of such women, like it’s a ‘gotcha’, which I’m taking with a pinch of salt anyway or those complaining.

Like PP said, if men hadn’t broken the social code of single sex spaces, no one would be getting pulled up because that happens.

It is a basic expectation of prime ministers that they can deal with more than one thing at a time