To be disappointed Dolly Parton supported biological men using women's toilets?

[Jane3212]

I really liked her music and she seemed like a nice person: her Imagination Library came to my borough recently. I was very sad to hear she'd died.
But was very disappointed to read this. The statements she made about trans people deserving respect, no issue with those.
But minimising the reasonable concerns women have about being forced to let men in their toilets was wrong.
I'm not saying she should have spoken out for GC issues. It might have been best just not to comment.
Parton had connections with drag queens and I wonder if that's the lens she saw transwomen through : not an excuse but might partially explain.

No, but I get to respect someone else's dignity (the one who needs to use the Ladies for whatever reason).

not often I’m shocked by the sheer insanity on here

they could use the correct toilet for their sex. Or the
accessible toilets. Their need to validate their identity in the loo isn’t my problem.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

word salad with a touch of AI doesn’t make a convincing argument. The answer remains the same: NO to males in female spaces. It’s very simple.

just for you @Soupsavior:
What is a woman?
What is gender?

It’s interesting that some posters dogpile, strawman and derail in ways so similar to the documented tactics of anti-feminist and MRA communities in online spaces. It creates a very different style of discussion from the norms found in many women led communities.

ironic because it’s the fun feminists, the ones who centre men in their feminism, who cheerlead for the MRA community, not sex realist feminists!

Sorry some of us know our own words and wouldn't use AI because we have our own thoughts. If you can't understand my point, you might find it useful however. Surely you can at least understand the question of why exactly the supreme court ruling is relevant to Dolly and people's opinions?

I’m struggling to understand how Dolly Parton’s views on toilets are something you have time to think about?

a wider discussion around women’s sex based rights is happening and obviously you know that.

I'm not interested in derailing because you can't engage with the substance of people replying to you, but thanks for the example.

Ive had this discussion for over a decade with people like
you and none of you ever attempt an answer to this question! It’s clear that it can’t be done!

Or people read your posts and switch off.

I want everyone to be as safe as possible in toilets - the place people rush to when they feel ill. I collate information from FOIs, police reports, coroners reports, academic and medical articles.

Obviously the most at risk includes anyone of us having an emergency within a cubicle or room. This is especially important for anyone who suffers from heart or neurological conditions, those who have taken drugs or been spiked, and have disabilities that may result in collapse like brain injuries, epilepsy or diabetes.

So called ‘Inclusive’ toilet design is least bad for healthy men, because the designs prioritise individual privacy over collective safety.

I helped save a young women’s life by seeing her on her cubicle floor. She had choked on vomit and stopped breathing. We got her out by going over the top of the cubicle and opening the door from the inside, then pulling her body out the way of the door, dragging her out and clearing her airway. I show the difference the design can make by this picture. The left hand side shows a design that is only permitted in a single sex environment. The reason I use the word ‘child’ is a lot of my initial research has been done around recent school designs and I used to be a teacher. Schools have been Guinea pigs for mixed sex designs so they have informed a lot of my early work.

The measure of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable.

yes, it must be that. LOL.

The amount of people "rushing" to a public toilet when they feel ill is the concerning thing. what are they doing out? Or are they maybe drunk?

No, we're the feminists who have been online receiving abuse from mens rights activists for the last 10 years or more and unsurprised which side most of those sexist men now fall on this debate, and I know you already know it's not on the side of feminists. You don't even know all my feminist beliefs yet you feel confident to strawman me as someone who "centres men" but would likely have nothing to say to a right wing, anti choice, conservative bios essentialist because you agree with them on trans women whether you come from it at different agendas or not. But I know you just wanted to make a "cool girl" attack with your fun feminist comment.

Btw if you're in a diabetic hypo, you're not rushing into a public toilet.

@Soupsavior , this poster has already had multiple posts deleted from this thread owing to harrassment.

You don't owe them an answer that they're not remotely interested in. The best thing is just to ignore them. I know it's difficult when you're being harangued. But this thread isn't in FWR, and you'll see, reading the thread, that there are plenty of posters who can see their behaviour for what it is.

a bio essentialist? Is that what I am now?
I prefer sex realist, but might try out bio essentialist in future. It has a nice ring to it.
Look at cool girl controversial old me, with the audacity to believe in biological sex and sex based rights for females. How bloody dare I, eh? How edgy, rebellious and subversive of me.

Likewise and I only have it now with people in engaging in good faith which isn't any of those who have already concluded why people disagree with them before heating it out. Why exactly would people want to discuss with people who already state they consider anyone who disagrees on this issue to be dim, misinformed, male centred etc? It's also not good faith to throw it out to derail from responding to people asking you to explain another point you've already made. Why does the supreme court ruling mean people get to be disappointed or critical of others thinking and believing their own opinions?

Where did I call you a bioessentialist....? The point clearly went over your head that people are on one side or the other of this issue for many reasons, not all of them women's rights. But if you identify with that I won't stop you.

you must be getting confused as I haven’t reported a single post on this thread.
Mumsnet can confirm this for you if you ask them.