Help me reply to Lord Lucas now before debate on Monday

[refusetobeasheep]

He has responded to my email asking him to ensure the definition of women is born female at birth.

His question: How in a women's communal toilet can you reasonably ascertain whether another person is a woman or not?

Please give me your best answers now before I reply.

Especially safe guarding points!!

Will mention the way men walk, talk, look ... that entirely possible i have not spotted a post op trans before. but i would spot a bearded man or someone who made me as a woman feel unsafe. And the new self -ID would mean I would have to ignore my instincts and happily allow any man who says he is a woman to access my communal changing area / that of my 9 year old daughter ..

Why does it matter? If we go back to the old rules of males can't be in the ladies then why does it matter if we can tell the difference or not?

If a transwoman passes as a woman then nobody would ever know if the TW broke the convention and used the ladies.

The question suggests that all the transwomen would still try to come in and women would have to police entry.

How can we tell when fraudsters break the law? Does everyone recognise a telephone scammer or do some people fall for it? Are identity thieves always caught? Can we always successfully keep burglars out of our houses? So why do we have laws against any of these if people are sometimes prepared to break the law and they get away with it?

Surely the point about single sex toilets is not that some men may sneak in undetected or otherwise, but that they are not allowed in and if they do then they can be prosecuted for breaking the law and as such they keep out. We don’t say theft, rape, assault, fraud are ok just because some people get away with it.

I very much enjoyed this particular tweet.

Ralph Lucas
@LordLucasCD
·
Feb 12
I would like to see Stonewall lay aside its kimono and baseball bat, and Fawcett hear the call to courage, and sit down together to sort out a commonsense solution.

'How can you tell' is such a non question to me IF (and this is rare..very rare) a transwoman passes 100%, then basically, women would not even know. Such a person is still male but, noone would know anyway. They would not alarm women who have had experiences with male violence, and hopefully, would not be a threat either, given MOST males aren't. Still a coin toss though I guess as being trans doesnt change the risk..The huge majority of people, you do not need to ask to look in their knickers to know which sex they are, and to pretend that you do...is just offensive and faux stupidity tbh

Surely the point about single sex toilets is not that some men may sneak in undetected or otherwise, but that they are not allowed in and if they do then they can be prosecuted for breaking the law and as such they keep out. We don’t say theft, rape, assault, fraud are ok just because some people get away with it.

Also YES to this. Common sense. Put way better than I could too

My answer to him is - why should we to know? Why can we not go to the bloody loo in peace knowing that if a man come in we can holler? And anyone looking at him walking in to the will also holler? Why introduce doubt for us when we have our knickers down????

It doesn't matter how people in general can tell who is male or female.

The laws and regulations have to be explicit that facilities for females are exactly that - for females.
Any males who use such facilities can be challenged and made to leave.
The social conventions around separation of the sexes works in conjunction with laws to instill in people good manners, so that decent males will refuse to use female-only spaces. Those males who disrespect such social conventions, should rightfully be viewed with suspicion and negativity.
Yes, it's probable that some males might slip through unnoticed, but many of the trans 'ladies' wouldn't. Of this I am sure. We don't get rid of other laws and social conventions just because a few people manage to break them.

As third spaces are rolled out across organisations and public places, the males who continue to disrespect single sex facilities will be viewed with even more distaste and suspicion. Any male who insists on using female only facilities when a third space is available, should be viewed very negatively by society.

We are a social species, and the combination of laws and social conventions is what keeps people in general to maintain their manners and respectful behaviour.

If someone offers you a lift, do you check their driving license, insurance and car mot first?

Midge, I don't get into cars with people I don't trust. That's the fastest way to get murdered. Women have to live defensively just to stay alive and un-raped. Part of this defence is keeping predators away from spaces we are vulnerable in.

Being polite never stoped a predator, it only helps them.

What I am saying ( or trying to anyway!) is that there are plenty of things we do routinely where we don't ask for evidence before doing it, but we have the back up of law should we need it.

Using driving as I want examples that men can relate to

I am increasingly convinced that men find it easier to understand a transgender POV because they have never experienced sexual discrimination but are caught up in toxic masculinity which means they know that stepping out of line with "gender expression" will lead to bullying for example

Ah, I see, yes. I do take taxis, trusting that the law in place will protect me, or at least be a deterrent to anyone thinking of flouting it.

Men have zero skin in this game, and part of me thinks they reject the presence of transwomen because of the 'eeeeww, a gay!' factor that toxic masculinity has created.

I think the way men are allowed, and encouraged to have no empathy has made it almost impossible for them to see the problems here.

How, as a bystander, can you be empirically certain that the motorist who sped past as you crossed the road was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, drunk driving, and breaking the law?

You saw it, yes, but can you prove what you saw?

You can't? You're 'sure', but you have no hard evidence other than your eyes? My goodness.
We had better immediately dismantle all speeding laws, since citizens are not equipped with speed cameras in their heads. And we must abolish seatbelt laws too, since there is no way at all to police drivers and force them to comply every time they drive. And drink driving laws too, get rid, it's not like we can have a police officer present each and every time a driver enters a car, we'd never be able to police it.

We keep the speeding laws
We keep the seatbelt laws
We keep the drink driving laws
We can't police the moment of decision of a citizen to break each of these laws.

But we can punish those who are reported and caught, and we can use the methods available to us - certification, measurement and observation - to confirm without doubt that this was a transgression.
Sometimes, an innocent person is found not to have been stealing. Not to have been drunk. To be the genuine owner of the car.
This is not a failure of the law - this is a success. It demonstrates the law can distinguish between innocent and guilty.

Such laws are deterrents. And they work.
Yes, some people flout them. They gamble on not getting caught. But most are deterred for fear of consequences.
If the law shrugged, said, "but how can an average person be sure, tho, they simply can't be" and abolished speeding, drinking and seatbelt laws, the incidences of all of these would rocket. If the law said to people "please report any crime you think you've observed. But if you happen to be mistaken it's you for the dock" the cooperation between the public and law enforcement would disintegrate.

We need deterrents. We need consequences for those who are challenged for potentially breaking the law, and we need methods of determining the truth over what actually happened.

Birth certificates exist.
Sex can be observed and verified.

Women can be protected to eject and report potential transgressors, without threatened consequences for 'getting it wrong' and the potential transgressors can demonstrate, or not, their entitlement to that space. Or not.

The key question all these men fail to ask themselves is what is in this for women? We have single sex facilities for a reason. What is the advantage for women of doing away with them? If there isn’t one, then it makes it clear they are discussing disadvantaging all women to advantage men.

These spurious theoretical questions are just a distraction from that fundamental point. Could it be they are trying not to recognise it?

Lord Lucan I'm sure would never expect a woman to ignore his male presence and get undressed in front of him.
He understands already how uncomfortable, humiliating, degrading or frightening that would be for a woman.

The question he needs to ask is:
If I can understand why a woman wouldn't want ME present, why on earth would I expect her to feel differently about any other man?

*Lucas, obvs

Its not about whether you can always tell, it is about whether people who are the opposite sex (but the protected characteristic 'gender reassignment') have the right to use that space, or whether the organisation that is providing it can legitimately say 'this is women only' and expect that to be respected.

It is like a council is allowed to provide a playground for children 12 years and younger (or whatever) or areas for under 5s.

How can you tell if a child is under 12 or under 5? You cannot accurately. But you can ask the teenagers to get out of the toddlers sandpit.

It is not about having someone at the gate of the playground checking children's passports. It is about an organisation being able to meet different needs legitimately.

Aww they corrected the Lord Lucan typo in the title.

Aww they corrected the Lord Lucan typo in the title.

Yes, I was very much enjoying the idea of Lord Lucan contributing to this debate. 40+ years in hiding and it's the madness of transgender ideology that brings him out of the Peruvian forest he's been lurking in.

@MForstater

Good analogy re teenagers in the sandpit

Excellent post MForstater - exactly right.

A real life example is Charlotte Clymer, a late transitioner, and a person with very large stature (tall and strong, with lots of muscle mass - Clymer was in the US forces I believe) and clearly male-bodied.

Clymer was prevented from using women's toilets in a restaurant, on the basis of the "sandpit" analogy - ie. you're clearly not female, you can't use the women's.

But instead of understanding this, of perhaps having an inkling that Clymer truthfully may make women feel uncomfortable, Clymer kicked up a fuss and called the police.

I don't want the UK to end up in the situation (we're practically there already) where any male can waltz into women's facilities, and women are too afraid to challenge them.

Can you turn the question round and ask how can a woman know if a person with a penis in their changing rooms is genuinely a non binary person or a man exploiting self id for perverted reasons ?

Lord Lucas retweeted the following take down of this thread

mobile.twitter.com/OwainAlty/status/1229733189578563584

Utterly brilliant! The people who use blockers will read. I reckon rather a lot of them will not come to the conclusions Owain hopes. Marvellous. Traffic to this board is about to increase again.

Excellent.

Plenty of actual reasons, all being retweeted by doofuses who somehow think it's making the opposite point for them.

Ironic how he's mocking the notion that socially men are encouraged to have no empathy, whilst showing no empathy.