Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

These questions for Liz Truss... How would you answer them?

143 replies

witchesaremysisters · 25/04/2020 17:32

So I fell down a rabbit hole after reading this tweet:
twitter.com/WhatTheTrans/status/1253750544763674629

(Image attached from that tweet. And. Wow. But it's FINE for women to feel uncomfortable in THEIR single sex spaces or have to restrict themselves/go on the urinary leash?!? Also, the number of times I've been told to stop worrying about toilets? Right back 'atcha pal.)

They link to someplace called the Kite Trust, which had a list of questions for Liz Truss taken from Gay Star News.

How would you answer them? I am going to pretend I'm Liz and have a go.

1 What protections are you planning for ‘single-sex spaces’? Will trans, intersex and non-binary people be able to use bathrooms, changing rooms and other facilities freely?

Single sex facilities are to be single sex. They are what it says on the sign, frankly. They really don't exist to validate someone's gender identity. If you were born male, you don't come into a female-only space. You know what sex you are and that you are transgressing by coming into the space of another. Nobody asked women about this initially, but we understand women are not happy about sharing single sex spaces with males so we're rectifying the situation. Policies that trans activists are pushing for today might actually be illegal as they discriminate against females. We'll make third spaces to accommodate those people who don't feel comfortable in the facilities of their own sex. This would seem the most progressive way forward: it keeps vital protections for women and girls, and also lets nonbinary folks not have their sense of identity hurt, and increases the number of available facilities.

We'll throw some of the money that we give to Stonewall at making new toilet facilities in public spaces. Maybe they could even help build them, instead of us paying them to re-explain to us why the difference between neutrois and agender matters. Oh, here's a thought: why don't we make the sign for these third space facilities the Trans Umbrella? Or would the Genderbread person be better?

2 What ‘checks and balances’ are you considering on trans adults’ lives? Will these represent additional restrictions on transgender people’s freedoms?

What freedoms do transgender people lack that everyone else has? Genuine question. Who else is allowed to fake their birth certificate? Why don't we instead make some kind of new gender identity piece of paper that can be changed as freely as you like. But given that sex is immutable, we're going to stop pretending people can "amend" it. Nobody has the "right" to document a lie about biological fact in a historical record. Some things can be gender identity based, but in important circumstances some are to be categorised by sex. Such as prisons. Or collection of data such as in the census. Same with women's refuges. These are only a couple of examples off the top of my head, but if you all want to come and actually talk respectfully with women, the adult female humans who are more than an indefinable nebulous essence in a male mind, I'm sure we could hash something out.

3 What restrictions will you apply to trans access to transition healthcare before the age of 18? Do you realise these medical interventions are often lifesaving for vulnerable teenagers? Will you stop trans teens accessing hormone blockers? Will trans teens be able to access transition healthcare provided they do not take so-called ‘irreversible steps’?

I don't realise anything as nobody is systematically collecting long term data on this unprecedented medical experiment. I'd prefer if we stopped this outright now, but if you want to continue doing any of this, you have to set up proper randomised controlled trials. The onus is on you to prove what you are claiming. Show me the data. Gather it like you would for other "treatments." Include all the stuff about looking for potentially harmful side effects. Properly follow up the children for many years down the line. Show me the actual evidence that any benefit massively outweighs the harms. Show me how you are only picking the "true trans" kids to give these drugs to. Develop an objective marker. Compare medication versus solid mental health support and see who does better over the long run. You'd also have to explain to the kids that this "treatment" may crystallise their gender identity (not "buy time") and that "medically transitioning" will leave them sterile and on hormones for life. And that there is no actual long-term evidence it will make them less depressed (in fact, data released in FOIs from the Tavistock found that puberty blockers might increase suicidal thoughts, but we can't know for sure because, again, they've not made a scientifically robust attempt at figuring out that sort of relevant information about this "treatment").

All you have right now are empty utterings from people who have far too much vested interest in the idea that what they are doing must be "good," probably because the true nature of these "treatments" which mean sterilising gender nonconforming, likely homosexual, children and young people, is frankly horrifying.

If kids are struggling with their mental health, including ideas around their sexed bodies or gendered behaviours, they should have access to excellent, quality counselling, social and mental health support for their developing sense of self.

Produce me the evidence for why only this specific mental health issue in children, gender dysphoria, must be treated with experimental, irreversible physical interventions rather than psychological input. Because according to a Professor in Evidence Based Medicine from Oxford, who looked into this issue thoroughly, we don't have any.

4 Has the government considered the mental health impact of this policy change? And if so, who managed and advised on that assessment? Did they consider the dangers of self-harm, suicide and long term mental health trauma this may cause?

We considered that there may be a tantrum and threats from trans activists. Sure. But then we factored in the mental health of women, many of whom are incredibly depressed and frustrated over being forced to lie about reality. We thought about the feminists who are getting abused for not wanting to give up their hard-won gains to males. Then we considered what is happening to vulnerable young people, mainly female, with the rapid rise in referrals to the Tavistock with gender issues. We thought about these kids with autism, histories of abuse, trauma and eating disorders, who deserve much better than to be funneled into an unregulated medical experiment.

Yes. Mental health was at the forefront of our minds.

5 Is this policy a sign the government agrees with TERFs and the anti-trans LGB Alliance who represent fringe, transphobic views? Why has the government pursued this policy rather than one the vast majority of LGBT+ people would support?

We're listening to lesbians of the old-fashioned, female, cunty variety. Oh... and the common sense of the vast majority of the population.

Need I remind you that sex and sexual orientation are both protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010? Thanks ever-so for not using a misogynistic slur in any future correspondence and for refraining from slandering a brilliant organisation like the LGB Alliance.

6 The UN Human Rights Commissioner has instructed that states do not use the coronavirus period to roll back LGBT+ rights. She singled out Hungary which has attacked trans people’s rights to legal transition during the pandemic for criticism. Therefore is now the right time to proceed with this policy?

Yes better late than never!

Halloween Smile
These questions for Liz Truss... How would you answer them?
OP posts:
Winesalot · 29/04/2020 09:39

Was just about to post this one R0wantrees. It is certainly an emotive piece again with no statistics to disprove the call that self ID will bring no dangers to women and girls single spaces. Just the same ‘it never happens’ trope.

Winesalot · 29/04/2020 09:40

And no call for own spaces... strangely.

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 09:45

Winesalot Its a telling article. Helen Belcher makes clear that using female single sex spaces was deemed 'essential' to Belcher's wants. There was never any respect for the boundaries protecting women & girls' safety, dignity or privacy.

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 09:50

Helen Belcher from article above:

"Extremists want to exclude trans women from women’s single sex spaces (ie toilets and changing rooms). And those calls have grown louder and louder for the last three years."

People seeking to re-establish sex-based Safeguards which protect girls & women are not 'extremist'

OldCrone · 29/04/2020 09:53

If you can’t use public loos, you can’t travel or go shopping anywhere.

So all the women who don't want to share public toilets with males can stay home. And they tell us that this movement isn't anti women.

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 10:07

So all the women who don't want to share public toilets with males can stay home. And they tell us that this movement isn't anti women.

Its anti-Safeguarding.

2018 two girls (aged 10 & 12) were sexually assaulted in separate attacks in women's supermarket toilets by a young male named Katie Dolatowski who identified as a transwoman.

Dundee Courier
(extract)
"Dolatowski, 18, sexually assaulted the girl in the toilets of Morrisons, Kirkcaldy.

She grabbed the terrified youngster by the face, shoved her into the cubicle and ordered her to remove her trousers.

But instead of being jailed at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, Dolatowski, who identifies as a woman but was believed by her victim’s family to be a man, was given community payback and tagging orders.

The mum felt “very, very let down” and said: “I don’t have any confidence whatsoever that he will not go out and do something equally as bad or worse.”

The girl had been sledging when the assault occurred on March 4, last year, a month after Dolatowski had filmed a 12-year-old girl on the toilet in another supermarket in Dunfermline.

When she came out of her cubicle, Dolatowski shoved her back in and told her there was a man outside who would kill her mother.

The brave schoolgirl, however, punched Dolatowski in the face, stomach and groin and ran to her father and siblings waiting just outside the toilets.

Her mother said the girl was hysterical after the attack and continued to suffer flashbacks.

She said: “This is something that will remain with her for the rest of her life.

“He was stalking the toilets. He went there specifically to attack a child.

“We were so, so lucky that nothing worse happened. It was only her reaction that stopped that. It could have been a five-year-old child that wouldn’t have been able to fight back.” (continues)

Dolatowski admitted sexually assaulting the girl and following another girl into the toilets at Asda Halbeath, Dunfermline, on February 8, and trying to film her urinating by holding her mobile phone over the cubicle partition." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3496984-Article-in-Dundee-Courier-about-assault-of-10-year-old-girl-in-supermarket-toilets

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3329936-teen-films-girl-in-toilet

JellySlice · 29/04/2020 10:09

The whole idea, when you’re feeling fragile and vulnerable, of knowingly walking into a place where you are, at best, going to “get looks”, is just so outlandish that it doesn’t bear consideration.

How blinkered! Because the idea that women won't feel fragile and vulnerable walking into a place where you are, at best, going to “get looks”, or even worse going to get propositioned or even assaulted is just so outlandish that it doesn’t bear consideration.

Winesalot · 29/04/2020 10:10

Agreed R0wantrees. And completely missing the irony that a) the urinary leash is female in history and b) that this erosion of boundaries means that for some women it has been reintroduced. And women are 'extremists' for wanting these spaces to be upheld as single sex. Absolutely no mention of the fact that third spaces are so very often offered as a solution.

But according to this author, 'It was the first warning trans people may not enjoy access to single sex spaces in future'.... and Again. The author is so deep in their belief that trans = really do change sex.

And the 'No case for change but it could still become law'.... Concerning to believe that the law is not already existing and actually needs to be clarified and made to better reflect the intention - to protect females.

One of the final forays intrigued me. 'She needs to understand that mainstream British media has generally removed trans people from being able to have any voice on things that directly affect us'.....

I guess the BBC is not mainstream enough then.

Kit19 · 29/04/2020 10:19

I believe Helen Belcher runs trans media watch

transmediawatch.org/

transmediawatch.org/people.html

Winesalot · 29/04/2020 10:21

JellySlice Yesss.... I found myself rolling my eyes. The complete lack of female experience means that they cannot conceivably understand how bonkers it is to write that sentence.

It is just another article written by a misogynist who simply has no empathy for the 'sex' they believe they have transitioned to. Just like D Thomas and their wonderful proclamations including the one where they state they take three times the HRT that a menopausal woman needs to function in a HRT supply shortage.

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 10:24

One of the final forays intrigued me. 'She needs to understand that mainstream British media has generally removed trans people from being able to have any voice on things that directly affect us'.....

Helen Belcher enjoys a great deal of media influence & access.
After the Harry Miller /Faircop High Court finding, Belcher gave interviews.

BBC 'Harry Miller: Police probe into 'transphobic' tweets unlawful'
14 February 2020
(extract)
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".

He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.

"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

Responding to the ruling, Helen Belcher, who co-founded Trans Media Watch, said: "I think trans people will be worried it could become open season on us because the court didn't really define what the threshold for acceptable speech was.

"I think it will reinforce an opinion that courts don't understand trans lives and aren't there to protect trans people."(continue)
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202

Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

Helen Belcher/Trans Media Watch has also had considerable political access & influence:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3238618-Trans-Media-Watch-has-written-to-parliament-saying-trans-identified-male-can-be-considered-as-hate-speech-and-that-Mumsnet-users-referring-to-penises-are-being-transphobic

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 10:30

I believe Helen Belcher runs trans media watch

January 2018 TedTalk by Helen Belcher, 'Changing Media'

www.ted.com/talks/helen_belcher_changing_media

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 29/04/2020 10:31

Ah, nominative determinism sometimes seems so plausible.

Anyway, third spaces are seeming more and more like a good idea, to me. For the most part - in some cases it just won't be possible to implement more provision. But when there is the option, it seems perfect. Anyone happy with a gender neutral toilet can use it, anyone worried about single sex toilets can use it. Women who want privacy or a single sex space still have the female toilet. If there are queues, it could be a flexible, useful space.

Why would this not work? Are there TRAs happy with the third space solution?

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 10:45

September 2018 TRA conference, 'We're Still Here' organised by Jane Fae. Dawn Butler MP (former Women & Equalities shadow minister)

OP theHarpySings attended & reported:
(extract)
"6) GETTING THE GRA WE WANT

This was a workshop with 3 experts sitting with groups and talking through activism. They were:

Helen Belcher (Lib Dems, Trans Media Watch)
James Morton (Scottish Transgender Alliance)
Alex Moore (GenderJam). Moore is from N Ireland.

James Morton gave some insight into tactics the TRAs will probably start using in England and Wales as they were successful in Scotland.

He said the TRAs need to build allies in mainstream women and children’s organisations so it looks like they care about them.

He also said what worked in Scotland's was a “constructive, friendly, innocent” tone when debating or in dialogue with the GC side. To be mindful about who is watching- essentially like what we do with the lurkers on the FWR board. To make the TRAs look like the reasonable side.

James also said that in dialect with elected officials, to clarify that the trans side aren’t silencing anyone but want to clarify the misconceptions being bandied around by GC feminists.

The Scottish GRA changes will probably be put forward in the 2019-2020 parliamentary year.

Belcher has been meeting with MPs and members of the House of Lords. Most of them don’t really understand the GRA and don’t have much time to think about it thanks to the Brexit FUBAR. “Education” of law makers is needed and that’s what Belcher is doing.

Apparently the TRAs lack the infrastructure they had in the 1990s and early 2000s so they need to think carefully and coordinate.

Belcher said to re-iterate to MPs that the EA2010 is not being affected and no one is losing any rights (wtf).

Apparently in terms of political support, the Tories are split about 50/50, Labour, Lib Dem's and SNP are all onside. The Greens were NOT mentioned.

The big fear on the TRA side is that this Government won’t survive long enough to get this through- again because Brexit.

According to Alex Moore, Arlene Foster of the DUP went to a Pink News event and didn’t seem to know much about this. In NI no one really cares about the trans issues because everyone is focused on same sex marriage and abortion.

Alex then moaned about the Together for Yes campaign’s transmisogyny and that the campaign completely erased the experiences of trans and NB people who need abortions. Alex would like a legal change of gender to be free of charge and as easy as changing your name.

Helen Belcher was annoyed at GC feminists using “emotive arguments” regards rape.

HB said that the pile ons pro self-ID MPs get from the GC side if they say something supportive of the trans side are not helping the GC cause. Maria Miller told Belcher that MPs got loads of abuse in the run up to marriage equality and that abusive messages, tweets from GC feminists will only harden MPs against the GC side.

HB also said something snide about “mouthy” female Labour MPs who speak before thinking on Twitter- especially on a Friday or Saturday night after they’ve had a few drinks.

Apparently the TRAs have civil service support and that the Stonewall report and Gov survey are strong bits of evidence they have which is helping them win arguments.

They are saying there is no risk to reforming the GRA and are asking MPs “what is the risk?”

In the group I was in they also talked about how changing your gender multiple times should be allowed and shouldn’t be seen as “bad intentions”.

James Morton talked about how they can get rid of “gender” markers on things like IT systems and places where it isn’t relevant- apparently GDPR might be able to help them here.

JM’s campaigning tips were to gain trust in the local community- and to approach moderate feminists, “correct misconceptions and forgive any ignorance they may have displayed”. They want to gain trust and make themselves likeable.

Apparently small acts like helping to campaign about period poverty or retweeting the local branch of Women’s Aid will make a difference and result in some reciprocation. They want to make it look like they care about Women's issues so they don’t appear threatening" (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

James Morton has been key in the redefining of women/female by Scottish Government:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3829786-James-Morton-scottish-trans-alliance-quote?pg=3

Jane Fae
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3710570-Astonishing-thread-from-Jane-Fae-Darvo-at-its-finest

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3869907-Jane-Fae-The-coronavirus-death-rate-for-men-is-high-possibly-because-women-are-not-pulling-their-weight-in-the-crisis

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 10:56

Why would this not work? Are there TRAs happy with the third space solution?

Adult male TRAs have campaigned against safe separate space for individuals who no longer want to use the single sex provision. As demonstrated by pressures placed on King Edmund School Rochford.

Transgender Trend article:
Who Is Making Policy For Schools?
March 31, 2018

(extract)
"The whole campaign, from start to finish, took 6 days. No time to show ‘due regard’ by assessing the impact on pupils protected under the protected characteristic ‘sex’ as the school is legally obliged to do before changing policy. How is this not in breach of Equality law? The pupil involved is legally male, not female, and single-sex provisions are lawful under the Equality Act, for reasons of privacy. The example of school facilities used in the Equality and Human Rights Commission Technical Guidance (3.20) does not state that a pupil protected under ‘gender reassignment’ as transsexual should be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex:

The way in which school facilities are provided can lead to discrimination. Example: A school fails to provide appropriate changing facilities for a transsexual pupil and insists that the pupil uses the boys’ changing room even though she is now living as a girl. This could be indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless it can be objectively justified. A suitable alternative might be to allow the pupil to use private changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space.

King Edmund School is praised for showing “flexibility and openness to change” whereas in fact they were coerced by a campaign designed to intimidate and shame them for their ‘abusive’ policy of ‘discrimination’ and ‘segregation’, clearly risking damage to the school’s reputation. One tweeter even likened it to ‘apartheid.’

Although the final tweet proclaims ‘Everyone wins!’ Denham freely admits in this BBC report that the victory is only for the transgender student and everyone else’s needs and rights are unimportant:

“It’s about giving people the opportunity to use the toilet they are comfortable with, not what the school is comfortable with.” (continues)

www.transgendertrend.com/who-is-making-policy-for-schools/

witchesaremysisters · 29/04/2020 11:59

It's very interesting, this meltdown.

Why do you women care about toilets, indeed?

So, for anyone new - when women are complaining about having their safety, dignity and privacy eroded, we are told to shut up and what's the big deal.

When males who say they are women view a statement about single sex spaces... well, see Belcher.

Going to the gents wearing a dress or a skirt – well, I won’t even go there, because I didn’t.

Just felt entitled to use women's facilities because of... clothing.

Remind me, please, who is upholding gender stereotypes?

Fourth spaces, or an open space rather than men's, might call their bluff.

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 12:09

Just felt entitled to use women's facilities because of... clothing.
Fourth spaces, or an open space rather than men's, might call their bluff.
Fourth spaces, or an open space rather than men's, might call their bluff.

In matters of consent, which this is, women & girls are entitled to say simply say 'no'. Bargaining or bluffing is not neccessary.

current thread OP @MForstater wrote:

"Single sex spaces are a question of consent

It is very good news that Liz Truss has said that single sex spaces are a core principle for how this government will deal with sex and gender.

I think we need to be clear that this is not about backing into the corner of defending "women's safe spaces" with case-by-case risk assessment.

It is about everyday situations and it is about everybody's privacy and dignity.

Fundamentally it is about consent. I think she needs to hear this from all sides

Here is my contribution... a-question-of-consent.net/

If anyone has written a good letter to Liz Truss and wants to share it let me know"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3892049-Single-sex-spaces-are-a-question-of-consent

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 12:13

It's very interesting, this meltdown.

Reactions to women saying 'no' & assertion of Safeguarding boundaries should always be taken seriously. Its very telling.

Winesalot · 29/04/2020 13:01

J Fae has written a piece in the same publication today on the steps you should take to make sure that you are not misgendered in death.

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 13:24

Female single sex spaces include public toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons & women's refuges.

Helen Belcher was referenced by Layla Moran MP in the Westminister Debate as being a good friend & providing guidance with regards the issues of dangrous male prisoners housed in female estate. This debate followed K. White's conviction for assaulting women in prison.

Hansard House of Commons, 'Self-identification of Gender'
21 November 2018

Layla Moran:
"I want to place on the record my thanks to my Liberal Democrat colleague and friend, Helen Belcher, whom I have worked with closely on this matter. I also want to place it on the record that I am wholeheartedly behind the Government’s proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I believe that they are proportionate and well thought through. It is time that Britain caught up with many other countries around the world—a point I will come to later."
hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-21/debates/BE06C5D4-E549-4F94-87B1-9B77F32EA155/Self-IdentificationOfGender

James Kirkup Spectator
'This MP has summed up everything wrong with the transgender debate'
21 November 2018
(extract)
The second is about a short exchange between Mr Davies and Ms Moran, the Lib Dem MP for Oxford who is a former science teacher.

The exchange captures a great deal about this issue, which has excited strong feelings among some woman (and men).

Some of them are unhappy about rules allowing male-born people to 'identify' as women. They worry that doing so could compromise the female-only spaces that society has provided in recognition of the potential danger that male-bodied people pose to their safety and privacy. They argue that if, as a slogan suggests, 'trans women are women' and a trans woman is anyone who says they are a trans woman, then there is nothing to stop a male-born person with full male anatomy and malign intent entering female-only spaces. And that, they say, is a problem, because a male body (especially one guided by male socialisation) is always a potential threat to female bodies, female privacy, and female dignity.

Ms Moran has said she believes trans women are women. Mr Davies has said he believes that a person with a penis cannot be a woman.

Their exchange is here:

David T. C. Davies:

'I hear what the hon. Lady is saying. May I bluntly ask her whether she would be happy sharing a changing room with somebody who was born male and had a male body?'

Layla Moran:

'I believe that women are women, so if that person was a trans woman, I absolutely would. I just do not see the issue. As for whether they have a beard, which was one of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments, I dare say that some women have beards. There are all sorts of reasons why our bodies react differently to hormones. There are many forms of the human body. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.'

And that, in a nutshell, is the transgender debate. Remember, Ms Moran, an intelligent and educated member of Parliament was speaking in a debate about laws that help determine how and whether people with female bodies can chose to separate themselves from people with male bodies. I’ll repeat her key observation again, just for clarity:

'I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.' (continues)
www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-mp-has-summed-up-everything-wrong-with-the-transgender-debate

These questions for Liz Truss... How would you answer them?
Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/04/2020 13:34

I've watched the oral submissions to Maria Miller's trans inquiry in 2015 and I seem to remember the question of single sex female spaces came up in the one Belcher was in, and that Belcher wasn't so forthright about MTFs being entitled to use women's single sex spaces then. It struck me, because the tone was different to now.

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 13:45

Ereshkigalangcleg
Q44?
Chair: I am just thinking more of legal protection. Is there anything there that we need to consider as a Committee? I am not just thinking particularly of hate crime.

Helen Belcher: I think the issues are more in terms of what is the motivation behind the crime, rather than how to categorise it. Trans people, intersex people and non‑binary people need safe spaces and will identify and the issues then become whether somebody is, in the widest sense of the term, policing the entrance to that safe space. If you have, say, a trans woman who does not necessarily meet what society expects a woman to look like suddenly being barred entry because actually she is a man, that is very harmful personally. But then I do recognise that there is the kind of flipside to how you then prevent people you do not want entering that space. I do not know if there is an easy answer to that one." (continues)
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/oral/21345.html

R0wantrees · 29/04/2020 13:50

But then I do recognise that there is the kind of flipside to how you then prevent people you do not want entering that space. I do not know if there is an easy answer to that one."

There is a very straightforward answer to protecting female single sex spaces.
Males of any gender identity or none should stop using them.

TyroSaysMeow · 29/04/2020 13:59

Given how upset people are when others blithely give away women's single sex toilets to men, I am really surprised how many are advocating giving away men's.

I'm only advocating it in the absence of extra facilities. Leaving the disabled aside because that ought not be up for discussion, we've currently only got two. If one of them has to go unisex, then it needs to be the one that currently only ensures a privacy&dignity need is met, rather than the one that also ensures physical safety.

I find it baffling that some people think physical safety from actual assault is somehow less important than the whole privacy&dignity wossname. Yes, you need your p&d, but physical safety comes first!

Are there any stats re: men being in physical danger in unisex vs single sex? I'm working on the commonsense assumption that single sex is not safer for men, but some numbers to back this up would be handy.

Swipe left for the next trending thread