Accessible Toilets

[WarOnWomen]

I've just seen this thread by Fair Play for Women regarding their stance on toilets. Maya F is also on the thread clarifying the issue.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1312062467191734273?s=21

They are saying that everyone should be comfortable choosing the toilets they want to without being forced to share with opposite sex. Yup. Trans people should also not have to share with people designated at birth. Yup, also agree. Have a mix sex category for people who don't mind and trans people. Sure.

They are saying these facilities already exist. Accessible toilets. This is where I feel lost and let down. These toilets are for disabled people. People worked hard to get these accessible toilets. I don't want my mum having to share these toilets with trans women, anymore than I want them in female spaces. It's just wrong. And don't disabled people have a say as part of the EA2010?

Please tell me I have the wrong end of the stick.

Identify*

[quote CloudyVanilla]**@KarenCaron* does it seek* to do that though or is it an unfortunate direct conflict of interests? Are you saying trans men and women just identifting as such just to give the rest of society grief? [/quote]
Absolutely central to Queer Theory isn't it? All those boundaries being blurred n'all...

"There are reasonable arguments in support of trans women not being subjected to using the mens toilets based on dignity and safety concerns."

However, as trans also includes cross dressers, non binary and gender fluid males are they also at more risk than gay males in male toilets? Should they be made welcome in female only places ? What of women's rights to dignity and safety? Do we not matter?

Gender ideology seeks to destroy women's rights and children's safeguards. That is not progress.

See this is it, in a nutshell. Apart from the fact that gender ideology is a well known far right term that has been used to attack women's rights and LGBT people in many countries, nobody who is supportive of trans people is actively seeking to destroy women's rights and children's safeguards. You may believe those things will be a consequence of trans inclusion, many would disagree, but even if so, the idea that is the intent is ludicrous. The fact is a lot of young feminists support trans rights and do not believe trans inclusion will destroy women's rights. In fact many are worried that the hostile current towards trans people and growing dalliances with genuinely nasty figures from the right is far more dangerous for women. No-one trans supportive sees themselves as homophobic, or misogynist, or groomers, and that is certainly not their intent. So telling the younger generations, who are broadly trans inclusive, that they want to destroy women's rights and harm children is not going to win you any converts.

"nobody who is supportive of trans people is actively seeking to destroy women's rights and children's safeguards"

So why are trans groups lobbying to have single sex exemptions removed from the Equality Act?

I guess if you fling enough shit at the wall jj something might stick? This idea that 'gender ideology' is a big bad far right term. That might do it.

Constantly referring to 'young feminists' as though over there at TRA HQ you're just bursting at the seams with eager young political activists, all agreeing with you and...what was it OJ's friend was doing? Sucking dick for socialism? 'Cause that's what's on offer in the Brave New World of lib femdom.

So telling the younger generations, who are broadly trans inclusive, that they want to destroy women's rights and harm children is not going to win you any converts.

Oh well, there's not much point trying to debate with you. I seek to educate children and teens before they get to that point, so they can see the bigger picture. There's little point in spending time arguing with a stranger on the internet who is so bound up in this ideology that they can no longer see the wood for the trees. It achieves nothing. There's more important things to be done, like making sure children's safeguarding laws and women's legal protections are upheld. You will find yourself boxed in by the generations either side of you who simply do not agree with your position. 🤷‍♀️ Indeed at some point those children and teens will be looking at those with your mindset one day soon and rightly considering that (to borrow your words) to be the work of a monster

And we have tonnes of converts! Have you seen this place lately?

@334bu

"nobody who is supportive of trans people is actively seeking to destroy women's rights and children's safeguards"

So why are trans groups lobbying to have single sex exemptions removed from the Equality Act?

Come on no-one really is. Stonewall called for it in a consultation response five years ago but it was hardly a major campaign, I don't even know if it's still Stonewall's position. And the intent behind it was not to destroy women's rights because Stonewall don't think trans inclusion would impact on women's rights. You may think they are wrong about that, but to claim they are motivated by the desire to destroy women's rights is pure hyperbole.

@334bu I have never said the rights of women do not matter and I consider it a bit of a shallow argument. It appeals to emotion but my points have always been that I still think compassion and empathy should centre any discussion that involves marginalizing anyone women and transwomen. If trans women are objectively a known threat to women, if there is actual evidence that they're all predators who use their masculinity to force their way into the shelters of terrified women, then of course I would support the notion that their should be a blanket exclusion of them from women's spaces. But I absolutely don't see that as the case. Therefore I agree with the current laws that only if there is good reason can trans women be removed from these spaces. On a case by case basis.

Yep hyperbole indeed.

All the (hopefully now binned) trans guidance for schools tells them to transition children in secret from parents and many tell adults to keep children's secrets.

All completely against Working Together and why the government has had to step in and tell schools that they must work from a safeguarding perspective and not listen to the demands of random adults wanting to alienate children from their parents.

Gender ideology seeks to destroy women's rights and children's safeguards. That is not progress.

This bears repeating.
Women who don't feel like they fit the ''feminine'' half of the stereotypical binary are just women, they don't need a special label. Gender ideology is not progressive, its as old as every man made rule about what women are and are not allowed to own or wear or look like or say or do.

Of course they are not all predators just like other males are not all predators. However, there is no evidence to say that this subset of the male sex are less dangerous to women than other males. Therefore I agree with the law that all males, including those with a GRC, can be excluded from female only places for the safety and dignity of females using these spaces.

What's it called when you claim that the horrible thing someone is trying to stop you doing to them isn't that bad after all and those claiming it is are using hyperbole? What's that called again?

Is that 'minimising'?

And what is it abusers do again? What's that thing they do about their abuse? Oh yeah, it's minimising.

And what was that about Stonewall? Maybe they don't want to remove the EA exemptions? And if they did it was a long time ago and it wasn't a major campaign? Is that...um...'deny'.

It didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was...

We see you. We all see you.

But these are peoples moral views, not specific anecdotal situations. It comes down to you saying you believe trans people are a big enough threat to exclude them from single sex spaces as a default, and me saying that I don't feel this way because I believe that they aren't as much of a threat stated and that pragmatically excluding them from certain women's spaces (like toilets) as a default is far more likely to harm them than it is going to save women from any harm/embarrassment etc.

No one is minimising. They are just fundamentally different perspectives

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemption

Looks like a campaign to me.

Come on no-one really is. Stonewall called for it in a consultation response five years ago but it was hardly a major campaign, I don't even know if it's still Stonewall's position. And the intent behind it was not to destroy women's rights because Stonewall don't think trans inclusion would impact on women's rights. You may think they are wrong about that, but to claim they are motivated by the desire to destroy women's rights is pure hyperbole.

Of course it's a big motivation for them. Other people, especially women, having rights is a massive roadblock to some things that transactivists want. It was initially kept covert but once that no longer worked a number of groups and countless individuals have been fairly explicit about it.

As somebody once said - when someone shows you who they are believe them. Stonewall, ACLU, Labour, Lib Dems and many more have shown us.

@EvenSupposing

What's it called when you claim that the horrible thing someone is trying to stop you doing to them isn't that bad after all and those claiming it is are using hyperbole? What's that called again?

Is that 'minimising'?

And what is it abusers do again? What's that thing they do about their abuse? Oh yeah, it's minimising.

And what was that about Stonewall? Maybe they don't want to remove the EA exemptions? And if they did it was a long time ago and it wasn't a major campaign? Is that...um...'deny'.

It didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was...

We see you. We all see you.

Do you think anyone under 30 who supports trans rights is going to do anything but read stuff like that and roll their eyes and think ok boomer. There is no organised plot to use trans inclusion to abuse women and children, it makes you sound daft.

Look I think if some GC demands were met is would be devastating to trans and GNC people and women generally. I think trans women would face increased sexual and other types of violence, I think trans men and GNC people would face increased harassment and discrimination. And I think it would lead to increased social pressure for people to adopt gendered stereotypes to avoid harassment when using toilets or changing rooms. But I don't think you want all that. I don't think you are motivated by that. I think we have different opinions on what trans inclusion, or in this case trans exclusion would look like. I'm not on here saying gender critical ideology seeks to get trans women raped. Do you get it, and get why people find this kind of hyperbole as ludicrous as it is offensive?

Of course it does! You have to have reasonable grounds to say an entire group of people is an objective threat before you exclude them!

I don't even know why I'm arguing anymore. The default position in law of having single sex spaces (good) and only excluding trans women if it is seen as necessary (good) is fine with me.

Charge as to @SpartacusAutisticus I @ because user names are long and it is easier to write them that way. I know you're "on the thread".