Dear Glamour Magazine

[Glamourreader]

Re the article published today by Charlie Craggs

May I start by saying that the murder of a teenager is a terrible tragedy, a senseless waste of life that people up and down the country are horrified by. I don't condone any of the comments on Twitter that upset Charlie Craggs or abuse of anyone.

I am though, deeply disturbed by the messages in this article that women should not insist on boundaries set up to provide some protection from people with penises however they identify. I find the comment

'Bad men always have and always will walk into women’s toilets to do bad things if they want to. You don't need a gender recognition certificate, let alone need to transition to be a bad man. Bad men are gonna be bad men. Trans women aren't bad men.'

Offensively flippant. We are aware that insisting people with penises stay out of women's toilets will not guarantee us safety. It is an important boundary nonetheless as it will make hanging around in women's toilets more difficult for the minority of men who do wish to do us harm. This is simply reduces the chance of attack. No one is saying that transgender people cannot use toilets, we just ask that they use the ones appropriate for their biological sex. It is also proven that some trans women have committed sexual attacks so expecting women to be as accepting of trans women's presence in women's toilets is unsafe and unfair.

I had always thought that Glamour Magazine championed women's rights to be safe and to say no when their safety is being compromised. Please consider your responsibility to your readers.

Thank you for reading

The attack on women's rights is constant.

'Bad men always have and always will walk into women’s toilets to do bad things if they want to. You don't need a gender recognition certificate, let alone need to transition to be a bad man. Bad men are gonna be bad men. Trans women aren't bad men.'

How do we tell the difference?

How do we know whether that male person has a certificate or a bad intention?

You may not need to transition to be a bad man, but, as Charlie themselves points out, bad men will find a way. How confident Charlie is that the one way bad men won't use use to pretend to be trans.

Charlie, it's not trans people we don't want in female spaces, it's make people.

What a childish way of writing. Is Glamour mag for kids? Bad men!

Get lost Charlie.

Women should not apologize for having boundaries and insisting on women only spaces where necessary for privacy, dignity and/or safety. That means we should not apologize for excluding men from female spaces whether trans identified men or not. Many so called trans women are in fact bad men (isla bryson anyone). But even if they were not we are free to have women only spaces without explanation or apology to men.

I did wonder when that teenager's death would be used to get women to bow to male demands. At least they were respectful enough not to ask immediately.
And it should be possible for a trans teenager to not be killed and for women to maintain their boundaries simultaneously.

Glamour magazine has been on this bandwagon for years, they were the ones who gave Juno Dawson a column to write about his girly feels and "transition", and his heavy-handed (well, more like anvils!) forced teaming was one of the first things to open my eyes to it all.

I used to love it before that, despite the name they were for a while one of the only women's mags that (in the UK edition at least) was quite tongue-in-cheek and fun and DIDN'T seem as obsessed with perfection and cosmetic surgery etc as others, had some affordable clothes in and stuff. Then it all went a bit bonkers...

I think I accidentally read a book by Juno Dawson. Heavy handed is about right!!

Trans women are not bad men

Neither are most men, if the simplistic language here is supposed to refer to sexual violence perpetrators. But we have been shown no evidence that trans women would be less likely to assault women than male people, in general.

I find it interesting how it is so often women's magazines which lecture women about their proper role in life (to buy stuff from their advertisers, of course, to aim at always rising beauty ideals, but otherwise to be whatever women are told to be) which seems to be to be kind and to hand over everything that is demanded when it comes to rights, respect, women's words, places, awards, and podiums.

In the past women could tell "bad men" to GTFO and have the full backing of society and the law to do so

Now, not so much...

It’s not just that we can’t tell which males are bad though. It’s the difference between it being socially unacceptable for any man to be in women’s spaces (which might not deter the most determined, but will certainly deter the vast majority) and, in effect, removing that social stigma and telling men that they have a right to go there and are unlikely to be challenged.

As usual, “woke” arguments are contradictory. At the same time they are claiming that social norms will have no effect on which men will choose to invade women’s spaces, they are also arguing that men should be allowed to exhibit sexual fetishes in public and insisting that the social norms (“kink shaming”) that prevent them doing that must be removed.

[Eye roll] Imo any man who chooses to violate women's boundaries by using our spaces is a "bad man", so that argument falls flat.

0/10 Must try harder

As ever, the preferred method of finding out which are the bad men is to give them what they want, and see who harms women.

Unless you're volunteering to be the collateral damage yourself, get to fuck with that.

Good point.

Where do you stand on post op peeps who once had a penis but no longer do?

Or to put it simply:
"Good men stay out so that bad men stand out" (Exulansic)

1. As the TRAs so often remind us, we can't do genital checks on the door.

1. There's no way of visually separating predators from good people until they do something bad.

1. In any case, women are not men with the todgers remodelled.

Given all the above, I've gone from 'ah what harm be kind' to 'hard no to all males in women's spaces'.

Slow handclap, TRAs. Well done you.

Charlie was born & socialised male so unsurprisingly no Charlie doesnt understand what is like for women

oh and men without a penis are still men. I dont want men in women’s spaces for reasons of privacy and dignity as well as safety.

Agreed.
If they’ve already violated one boundary, they are more likely to escalate.
No thank you. No men with or without penises in women’s spaces.

Here’s a handy reference

Existence or not of a penis does not affect sexual activity, or so it was believed by those who relieved the medieval scholar Peter Abelard of his. This punishment by the uncle of his lover Heloise was followed by them both being condemned to never seeing each other again, as it was believed that they would continue to express their love physically. They only got to write letters.
It is, of course, a gross insult to compare the intruders in women's single sex places with the possessor of a mind like Abelard's.
But how can one tell?

I think I accidentally read a book by Juno Dawson. Heavy handed is about right!!

Well just look at the size of them!

It’s always, conveniently, about public loos, which in reality are difficult to police and ensure they remain single sex.

It’s about much more, and they know it. Loos are suitably trivial for most to overlook the lack of single sex facilities which are absolutely necessary. Not saying that loos aren’t, just that they’re not gatekeepered (?) like prisons, hospital wards and rape shelters.

It’s always, conveniently, about public loos, which in reality are difficult to police and ensure they remain