Wtf is Alan Cummings blithering on about?

[IcakethereforeIam]

Just seems to be a stream of tripe and non sequiturs. Was he drunk? High?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12948343/Alan-Cumming-says-public-arms-Rishi-Sunak-denying-existence-trans-people.html

stating you are not gender confirming when it comes to emojis wouldn’t make us not friends 😊

as i say i dont see it as male….just looks like i do so i am face slapping myself or putting my hand up to say im here if you know what i mean

Are you proposing people on the door, like passport control?

All my emojis are yellow on my phone including blue top guy who is same colour as the other top used emojis

yeah same, don’t know why its not yellow on the ipad

First I’m hoping you’ll spell out what you mean, which spaces and the process and criteria for deciding

Can you say how what you want will work in practise?

I'm not an apple person so maybe that's the issue

I'm fine with the status quo so I don't need to spell anything out.
You want something different so you do. How are you proposing to tell whether someone has a GRC?

The Daily Mail don’t help themselves! Denyies!!

It’s yellow the same colour as the other emojis

The change the colour thing was baffling in that particular post

That’s big 😂

Good point

my phone is android

apologies i will stop derailing now

The status quo is males in single sex spaces so you do want to keep that?

What about the exemptions in the EqA? The Labour quote - where reasonable

Do you not want that for any space? If you do which ones?

This is a long thread and so many posts and clarity seems a tall ask

Why is it so hard to just say what is wanted

Oh honestly.
Answer your own questions then I might bother myself. I'm not your slave (as I say to my teens several times a day)

Personally I'm far less about "single sex" and far more about safeguarding. So if there's no risk to women, it's no skin off my nose to call a male "she" and treat them accordingly.

If there is a risk I'll be more cautious, and that's a sliding scale depending on the risk.

Thats my view, you can disagree which is your choice but I am entirely entitled to an opinion.

Yes but the law has to outline what is acceptable

Your posts are hard to relate to what the law would be in practise and what the process would be.

If you mean a male with a GRC still has access as they do now then yes it’s mixed sex status quo

No. Not missing your point. I believe I asked why you introduced those into the discussion. What have they got to do with single sex toilets being single sex spaces requiring ‘nuance’?

I've had wine so I can't be arsed. I didn't say that as you well know. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you want an actual discussion then respond in good faith, otherwise I'm done.

The other point is unless you say you can check whether a male has a GRC it pretty much is back to no challenge to males

The status quo is some males can access toilets if they look like they've made an effort to "pass" and aren't being creepy. The GRC is irrelevant.
I can't foresee a situation where a GRC is relevant. So it becomes about who can access the space. At the moment I think there are easier ways for predators to access women than by dressing in womens clothes and acting non-creepy. So I'm happy enough. You aren't. Fair enough. How are you proposing to stop males using womens toilets?

No. Not literally hilarious. Not even vaguely amusing. Maybe you live in a wonderous world where everyone drifts around in a happy, fragrant environment and the only reason that anybody would go to the loo is to have a wee.

Back in the real world, women retreat to the loo to sort out the mess of inadequate sanitary protection or a soaking bra and top from milk expression or, simply wanting to rearrange their hair covering.

Fuck you and fuck the horse you rode into town on.

The status quo is some males can access toilets if they look like they've made an effort to "pass" and aren't being creepy.

Once again, that’s simply not true. That is not “the status quo”.

It might be a description of what you consider acceptable.

But it is not a description of the legal position. Nor is it a description of the (non-legal) position that Stonewall, other lobby groups, cross-parliamentary groups, TQ staff networks, and others with influence have been lobbying for and introducing by the back door.

And some men raid the sanitary bin so they can put the used tampon up their bum hole. Let's not forget the kind of men Adam is welcoming into our midst.

What do you think is happening today then?

How about we make a male entering into a female toilet to use it able to be removed by security and police. And that women and girls asking them to leave is not considered hate and harassment and potentially against the law or an offense requiring any woman or girl to be disciplined in any way.

How about we reinstate the social contract that no males over the age of a child are acceptable in female toilets and that any male doing so is assumed to not have good intentions towards female people? They are certainly not respecting female people’s needs by being there.

The status quo is not a real ‘status quo’. It is one that has been assumed and then as women woke up and more of these male people came in, was then forced. So declaring it a ‘status quo’ is a falsehood. The polls are very clear here. Female people do not want male people in their toilets and I don’t believe for a moment that the majority ever did in the first place.

Yes this

OK whatever. I'm just a random woman whose perspective is as influential as yours. But of course I'm "welcoming" fetishists.