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

You really can't work out why a shop floor is different from a loo, changing room, prison or hospital ward?

Gosh.

(PS, still waiting to find out why any hint we might be winning a fight is a reason to immedately throw in the towel. But in view of the above I'm resigned to a very long wait.)

Quite simply untrue. The status quo is that most people think a man in a dress is still a man and should use the men's but some men feel entitled to use the ladies whether or not they pass. Any man who wants access to the ladies is being creepy.

Toilets are very high priority for men with gender. Everytime womens rights to single sex spaces are discussed, toilets are talked about. Extensively. If they are forced to use the male facilities, they are in danger or cannot take part in everyday life.

But women caring about it is silly? Low priority, at least.

Trans people also talk about the pressure and unfair expectations for them to pass as the sex they are not. So they idea that men with gender will wait until they pass before they use womens toilets isnt realistic.

Why are women are under so much pressure to see toilets as a minor thing, where men can highlight how important they are?

@AdamRyan BTW, I am finally happy to disregard all your reasons for voting Labour.

“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.”

That is a basically a variation on the line which some of the more pragmatic / tactical TRA lobbyists started angling for, once they spotted that demanding that burly 6ft4 male rugby players have access to the women’s game wasn’t going to wash with the general public.

They started arguing that males should be excluded from opposite sex provision only where there was a risk of harm / safety risk to women. (Interestingly, around the same time, Labour started using the phrase “safe spaces” instead of single sex provision.)

It’s a TRA tactic because that safety/risk-only diversion moves the discussion away from women’s right to privacy and dignity. And it enables TRAs to deploy their various lines: “you’re claiming we are all perverts” “we need to be in opposite sex spaces for our safety” and of course everyone’s favourite “it’s just basic prudishness” “you’re pearl clutching dinosaurs” etc in support of their demands for access to opposite sex provision.

It also distracts attention away from the fact that no human can change sex, that anyone who claims humans can change sex is not being truthful, and that the Nolan principles require holders of public office to be truthful - an inconvenient reality for those in public office lobbying for males to have access to opposite sex spaces, and for the withdrawal of single-sex female-only provision from women and girls.

You told us that it should be ‘status quo’ in that what is happening currently should remain. Therefore yes, your solution IS welcoming in fetishists.

How do you not understand the ramifications of your own proposed solution?

I disagree. It's cultural appropriation and male aggression when a man asks others to pretend they are a member of an oppressed group. Indeed a group oppressed by members of their group. It's skin off every woman's nose when we pretend a man is a woman.

Again, missing my point.
In law, how do you distinguish? What is a "single sex space" and what isn't?

Your opinion and mine are irrelevant. The law needs to be flexible enough not to be ridiculous but also rigorous enough to protect single sex spaces where needed. It is not black and white.

In your opinion. But we are a democracy so all opinions count and the government needs to reach a consensus

Yep, as if a random Internet poster was what changed your mind! 😜

Nope, I said I'm personally happy with the status quo. That's allowed.

I'm not proposing a solution. My solution would be strengthening the definition of biological sex in the EA and prosecuting creepy pervy men. Neither of which are an option under the Tories. Cheers 🍷

what is your point here. Spring stayed a fact. Why the PA response. That is what will sometimes happen when you welcome males in to ladies loos. If you're OK with that then own it.

In many people's opinion. Consensus will not be reached. Aggressors will always try and aggress. We need laws to protect from that.

Oh also woman is not a "culture". We are human beings with equal status to men.

We should be but we are not treated equally and will not be whilst some people excuse males imposing themselves on our spaces.

In terms of progres, which political party do you think will strengthen the EA? Green, lib dem and Labour are not interested.

1. I'm not a holder of public office so Nolan principles are irrelevant to my opinion
2. what I said is about the situation today so nothing to do with "withdrawing rights"
3. how do you propose stopping males using womens spaces? There is no way to do that today, if the world is how you want it we need a mechanism. What would that be?

The Tories aren't either 🙄

So I guess me might all vote for the least worst option. aka not and an out and out TRA like Kier Starmer.

Going back to it being socially unacceptable for a bloke to go into the ladies would be a good start. Of course there's no guarantee but it allows it to be policed and for women to object. It won't 💯 stop it but anti theft laws don't 100 percent stop theft but that doesn't mean we abolish them.

You have proposed that it be left as it is. The so called ‘status quo’.

Are you now denying that you said the current status quo should be kept?

Or are you just trying to tell everyone that no men of the description of spring’s scenario would be currently using the male toilets?

There is yet more of the same lack of consistency here.

In law, how do you distinguish? What is a "single sex space" and what isn't?

Have you read the Equality Act and accompanying guidance? It has some problems from lax use of sex/gender and failure to properly consider interaction between the EA and the GRA, but on the question of what circumstances justify and permit single sex provision (and it is provision of many things, not just 'spaces') it's actually not bad.

I'm not a holder of public office so Nolan principles are irrelevant to my opinion

It’s relevant to those seeking to hold public office and to those seeking to form a government.

Coincidentally some of the positions you’ve set out in this thread are remarkably similar to those being put forward by TRA individuals/ TRA allies with influence in the Labour Party.

Pointing put where those lines of argument lead to and that it isn’t, as Alan Cummins claimed, just a culture war is of interest/ relevance to others on this thread. Granted it may not be of interest to you.

“what I said is about the situation today so nothing to do with "withdrawing rights"”

So your view is that women are not having the right to single-sex provision withdrawn from them as currently women don’t have the right to single sex spaces (this is what you see as the status quo) and, as you’ve said, you are comfortable with the status quo.

The single sex exemptions in the EQA2010 seemed a perfectly reasonable approach to indicate which services should be single sex until lobby groups began advising organisations in incorrect 'Stonewall law' and captured institutions began basing funding on ignoring those allowed single sex exemptions. The occupational requirements in the EQA2010 seemed a perfectly reasonable approach to allow for occupations to advertise for persons with a specific characteristic in order to best serve their service users until organisations began applying the occupational requirement but then just employing whoever they wanted. The sex specific sporting exemptions in the EQA2010, designed to ensure fairness and safety, are being ignored in favour of ludicrous 'science', denying there are any differences at all between the sexes. The legal requirement for schools to provide single sex toilet facilties for children over the age of 8 is perfectly reasonable but is simply being ignored by local governments.

There is perfectly flexible but rigorous law in place but is being misrepresented/ignored by those who have an agenda. Bear in mind that Stonewall and other organisations have previously campaigned for the single sex exemptions/occupational requirements etc to be removed entirely.

I just LOVE when people pop into these threads and come out with something like "actually, there are people who are neither male nor female, didn't you know that?" and make themselves look like absolute fools.

Disappointingly, there are people with DSDs who still describe themselves as intersex, and I've even come across a couple on YouTube (one who is also trans) as describing themselves as a hermaphrodite, which is just ridiculous (and impossible).

I cannot believe in this day and age that people think there is some kind of magical nether world where some people exist without a sex (or with both sexes). It is mind boggling.
Karyotyping can tell us what sex every single human on the planet is, and I'll give you a clue.......not ONE of them is a "third" sex.

It isn't that a typical women can't physically remove a typical man from the women's toilet, its the idea that a woman shouldnt or its pointless for women to complain about it.

Fifteen years ago, if a man was in the womens toilet, id feel confident about telling management, even if he was wearing a dress.

Now id expect the management to tell me stonewall law if i complained, even if he isnt wearing a dress. Its not just me who thinks this, every man knows this too.

Of course womens toilets have never been exclusively female, its the fact that they are now open to every man who wants to be there.

If we cannot get back to the point where men are shamed for being there, i cant see the point of the pretence of having 'women' on the door.

All we are doing is waiting for a pattern of inappropriate behaviour from men, and women will demand separate toilets again. Women toilets develop because of necessity, and that necessary hasnt disappeared because some men have gender.