Does anyone actually fully support trans people in women's changing rooms and loos?

[bottomsup12]

Just curious really? I see a lot of aggressive stances (Owen Jones eg) pro this on twitter etc. I don't get it.
The only reason I can think of is that it's never actually happened to them and they imagine it will be fine but when it actually happens a few times they might start seeing sense?

For the men who are aggressively pro it I wonder how they would feel is women just started flooding into their changing rooms and bathrooms ?

There are different sexes. The concept of a sex class is one you lot made up, and no one outside your niche circles uses the term, or believes in the concept.

Gametes is what divides humans into one of two sexes, male or female. It’s not about gender. I asked this on page 8:

Katie Dolatowski sexually assaulted two children in toilets with cubicles. He grabbed one of his victims by her face and forced her into a cubicle where he sexually assaulted her. The other girl he filmed while she was sitting in a cubicle.

I have always wondered if those who don’t mind mixed sex toilets or even cubicles would be willing to sit at a table opposite these two girls and tell them the same to their faces:

“Despite what you experienced, I would do nothing to prevent it happening again.”

Would you be willing to sit opposite those two girls and tell them you don’t care about what happened to them, you still believe males should be allowed in female spaces?

There are two sexes. Everyone outside gender ideology uses this classification.

Would you be willing to tell the two girls sexually assaulted by a male in a female space that their attacker identified as a woman therefore they should just deal with it and do nothing to prevent it happening to anyone else?

Most children are abused by family members. Would you therefore prevent children from living with their families? That's where the real danger to children lies after all.

(Personally I would love to see the nuclear family abolished but here you're all obsessed with parental rights. In my view there should be very few.)

@PP82

Actually on this site rather than people being 'obsessed' with parental rights, it's far more common to correct people who use 'parental rights' and remind them that the correct terminology is 'parental rights and responsibilities', focusing on a child centric approach rather than centring the parent(s).

Let’s keep the focus on public female spaces by answering the question asked first. Are you prepared to tell those girls that what happened to them doesn’t matter and you don’t think it’s worth doing anything to prevent it happening again?

PP said: '(Personally I would love to see the nuclear family abolished but here you're all obsessed with parental rights. In my view there should be very few.)'

So how would you enforce this abolition of the nuclear family? It's been tried before and historically it's not been a great success (this is an understatement, of course).

Most children are abused by family members because those are the people who have access to children.

You seem to have interpreted this to mean that children are statistically safer living with non-relatives than their own family. Have you not seen the statistical risk posed by non-related adults in the same homes as children?

Let's use retail theft as an analogy. If banknotes keep going missing from a till, who is most likely to have taken the notes? One of the employees with a key to the till, or one of the regular customers?

The answer is an employee because only the employees can access the tills. Does that mean till theft will decrease if you remove the locks from the tills, and give customers on the shop floor free access to the tills?

The answer is no.

I heavily dislike using money as an analogy for women and children's safety and wellbeing, but unfortunately, people seem to understand the risks more clearly when it's bits of paper and metal at stake.

You are quite right. We should stay on topic.

I would also like to see this answered.

Fair point

Yes

What happened to them does matter but banning trans women from using women's toilets would not stop it happening again. A cis gendered man could have easily entered the toilets and committed this attack. You're weaponising these kids trauma and it's grim in the extreme.

Do you think we should ban the Catholic Church? Or any of the other religions or religious institutions where child abuse has run rampant?

A class is just a group. I'm not sure why you think it's made up.

The point is that it's a very specific material biological class, and it's defined by whether the body does, or is developmentally oriented to, make large gametes (eggs) or small ones (like sperm.)

This is true of mammals but also applies to animals like fish which have very different external genitalia and often fertilize eggs outside of the body entirely, or birds where the eggs are incubated, possibly by the male and female, outside of the body, or seahorses where the developing embryos are carried by the male, or even in plants where they may have both types of gametes and a totally different set of mechanisms for moving them around.

That is what sex is, it's about the combination of two types of gametes to combine genetic material from two parents.

Yes, but that's not how the term sex class is used by 'gender critical' people.

Thank you for acknowledging that all men pose the same risk, regardless of identity.

It’s a shame you didn’t follow that through. Why don’t we allow men who don’t identify as women into women’s spaces? What safeguards exist to prevent them from entering and how are they enforced? If you think men who say they’re pose the same risk as men who say they’re not, why do these rules, legal or social, not apply to men who say they’re trans?

Firstly, I didn't say that trans women posed any more risk than any other women.

Secondly, I don't think women's spaces should exist. All spaces and facilities should be gender neutral.

I didn’t say you said that trans women pose more of a risk than women. I said you said trans women pose just the same risk as men.

You said it could have been a “cis” man who sexually assaulted those children in cubicles in women’s toilets. Trans woman, “cis” man, you’re saying it could have happened anyway. Ergo, trans women are just as much a risk as “cis” men. That’s your logic. It’s an acknowledgement that men, regardless of how they identify pose the same risk. Being able to say men, regardless of how they identify, should not be in women’s spaces is a protective mechanism.

The fact you’re posting that you don’t think woman’s spaces should exist at all tells me all I need to know about your posting on this thread.

My local Victorian era swimming pool has two communal changing rooms. One is for men of any gender. The other is for women of any gender.

How will it benefit women to make the changing rooms mixed-sex?

So…. We didn’t ’make it up’ at all?

At this stage you are neither credible nor coherent. Except in your prejudiced beliefs about women who are campaigning to protect female people and children. You articulate that on nearly every post.

Love it!

Yes, it absolutely is how GC people use it. It is precisely how they are using it when they say that they do not want men - adult, sperm-producing, penis-having, testerone-enhanced, post-pubertal male humans - however they chose to dress/present/identify in women’s same-sex spaces.

It is your lot who have taken the word ‘gender’ (a term derived from linguistics in latinate languages, co-opted by sociologists in the mid 20th century to explore, discuss and distinguish collective cultural behaviours of men versus women) … and twisted it.

I really loathe the term ‘GC people’. It’s not a singular position.

But, actually out there in the real world, the majority position is that biology makes you males or female. Sadly it’s also that girls=pink.

And alarmingly enough the feminist aim of challenging the regressive and repressive gender stereotypes seems to trouble many people far more than the biology denial position.

Nope.
And I think it's infuriating beyond belief that, as regards sports, men who have been mediocre losers in their field decide to put on skirts, heels and make up (and still look fairly man-ish!) call themselves by a girly name and crash into women's sports, sweeping the board and grabbing the glory because they're awash with testosterone.
No wonder some girls are abandoning any dreams and ambitions - after all, what's the point if males can be allowed to barge in just by saying "but I identify as female."

No.You.Don't.

I agree completely about gender neutral. Gender or lack of it should be irrelevant, it’s a load of sexist bollocks anyway. Spaces like changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons etc should just be separated by biological sex.

Nope. I acknowledged that one particular trans woman is a risk. A cis man is much more likely to be a risk. Though still not enough of a risk to justify gender segregation.