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 ?

Oh and it believes that a woman's homosexuality should not be tolerated to interfere with a man's sense of identity should he wish to use her for sexual purposes. I nearly added consent, but so much of this is based on a belief that a woman's consent should not get in the way of male freedom to use her as he wishes.

When you see it all laid out like that it's quite shocking. Yes, if equality, tolerance and sanity have become the sole province of the far right, sign me up.

What has become apparent though is that it seems to be that a poster who is very focused on individual needs, particularly their own, claims to be for a collectivist society?

Hmmm. Which well known political philosophy could square that circle?

Oh, and I literally work with teenagers every day, or did until month ago.

Totally agree - it’s really strong in YA fiction and chic lit too - but I had to narrow down genre for the PhD. Hoping to run modules looking at this aspect of feminist readings next year for undergrads. I am just relieved to ascertain recently that the uni will have no issues with my use of the word ‘mother’ in my thesis, as a previous chair of the board is a raving, well-known and very public trans activist.

My supervisor/director of studies is a feminist and agrees with my GC position, so we’ve been ducking and diving to make sure I’m not scuppered at viva stage… have heard of PhD students who’ve had disasters when a TRA was on their panel.

This is why women’s same-sex protected spaces are so important - they’re just the top of the iceberg when it comes to holding the line for freedom of speech, freedom of artistic expression and maintaining the practice academic impartiality with its roots in verifiable truth.

(an unsubtle attempt to link back to the OP so that I feel less guilty about derailing the topic)

Interested in your honest answer to this @PP82

Would you tell a trans woman who wanted to use women's facilities due to their discomfort using facilities around natal men that they were fascists and tell them you're astonished that they live their life in fear of men?

There is a huge difference between ‘working with’ and ‘living with’. Sorry to reject your claim at expertise there.

You really don’t seem to understand them at all.

@BusyMummy001 I think that the issue is that the people making the arguments you’ve described like to sit on the surface (basking in their moral superiority) and absolutely do not want to play the tape through to the end.

When other people do play it through and want to discuss the fact that the main beneficiaries of uncontrolled immigration are criminal gangs (for example), the reaction is to hold on to the belief that this is a small or minor detail that can be ignored.

There is something driving the need to believe that they can go anywhere, do anything, be anything, unconstrained by biology, society, physics, or anything else. And a few ‘bad apples’ also getting what they want from that is worth it.

So..... Getting back onto the title of the thread:

Can posters please provide the evidence that the risk of male people with a trans identity committing a sex offence is lower than the rest of the male UK population for safeguarding.

If you, personally, acknowledge that these male people have no reduced risk compared to other male people in later posts.

Can you give us a number, not n+1 meaning when enough are harmed that society should act, for how many women and girls harmed are acceptable collateral in the prioritising of male people's demands over female people’s needs?

I’ll be fair and start from now because there is already many examples I can quote from the UK of women and girls being harmed. There are ALREADY girls and women who have been harmed either physically or through any number of other harms. This includes women self excluding from using toilets and change rooms they are not confident are single sex spaces.

So, please quantify your thoughts here. We are used to seeing the dismissive n+1 type answer.

Will 1 more woman or girl being attacked, intimidated, being exposed to naked males, feeling traumatised, being abused or needing to exclude due to religious or past trauma mean you will finally consider those female people’s needs? 2? 5? 10? 100?

Do the women need to publicise their needs? Give traumatic accounts for you to consider their needs?

How do you measure the number of women and girls restricting their movements in public (including employment) because for religious reasons they cannot use the toilet or changing room? Do their needs even feature in your assessment when you prioritise male people’s demands?

I have posted the above, because this thread really has shown readers that posters using many manipulative and distractive tactics, mostly emotionally manipulative, cannot substantiate their demands using evidence.

Why should any one give away protections based on the emotional manipulation and belief of others? Can anyone remember what happens when one sub-group of males demanded they were excluded from safeguarding protocols and principles based on their special attributes?

Yet, here we are again.

Hahahahahha lol

No, you don't get to stamp your feet, demand and be pandered to. You don't get to decide. You cannot consent on my behalf to demolish my sex-based rights.

You can put me down right now as a beta reader. Just PM me when the time comes.

I would like to know what the actual benefits of unisex changing rooms/toilets are meant to be. Because if it weren't for a bunch of very aggressive men shouting that they need access, it wouldn't be something that I think is even worth spending an iota of time or money on...Of all the issues in the world that I care about - and being a left-wing environmentalist, they are legion!- I don't think that faffing about with toilet structures would ever have crossed my mind without this bunch of ridiculous sexist males and their handmaidens screaming and wailing about it.
So to get back to the actual thread (though presumably the OP doesn't really care?!), I think anyone who genuinely 'supports trans people' in this way have got way too much time on their hands and need to do something more useful with their lives. And leave women's spaces to women.

How on earth are the main beneficies of uncontrolled immigration criminal gangs? These gangs only exist because there are immigration controls to evade.

And as regards your last sentence, yes. I believe freedom outweighs all other considerations. If a few bad actors benefit, so be it. They should face the consequences of their individual actions, but others' freedom to move around, in society or across the globe, should not be restricted just in case the odd criminal benefits.

I've been an illegal immigrant myself in the past, and have also worked very hard (in a voluntary capacity) to assist undocumented migrants. I'm very proud of both. That's where I'm an activist. On the trans stuff I was just vaguely supportive at a distance, til this forum radicalised me lol.

Yes, you're right, I meant PP not OP.

Sorry @bottomsup12 , if you're still there. Are you still there? And still curious?!

The whataboutery is strong in TRAs. Politics on immigration have nothing to do with the issue of men in women's spaces. And I note that @Helleofabore and @whatsitcalledwhen 's questions haven' t been answered.

Well, I live abroad. But I can still help to shape the laws. I can vote at the next election, and can donate to organisations working to advance LGBTQIA+ rights.

@PP82 I'm still interested in your thoughts on the questions I asked earlier?

How do you rationalise the exclusion of some large groups to facilitate the inclusion for which you advocate?

What are your thoughts on the harms caused to women by the removal of access to single-sex spaces for health and personal care needs?

You are here arguing with women who are trying to retain our existing legal right to single sex facilities. Why is it so important to you that they are made mixed sex? Who benefits?

It's not whataboutery. There are clear parallels, in terms of the question: when some people's basic rights and freedoms come up against others' intolerance and discomfort, who should prevail?

Oooh I'm a 'Nazi race scientist'!! That's a new one for the bingo card. To be fair, I do have a science degree. Does that mean PPee is a 3rd correct?!

It's not a "basic right and freedom" for blokes to enter women's spaces, sports, hospital wards, prison cells, rape crisis groups, changing rooms etc etc though is it?!

Most voters want to reduce immigration. Should they also be listened to, and their views respected?

Your pivot from "no one agrees with you, you're in an echo chamber with your hateful views" to "most people may agree with you but I think they're wrong and evil and we shouldn't listen to the majority because I don't agree!" is obvious.

The problem is that I think the only reason to exclude trans women is prejudice. I understand that they have y chromosomes, and that they may have penises. I do not accept that that makes them a threat, when they are simply going about their lives.

Discomfort in the presence of those who are different should not form the basis for public policy.

When certain previously all male spaces were being opened up to women, some men claimed it made them uncomfortable. Should they have been humoured?

The rights and freedoms. Of women to have access to the single-sex spaces they need for health, safety and dignity.

The intolerance of a minority of individuals who seek to remove those spaces should not prevail. The discomfort of a small group of people who genuinely feel that they need to present as the opposite sex as part of meeting their own needs can be recognised and empathised with, and alternative options sought, without removing the rights and freedoms of women.