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 ?

And there is still no acknowledgement that the comment about 'freedom of movement' being a human right was incorrect in the application that it was said.

I think one of the main issues here is that some posters can only post in sound bites. Some posters don't seem to be able to handle complex issues by articulating their thoughts.

And yes. Providing any evidence outside 'I have experienced this...' seems to be not possible for some posters. Yet the denigration, the insults and the polarised accusations still keep coming.

The problem is that I think the only reason to exclude trans women is prejudice.

Thats your opinion, but biological definitions are not prejudice. Providing a resource specifically for the group that needs it is not prejudice.

when some people's basic rights and freedoms come up against others' intolerance and discomfort, who should prevail?

On reading this again, I think it's a fair statement. When women's basic rights and freedoms come up against TRAs' intolerance and discomfort, who should prevail?

No.

If you even put half a brain to answering the questions that I have posted every few pages, you would understand the logic of what people are arguing.

The 'only reason' to exclude male people, is that they are MALE people. With the ATLEAST the same degree of risk that ALL other male people present in a situation that requires safeguarding principles to be applied.

That is it. It is actually very simple.

I'm obviously covering two opposing claims. One, that most people agree with you, and two, that most people don't care.

I suspect most people don't care but even if your lot are currently winning in the court of public opinion, it doesn't matter. Certain rights are inalienable, regardless of the majority view.

When they abolished the death penalty and decriminalised homosexuality, those weren't popular positions, but it was still the right thing to do.

The problem is that I think the only reason to exclude trans women is prejudice.

The problem is that I think the only reason to exclude women from women's resources in order to get male people in there and to not care about this is prejudice. And misogyny, and quite a fantastic degree of sexism if not male supremacism.

It believes that it is more important that men have freedom of choice from everything than it is for some women to have anything at all. You think male feelings are hugely important and women's feelings are a sign of bad behaviour. Which kind of cancels out any reality in the belief that male people with TQ+ identities are being viewed as any kind of women: you have no interest at all in women. If you believed those men were any kind of woman you wouldn't be remotely interested if they had access or what their feelings were. .

I'm going to cheat, and restate the OP as 'who wants nakedness and toileting to be strictly sex-segregated?'

Lots of PP make the point that even if only a minority need it (say, a religious minority), then there must be at least some sex-segregated provision, for them not to be excluded from wider society.

That seems a little unambitious though, given that the answer to OP's question is actually 'everybody'. 100% of people.

Conservatives want it in order to control female fertility, and police paternity.

Liberals want it in order to preserve freedom of movement for more physically vulnerable humans.

Feminists want it insofar as it is one example of the derogations permitted by law from strict sex non-discrimination, with the purpose of mitigating the disadvantages women suffer as a result of their biology.

Transwomen want it so they can be the only people not bound by it.

Everyone else wants it because it's instinctive, and anything else is taboo. For perfectly good evolutionary reasons including ones around reproductive strategies and the need to avoid being eaten by a predator whilst copulating or defecating.

So let's do it!

I'm not a monster though. Mob rule is bad, so if the TW are too frightened to mix with other males, let them have a space of their own. They are not many, so it should be easy to do.

There is no legal or human right for men to enter female facilities. I'm sorry that makes you angry, but thats your problem. Find a better way to deal with it.

And since the women being pushed out to get male people in are those including women with barriers of race, culture, belief, disability and trauma, we'll add racism, religious intolerance and ableism in there too.

It's amazing how people who say they are politically left just abandon their multi faith, wonderful rich diversity yay immigration progressive stance the second a woman with such history gets in the way of a man's sexual needs.

I don't believe that the mere presence of a biological male in a room, regardless of gender identity, is a safeguarding risk.

Some sex offenders are cis women. Yes, a small proportion, but they exist. Should we get rid of public toilets altogether as a precaution?

What true colours? Someone who hates all forms of fascism including this one?

And there we have it the good old fascism trope rolled out, always a sign the person has lost the argument when they resort to this.

"Us lot" are currently winning because most people know their arse from their elbow.

Once people see this whole movement for what it is, aka trying to put women back in their box by taking away the very name that describes them (and therefore rendering any legislation pointless), they unsurprisingly agree with biological reality.

You have now used an over generalisation to try to prove your weak argument.

Those 'previously all male spaces' were closed off due to negative sexist discrimination. Not for the safety and safeguarding of those 'male' in those spaces. And they were generally meeting for business using social male spaces that deliberately excluded women because of that sexism.

You don't seem to have a depth of knowledge that you think you do. You have this point, as with so many others, completely wrong.

Perhaps you also need to read the EA2010. Excluding male people from female single sex spaces is considered 'legitimate discrimination.' And you know those 'human rights' you have been trying to incorrectly repurpose, female people have a basic human right to SAFETY... Strange that you don't really understand this considering you are so wedded to human rights.

Well said. The demands of a small group of powerful men to access the undressed / vulnerable bodies of women and girls for their own validation purposes are not a human right.
They're male demands that require a one word answer - no.

Laughable. Absolutely laughable. That you have to resort to this!

PP = Penis Panderer

Very droll.

But true. You've made that very clear.

Laws are there to be utilitised when useful and defied or dismantled when not.

Thank you @DialSquare
I was getting really frustrated and almost tempted to waste my time responding to the PP, but that's given me a laugh so I can end on a high note before starting work!

Then you would be wrong. And you would not actually then understand safeguarding.

And here you are now trying the 'but women do it to' argument.

Anyone knows that 'women do it' in a very different way, and often from a very different motivation. Plus women cannot get pregnant from another woman's attack. Plus women are also more likely to escape another female attacking them.

Would you like me to post the studies that show even with lowered testosterone that the weakest male people have a much higher grip strength than 90% of women?

You are free to have your opinions. When you come onto a thread and denigrate women who seem to have a lot more knowledge and have actually looked into this, rather than your acknowlegdement that you have just been 'radicalised', you are not free to continue with those accusations and denigration.

I've pandered to a lot of penises in my time, but that was for leisure rather than political purposes.

Literally no one is interested.

So laws that are useful to women should be dismantled in your view?

You really are a first class misogynist aren't you?

And there you go with a soundbite that I am sure you think is very wise and shows intelligence. Yet all it does is show that you cannot engage at all.

Keep sound biting. This thread has become very enlightening for anyone reading along as to the absolute paucity of logic, of evidence and of ethics behind your thoughts on this topic.