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 ?

*empathy, not empath

I said it isn't for every woman. Not that it isn't for any woman.

I didn't like the assumption that being a rape victim defined me and was the reason for my views on the issues discussed here. Doesn't mean I'm minimising the impact of rape on myself or anyone else. It certainly had a very significant and damaging effect on me. It just isn't something that I feel defines me in the way that other traumas have. It's different for every sexual assault victim.

How do you know I'm not?

It's an anonymous forum. None of us know anything, of course. I can, statistically, assume about 1 in 5 women is a victim of a sexual assault.

I don't really care for "whataboutism" as a response to anything. I just know people are angry - this debate understandably causes anger - and perhaps forgetting their humanity.

You cannot claim to be a feminist protecting female spaces but not protect the women you don't like.

Good, so you will accept that some of us don't want to face any males including trans women in single sex spaces?

Or are there limits to how traumatised women are allowed to feel when it comes to the demands of tranwomen (some men)?

You cannot claim to be a feminist protecting female spaces but not protect the women you don't like.

Go on, quote where someone "claiming to be a feminist" here doesn't want all women protected? Or I will conclude you're making it up.

Oh I see. So it's only @PP82 that is not forgetting her humanity.

Really have heard it all now.

When you get one poster derailing a thread then getting lots of other posters to respond I often wonder whether them having so much attention is feeding them, and that instead they are best ignored.

However, there will be lots of women reading this thread and not posting. They will see the absolute twists and turns this poster is getting into, the illogical statements and double standards. Let them speak and show what a mess trying to justify their unjustifiable position.

How do you know I'm not?

Why would that be relevant to whether you can tell other rape victims how to post?

Their trauma doesn't mean they get carte blanche to exclude and other.

They're male; they pose the same threat to women's safety as the larger male population.

No debate needed. No bigotry involved 🙂

Women for whom modesty is a concern should absolutely have a private cubicle they can use.

Hurrah! - you are starting to get it 😁- and indeed that is exactly what they have - these big cubicles often labelled things like 'ladies' or 'ladies changing room' And they are private - for women only... 'trans women' (men) aren't women so they don't go in - not tricky... lots of public places have other doors that say things like staff only or no entry - also not tricky!

Because the entitlement comes from the power and privilege inherent in being a cis man. Trans women do not have that power and privilege, due to the transphobic nature of our society.

This is really basic stuff.

So close...
no such thing as cis - you are man or woman - end of discussion ;)
a 'trans woman' is a man, so what you are really saying is:

Because the entitlement comes from the power and privilege inherent in being a man. Men do not have that power and privilege, due to the transphobic nature of our society.

which if you see it written out properly makes no sense! An accurate version would be:

Because the entitlement comes from the power and privilege inherent in being a man.

There you go - simpler and more accurate!

Just like men's need for "validation" of their self image doesn't mean they have carte blanche to ignore women's boundaries, and violate their privacy and dignity. Decent men don't do that.

Literal, actual trans erasure.

No. The EA2010 can and should do that.

Again, there is legitimate discrimination based on statistical data and historical evidence.

Female people in the UK have the right to expect a female single sex space to be female single sex. They can exclude trans people on the basis of those trans people's sex.

Sex.

See. Very simple.

Can you 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.

Literal, actual trans erasure.

Not everyone believes in your ideology. There are people who identify as the opposite sex, beyond that I don't find it meaningful.

You are free to conclude anything. It's not my goal/need/whatever to tell you how to think. You are clearly angry and in need of a fight, sorry, I am not.

I am seeing one poster being relentlessly jumped on. I'm not even particularly aligned with that person's position, but it feels OTT. It feels like bullying, and that is not protecting anyone.

But, that is just my opinion. One that is getting more 'thanks' than any comment in my years on MN, which, as many posters have pointed out, it what's important!

But I don't want to derail this thread or become the new target. I assume everyone posting is doing so from a place of passion, which I love. Enjoy.

"Cis" only means something if you believe in gender identity ideology.

This is a falsity.

There is no actual trans erasure here. There is however, discussion of sex matters and why.

And how the basis of sex and the power relationship between the sexes cannot be negated to the extent that you wish by assuming a trans identity.

You are free to conclude anything. It's not my goal/need/whatever to tell you how to think. You are clearly angry and in need of a fight, sorry, I am not.

Don't patronise me. I'm not interested in your revisionist view of this thread.

Yes, and that can and will be changed. Until 10 years ago, marriage was only between a man and a woman. Laws aren't set in stone, nor are their interpretations.

Can you 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.

I don't get why expecting transwomen to use male toilets is discriminatory but transwomen using female toilets against the wishes of females is not?
I'm very sorry you were raped in a public toilet - but the issue for me is not that I think that transwomen will go around raping females in public toilets - because I don't.
My only issue is I want females to feel they have safe spaces where they don't have to come into contact with biological men if they don't want to.

I don't think that the legitimate discrimination on the basis of sex will change. I find it laughable that you do.

Again, same sex marriage was NOT legitimate discrimination.

You keep trying to bring these very false equivalences into this thread.

Perhaps you could just answer the question I keep asking you.

I've already explained repeatedly why I will not.

As for your first paragraph, it will be gone in ten years, and seen as a source of shame.

I agree, I do feel the thread has been derailed and monopolised by one poster.

BUT...

1. Lots of posters including me have 'fed' that monopolisation by engaging with said poster so we are also responsible for the direction the thread has taken. And it would have been impossible not to engage and challenge the bilge being spouted.

2. Sunlight, sunlight, sunlight. It's well known that FWR gets lots of lurkers. This thread is bound to provoke some critical thinking.

3. Honestly speaking, I've got to hand it to said poster for sticking around. So many TRAs and TRA-adjacents plop and run, contributing a couple of comments and are then never seen again. The PP is hanging on in there. Okay the position might be weaker than weak, often offensive and totally unsubstantiated, but at least it's getting repeated over and over again. It's all useful.