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 ?

Just posting this here for any person who thinks that this poster has not been dismissing women's needs, or either directly accusing or even just inferring that women who disagree with them are deserving denigration and derogation.

This is their second post.

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.

I see there has been no evidence provided of this claim by @WhereTheHellisTheRestOfThisCroppedShirt

Just some pious, goady waffle.

Don't be silly. I don't believe in god, I'm not 'literally' erasing those who do

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

The EA2010 has already given a strong steer as to when males can be excluded. Even males who claim to be women can be lawfully excluded from single sex toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres (and other places), even if those males have a GRC.
Also sports and activities in which men's inbuilt sex-based advantages would make it unfair for them to compete against women can be women-only.
Males can also be excluded from competitions or groups for activities in which women are underrepresented, eg chess or STEM subjects. If you take a common sense attitude, it's usually pretty easy for the provider of the space or the organiser of the group to decide. It's single sex where there is a need for safety, privacy and dignity. Usually situations of potential vulnerability, or where the aim is to help overcome women's social disadvantages. And of course sport, to give women a fair chance of winning and excelling. Incidentally, a group of people with trans identities would probably be able to lawfully have a trans-only book club, social club or similar.
Purity doesn't come into it, I'm unsure why you think it does. Single sex provision is entirely normal and unremarkable in certain circumstances, which we all know even if some of us pretend we don't.

Being completely honest, I don't particularly sympathise with the feelings of very religious people about the sexes being kept separate but the law strikes a balance between the right of the religious person to hold their beliefs and live by them and the right of other people not to be unfairly impacted. What makes a plane or a bus different to a synagogue or a mosque is that in the first two places, it is not reasonable to expect others to abide by your religious strictures, but in the places of worship, it is reasonable. Similarly, if a space/facility/service has been designated single sex, it is reasonable for observant Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women to expect that there will be no males there. These women will not try to join the open swim sessions and demand that men leave. But they will go to the women-only swim. Sometimes it's the only chance they get to get out from under their husband's or father's thumb. Why should they have to give that up?

No, you said that you didn't want to be involved in providing evidence why males with trans identities are committing sex offences at a 'HIGHER' rate.

I am asking you, and others, to provide evidence that they commit sex crimes a lower rate, at ANY stage of transitions so that they should be treating differently to ALL OTHER MALE people in the UK.

I am asking you to support your claims, because this is a discussion board and supporting claims is part of discussion.

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.

Yes, exactly.

I know all here are familiar with Freedman et al, but I took to heart what PP said about lurkers.

It's well done @theilltemperedclavecinist

I will not participate in discussions about whether trans women are a threat. Full stop. The degree of threat you are claiming is irrelevant.

This has been asked several times @Helleofabore I'm assuming @PP82 doesn't have any evidence, on account of it not existing

Men are a threat, not all but enough and tw are men. Full stop.

oh yes. Thanks illtempered

But can the posters supporting this provide the evidence that refutes this.

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.

Because it is quite contrary to logic to allow a sub group of male people to not be included in the same robust safeguarding principles based on someone' belief.

So, please can they provide the evidence that supports their case.

You have already accepted that transwomen are male, are you now suggesting that males aren't a threat?

The degree of threat is actually the whole fucking point.

I will not participate in discussions about whether trans women are a threat.

It has nothing to do with their identity. It's about their male sex. And you won't participate, because you know the facts of it.

Only biologically male.

There's no other way to be male. Sex is biological.

Literal, actual biology 😁

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

But biology / science and fact will always remain...
It really doesn't matter what I think / what you think / what anyone sets as law or policy / what the general population thinks - biology, science and fact remain the same - you are born male or female and there is no way to ever change that.

a fug of confusion and mis-direction, laws and policy documents weighing several tonnes, millions spent on diversity officers, people sacked or de-platformed, flags flown and marches made, books written and data-centres filled with tweets - none of it can change biology...

As such there is technically no such thing as trans - you can not transition from man to woman or vice versa - you can operate and take chemicals, you can't ever become the other sex.

Let's stop the pretence - let's acknowledge that there is a set of people who are hurting because they have body dysphoria and help them, help them to value what they are, help to change society to not gender stereotype and put pressure on children and adults, make changes so that the quiet senstive boy is seen to be as much a boy as the sporty physical boy, that the girl who loves science and computers, or climbing trees etc. is as as much a girl as the one dressing up her dolls and painting her nails...

let's go back to a sunny land of truth and sympathy - not run by those who have hidden agendas / sexual perversions / desires to dominate... it is much easier to show compassion for those who have genuine mental health issues and concerns when their landscape is not being overrun by those with a politicised agenda.

A man is a man - a woman is a woman - end of! You can't change sex.

-----------
*referring to Hellaofabore's post..

I see.

So. Now you are saying they are no threat.

Can you tell me exactly where in the process of transition these male people have lost that risk then?

Does it require them to announce that they are 'women'?
Does it require them to take hormones?
Does it require them to have their penis removed?

Where have they lost that risk?

And do you realise that they have not lost their physical power where they are stronger than female people? So just losing their penis and source of testosterone doesn't remove their ability to significantly harm any female person?

'Only'

Anyway, having accepted that transwomen are biologically male, perhaps you could outline what makes them less of a threat than all the other biological males. TIA

No other way to be male....

This is another falsity that doesn't support your answers here at all.

But only a tiny, tiny number of trans women have used access to toilets to commit sexual assaults, and could have done so anyway regardless of the law. So why are you so fixated on the issue of toilets? Only because it's filtered through as a trope from the American religious right.

I agree. The most information provided the better.

Only biologically male.

It's the only way that counts when it comes to violence patterns.