“There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour.”

[ArabellaScott]

I know this was years back.

It's just struck me again what vacuous bullshit it is.

Every man who has abused and predated has pretended to be something else.

How many men wear T shirts saying 'Hi, I'm a rapist', or state their intent to abuse children when applying for a job or meeting a prospective partner, or signing up for a dating app, or going out for a drink with someone, or spiking said someone's drink, or 'love bombing' a target, or stalking someone, or abusing their position of trust in their job, church, social group?

Every predator and abuser 'pretends' to not be a predator and abuser, surely?

Deception, manipulation and lying is a fundamental part of abuse.

It's quite chilling that politicians got to the point where they would make a statement like this.

It's effectively saying that men will openly warn us before abusing and predating. It's the direct opposite of the truth. In other words, it's a huge, blatant lie.

www.holyrood.com/news/view,shona-robison-must-resign-over-gender-reform-comments-alba-mp-says

That is indeed an outrageous and dangerous lie.

if a predatory man wanted to enter a woman's bathroom to commit a crime he can just walk in and do it as he is, why would he bother to go through all the time and effort to become trans?

How much time and effort do you think it takes for a man to say "I identify as a woman"?

But you're right, once we make all women's spaces mixed sex by saying that any man who says he feels like a woman can enter them, then it's much more likely that other men will also go in there and they won't be challenged either.

Yes, paraphilic coercive disorder. but the DSM won't include it. Explanation here;

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09612025.2023.2197792

What time, chris, what effort?

All to “become trans” you say.

You sound like you really believe it’s a choice someone makes, I’m not sure your allyship is as convincing a cover as you’d like it to be.

I agree with the claim made by the title, presuming this is about trans woman.

No it's about abusive and preditory men who may or may not wear a wig while harming women.

Is it really routine and usual for men to clean womens' loos in the UK, and if so, why?

Fascinating, thank you. I'll.stick that on.the DSM thread.

'...we must be clear: all of the evidence tells us that the cause of violence against women and girls is predatory and abusive men; not trans people.

it's extraordinary isn't it.

Predatory and abusive men..but not Geminis.

Right, hands up all the Geminis

Why? Well for some paraphiliac cross dressers, it's part of the thrill.

I don’t think it’s rare enough to be unusual, but I’m only going on my own observations.

If I was pushed to explain it I’d be leaning towards council budget cuts and fewer cleaners being employed but I have no proof of this, it’s just a thought.

There is no point making laws relating to wearing seat belts. Why waste the time and effort? People who don't like wearing them will just not wear them and nobody is going to stop them getting in a car and driving off without fastening their seatbelt first.

I don't think many people see this statement as holding water. We recognise that many laws require self policing and people know that we could 'get away with' non compliance the majority of the time. However, the law describes what is expected and sends unequivocal information about what is expected/required. It helps those who want to uphold the law to challenge and report law breaking. It helps those who view the illegal behaviour as 'perfectly OK' recognise that it isn't perfectly ok by everyone's standards and they are not permitted to do it.

In the case of single sex provision, everyone would benefit from the law being clear and unequivocal, whether you agree with it or not. You can always campaign to change it, so long as you understand what needs changing.

It's hard to view claims as 'in good faith', about the inappropriateness of laws protecting single sex provision, when they boil down to 'people will break the law anyway'. People shouldn't break the law, they should be held accountable when they do, regardless how much effort it takes to break it.

We have single sex spaces to ensure the privacy and dignity of sex; especially for women and girls. TW are male by definition; therefore not female. A male in a female designated space can be experienced as predatory just by his very presence.

There tends always to be an element of voyeurism involved when someone who knows they should not really be in a certain place, enters into it - as they are super-conscious of themselves being in that space - with a heightened perception. This heightened perception is a kind of voyeurism; a knowing transgression of boundaries.

Voyeurism is predatory - because it knowingly violates the privacy of the object of attention. It lingers too long; it seeks to be in control.

In the NHS settings in which I have worked, when cleaners (male or female) are cleaning loos, they have to place a large, self standing sign that partially blocks the door, saying 'cleaning in progress'. This warns people that a cleaner is inside. If inside when the cleaner is due to start cleaning, they knock on the door and shout 'cleaner speaking, I am coming in in a few minutes to clean the area'. They wait a few minutes before entering.

The argument that you can't prohibit males from entering female toilets 'because male cleaners' doesn't really hold. It isn't difficult to put protocols in place that seek to protect women's dignity and safety when employing male cleaners. It is true that males could go to the effort of buying signs and carrying them and cleaning trolleys to pretend to have legitimate access, just like they could put on lipstick and carry a handbag, or they can, of course, just walk in without any of these things.

We can have laws that clearly direct people as to what constitutes legal and illegal behaviour. People will break laws, that is inevitable, but they can be challenged and held to account for doing so.

People want to see what they want to see, if someone is too good to be true they are

How many people who know someone who they have a feeling about but they can't put their finger on it?

I say it's there we just don't want to admit it

I can't say I have ever met anyone who is perfect enough not to see their faults I may in the future and I look for it

It takes a certain mindset to decide that because women are routinely raped and abused by the predator class, they should also have to put up with that class violating their boundaries, and/or indulging in voyeurism and exhibitionism when they're at their most vulnerable.

We really are just props to these people

Not just councils (who have hardly any public loos these days). Plenty of private bisnesses - airports, motorway services etc - do the same.

Why? Efficiency - it's cheaper and easier to recruit, train and employ 1 person than 2.

I do understand the issue arising for TWs.

I have worked with many vulnerable TW, some of whom have agoraphobia and extreme fear of going out in public (almost all of these patients, in my view, have gender distress as a symptom of wider mental health issues as opposed to a symptom of gender dysphoria). Underpinning the agoraphobia is an irrational level of fear about being mocked, shunned or attacked for their gender non conformity. The irrationality relates to their perception of the likelihood of these events occurring and the severity of them if they did, alongside the level of psychological damage that mocking or shunning will inevitably be caused. My work involves helping them to overcome their fears.

The loo issue is one of the most difficult ones to navigate. They are fearful of using either the men's or ladies, for different reasons. They tend to be so consumed by their own problems, their reluctance to use the ladies is rarely based on thinking about the impact on women (when people are consumed and overwhelmed by their own issues, this is commonplace).

I do get the issues facing those who experience gender distress, and I would like a solution to be found to help people be able to engage in activities of daily living without having to navigate difficulties relating to accessing essential facilities.

I don't understand the issues facing those who are not distressed and just want to experience gender identity validation or affirmation by entering women's spaces. These spaces exist for the safety of natal women, not for the safety or affirmation of those with trans identities. We need a different solution for this subset of the population.

The observation isn't wrong, it's just completely irrelevant. I know that there are many people who struggle to survive monetarily and that, logically, some people may therefore steal what they cannot afford to buy if that means the difference between life and death. People also steal for a plethora of other reasons. None of these uncontroversial realities make me say (1) no one steals or (2) there would not be anti-theft laws or (3) OK, I'm not going to lock the door of my house/car/storage unit/whatever.

We know that men as a class prey on women as a class. We know that female victims - e.g., of rape trauma syndrome - are disproportionately traumatised by this (versus people of any and all other sexes). We know that generations of advocates of women's equality and humanity have campaigned successfully for measures to be put in place to protect women against male sexual violence. I'm still waiting for any one of these 'boys will be boys" horrors to show us how women as a class are BETTER off when feminists stand down and say ah tee tee tee oh well noting we can do about male violence.

“if a predatory man wanted to enter a woman's bathroom to commit a crime he can just walk in and do it as he is”

And why has society now made it easier for those male people to now not be removed or even questioned. And women and girls are being conditioned to no longer warn others that there is a male in the toilets.

Sure, a male person doesn’t have to do anything but walk in, but women and girls used to feel they could do something at least by raising the alarm or by simply just leaving. Now women and girls are conditioned to remain quiet. This obviously increases the risk of harm.

And it still doesn’t acknowledge that by now all male people will have heard that female people are distressed by male people’s presence in female single sex spaces. We can now assume that if they respected female people, they would stay out of those spaces.

We can conclude that any male person entering the female single sex space has no respect for female people’s needs. Therefore they are entering knowing they are causing female people distress. That looks rather like predatory behaviour to me.

So, sure. No male person has to do anything but walk in. They don’t even have to say that they are women.

Telling women and girls this does not assure us at that the person making this statement has understood the issues in the first place though. It just makes them look like what they are. someone with a weak argument. And someone who is telling women and girls to just comply and STFU.

Which is classic misogynist behaviour, no?

It is also true, as we see from news stories, that predatory men whose taste is voyeurism rather than direct confrontation can set up spyware and watch remotely. And guess what, that crime does get prosecuted.

Voyeurism, exhibitionism, frottage, rape. They cluster, they escalate, they are all male crimes. And for some men wearing a costume enhances their enjoyment.

women and girls used to feel they could do something at least by raising the alarm or by simply just leaving. Now women and girls are conditioned to remain quiet. This obviously increases the risk of harm.

Not just subtly conditioned but actively told they must not challenge, like those posters popping up in university toilets, or that Australian advert with the lift. Women are being scolded and shamed.

Yeah. It is not subtle at all. It is signs up in the spaces, advertising, media. No subtlety to it at all.

yet, on the flip side, there is also no subtlety to the male abusers on line who post about deliberately transgressing female people's boundaries either.

So, on one hand, we are conditioned to accept these male people into spaces, and on the other hand, some of these male people are very deliberately abusing female people through threats and their proudly proclaimed transgressions.

And some people think that it is the female people who should be shamed in these discussions.... it is really remarkable to see it in action.

Was the predatory man in the article I posted wearing a wig or claiming to be a woman?

Why would he bother? Women's bathrooms have no magical barrier stopping men from walking in.