Some strange contradictory arguments from the TRA side

[transdimensional]

Claim 1: That it's unfair for TW to go in men's toilets because they're less safe there.

It's probably true that they're less safe there, but how does the conclusion follow? What about a gender-nonconforming male who identifies as a man (not as a woman)? He would still have to go into the gents' even if admission to toilets was on the basis of gender identity. Should he also go to the ladies' to be safe? What about various other vulnerable groups? Young boys, elderly men who may be frail without being disabled, or ethnic minority males in an area where a white racist movement is strong - maybe they would all be safer in the ladies'? But it doesn't mean that's the answer!

Claim 2: That there is no use banning self-identified TW from the ladies' on the basis they might represent a risk, because genuinely dangerous males won't care whether they're allowed in or not.
This implies that the ladies' toilet is no safer than the gents', and therefore it completely contradicts the first point!

Claim 3: That having rules about who can and can't enter the toilets will lead to a surge in TM and others being wrongly accused of being in the wrong toilets.

But even under the EHRC's and Scottish government's understanding of the law, there were theoretical limitations on who could enter which toilets (in theory you would have needed a GRC). So there have always been rules about who can enter. Does anyone recall a huge problem of false accusations before 2010 or before 2004? If not, why should it start now?

So TRA are going to use every argument under the sun to get around this court ruling and I think everyone should be wary of this.

Well it's an argument.

But so far the TRA arguments have been so stoooooopid and short sighted do we REALLY need to worry that much?!

But gay men aren’t entitled to use women’s toilets.

Of course not. And nor is it just like being gay. But I can understand why some types of men are at threat in the men's toilets. That is not saying they should be in the women's either.

Do as we say: Don't use the term transwoman without the space it's disrespectful, don't use the term trans-identifying man/woman it's disrespectful, don't use the term man/woman with a trans identity it's disrespectful, don't define people by parts of their anatomy it's disrespectful

Do as we say: You chest feeders, cervix havers, pregnant people, birthing people, vagina-owners, menstruators, CIS WOMEN!!

So why did you bring up gay-bashing? This isn't about gay men, it's about men who say they want to be women, or who think they are women, or are pretending that they think they are women. Many of them (possibly most) are heterosexual.

And if men's toilets are dangerous places, surely that's something that men need to do something about. How do you expect women to stop men being violent to other men? We can't even stop them being violent to women. We're not going to let all the vulnerable men into women's spaces just because other men are violent to them.

Male violence is a problem. It's up to men to sort it out.

OK @ColourlessGreenIdeasSleepFuriously but my point was please don't use the term "collateral damage" as a euphemism for victims/survivors of attacks. Just say what you mean, i.e. "Unfortunately, I think we have to recognise some people on each side will be attacked" (which seems to be what you mean?).
I and other posters on here have been assaulted in toilets and private spaces and we'd rather not be referred to dismissively as "collateral damage".

It is possible that a man who is gender non conforming will meet hostility.

The solution to this does not ever include allowing that man to use women as human shields, or comforters, or passive validation tools.

Women are not to blame for men's prejudice, and it is not up to us to surrender our rights in order to appease, please, mollify, protect, validate, gratify, comfort, or excite men.

I know that's not what pps on this thread are saying, but it is precisely what a lot of TRAs and allies are saying.

'Men won't accept gender non conforming men, therefore women have to accept them'.

Here, here!

All that the SC has done is reasserted that women have human rights, and a small and very noise proportion of the country is heartbroken and outraged that women have said 'no' to accepting men in their spaces.

Why don't men stop bullying people? End of problem.

Except they HAVE been accepting them since the 80s and gay acceptance is running at 86%
[Source: 2019 Pew Research Center poll]

So it's a minority who dislike it and an even smaller tiny minority who are causing a problem....

I've been assaulted too as stated upthread and don't have a problem with the euphemism but duly noted for those who do.

Men will be violent against other gender non conforming men. This is not a problem for women to sort out. There we agree.

Thanks Colourless. Yes, we definitely agree on that!

A trans woman will use a cubicle in a male toilet. Unless you happen to have a man who is hell bent on beating up men in dress then this is not an issue and I think in reality this would be very rare.

Men in women's space is quite an obvious safeguarding issue (especially in a school) and I think most women would have an amount of fear in an intimate female space without mentioning basic dignity. Toilets should not be a venue for male affirmation of a fantasy.

Dual sex toilets may be a way forward but until then having single sex toilets is a right enshrined in law. I also think people trying to trivialize this by saying we are have trade wars and Russia to deal and we are talking about toilets are deliberately trying to erase the strength of women s feelings and therefore is misogynist.

Some men will be violent against other gender non conforming men. Most men don't go around attacking anyone (thankfully).

Is there any evidence of large-scale attacks on gender non conforming men? Where and when do these attacks take place? Is there any evidence that they are more likely to take place in toilets than in any other environment? Do you have some stats?

Nope. But I can understand why some TRAs are worried about it. Their problem is the blinkers they wear when it comes to the same problem afflicting women.

I also think people trying to trivialize this by saying we are have trade wars and Russia to deal and we are talking about toilets are deliberately trying to erase the strength of women s feelings and therefore is misogynist.

Yes I agree. It's definitely one for this 'contradictory argument' thread!

TRAs: Stop getting worked up about toilets, you're all so obsessed with toilets, toilets are so trivial they're just a place to pee, focusing on toilets detracts from the real issues in the world, etc etc.
Also TRAs: We demand access to your toilets! TW cannot possibly go in the men's toilets! They risk their lives in there! Don't minimise our lived experience by telling us what toilets we can go in! Toilets are crucial to our identities and validation! We've always been in your toilets!

Its almost as if they recognise men might attack people in toilets

Why are women being guilt tripped about so called male violence towards trans women in male facilities and don't have any right to be concerned about male violence towards them in their facilities?

It is a scientific fact. There is no such thing as intersex. People with DSDs are either male or female. No human has ever changed sex.

Oh, come on now! It's completely impossible to sex humans. At least 0.018% of them have mixed or karyotype-incongruent sex characteristics, and humans are too stupid to work out what's going on or create pragmatic medical or social solutions.

The only answer is to scrap sex-discrimination law altogether, and base it entirely on what sex people say they are.

As I’ve said elsewhere, that’s why, for thousands of years, no human knew who to mate with - everyone just ran around bashing random privates into each other until whoops!

Anyone ever wonder how the human race survived until 2025?

It’s a mystery 🤷‍♀️

Not to mention all the numerous other creatures who don't reproduce asexually and aren't hermaphrodites and have not yet had the benefit of a Supreme Court judgement to tell them which sex they are.