Good Law Project's latest claim - fact check?

[teawamutu]

I'm sure there must be some arrant bollocks in here somewhere, because Jolyon.

But is there anything worrying in this?

goodlawproject.org/ehrc-backs-down-on-single-sex-toilets/

Pigeon chess. I'll read your treatise when you get round to publishing it. I'm not going to hold my breath though because I suspect, deep down, you know it won't stand up to scrutiny.

Well that was illustrative wasn't it. The law says no. The law says a man is a man for the purposes of single sex spaces, whatever identity he professes.

If you want to change the law, you need to campaign for that, and you will need to explain how "yes we can have single sex spaces but everyone is whatever sex they say they are at any given moment" can possibly work from a legal perspective.

Sciense, innit.

We don’t hate opinions such as those expressed by Tandora on here. We rather welcome them as they expose the falsity and incoherence of genderism for all to see.
(It’s one thing to espouse a belief system, like the one of the religion I was brought up in, that has elements of the purely fanciful, but essentially aligns with material reality while trying to explain it in a religious context; and very much another to commit to one entirely based on magical thinking and the denial of reality, whose underlying precept is that people can change sex.)

I doubt you are old enough to tell us this and you are talking about gay people that are old enough here.

Several of us have explained that it's the growth in understanding that's led to the push back on unreasonable encroachment.

After spending this much government and business funding on pushing understanding in recent years, which is now drying up as a result of damage to children and abuse of women and girls, support has dropped massively. Trans have less sympathy than they had a decade ago.

So tell us how they will improve understanding with no money and the legal truth out there now.

How?

She's going to tell us all the bigots will die.

The usual nasty stuff.

Lets try this picture again to see if there’s any engagement this time.

Single sex cubicles can be designed with door gaps when leading onto a single sex area (for example, the sink area).

However, single gender (as Tandora wants it) can’t.

The door gaps are there for health and safety. To have door gaps is a proportionate means for a legitimate aim. The aim is to saves lives and prevent undesirable behaviour happening in an otherwise enclosed, private space. Because perpetrators instinctively target private areas (witnesses could get them in trouble).

I have lots of evidence that it works. It is also commonsense. Medical emergencies happen irrespective of gender or sex. Just taking one example, in total 11% of all cardiac arrests happen on the loo (there’s one every 5 mins in the uk). You need to get to that person and do cpr asap. There have been children that have died at school in newer style enclosed toilets. CPR was unsuccessful.

A person of any gender having a medical emergency is more likely to get the help they need if they can be seen.

Assaults happen more to women and children of either sex. Which is also why it is proportionate that small children accompany their parents into the opposite sex toilets and why we should still have door gaps to prevent this exception being abused. The youngest account I have of a child being led into and abused by a stranger in a U.K. supermarket toilet is a 4 year old boy.

I agree Tandora we shouldn’t be advocating for more unisex spaces but your mixed gender toilets have all the disadvantages as mixed sex. As it means exactly the same design. The only difference is the pictograms on the door.

The safest public toilet design for everyone is single sex toilets with door gaps.

We can’t always get what we want but we should get what we need.

I'd love to read this long, extensive survey and see the medico-scientific sources used. It would certainly be an improvement on being lectured and condescended to, expected to simply believe Gender as indisputable fact.

It's interesting that as gay people became more out & visible the more accepted by society they were. On the contrary the more that we see of TRAs the less support they have. People are perfectly accepting of gay couples just getting on with their lives while repulsive weirdos dressing up in woman face to invade female single sex spaces are never going to be accepted by the majority. Why should men be allowed to parade their sick paraphilias in public?

I’ve got Mick Jagger singing in my head now!

Some of us have been waiting for years now for just the links that supported the work. But there has only been refusal.

And no explanation.

I think it is always interesting when someone declares they ‘could’ give explanations, claims to have qualifications and all, but refuses while declaring others to be bigots, fascists, ignorant and hateful, transphobic and the list goes on. All while withholding the very information that would apparently make us all understand.

So… having the ability to change minds and behaviour while seemingly delighting in taking every opportunity to declare a group hateful and refusing to provide the tools to stop the cycle. That shows to me that some people don’t wish to stop the cycle and that the intention is not to educate and provide real alternative view. It is to continue to demonise a group of people who disagree.

Women of the biological kind 'need' single sex spaces Women of the male kind want access. Want or need not much of a competition really need should always be a priority

As I said, I do think understanding is growing, and will continue to do so. The reverse trajectory will continue, because people are slowly waking up to the lies and manipulation.

Tandora Yesterday 23:48
Meanwhile in one post I used the phrase “you people” and a pp went all “woe is me, how dare you be so unbelievably rude as to say something as offensive as ‘you people’ to me”. So I apologised.

I know, I was that PP!

I accepted your apology immediately, but after reading
'a pp went all “woe is me, how dare you be so unbelievably rude as to say something as offensive as ‘you people’ to me”. So I apologised.'
I'm doubting the sincerity of the apology.

I didn't go all 'woe is me', I never called you 'unbelievably rude'; I pointed out to you that even someone who has engaged with you in the kind of reasonable discussion you said you wanted became 'you people' when they disagreed with you.

Your response went even further with victim posturing' 'privileged mob' thrown in. When I suggested this was 'a bit OTT' I got an apology, or perhaps 'apology' in view of what you later said.

I've highlighted this exchange because you've listed some of the negative responses you've got - and there have been some, as well as many reasoned and well-informed ones - but for the avoidance of imbalance: you have dished some out yourself, haven't you? Your contribution to the 'true character of dynamics' here has been a mixed bag - just like the rest of the posts here.

You give the impression that you are acting as an objective observer with a higher awareness, who is here to.. how did you phrase it?
The point was to highlight the imbalance, to show the true character of the dynamics here...

You are not outside the discussion, revealing and critiquing a pre-existent reality, you are part of the dynamics, at times creating and driving and directing them. That's the way with discussions, nobody is above them, observing objectively from an elevated position - if you post, you're a participant, not a neutral, critical observer of other people's dynamics.

Tandora, you posted. You're not in a position to 'highlight the imbalance, to show the true character of the dynamics here...'. You're part of the dynamics, just like the rest of us.

And given that there are at least a hundred times as many female women as male women, even if it is want vs want or need vs need, the wants and needs of female women must take priority.

Unless your belief is that one male woman is more important than a hundred female women.

@Tandora

i know you say it’s ‘complicated’ but surely you can narrow it down a little bit.

If there are not just 2 sexes roughly how many are there? Can you name one of the ones that isn’t male or female?

How many genders are there? I’ve read several different options here but again I don’t need a precise number. Is it less than 5? Between 5 and 10? More than that?

The thing is, discussion with TRAs can often be a pain because we're using the same common word to mean different things. Or rather, we're using the words with the common meaning, and they're using the words with an ideological meaning, so:

Us: woman = adult human belonging to the female sex class
Them: woman = [adult human belonging to the female sex class] minus [adult human who biologically belongs to the female sex class but would prefer not to] plus [adult human who biologically belongs to the male sex class but would rather belong to the female sex class]

I've tried in conversation to tease out what they actually believe at root (is there such a thing as a gendered soul? do you think trans identity is some kind of psychological DSD?) but without much success, because they tend to get offended at anything that isn't agreement to a position that they won't actually argue.

I'm not so familiar with a situation where a poster says "I'm using this common word with a private esoteric meaning which I refuse to explain to the muggles" as if she's Aleister Crowley or something, while confidently expecting that parliament, society and the judgment of history will eventually conform to this private esoteric understanding.

I'm not sure that is is argument so much as "trust me bro".

In the past, trans activism worked by making assertions very confidently, changing word meanings, appealing to the emotional using stories about men being marginalised and vulnerable, going on the attack - 'get over it!' - going under the radar, and straightforward threats and intimidation.

Those tactics won't work anymore because people are aware of the issues and have questions.

Most people understand that:

There are two sexes.

Gender is stereotypes.

And trans is pretending to be the opposite sex.

If someone thinks these statements are false, and wants to convince others, then they'll need to explain why.

Agreed, SionnachRuadh

In case anyone gives a feck, I said 'feel free' specifically so that that poster couldn't then say I was 'demanding' answers from them, or 'piling on' or trying to provoke them into contacting me privately, or whatever I anticipated they might say (see? I'm expending a lot of mental energy adapting the way I speak to try and avoid derails about my own irrelevant character and to just get to the answers) - I wanted them to share it if and only if they felt happy to. I could see they were apprehensive.

I clearly did not anticipate that 'feel free ... it would be good to understand this' would be interpreted as 'I am not interested in a response to the questions I have asked of you', so that's on me and my inability to predict which eggshells I need to walk on.

And that demonstates the issue quite nicely. The goalposts change every 5 minutes and to ask what someone means is characterised as an attempt to 'discredit' them (no, I don't understand how).

People understanding that men showing their moobs in public, staging pissing protests all over London, and graffiti-ing statues is obviously completely sustainable!

There's not a person in the country who would welcome men like that into women's spaces. However often they do it and however long they do it for.

Likewise Threatening to punch women, releasing insects in women's meetings, and threatening to disrupt lesbian marches.

People's understanding of what's at stake is only going in one direction I'm afraid.

The reverse trajectory will continue, because people are slowly waking up to the lies and manipulation.

There used to be acceptance, because people thought we were talking about an incredibly small number of Hayley Croppers.

But we're now aware that Hayley Cropper does not exist - we're talking about Eddie Izzard, India Willoughby, Isla Bryant and Lia Thomas.

And moobs.

People would accept the fictional 'used-to-be-a-man' Hayley Cropper as a woman - because she is a woman.

They're not going to accept those real obviously-still-men as women.

Or be convinced by moobs.

Well, I'm guessing, as it's apparently visceral and complex, it will translate to, because men, or maybe Tandora, really, really, reeely wants it. And here are all the reasons why.

I've yet to see a single rationale that didn't rely entirely on the 'lived experience' of the person making it.

Dammit, cross-post on the moobs. Stealing my thunder, Datun.

Still, makes the point about awareness of the exposure problem.

Dammit, cross-post on the moobs.

I bet that's a sentence you never thought you'd write Nec 😁