Is it not possible to have "trans rights" and "women's rights" at the same time?

[Artmumcreative]

I suppose I just think debate is too polarised. I think the answer might be to have third spaces (e.g. a separate toilet a bit like a disabled toilet) for trans women, so they're safe and women are safe. I think it would be nice if women supported transpeople and transpeople supported women (e.g at a trans rights demo and a women's rights demo). Not all transwomen are rapists, just as not all men are.

Men did what they wanted and women said nothing.

I'm unsurprised you favour this scenario.

Transwomen don't want to use the female changing rooms. They want to use the females in the changing room.

Understand this and you understand 'the conflict'.

It's not a conflict. It's about males seeing women as lesser service and support humans to them.

Until this is fully laid out and recognised we will have a problem.

TW don't need to be rapists. They can just be sexist pricks who seek act in sexist way unlawfully but somehow are getting away with it.

seriously? You just didn’t care, didn’t hear us. Women had to STFU or risk being cancelled or sacked.
There was a lucrative grift, for sure - Stonewall and the like.

Stop with the ridiculous claims that failing to be able to stop males using female provision at the point of use means laws permitting them are pointless.

• An individual is able to drive drunk, the legal requirement is not to do so, despite being able to hop in a car and drive
• An individual is able to shoplift, the legal requirement is not to do so, despite being able to slip an item into their bag unnoticed.
• An individual is able to trespass on private property, the legal requirement is not to do so, despite being able to climb a fence or enter an open gate.
• An individual is able to ignore traffic signals, the legal requirement is to obey them, despite being able to speed through a red light.
• An individual is able to file false tax returns, the legal requirement is to report income accurately, despite being able to submit incorrect forms.
• An individual is able to litter in public spaces, the legal requirement is to dispose of waste properly, despite being able to drop trash on the ground.
• An individual is able to use someone else’s intellectual property, the legal requirement is to respect copyright laws, despite being able to copy or share protected content.
• An individual is able to drive without a valid license, the legal requirement is to have one, despite being able to operate a vehicle without showing proof.
• An individual is able to sell alcohol to minors, the legal requirement is to verify age, despite being able to hand over the product without checking ID.

In all of the examples above, many people get away with law breaking but that doesn’t mean the law is wrong. A law that states females are entitled to female only provision is very valuable to females, despite some males refusing to comply . It defines our rights and provides legal process to address and rectify wrong- doing.

No, Howie, it's on people to use the correct toilets for their sex and not be so damn selfish.

Most pertinent woud be indecent exposure.

Voyeurism isnt actually specifically a criminal offense, is it? Anyone know how a man is generally prosecuted for spying on women?

Voyeurism is a criminal offence, and covers both simply observing and the use of recording equipment. Now, how that gets to the point of prosecution is maybe more tricky, but it is an offence. Probably part of the thrill.

Trans people have the same rights as everyone else.
They also have the 'extra' rights against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.
What trans identified males (the issue is not equivalent with trans identified females) demand, and then take, even when the consequences are explained to them, is female rights.
Yes if they want to fight for third/fourth/etc spaces, go for it. They dont want that. They are self-centred misogynist bullies and nothing but taking women's rights will satisfy them.
The debate is polarised because there is no middle ground: if males use female sex based rights, those rights become 'unisex' and therefore dont give women the ability to take part fully, successfully and as safely as possible in a patriarchal society.

Here you are @Artmumcreative

The ‘policing’ argument

You wanted to know about third spaces. This poster is giving you another demonstration as to how the rationale gets twisted so it is not workable.

We never required ‘policing’ in the past for our single sex spaces beyond a woman or girl asking someone if they were in the correct single sex space. On hearing the voice of the person answering, the girl or woman could identify the sex of that person for themselves. If they felt a male had just accessed the space they could seek help, leave themselves or remind the person it was a female space or they could make a choice as to what they would do.

That was the experience for decades and decades. As a young person, I was often asked if I was in the correct toilet and I answered ‘ yes, thank you. I am female.’ There ended the ‘policing’. Many other female people were also asked. This process seems to have been forgotten by extremists who now dismiss this as ‘trans’ investigation.

Apparently, we never asked the question before and are not allowed to ask the question now. Which is untrue.

OP. You will start to see all the twists and arguments used by extreme transgender activists on this thread. And they will generally use falsity to support those arguments.

It is an offence, according to this, although proving the motivation sounds difficult and the matter of consent is arse about face - needs changing to be that explicit consent is needed.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

I’m waiting for his inevitable “IE” 🥰

😆😆😆

@Artmumcreative

The argument I refer to being used here by this male person is the

Over extend the scope to make it not likely to be affordable argument.

The reality for that specific scenario wasn’t simply a bank of a few unisex provisions while keeping single sex provisions also. He twisted it to be then you need fourth spaces!

I asked AI and this is what it spat out:

In England and Wales, “peeping Tom” behavior falls under the Voyeurism offence, which is covered by Section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
This law makes it a criminal offence to observe another person doing a private act for sexual gratification, where:
• The person being observed does not consent to being observed for sexual gratification
• The observation is for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification
• The person knows the other person does not consent to being observed for that purpose
A “private act” is defined as when a person is in a place which would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and their genitals, buttocks, or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear, or they are using a toilet or doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
The offence carries a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.
The Act was later amended by the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 to specifically criminalize “upskirting” - the taking of photographs or video recordings under a person’s clothing without consent.
Related offences might also include harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, or other public order offences depending on the specific circumstances.

They can get round it by claiming that sexual gratification is not their intention, in a way that other men can’t.

Thank you. My understanding is Indecent Exposure is equally hard to prove, as it also rests on proving intent.

Darren Merager in the US is a good example of this. Previous offences for voyeurism etc, but let off when caught with an erection in a women"s spa because he is now a 'transwoman'.

Stop with the ridiculous claim that providers should break the law by welcoming or accepting some males to use it, on the basis that a large or small proportion of females have no issue:

• Some people think it’s okay to drive over the alcohol limit as long as you’re not heavily intoxicated.
• Some people think it’s okay to shoplift small items from multinationals who make huge profits
• Some people think it’s okay to trespass on private property if it’s not clearly marked.
• Some people think it’s okay to ignore traffic signals if it’s late at night and the roads are clear
• Some people think it’s okay to underreport income on taxes if they already pay a lot of tax
• Some people think that it’s okay for males with trans identities to be permitted to use female only provision because they pass, or because the women present don’t object or appear not to object

Readers of this post are likely to have mixed responses to the items above. However, our views are irrelevant. The law on each count is clear, and it is incumbent on each of us to follow the law regardless of how easy it is to break.

Great points

This ‘there were no complaints before’ argument has been getting a work out on the two NHS employment tribunals.

And here it is again.

@Artmumcreative I think we can call this argument type the

‘No female person complained before, why now?’ argument.

I believe this is supposed to be a winning argument but it is not the winning argument that those using it believe it is. It shows the lack of respect for any female person who needed their space to remain single sex and who didn’t realise the space they entered was mixed sex. (because male people felt free to use it, making it mixed sex). Nor does it respect those who did complain and got no positive response to their complaint.

The follow up ‘gotcha’ about how providers are supposed to manage this and how horrendous this is for ‘cis women’….

If males with trans identities didn’t use female only provision, no females would be questioned at all. Everyone could rest assured that all present were female, regardless of gender non conformity.

Oh that's interesting. For once(!), the Scottish version seems to be better. Gratification is one element, but also if it causes humiliation, distress or alarm.

www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/9

Thank you brainworm.

That some female people accept male people in their single sex provisions is irrelevant also when you consider the principles for consent for acts involving intimate situations.

No women can consent on the behalf of other women. If one woman using that single sex provision requires it to be female only at all times, that is the minimum level for consent to be withdrawn.

On the issue of ‘some women don’t have an issue sharing’. Maybe this video provides a starting point on this.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/1984327107498164655?s=46

3 Takedowns for the argument “Some women don’t mind/You don’t speak for all women.”

Amy Sousa 31/10/2025