The myth of 'bathroom bans' harming 'cis' women

[ItsCoolForCats]

What can we do to put this nonsense to bed?

Marie Goldman, the Lib Dem MP, has written to Bridget Phillipson about the leaked EHRC code of practice, and has posted this on her Facebook page:

"Imagine being turned away from a bathroom, a hospital, or even a cinema just for “not looking female enough”.

That’s exactly what the leaked EHRC guidance on single-sex services could lead to. Along with over 40 Lib Dem colleagues, I’ve written to the Minister for Women & Equalities to raise serious concerns.

The draft could have staff questioning anyone’s sex based on appearance and refusing access if there’s any doubt. That risks putting trans and non-binary people – and all women and girls – in unsafe, humiliating situations.

It’s confusing, unworkable for businesses, and a backward step for equality. We urgently need new, inclusive, practical guidance that protects everyone’s rights, safety, and dignity".

The comments under her post are pretty wild (with a smattering of common sense). And when you click on the profile pictures of some of the 'women' claiming this will harm 'cis' women and is unenforceable, it is apparent within half a second of looking at their profile pictures that they are male. And of course there are the usual compliant women saying it's "cis het" men that are the issue.

Why can't people see this for what is? Emotional manipulation and blackmail designed to allow men to keep accessing women's single sex spaces. I find it astonishing that intelligent people fall for this.

The ONLY reason there is any suggesting of women being turned away for not looking feminine enough is because MEN try to access women’s spaces. If all men, regardless of how they identified, stayed out of women’s spaces then there would be no need to ‘police’ them. The problem is men.

I'm always baffled by this.
It also correlates interestingly I think with the historical arguments to the effect of 'some women find eg voting or working or travelling far from home stressful so no woman should put herself through that...best to leave those things to the men'. There's a very obvious regressiveness to the entire movement that is so obvious I am constantly astounded that some can't see it.

Agree @Legobricksinatub

Loath as I am to engage with the midnight howler, the only reason people started searching Katie Ledecky was because of William "Lia" Thomas

Don't know why. Ledecky was a successful swimmer and Thomas couldn't even beat RG.

Does it need explaining?

Think the issue was Thomas claiming to be a woman, stealing places and prizes from women swimmers and then allegedly committing indecent exposure / voyeurism in the women's changing room.

No to all of it.

Why the heck do we need an expensive and long drawn out government investigation into why some TIM allegedly don’t feel safe in mens toilets? Sorry guys, but the bloody obvious reason (you can have it for free) is exactly the same as why women don’t feel safe when men muscle in on our toilets, it’s because some men, not all , are aggressive and nasty , and I am including here the TIM who think they are entitled to use womens toilets.

So really the question should be what are the nice men doing about making sure that TIM are comfortable using mens toilets so they can stay the fuck out of ours.

I would personally not be offended by the question. It’s being asked in order to keep other women safe.

So, more women are now so on edge in public toilets in case there are men dressed as women in there that they are accusing other women with short hair and trousers of being male.

I would suggest that the answer to this is to make it 100% clear that men (including those who identify as trans women) do not have the legal right to use female single sex spaces.

And if the politicians eventually decide to get alongside the law and make it clear that this is the law and has always been the law, women will then be able to feel less hyper-vigilant when using public single sex spaces.

I do not see how allowing men into female spaces will make the majority of women feel any safer. Women are saying no to this and the law says no to this.

For some reason, responses like yours, MagpiePi's and lots of other women saying it's happened to them and was no biggie are ignored. As if they aren't valid. It's strange. As if tras can't believe you're not traumatised by it.

If it does happen, on the very odd occasion, then that will be down to the years of confusion on 'Sex' and 'Gender' sown by trans ideology.

When clarity is achieved and when we get back to officially recognising that 'female only' means just that, then it is less likely to happen. It used to be very obvious that males were not permitted in female only facilities, and when a man did try to enter he would be confronted and/or asked to leave.

But how can we tell?

I promise the photo is undoctored, it can be found on Ms Webberley's Twitter page

I am.
And I have been trying to get everyone else to as well.

We have laws against people under 18 buying cigarettes or alcohol.

Often it’s difficult to tell whether a young person is under 18 or over 18.

Amazingly, we don’t throw our hands up in despair and decide there’s no point in having laws prohibiting under 18s buying cigarettes or alcohol.

Instead we implement a system whereby shopkeepers are required to ask for ID. It’s not perfect, but it mostly works.

In reality, for 99% of women all you need is to hear them speak to know they are a woman, the one thing transwomen can't fake properly is an actual women's voice.

The law is clear, females in the ladies toilets, males in the gents. All transpeople go to the toilet of their sex (which cant change).

Men need to learn to deal with people with different hair, clothes, shape from themselves.

Toilets are safe... very small numbers of assaults or rapes occur in them (recent foi confirmed this I believe.)

Agree. To me, there are 3 definite giveaways:

1 Voice
2 Behaviour
3 ...not going to type it here in case there are any TRAs reading. But it's not what you think it is. We see you!

Here is Adrian Ramsey from the Greens with a TIM (pic should upload shortly). Any women with functioning eyesight can see at a glance that this person is male.

Adrian seems to have retreated from his previous, more sensible position on this issue, presumably because he is worried about the popularity of Zack Polanski amongst Green voters. This picture was accompanied by a tweet saying they the interim guidance was too rushed. I don't for a second think that Adrian Ramsey believes the man standing next to him is a woman.

When I was younger with short hair I was asked if I was in the right toilet a few times - but that's all it was, just asking, and it was all fine when I answered.

It's a weird idea that the solution to the occasional question is to let any bloke who wants to into the ladies in case the occasional woman is mistaken for a bloke. The idea that making the toilet mixed sex is better than trying to make them single sex.

I've seen a bloke in the ladies, who'd just taken a wrong turn since the symbols were less than obvious and he was indeed mistakenly in the wrong place, and was grateful and a bit embarrassed when I pointed out the mens was the other way.

No, that is not it. The only lack of safety they feel is in not having their fantasies validated

It almost makes you wonder how butch or androgynous women managed to use public toilets in the days before males started intruding....

I have very broad shoulders and in my 20s I often wore a tweed hacking jacket, which accentuated this.

I was called "Sir" by a ticket inspector on a train. I had very short hair at the time and, approaching me from behind, his error was perfectly understandable. I turned, smiled and the poor man was so embarrassed I, otoh, was totally unphased. Misgendering is of no significance when you're not trying to misrepresent yourself.

This whole business is pathetic. We've been talking about the need to keep men - trans-identifying or otherwise - out of women's spaces for many years. The response of the trans activists was always to squeal that the only way to enforce this would be "genital inspections" at the door. The horror!

Now it's been pointed out that, actually, there are no genital inspections, but that it's reasonable for women to simply challenge someone who looks male - because if they look male, they probably are male - they're squealing about that too.

Given that they squeal about both the most invasive and the least invasive test of identifying whether someone is male, it's clear that what they want is no test at all: they simply think that any male should have the right to walk unchallenged into women's spaces.

They are despicable.

I know a few very non feminine looking women. Taller than average, broad shoulders, short hair, deeper voices. There is no way anyone would ever question their right to be in the ladies though - because it’s blatantly obvious they are women!
I find it hard to believe that any women routinely get questioned about their right to use the ladies.

Totally this. I am female, but don’t look feminine really. I blame genetics (but really it’s because I love cutting my own hair 😂). I am challenged often, however this has only really happened more in the last couple of years! So obviously since the massive increase in men trying to use women’s spaces.

For the record I really don’t care - I’d far rather I was challenged and that women feel confident to speak up about protecting our rights.