Isn’t AGP also what every woman experiences when they get dressed up & feel good about themselves?

[Theboredpanda]

I have no agenda here. I’ve always just been interested in exploring other perspectives of debates…although I’m sure this particular thought will get flamed on here and end up very one-sided indeed 🤣
I don’t believe every trans woman has AGP, but I believe a significant proportion do. And I’ve always considered that proportion to be creepy, I feel anger at the fact these men get to walk around, at least in some circles, socially accepted as women, just so they can satisfy a sexual fetish. However, I was thinking about how I feel as a woman who’s comfortable and happy about being a woman when I get dressed up in my favourite sexy outfit and put on some makeup. It makes me feel sexy. Not sexually aroused but I do feel sexy. Is that vastly different to what a trans woman feels like when they get dressed up and look (at least in their eyes) like a woman? Could it be that it’s either not AGP and we all feel sexy when we know we look good as the gender we are or want to be…or everyone’s a bit AGP when they think they look sexy because they therefore feel sexy? Or is this a totally unoriginal thought that’s already been troped out by TRAs and actually there is a huge difference??

There's already privacy in toilets. That's what cubicles are.

Wtf does this have to do with the price of fish?

Dude... Us transmen don't pass that well at all, and even those of us who do, still know how to defuse a situation in a female way. Please don't use as a gotcha that doesn't work at all.

I think, I think, Sky is attempting to find a law that we don't agree with, so he can justify entering women's spaces...

And you are welcome in women's spaces. With all of us ultra feminine super gender conforming terfs. 😂

If a male person is in a provision that has been designated as being female single sex, then it is reasonable to believe that they made a conscious decision to enter that space knowing they were not female.

How should we describe the behaviour of a male person who knows that their presence in a female single sex provision will likely cause distress to the female people using the provision?

What reason does a male person have to enter that female single sex provision that is clearly signed in the first place?

Ooh, we've gotten to the 'look at this photo' portion! Exciting!

Go and post the photo of teeny weeny Whittle standing to the mahoosive RMW.

Go on, go on, go on....

Most men don't use the women's toilets, but some go in with their young daughters, some do it to skip a queue, some are cleaners, and some are trans who want to use the women's room. None of those things are 'transgressive'.

But according to you, people who look like men should be in there anyway. If Toilets are to only be used by biological sex, then trans men, who look very much like men often, can go in there. Meaning any man could go in and claim they are a trans man, and you'd be none the wiser. Grow up.

Weird game, but okay.

DID YOU KNOW football is technically illegal in Scotland.

You didn't answer the question of how you could tell a trans man or a man apart. Any man could walk in and you'd have no idea.

It is tea time.

Men are not allowed in women's toilets. All this was covered by the Supreme Court. Pages and pages of it. Including cleaners and men with their daughters.

Is it? Bloody hell

So what's the problem with transwomen using the men's then?

There's cubicles in there....

trans men, who look very much like men often

😂😂😂

We wish!

More specifically, I'm pointing out that making appeals to the law isn't an argument, which people here were doing. Because the law itself is often wrong. Legal status doesn;t dictate what's actually good or bad, and men and women being in the same space isn't inherently bad. Hence why unisex toilets exist, nude spaces etc.

The idea of men breaking the law and using the women's facilities to 'skip the queue' is hilarious. We all know which sex is underprovisioned.

Ah but that's the modus operandi - never admit they are wrong, reject objective evidence, avoid responding to posts that ask direct, tricky questions and throw in something irrelevant and emotive like abortion, mental health, or tell someone they are acting like 'a little prick' or 'wasting their life'...

I'm watching and almost admiring it, it's incredible how someone can be shown to be wrong and ill-informed and yet maintain an air of superiority - only they know biology and the law and ethics and even feminist history [feminists had nothing to do with the development of women's toilets, y'know!], so everything anybody else says is obviously wrong.

I've seen many that do. And certainly enough to not be thought of as female in a public toilet.

Nude beaches and resorts are places where female people and male people consent to being naked in the presence of the opposite sex, if it is mixed sex.

People who are using mixed sex toilets do so generally with the understanding that they give consent to using that provision with the opposite sex using nearby cubicles and perhaps a mixed sex community basin area. Female people collectively have not consented to using a female single sex provision with male people using that designated space that should be only female people.

No, men and women being together in a space where they've agreed to be together is not bad.

But men being in a space designated for women is at the very least antisocial and transgressive.

I too thought that many trans men and women I saw in the community passed. And then we went outside our bubble, out into the real world, and reality reasserted itself reaaaaally fast: most of them didn't pass.

It's a trick of the mind: when you meet too many trans people, your brain adjusts your expectations of what a man and a woman look like. But people who don't routinely encounter trans people don't have that bias, and they instantly clock us.

We also clock each other, which amply proves to ourselves that most of us don't pass.

I have already pointed out that once a law is in force, the argument that the law 'doesn;t dictate what's actually good or bad', or that a law is, in your opinion, 'wrong' is just that: Skywinn's opinion, which you are entitled to.

But it is just Skywinn's opinion, not the law. As I said before, good luck using that argument if you are caught breaking a law that happens to be in force in whatever country you are in 'Unhand me, Officer, this law is wrong and it doesn't dictate what is actually good or bad..'

The law is based on something other than Skywinn's opinion, disappointing thought that may be to you.

'it also raises the question for why same sex rape and assault is treated as irrelevant in the media.'

This is the old 'women do it too' fallacy.

No one denies that there are same sex attacks. However, female people commit sex offences at a far lower rate than male people.

No one denies that there is also always a risk in entering a publicly accessed single sex provision. There is no expectation to fully eliminate the risk, there is an expectation to using safeguarding policies to reduce it as much as possible though. As I pointed out previously, same sex violence most surely does happen. It is expected that a female person attacking another female person will cause less injury to their victim than if a male person was attacking them.

I'm convinced Judge Kemp is posting.