Are you tired of winning?

[FlakyRobin]

Councils aren’t going for the ‘guidance’ and it is routinely ignored by trans people. When do you expect something to change?

Three reasons why I don’t agree:

1. The golden rule of any political, marketing or public information campaign is to keep the message as simple as possible. What you propose is too detailed and unclear as a message to get across in a lot of cases. Men stay out of women’s spaces - all of them - is not only a matter of justice, it’s a far easier message to campaign on.

2. You seem to be promoting the idea that we need to be seen to conciliate these men and not to be seen as ‘asking too much’. This is just the old female conditioning of needing to please others to get whatever need - where we’re expected to be ‘nice’ as the only way we can be ‘given’ what we need. That won’t help us here, and it is ok for us to insist on our full rights, not a watered-down version we think may annoy others a bit less and appease them.

3. Not everyone agrees with you that some men are ok to be in single sex spaces if they tick certain boxes, if they look or act a certain way. I don’t agree with that, for one.

All men stay out. All of them. And it’s perfectly ok for us to demand that. It is our right that they do. And for good reason. If some don’t like us insisting on that - if they think us too assertive (‘bossy’ or ‘strident’) - then too bad. That’s just yet more misogyny in play. We don’t need to kowtow to it. On the contrary, we need to stop buying into it.

I'm sorry but I think we are a long way from winning this one.

I think the majority of the population probably don't understand why anyone is complaining about Dylan Mulvaney dressed as Audrey Hepburn using a female loo.

1. Not everyone agrees with you that some men are ok to be in single sex spaces if they tick certain boxes, if they look or act a certain way. I don’t agree with that, for one.

Can we be clear, please. While I said that wouldn't bother me, you should not take that as saying that I think it should be allowed.

I'm not promoting conciliation, I'm promoting winning, as an ex-marketeer. You have to win people's minds.

Ive just seen a clip of Vanessa Feltz speaking with Andrew Gold about trans.

I think she represents a lot of women, especially in the media, in that she just didnt want the uncomfortable conversation.

She didnt address the issue, she just kept saying 'why do you care?' and then claimed not to know enough to comment. She went from talking all over him to just not saying anything. She didnt want anyone to hear what he said. If she didnt have an opinion, why didnt she just say that from the start?

She'll have met Eddie Izzard and India Willoughby and will know that they are still men. She'll be aware of transing children and the issues behind it.

I think its ego with a lot of women. They believe themselves to be brave, speak the truth, outspoken feminists. But when they need to be brave, outspoken and prioritise women and girls, they cant because they will lose something.

Every women knows that men are likely to be bigger and stronger than them. They know skinny men who are shorter than them are also likely to be stronger. Even women who lift weights will find it difficult to fight off men to attack them unexpectedly.

I dont think women need to be forced to picture it, they know.

I understand what you’re saying, but the problem to me with that approach is that if ‘brick shithouse in a frock’ isn’t someone’s experience of transwomen and/or they don’t see themselves as a petite little thing who needs protection then that is counter productive. It just looks like you are using extreme examples. Ultimately this isn’t about individuals, brick shithouses or not, it’s about classes of people, namely male people.

I read your posts and am very clear on what you think, just not sure why you think this is a good idea to run as a message, then, an approach that isn’t the consensus?

As an ex marketing person, why do you think a less clear message is the way to go? And what makes you think the message you suggest chimes more with most people, in any case?

Combative martial arts trained women could outfight most men

that’s utter Hollywood bollocks

I’m speechless.

One of the challenges is that increasingly people's experience is of the vulnerable, mentally unwell teenager / young person who's been gaslit into believing their body is wrong and a sex change is the solution for them.
The vulnerability of this group is very evident. That's why this has to be tackled with a multi faceted approach.
Straightforward issues like women's sport has been much easier because of the evidenced advantage most men have over women physically and that this was s a one way trend - men taking over women's sport but never women colonising mens.
But as we see daily on here, the same issues are raised / dismissed / argued /agreed on repeatedly. It's tedious but essential.
I really wish there was a "magic bullet" that would end all this - but after over a decade of active involvement, I've yet to see it.

I disagree, the argument has been won, it's just petulant kidults who won't accept that, those who have set too much store in a manufactured identity can't let go of being wrong.

I think the majority of the population don't even know there was an argument about men not going into the ladies loo, because duh of course they shouldn't be doing that.

The difference between an inclusive toilet and a non inclusive toilet is that you cannot object to anyone using an inclusive toilet, so it doesn't matter how anyone identifies.

It’s so much more than that.

Single sex designs in single sex washrooms have been made ‘inclusive’ by changing cubicles to be private from floor to ceiling - these are unregulated designs. Due to manipulating quirks in exemptions in toilet regulation, similar designs have happened in uk schools because the recent fashion has been for the washroom has been left open to all.

The practical difference between a traditional single sex toilet and an ‘inclusive’ toilet in health and safety terms is that the ‘inclusive’ one lacks ventilation, can’t be cleaned as easily, is easier to get trapped in, can’t show who’s or how many people are in it, can’t show who’s outside the door to the occupant, can’t alert anyone to medical emergencies and doesn’t act as a deterrent to misuse in the first place.

These type of ‘inclusive’ designs are a bodge. They are the opposite of inclusive. Healthy men are the least affected. I have looked into the origin of these designs. I have NEVER found a risk assessment done on taking out the door gap, not even when I asked the Department of Education - they couldn’t find one. Unsurprisingly, it seems everyone can agree privacy is vital in a mixed sex space and that trumps health and safety.

A female trained in martial arts will almost normally be able to disable an unarmed man who is not

you keep saying this

it runs totally counter to common sense and my experience, so I will need to see some decent evidence before I believe a word of it

@Imdunfer look at my picture above. Anyone at their most vulnerable (man, woman or child) benefits from a design that is only permitted in a single sex environment.

Polling supports this.

Yes. Take the actual experience of the women who live locally to me. There are three men who present in women's clothing, often seen in the street, shops, dentists etc. There's no knowing what they might identify themselves as, and to women who may find themselves in an enclosed space where they're planning to use a toilet cubicle, what's happening inside the man's head is of zero relevance to the women's experience.

All three are middle aged rather than cute teens. One will have a mini skirt hoiked up more or less to his waist but is quiet, appropriate, smiles at you (actual smile, not leer), probably a man that women would feel less threatened by.

Another is over six foot and dresses as a seven year old little girl, complete with school uniform and plastic hairclips. Everyone pretends not to notice, also quiet and appropriate otherwise, but he is a man with obvious problems and women have the 'don't get involved/get into a small space with a man with issues' instinct for a reason. Many wouldn't be comfortable in an enclosed space with him.

The third has obvious and major mental health issues, is frequently seen screaming misogynist abuse if anyone dares to displease him by breathing in the wrong way, and is an obvious enormous, unstable, dangerous male. You'd have to be mad to go into an enclosed space where he was.

The whole problem is, you don't get to pick and choose.

They'll all be fine in the mixed sex provision, so will the women who are convinced they're fine until they'll one day discover they're suddenly not. But its ok, as women with more of a grip and common sense will have hung onto a single sex space for them to retreat to.

Emotional reasoning. Which is to say, sentiment based on no reasoning at all.

The argument in its entirety is 'aŵwwwwww'.

The basis is ' I am a good kind person who does as she's told'

The SC was won because of existing laws, women needing single sex spaces and knowing its impossible to change sex.

Why would we ignore all of this, and start arguing from a different perspective?

If some women want to believe that some men should be women and be in female only spaces, it up to them to make the case.

They are going to have to define women, their needs and what these spaces will look like.

If females can be male, and males can be female, how are two spaces needed and what will they look like?

Absolutely.

No need for anyone to tie themselves in knots like this.

If some women want spaces they can share with some men, then unisex spaces already fulfil that function. If people feel we need more of them, then they can campaign for that.

So long as women’s single sex provision remains protected.

Their problem will come down to:

if you have a mixed sex space, where women who consent and men who don't want to use men's single sex spaces can all go and have a lovely time together -

why are you obsessed with forcing non consenting women to lose their single sex space? When this will significantly affect their inclusion, their accessibility, their wellbeing? When it's perfectly reasonable to expect their wishes and identities and needs to be equal to those of men who choose gender identities?

It doesn't have any legal leg to stand on.

No legal, moral, nor logical leg to stand on.

A man and a woman in a fighting contest is not the sort of scenario most women will be confronted by. Attacks or assaults are often random and unexpected.

It is you who is attemptng to find the odd scenario in which a woman could physically disable or over-power a man - and then using it to suggest that arguments predicated on superior male strength are verging on hysterical.

I suggest you are wrong on that. Most people are not involved in on line political debates, and everyone of them knows the difference between male and female, and they understand full well the reasons we have single sex facilities. Women especially.

The argument is won. It was always going to be won......for the reason that the whole trans agenda had been slipped in under the radar without much or any public consciousness of it at all. That has now changed. It has become an issue that most people will now have a view on. Most people are not 'identifying' themselves as trans allies or marching at Pride. They work in hairdressing salons; in the local supermarket; they are tradesmen; nurses; stay at home mothers; retirees; running catering companies; teaching in schools; gym instructors; restaurant staff.....Not everyone is a metropolitan social justice warrior or party activist.

I don’t see why what women trained in martial arts can or can’t do helps any argument. Most women aren’t trained in martial arts, so end of story.

Moat women armed with a hand gun could, in the right circumstances, shoot any man dead in an instant. But obviously most women aren’t armed with handguns either, so…

I suspect that TIMs outnumber women trained in martial arts.