Loads of women are predators and molesters but most people will be abused by someone they know personally, the whole abusive man dressed as a woman predator thing is almost unheard of compared to cis presenting abusers, I don't see it as an argument.

Yes it can be a struggle for many including women so don't write off our struggles, its not a competition, some straight men are struggling as well, labelling people as big terfs or whatever is not the way to end struggles, its just creates tension, animosity and more struggle

Not in this context, for instance transmen in sport, they are not going to worry men born as men if they compete against them in most physical sports now are they?

there aren't many (if any) refuges for abused men?

But women abuse too type arguments..just don't work. Yeah, some women do. That doesn't mean we remove safeguards that stop abuse from men though. Thats just..nonsense. And a rather dangerous way to think

Yes more people will be abused by someone they know. This does not mean we make stranger attacks easier.

I also challenge 'loads of women' in sexual assault/rape type situations.The risk of a female being dodgy is.. minuscule, in comparison to a male. Not non existant. But..much less likely.


That said^, it also doesn't mean we should leave transwomen at the mercy of men either. But the solutions, simply cannot just place women at risk. There are solutions that help transwomen while still safeguarding women. Yet, such solutions are bigoted to even try to find. Why is this?

There have been, but demand is not as high so they tend to fold. Theres a fair few mixed sex refuges though. Not sure if male only ones exist now. Refuges ar very much supply and demand.

Bu the mixed sex ones are not 'the problem'. The 'female only' ones are the bigoted ones, and are as such relentlessly targeted. As theres no conceivable situation where a female might need to be surrounded by female people, where even seeing a male person could trigger a fear response.

(Search vancouver rape relief for a very current example of this targetting. Despite 3 (? something like that, possibly more) other rape crisis centres in the area being mixed sex, one female only one existing was deemed a problem. And has had nonestop abuse since, including defunding for refusing to admit male bodied people, or accept male people as STAFF. Abuse includes dead rats nailed to the door. True story) (The staff issue is here, summarized anyway - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimber...pe_Relief_case Presented without comment.)

Time to leave again now anyway. Threads come the full circle once 'but women abuse too' is trotted out in comparison to the 98% of sex attacks by males. But to compare female abusers to males, and think its anywhere near the same league, is pure fantasy.

But Niamh how many dad's would go into a woman's toilet with his child , I've never seen it happen. They feel out of place and awkward about it as they don't want to offend .

And we all know if this was about a trans man being able to use male toilets , I doubt they'd be a big fuss .

And some women cross boundaries and go into men's toilet's , I remember seeing a nightclub documentary about toilet attendants and she ignored him when he told her she shouldn't be in there .

OK? I'm not sure what any of that really has to do with the debate either way [emoji23]

Sorry just your point about transmen though, generally speaking women are not much of a threat to men, this is why women's spaces are more focused on than mens in this debate

I was just replying to what you said , it's still on topic . The point I was making is people will always feel more uncomfortable when it comes to women's spaces and female toilets, more so than male spaces and men's toilets .

There was a trans woman prisoner who still got sent to a male prison despite everything.

Of course they will because unfortunately men have always been more of a threat to women than the other way round.

Yes there was a similar case in Ireland, its madness

I'm sorry but the vast, vast majority of physical abusers are male... Like it's not even comparable. Everyone should be aware of that, it doesn't just affect women... It's men abusing women, men abusing transwomen, men in gay relationships abusing other men... It just... Is.

That's not to say that women can't be abusive or that men can't experience abuse but the vast majority of that abuse is of a psychological/coercive nature and there's no real physical threat.

And that's not even saying that one is necessarily "worse" than the other; psychological abuse can be devastating.

HOWEVER, one requires literal safe physical spaces and one requires purely emotional/practical intervention so it's not really part of the discussion. When abusive men come after their partners for leaving, those partners all too often end up raped, assaulted, or dead. It's offensive to make it a direct comparison to be honest.

Nobody's talking about trans abusers. They're talking about abusers taking advantage of loopholes. Cis men fully included in that.

That's why I think more private cubicles is the way forward like with disable toilets, but I don't think many places will do that.

Gyms definitely won't , they'll always have men's & women's changing rooms. So people will always feel uncomfortable .

Well of course changing room should be separated by biological sex. A male has no place in a women's changing room, unless he's mopping the floors out of hours.

So why should we remove safeguards for trans people because there are abusive cis men

No-one's said such safeguards should be removed. But sacrificing sex-based safeguards for gender identity essentially removes safeguards for women.

Where has that been suggested on the thread?

If you consider transwomen are not women and you're basing that on the consideration that only biology determines a sex/gender.

But biology or the body you're born in or genitalia or physical characteristics are not the only components of defining sex/gender.

Look at how many countries that no longer require sex reassignment surgeries as a condition for a gender change on legal documents (out of those, some still require a person to be childless or unmarried; some require hormone therapy but not SRS).
Do you mean they're all wrong and put women at risk?
If I follow the logic to only consider biological characteristics, same transwomen who went through surgery must still be denied access to women's toilets?

I'm not trying to argue here, I just don't follow the logic because it's always the "transgender people have different biological characteristics" that is thrown at them as if they didn't know that already in an attempt to either not be accepting or not moving forward in the discussion, or both. Gender goes way beyond that.

For instance, The World Health Organization and other institutions issued a joint statement in 2014, noting that the requirement to undergo sterilization surgeries as a prerequisite to receiving gender-affirmative treatment and gender-marker changes "run counter to respect for bodily integrity, self-determination and human dignity, and can cause and perpetuate discrimination against transgender and intersex persons."

And so on the basis that transwomen are women and a vast majority of them is not meant to be harmful to say "natural born women" in same sex places, I'm pretty sure a common ground can be found and a war between womens rights and trans rights doesn't have to happen. Both have been allies for so long.

PS: I mention transwomen here because it seems to be a bigger issue than transmen whom are seen as less dangerous in the context of unisex toilets or same sex places for instance.

Only biology does decide sex though Remy. You're speaking like sex and gender are the same thing. The truth is women have always been discriminated against/at a disadvantage because of their sex because of their biology, thats an absolute fact, not a matter of opinion

I don't recall saying they are not being discriminated against? That's not what I meant.

I specifically say sex and gender in the same sentence because that's the feel I got from reading some comments here and out there that biology defines both...which it doesn't.

Sex is male or female, gender being man or woman. And also everything in between (intersex or people with a difference of sexual development for instance)
Some believe genitals determine sex, with males having penises and females having vaginas. However, this definition excludes many cases.
Trans people often have chromosomes that don’t “match” their sex. A transgender woman, for example, can be female but still have XY chromosomes.

So just basing sex and/or gender just on the biological aspect of it is risky and counter-productive. Sex may be far more complex than what the traditional male-female binary accounts for.

Again, not arguing or calling people names. I'm trying to understand some logic here (ie should transwomen who went through surgery must still be denied access to women's toilets? etc)

No, transwomen are male.

No. Biology determines sex. Gender is a separate issue.

Changing rooms/sports are separated by sex.

It’s a good idea as long as there is a system in place that qualifies as a procedure for identifying. It can’t be a snap of the fingers kinda thing. I wanna see a few years of medically invested interest first or something similar.

Transwomen would also be welcome to male facilities. This isn’t a woman vs man thing. This is just justice to those forced to be part of an area they feel as if they don’t belong in.

So to you a transwomen who went through sex reassignment surgery (if she decides to do so, because it's not even mandatory in the UK anylonger) still should not be able to go in womens toilets and locker rooms?
Meaning that she is fully legally a woman but still has to go into mens toilets because she was originally born into a man's body. Just wondering.

It's not really for me to make that decision as I am a man and it does not affect me in the slightest.

I would say someone who has undergone a full transition via surgery is a completely different idea to "self ID" which is becoming more and more prevalent. It's this "self ID" which opens itself up for easy manipulation and is a danger to both cis women and transwomen.

If I had to come up with the solution, the most common sense approach would be individual bathroom stalls so that everyone is catered for and has their safety and privacy prioritised. That actually takes into account all groups of people, rather than prioritising one over another.

Edit -
I don't think anyone has suggested that because women want to protect their own sex-based rights that it automatically means putting transwomen in men's locker rooms. That's just your assumption.

I wouldn't have an issue with a transwoman who has had the surgery using female changing rooms, I would have an issue with someone with male parts using female changing rooms. The biggest issue is self ID really which is wide open for abuse

Yes absolutely

And I haven't suggested that either. Just wondering and asking a question because there seems to be a difference to some people whether transgender people went through surgery or not, which in many countries is not required.

Well, that's exactly what has kickstarted the discussions over the last few years, including the JK Rowling controversy.

AFAIK, and correct me if I'm wrong, but transwomen ALREADY use women's facilities and there is (aside from your transphobic minority) no issue with that. The issue is now with men "self ID-ing" as transwomen. Which isn't about transwomen at all, but about how it's open to abuse by men.

It might be wide open for abuse indeed and your concerns are legit. And really having worked with transgender people in different LGBT+ charities for many years, nobody (or almost) would go through all the discrimination, all the stigma, the pain, the attacks etc "just to be abuse the system".

It's incredibly hard to be trans these days (and so is being a woman in so many cases unfortunately), and some feel more comfortable not going under surgery while some think it's acceptable to them.
Regulations around the world tend to follow the principle of not having surgery (but still having a medical check etc) to proceed to legal change.

That's just what I am saying, that a few cases of abuse should not just close the discussion completely in the eyes of officials whereas many solutions can be found. Unisex toilets with cubicles are a good example of that.

To be fair I'm not really on board when it comes to actual reassignment surgery being "a requirement", as it's a major body modification and not a simple procedure at all, I'd stop short of that in terms of what should be considered transition. I do think there should be a robust process otherwise, though. I know that's often not the most popular stance and it's often compared to things like, "what if people said that about homosexuality?" but it's really not directly comparable at all, specifically because of the things being discussed (such as access to sex-segregated spaces).

Do I imagine there are large numbers of people out there who would go through an entire transition process with abusing the system in mind, or to get at ex partners in refuges? No, that would be utterly insane, and if someone is that far gone then really there are bigger things to worry about with them.

But do I think if it's possible to simply declare one's gender and then be granted immediate access to women's spaces, a LOT of predatory men will do just that? Honestly, yes, I am utterly certain that they will.

I actually feel slightly envious of people who think that the sort of mindset that would be required for that is "vanishingly rare" ... I wish I still believed that about the world. It is not rare, at all, and you would be absolutely gobsmacked at the number of abusers out there who go to far greater lengths than that for access... everywhere, every day.

I think it's important to note that very few people are saying "Transpeople are dangerous pervs!!", and certainly no one here. It's more just pointing out the hard reality that individuals who are NOT trans will happily take advantage of trans rights if it is at all possible to do so, and so knowing that, caution becomes absolutely essential. And I have serious questions for anyone who is willing to ignore real-world risks or even refuse to consider them.

Unfortunately it's more than you can imagine, or even I imagined before working in LGBT+ shelters and charities. It's scary, the transphobia is real out there. People getting attacked or killed for living true to who they really are is always hearbreaking.
I'm not trans, I'm a happy cis man but I feel for them or for any minority out there that must face so much hatred on daily basis.

So do fat people...

What I mean by that is that there will be fat vulnerable women being physically and emotionally attacked by weasly little men ***** on an hourly basis.

...I hadn’t realised that any plans in the U.K. to allow Self ID have been dropped by the government... which hopefully will help to allay some of the safe guarding concerns, largely focused on Self IDing....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-b528630.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...r-trans-people

If she looks so cute in the dress, why hide it with her hair?

What does turf mean?

Intersexuality..

Mr Biden likes children and other things and has now covered his back.