[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Barry.

Oh yes I worry about the men who pretend to be women to get in their prisons to abuse them, however I also feel bad for the trans woman who just wants to be them in the prison too. I see it from both sides but I don’t like that all trans women are put in the same box as those scumbags too

Agree, self ID has been a mess and has brought out the scum of society unfortunately, I can see it from both sides as well, but honestly I think bathrooms are the least of both sides issues

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

That's a problem with men though, trans women are not to blame for men lying, it's not their fault, they're being punished because of people who are taking advantage of systems that they need to live their lives and be safe.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

That's a problem with men though, trans women are not to blame for men lying, it's not their fault, they're being punished because of people who are taking advantage of systems that they need to live their lives and be safe.

You can make all the distinctions you like between men and trans women, but no matter how you feel, every single trans women ever, then, now, and in future generations start out as a man/men. I just find it completely odd how you say "well, it's men who are to blame, not trans women", biologically they're the exact same thing.

Be free, live your life, don't get me wrong, but you're looking at this whole situation from a black and white standpoint. It is a very complex situation, but at times it really isn't.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

That's a problem with men though, trans women are not to blame for men lying, it's not their fault, they're being punished because of people who are taking advantage of systems that they need to live their lives and be safe.

Transwomen are biological men though no matter how hard you try to emotionally blackmail people into a corner it's a fact that will never change. The only requirement to being a transwomen is that you're biologically male.

[Maru]

Comes a point where people really don't care what they are being called, if newly designed social conventions were needing to be forced through by law, then it was never voluntary in the first place. Government has gone too far.

[Barry.]

Oh sorry Cherie just read the that again. Some protesters are vandals, and that’s why they join in the protest

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Barry.

Oh sorry Cherie just read the that again. Some protesters are vandals, and that’s why they join in the protest

Bingo...and some are jumping on the self ID bandwagon so they can harrass women.... it needs to be stopped and hopefully the Supreme Court Judgement will achieve that..

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Barry.

Oh sorry Cherie just read the that again. Some protesters are vandals, and that’s why they join in the protest

Exactly - the same happens with every protest, they’ll be people who vandalise things because that’s what they do.

Jumping on it like some kind of point is super cheap and a silly tactic. Same as those burning things last summer, and racially abusing strangers, etc… those people just needed an excuse and a protest allowed that.

The same goes for every protest in history and every protest in the future.

[arista]

[arista]

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Express reports that campaigners
who won the landmark Supreme Court ruling
on the definition of a woman are facing a campaign
of "death threats and abuse"]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Express reports that campaigners
who won the landmark Supreme Court ruling
on the definition of a woman are facing a campaign
of "death threats and abuse"]

Are these the same people who we are told just want to live their lives quietly? Can people wake up these men are not trans per se ...and never have been

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Are these the same people who we are told just want to live their lives quietly? Can people wake up these men are not trans per se ...and never have been

I don’t know, are they the same people?

What’s your point? Radicals exist in every single demographic in life. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I don’t know, are they the same people?

What’s your point? Radicals exist in every single demographic in life. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

Are they not, why do they want them accessing womens spaces then with impunity?

Why did Kathleen Stock lose her job?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I don’t know, are they the same people?

What’s your point? Radicals exist in every single demographic in life. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

See I agree with this, but yes people are disputing it, that's the problem; it "being disputed" is a cornerstone of where the whole discussion has gone so badly south... a refusal to admit that within trans communities, there are a number of outliers/a percentage -- not the majority, but not an insignificant number -- who are NOT acting in good faith and are self-IDing as women for extremely problematic reasons and with questionable motivation, often sexual, sometimes dangerous. Acknowledging that these people exist - that "radicals" (those with motivations outside the norm, who will act in ways outside the norm) exist in all demographics. Including the trans community. And that is a risk to women's spaces that can't be simply dismissed out of hand.

I understand, but what biological differences determine this female-only space?

Is it the fact they have a penis? What is they are post-op and not longer have a penis? Is it because they don’t have the reproductive organs? If so, what about women who have had a hysterectomy? Is it because of breasts? What about women who have had a mastectomy? Or is it about chromosomes - in which case what about the people who have chromosomal anomalies like intersex people?

I’m being genuine here - if we are serious about pigeon-holing someone’s gender to their sexual/reproductive organs what about those people who no longer have those?

I understand female only spaces are important, but don’t you see how reductive it is to define a woman purely by her sexual real estate and baby-making organs?

I also agree that this ruling is not a full stop and does introduce a whole host of further questions and issues that no one has the answer to yet however I would suggest that this is an important step towards the proper conversations that need to be had about finding the best and safest way forward. This ruling is a starting point not a conclusion. Any ability to discuss these issues properly from an academic/safeguarding perspective has been "off the table" for YEARS due to, being blunt, the strict adherence to "stonewalling" tactics by the LGBTQ community when it comes to this issue, that would paint any attempt at reasonable discussion that isn't 100% unquestioningly trans-positive as "transphobic", accuracy and facts be damned. University professors with vast experience were being doxxed, harassed, threatened and sometimes fired for daring to carry out perfectly ethical research for crying out loud. The damage that has been done by these tactics is huge. Absolutely massive. It will take decades to repair. I get what you're saying about these being "outlying elements of the community" but honestly... increasingly less outlying, increasingly vocal, increasingly standard/accepted tactics and a massive mess left in their wake. You can say that you've always disagreed with those tactics but you have to acknowledge that it happened.

[arista]

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Telegraph is another paper
still leading with the fallout from the
gender ruling.
It says the prime minister has refused
to stop a plot by ministers to "thwart" the judgment.
It writes Labour ministers and MPs
will meet this week to discuss how to promote
trans rights following the landmark judgement.]

[Vicky.]

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

However, even in your example, gay spaces are rarely straight-excluding and even social clubs like LGBT sports teams are often inclusive of all (gay, straight, trans, women) and things like gay running groups, book clubs etc are done as a way to meet other gay people, rather than exclude straight people.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

I'm going to be controversial here and say that with the example of toilets/changing facilities... it's actually the other way around that the numbers need to be considered. I fully appreciate the need to consider minorities at, for example, a political representation level where the risk is being drowned out / over-ruled by majority opinion arbitrarily and without consideration, but in the case of access to public spaces and risk/comfort, the balance being towards the comfort of the people who will most commonly be using that space is ... actually the primary consideration.

It's difficult to use bathrooms and changing to illustrate this well but you can easily do it with violence against women shelters, where there needs to be a feeling of safety not only in male threats not being present, but in it being not possible for male threats to be present (the possibility is in itself a direct concern). Because 99.9% off people accessing that space will be women, coming from an abusive situation... unfortunately yes, those people do have to be the primary consideration, and that 99.9% can't be disproportionately impacted to accommodate a minority situation. I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to consider.

I would basically counter (as I usually do) that the solution is to head in the direction of individual, self-contained, securable units (toilets, changing, whatever) where this doesn't need to be a concern in the first place. The answer is not shoehorning a situation that, simply, I suspect doesn't HAVE a solution that works for everyone. It does not exist.

[arista]

This is why Tomorrow PM Starmer
should speak in an announcement in parliament
after 2:30PM

To Clarify this Mess.


Then on Weds
no one can take the Piss of him
in PMQ's

[bots]

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

[arista]

Originally Posted by bots

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

Bit late isn't it, we all know his views quiet clearly now

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Bit late isn't it, we all know his views quiet clearly now

Yes, Months back he was confused on LBC Live.


He must speak up tomorrow
or PMQ's on Weds
will take the piss him

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by bots

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

Prepare for malicious compliance.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Prepare for malicious compliance.

what a bizarre comment to make, what does malicious compliance mean?