[Vicky.]

There also this in the swimming guidance

When offering single-sex sessions in your timetable, remember that you must enable trans swimmers to attend the sessions they would like to according to their gender identity, which may take some initial support and some education with other centre users.

HOWEVER, the guidance states that they should offer trans only swimming sessions also.

Its all contradictory nonsense. I am sick of having to post about stuff like this because honestly, to me saying a person with a penis is a man, is the same as saying water is wet or fire is hot.

Edit. I kind of want to make this into another thread now, as its important, again. But...too many trans threads?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

There also this in the swimming guidance



HOWEVER, the guidance states that they should offer trans only swimming sessions also.

Its all contradictory nonsense. I am sick of having to post about stuff like this because honestly, to me saying a person with a penis is a man, is the same as saying water is wet or fire is hot.

Edit. I kind of want to make this into another thread now, as its important, again. But...too many trans threads?

I don't think it's too !any threads if it's a fresh angle on an important discussion that needs to be had.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I don't think it's too !any threads if it's a fresh angle on an important discussion that needs to be had.

I think it's a very important issue to discuss right now aswell, specifically to make people aware of the differences between transgender and transsexual and changes they're trying to make. I wouldn't have known anything about all this only for Vicky

[Mystic Mock]

But no if they've got a penis they're still a man and therefore they should not be in women's clinics or prisons or whatever single sex thing that we're talking about. It's crazy that the Government sees this as more important than women's safety.

[Vicky.]

Interesting. India disagrees with female only spaces, but India supports 'trans only spaces'

https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/...18763378053120

So she accepts that at some points, certain groups may need space away from one another. But does not think female people should ever be able to be away from male ones, even when traumatized and escaping male violence

[Vicky.]

I will do this in a day or so, as I started a thread this morning about trans stuff too. Many people are about to wake up to it, if the Commonwealth games is quite as popular as Gavin says it is

[user104658]

Being totally honest here... I do understand people's issue with this but then I also think there's an element of hysteria surrounding it. Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces IS open to abuse and does make it POSSIBLE for devious individuals to gain access to commit a crime. However, the idea that suddenly there are going to be countless men swaggering into female toilets swinging their dicks and shouting "I'm a woman too!" is ... well ... just a tad over the top. Realistically, it's not going to happen very often. Also realistically, if a predator is determined enough to attack a woman that he would pose as a transgendered individual to get into a women's bathroom and attack someone... then I don't think NOT allowing trans people in women's bathrooms is exactly going to stop that individual? I mean... the bathrooms don't have invisible penis detecting forcefields around them... and an attack either way could only occur in a relatively quiet / isolated place. Where a man could just walk in anyway? They're not going to head towards a women's bathroom, see the sign that says "ladies" and say "Well darn, I'm not a lady so I can't go in! No sexual assault for me today I guess".

In short... I suppose... a predator looking to attack someone is probably going to attack someone. I really, genuinely, don't think many will be putting on dresses to descend on public toilets en masse.

Likewise the women's refuge thing, I feel like in that situation it shouldn't be particularly difficult to weed out the genuine victims from the potential predators. A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah. Again it's possible, but the likelihood of it is so low that any genuine fear of it happening can only be grossly exaggerated.

But basically my thoughts are that people these days are getting so caught up in legislation that no one knows how to use common sense any more .

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Being totally honest here... I do understand people's issue with this but then I also think there's an element of hysteria surrounding it. Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces IS open to abuse and does make it POSSIBLE for devious individuals to gain access to commit a crime. However, the idea that suddenly there are going to be countless men swaggering into female toilets swinging their dicks and shouting "I'm a woman too!" is ... well ... just a tad over the top. Realistically, it's not going to happen very often. Also realistically, if a predator is determined enough to attack a woman that he would pose as a transgendered individual to get into a women's bathroom and attack someone... then I don't think NOT allowing trans people in women's bathrooms is exactly going to stop that individual? I mean... the bathrooms don't have invisible penis detecting forcefields around them... and an attack either way could only occur in a relatively quiet / isolated place. Where a man could just walk in anyway? They're not going to head towards a women's bathroom, see the sign that says "ladies" and say "Well darn, I'm not a lady so I can't go in! No sexual assault for me today I guess".

In short... I suppose... a predator looking to attack someone is probably going to attack someone. I really, genuinely, don't think many will be putting on dresses to descend on public toilets en masse.

Likewise the women's refuge thing, I feel like in that situation it shouldn't be particularly difficult to weed out the genuine victims from the potential predators. A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah. Again it's possible, but the likelihood of it is so low that any genuine fear of it happening can only be grossly exaggerated.

But basically my thoughts are that people these days are getting so caught up in legislation that no one knows how to use common sense any more .

This is true. And the request is so simple! No penises in a women only space.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Being totally honest here... I do understand people's issue with this but then I also think there's an element of hysteria surrounding it. Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces IS open to abuse and does make it POSSIBLE for devious individuals to gain access to commit a crime. However, the idea that suddenly there are going to be countless men swaggering into female toilets swinging their dicks and shouting "I'm a woman too!" is ... well ... just a tad over the top. Realistically, it's not going to happen very often. Also realistically, if a predator is determined enough to attack a woman that he would pose as a transgendered individual to get into a women's bathroom and attack someone... then I don't think NOT allowing trans people in women's bathrooms is exactly going to stop that individual? I mean... the bathrooms don't have invisible penis detecting forcefields around them... and an attack either way could only occur in a relatively quiet / isolated place. Where a man could just walk in anyway? They're not going to head towards a women's bathroom, see the sign that says "ladies" and say "Well darn, I'm not a lady so I can't go in! No sexual assault for me today I guess".

In short... I suppose... a predator looking to attack someone is probably going to attack someone. I really, genuinely, don't think many will be putting on dresses to descend on public toilets en masse.

Likewise the women's refuge thing, I feel like in that situation it shouldn't be particularly difficult to weed out the genuine victims from the potential predators. A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah. Again it's possible, but the likelihood of it is so low that any genuine fear of it happening can only be grossly exaggerated.

But basically my thoughts are that people these days are getting so caught up in legislation that no one knows how to use common sense any more .

How many times does it need to happen to matter? How much collateral damage is acceptable here? And ignoring this, women want spaces where male people are not. I am sure some male people would not be thrilled changing clothes infront of female people either.

And yes, predators are going to be predators. So why on earth make things easier for them?

Basically this does sound like..women are just being hysterical about nothing.

Do you disagree with sex segregation fullstop?

Finally this is about 'self identified' people. No changes required at all. So a predator wouldn't even have to put on a dress...

Like yes, in theory, allowing transexuals access to female only spaces

Its nothing to do with transsexuals. It is literally about any man. Any one. Dysphoria or not.

[bots]

It's fundamentally wrong to make a group more vulnerable for the sake of (dare i say it) political correctness. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If these were not already vulnerable people, I could perhaps agree that it may not be a common place occurrence, but even 1 occurrence is too many when referring to the recovering and vulnerable.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It's fundamentally wrong to make a group more vulnerable for the sake of (dare i say it) political correctness. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If these were not already vulnerable people, I could perhaps agree that it may not be a common place occurrence, but even 1 occurrence is too many when referring to the recovering and vulnerable.

Exactly.

Just going back to TSs points though about that sexual abusers will find away regardless and why would they bother going to those lengths

Look at how many paedophiles seek out jobs involving easy access to children? priests for example, you would think no one would go so far as to join the priesthood but they did

[Vicky.]

A common sense approach SHOULD be totally fine - "passing" females should be accepted. The idea that a sexual predator is going to have hormone therapy, dress and live their life as a woman, then pose as a domestic abuse victim... all for the chance to access and try to attack someone in a monitored / populated / staffed refuge... well yeah.

Its not about people who are transitioning/have transitioned. Who would already have a GRC. And are already allowed to use, and work in refuges.

Its about anyone 'self identifying' their sex. Which is clearly nonsense.

Common sense has indeed gone out of the window when someone can wake up one day, tick a box on a form and 'be' the opposite sex.

[user104658]

I don't know that any of it does make people literally more vulnerable, though, certainly there's no evidence beyond assumption that it does. Although it obviously hasn't been examined enough to know either way. On the issue of refuges, I find the scenario of a man posing as identifying as female in order to access and assault someone in a women's refuge, whilst technically possible, to be highly unrealistic. Likewise, I find it extremely unlikely that predators will take it as an invitation to walk into women's bathrooms with the intent of committing a crime.

So in terms of literal physical safety... no I don't think there's any real evidence that it would make women less safe. If a bathroom is isolated enough that a woman would be unsafe in this scenario, then it's isolated enough that a man could just walk in anyway "allowed" or otherwise.

HOWEVER if we are talking about the right to comfort and privacy, which of course everyone also is entitled to, then yes I can completely see where you're coming from. I suppose I just feel like it might be a better platform to work from overall; that women are STILL entitled to a private space regardless of any actual safety concern. Because there's a huge focus on the "all the men will pretend to be transgender so that they can go around raping everyone!" angle which, again, is actually not particularly realistic and therefore sort of easy to argue against.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know that any of it does make people literally more vulnerable, though, certainly there's no evidence beyond assumption that it does. Although it obviously hasn't been examined enough to know either way. On the issue of refuges, I find the scenario of a man posing as identifying as female in order to access and assault someone in a women's refuge, whilst technically possible, to be highly unrealistic. Likewise, I find it extremely unlikely that predators will take it as an invitation to walk into women's bathrooms with the intent of committing a crime.

So in terms of literal physical safety... no I don't think there's any real evidence that it would make women less safe. If a bathroom is isolated enough that a woman would be unsafe in this scenario, then it's isolated enough that a man could just walk in anyway "allowed" or otherwise.

HOWEVER if we are talking about the right to comfort and privacy, which of course everyone also is entitled to, then yes I can completely see where you're coming from. I suppose I just feel like it might be a better platform to work from overall; that women are STILL entitled to a private space regardless of any actual safety concern. Because there's a huge focus on the "all the men will pretend to be transgender so that they can go around raping everyone!" angle which, again, is actually not particularly realistic and therefore sort of easy to argue against.

TS, you are not looking at this from the position of the vulnerable but rather those that would infringe on them, and there in lies the issue.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

TS, you are not looking at this from the position of the vulnerable but rather those that would infringe on them, and there in lies the issue.

Exactly.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

TS, you are not looking at this from the position of the vulnerable but rather those that would infringe on them, and there in lies the issue.

No I'm just looking from the perspective of realistic outcome, like I said in the last paragraph... if it's an issue of comfort, then I totally understand where people are coming from. With regards to the refuge issue, do I believe that a man could access a women's refuge and actually assault someone? No... nor do I believe that it's likely that anyone would try. A predator isn't going to construct an elaborate scheme to wriggle their way into a situation where they're highly likely to be caught. Literal physical safety, I don't believe would be affected. But like you say - from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked. "You're not at any risk!" isn't enough... in fact, I am totally on board with the idea that anxiety and fear can actually be far worse than physical injury in many ways.

Same goes for bathrooms. I don't believe assaults are the likely outcome, but women feeling uncomfortable (and potentially, even choosing NOT to use public restrooms at all) is a very possible outcome and that shouldn't be ignored, either.

When it comes right down to it though, on that front... my local shopping mall has a large toilets area, no mens, no womens, no disabled: Just a long row of individual locking rooms that have a toilet, sink, baby change and disabled facilities, in every one. IMO that is the way forward in terms of both safety and inclusion... and in fact just in terms of general privacy for everyone. It's MUCH better. Awesome for families, too.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No I'm just looking from the perspective of realistic outcome, like I said in the last paragraph... if it's an issue of comfort, then I totally understand where people are coming from. With regards to the refuge issue, do I believe that a man could access a women's refuge and actually assault someone? No... nor do I believe that it's likely that anyone would try. A predator isn't going to construct an elaborate scheme to wriggle their way into a situation where they're highly likely to be caught. Literal physical safety, I don't believe would be affected. But like you say - from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked. "You're not at any risk!" isn't enough... in fact, I am totally on board with the idea that anxiety and fear can actually be far worse than physical injury in many ways.

Same goes for bathrooms. I don't believe assaults are the likely outcome, but women feeling uncomfortable (and potentially, even choosing NOT to use public restrooms at all) is a very possible outcome and that shouldn't be ignored, either.

When it comes right down to it though, on that front... my local shopping mall has a large toilets area, no mens, no womens, no disabled: Just a long row of individual locking rooms that have a toilet, sink, baby change and disabled facilities, in every one. IMO that is the way forward in terms of both safety and inclusion... and in fact just in terms of general privacy for everyone. It's MUCH better. Awesome for families, too.

We're talking about women who have been raped and/or abused. Not someone who needs a wee.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

We're talking about women who have been raped and/or abused. Not someone who needs a wee.

from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked.

I genuinely wonder if you actually read my posts sometimes, Livia .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No I'm just looking from the perspective of realistic outcome, like I said in the last paragraph... if it's an issue of comfort, then I totally understand where people are coming from. With regards to the refuge issue, do I believe that a man could access a women's refuge and actually assault someone? No... nor do I believe that it's likely that anyone would try. A predator isn't going to construct an elaborate scheme to wriggle their way into a situation where they're highly likely to be caught. Literal physical safety, I don't believe would be affected. But like you say - from the perspective of the vulnerable, there is still the FEAR that something might happen to them. They have been victimised by men, therefore having men around trans or otherwise (even if there isn't a literal risk) would still cause upset, fear and anxiety and that absolutely should not be overlooked. "You're not at any risk!" isn't enough... in fact, I am totally on board with the idea that anxiety and fear can actually be far worse than physical injury in many ways.

Same goes for bathrooms. I don't believe assaults are the likely outcome, but women feeling uncomfortable (and potentially, even choosing NOT to use public restrooms at all) is a very possible outcome and that shouldn't be ignored, either.

When it comes right down to it though, on that front... my local shopping mall has a large toilets area, no mens, no womens, no disabled: Just a long row of individual locking rooms that have a toilet, sink, baby change and disabled facilities, in every one. IMO that is the way forward in terms of both safety and inclusion... and in fact just in terms of general privacy for everyone. It's MUCH better. Awesome for families, too.

For public toilets, that's definitely the way forward, i agree

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know that any of it does make people literally more vulnerable, though, certainly there's no evidence beyond assumption that it does.

Well evidence is hard to come by, because crimes by male people are being recorded as being done by females. So expect to see a rise in female sexual offenders anyday now, except these women committing the offences, have penises. 'Women committing sexual crime rises by 200%, reasons totally unclear' coming to a news station near you soon (thats not alarmist either, there are something like 150 transwomen in prison, and half of them are there for sexual offences. There are I think it is 140 women in prison for sexual offences. Thats already a 50% increase. And if all these people are moved to female prisons, that means the ratio of female to male people in supposedly female prisons is like 2:1)

http://womanmeanssomething.com/1034-2/

Issues with voyeurism

https://translesbianpositivity.tumbl...d-to-this-list

List compiled by an actual transperson of incidents where 'that will never happen' has happened.

Its hard to get stats, as no stats are given/collected so you have to go on news reports and such. I suspect that these collated ones are the tip of the iceberg..as stated on there.

But yeah, taking stats out of it and how it will obviously be a target for predators looking to hunt, its still a bad idea. Women do not have to actually get raped en masse to show that ending sex segregation in this way is a bad idea or that it removes aspects of safety. Or they shouldn't have to be, but I suspect this may be whats going to have to happen. And even then, it will be blamed on the women in some way I would wager...

[Livia]

It's an interesting fact that far more men seem to have a far more accepting and laissez faire attitude to this. That's not meant to be inflammatory... but I'm yet to meet a woman who isn't appalled by this when she hears the facts. And thankfully, more than a few men are just as appalled.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's an interesting fact that far more men seem to have a far more accepting and laissez faire attitude to this. That's not meant to be inflammatory... but I'm yet to meet a woman who isn't appalled by this when she hears the facts. And thankfully, more than a few men are just as appalled.

Yeah. Also, whenever we hear about a woman being attacked on a night out and maybe she was alone or had drank too much, there's always a fair few men saying how she should have been more careful, should have drank less etc etc so basically saying she should have been more aware that men may use this opportunity of vulnerability to take advantage so why does this not apply here? Women are trying to make themselves safer but they're being hysterical by trying now?

[Northern Monkey]

This is one issue i’m with the Feminists on.

Also after her performance on CBB i’m surprised anyone takes anything India fecking Willoughby spouts seriously

[Maru]

In comments here...