[turrhall]

 Wooden Spoon, on 24 April 2025 - 10:20 AM, said:

My mrs doesn’t use them. She will wait or go elsewhere.


I’d suggest you ask a few women and LISTEN to what they say, oh they have - at the high court.

Why do you think these women took it to the high court? Clearly they were not fine with it.

I find it strange that you’re fine with forcing the lack of safe spaces on 50% of the population, and not fine with 0.1% having this issue.

And there are women like my partner who would use them, and advocates strongly for trans people. Why won’t you listen to those women?

[frearsghost]

 dart in the crossbar, on 24 April 2025 - 06:37 AM, said:

Genuine question.

To what extent do you think that the root cause of the ruling is the danger to women of trans women (born as men) going into women's toilets v a view that people shouldn't be allowed to be trans?

I ask because I've not read anything about trans men (born as women), including those with beards and deep voices. I assume that they are now banned from using men's toilets - and so would be required to use women's toilets as they were born female.

As I say, genuine question.

The root cause of the ruling was to define biological sex. The consquences were not the business of the court.

I not aware of anyone saying you're not allowed to be trans.

Perhaps the first part of your question would be best directed to women given some men pretend to be trans to facilitate access to womens' spaces.







.

[Goku]

 Wooden Spoon, on 24 April 2025 - 10:20 AM, said:

My mrs doesn’t use them. She will wait or go elsewhere.


I’d suggest you ask a few women and LISTEN to what they say, oh they have - at the high court.

Why do you think these women took it to the high court? Clearly they were not fine with it.

I find it strange that you’re fine with forcing the lack of safe spaces on 50% of the population, and not fine with 0.1% having this issue.

Ah right, mine would just use the facilities without issue. As would pretty much any women I've ever spoken to about this particular "issue".

Can you call a women's toilet a safe space? A bloke can just as easily walk into a women's toilet. Additionally, how can you be confident the person using the toilet is a man? There are plenty of women knocking about who look like blokes. The ruling seems to suggest that you can block a trans person using single-sex spaces, but the equalities act provides protections against being harassed, discrimination and the EHCR provides a right to privacy around identity - so you can stop somebody using a toilet if they're trans but you can't ask them if the're trans?

I realise that the supreme court ruling wasn't meant to decide every eventuality though.

This post has been edited by Goku: 24 April 2025 - 10:49 AM

[Wooden Spoon]

 turrhall, on 24 April 2025 - 10:26 AM, said:

And there are women like my partner who would use them, and advocates strongly for trans people. Why won’t you listen to those women?

Who’s said anything about being anti trans?

[Valley Blues]

Anyone see Millibands latest offering on TV this morning?

Ahead of the international energy summit in London he spoke of why companies are eager to locate here.

Apparently they see it as a stable safe haven as Labour have a plan moving forward ( stop laughing everyone ) and the fact that the government have such a large majority ( no seriously, stop laughing ).

Must have been reading his notes from last July.

This post has been edited by Valley Blues: 24 April 2025 - 11:22 AM

[Burgerman]

 turrhall, on 24 April 2025 - 10:26 AM, said:

And there are women like my partner who would use them, and advocates strongly for trans people. Why won’t you listen to those women?

Like your partner, my wife is an advocate for the rights of the Trans community, as I suspect most people are. We discussed this very subject last night and her stance is single sex toilets should be, single sex toilets, she also said she would not be comfortable using unisex toilets. She cannot be labelled anti-trans because of this, it would be wrong and anyone who knows her would agree. Millions of women have been fighting for this and we now know where we stand. A woman is a woman and a man is a man.

Just because a few people don't care either way doesn't make them right

[Wooden Spoon]

 dart in the crossbar, on 24 April 2025 - 09:37 AM, said:

No, I haven't. It hasn't been said as far as I'm aware.

I was wondering whether there are some who are behind the ruling because it will make life harder for trans people (which one assumes it will). Or the ruling is based on solid evidence that women are at risk by trans women (born as men) in toilets. If it is the latter, I'm puzzled as to how requiring trans men (born as women) to use women's toilets squares with that. I think that there was one trans person in Scotland who (I think) got sent down for assault, but not a wider issue.

Like I say, I'm genuinely interested. On the face of it, the ruling could seem like a sledgehammer that doesn't really crack a nut (no pun intended!)

So there’s no anti trans posting or agenda, glad you acknowledge that - you wouldn’t think that was the case looking at some of the posts though.


The insane thing in all this is that trans people havnt had anything change in terms of protected characteristics under the 2010 equalities act - this is a ruling that recognises women, biological women, are a protected characteristic of their own and separate from trans


Yet the outcry is incredible


When you hear this, and see the harassment women like Duffield endured - hounded out of the Labour Party no less, I wonder who the real bigots are.

[dart in the crossbar]

 Wooden Spoon, on 24 April 2025 - 03:22 PM, said:

So there’s no anti trans posting or agenda, glad you acknowledge that - you wouldn’t think that was the case looking at some of the posts though.


The insane thing in all this is that trans people havnt had anything change in terms of protected characteristics under the 2010 equalities act - this is a ruling that recognises women, biological women, are a protected characteristic of their own and separate from trans


Yet the outcry is incredible


When you hear this, and see the harassment women like Duffield endured - hounded out of the Labour Party no less, I wonder who the real bigots are.

I've perhaps been unclear. I've not picked up any overtly anti-trans rationale been given for the ruling - but I don't know whether or not there is or isn't anti-trans sentiment that sits behind it (I hear and understand the point made on here about the ruling being a 'technical' ruling defining gender, rather than a ruling about consequent provision and arrangements for trans people). I wonder whether there is or isn't, is all.

I know two people who are likely to have very strong views about the matter. (I've not had the opportunity to speak with them since the ruling). One is a woman who is fervently against trans women using women's toilets; one is a trans woman (born a man) who uses women's toilets when there is no 'one' door unisex toilet available. They don't know each other. I'm fairly sure that the woman wouldn't recognise that the trans woman was trans, unless the trans woman told her. As to whether or not the trans woman will continue to use women's facilities, I've no idea. But the trans woman would very certainly be questioned by men if she went into the men's toilets at CFC...

Back to my one of my previous question areas, I'd suspect that many women would be uncomfortable about trans men (born female) with a beards and deep voices using women's toilets.

[Mr Mercury]

Let’s hope this clarifies a lot of things in women’s sport and stops biological males competing against biological women and claiming an extreme advantage.

[calvin plummers socks]

 Mr Mercury, on 24 April 2025 - 06:48 PM, said:

Let’s hope this clarifies a lot of things in women’s sport and stops biological males competing against biological women and claiming an extreme advantage.

Does it effect you in any way?

[Wooden Spoon]

 dart in the crossbar, on 24 April 2025 - 05:56 PM, said:

I've perhaps been unclear. I've not picked up any overtly anti-trans rationale been given for the ruling - but I don't know whether or not there is or isn't anti-trans sentiment that sits behind it (I hear and understand the point made on here about the ruling being a 'technical' ruling defining gender, rather than a ruling about consequent provision and arrangements for trans people). I wonder whether there is or isn't, is all.

I know two people who are likely to have very strong views about the matter. (I've not had the opportunity to speak with them since the ruling). One is a woman who is fervently against trans women using women's toilets; one is a trans woman (born a man) who uses women's toilets when there is no 'one' door unisex toilet available. They don't know each other. I'm fairly sure that the woman wouldn't recognise that the trans woman was trans, unless the trans woman told her. As to whether or not the trans woman will continue to use women's facilities, I've no idea. But the trans woman would very certainly be questioned by men if she went into the men's toilets at CFC...

Back to my one of my previous question areas, I'd suspect that many women would be uncomfortable about trans men (born female) with a beards and deep voices using women's toilets.

Being in a cubicle, and just hearing a man’s voice in the room - that woman is gonna be very cautious about opening the door and coming out.


But again this is being pulled away from the core of the ruling.


Trans have not had any changes to their rights under the equality act - it’s that biological women have been recognised as distinct and different from trans women - because they are biologically different.

[Mr Mercury]

 Wooden Spoon, on 24 April 2025 - 08:14 PM, said:

Being in a cubicle, and just hearing a man’s voice in the room - that woman is gonna be very cautious about opening the door and coming out.


But again this is being pulled away from the core of the ruling.


Trans have not had any changes to their rights under the equality act - it’s that biological women have been recognised as distinct and different from trans women - because they are biologically different.

Your first sentence is so on the nail.
The thought that some folk actually think a biological male, just by saying they identify as a female, should be allowed into female changing rooms were women and girls are changing is mind boggling.

[Wooden Spoon]

 calvin plummers socks, on 24 April 2025 - 07:25 PM, said:

Does it effect you in any way?

You don’t think integrity in sport matters?


Why not have a 3rd option, have men’s sport. Women’s sport, and an Open category?


Trans can then compete without the unfair physical advantage they have over women, which you can’t deny is there.

[Wooden Spoon]

If you’re not bothered by the physical advantage a biological man has over a woman if competing in women’s sports then you as wel scrap Al drug testing

[Misnomer]

 turrhall, on 24 April 2025 - 10:26 AM, said:

And there are women like my partner who would use them, and advocates strongly for trans people. Why won’t you listen to those women?

Until she gets forced into a cubicle and ra ped by a guy wearing make-up, a skirt and a wig....then what? That's the risk.

The NHS allow men, who dress as women (transvestites), to use the same changing rooms as female nurses - the nurses are extremely uncomfortable with it, for obvious reasons.

[calvin plummers socks]

 Wooden Spoon, on 24 April 2025 - 11:40 PM, said:

You don’t think integrity in sport matters?


Why not have a 3rd option, have men’s sport. Women’s sport, and an Open category?


Trans can then compete without the unfair physical advantage they have over women, which you can’t deny is there.

Or just an open category?

 Misnomer, on 25 April 2025 - 03:46 PM, said:

Until she gets forced into a cubicle and ra ped by a guy wearing make-up, a skirt and a wig....then what? That's the risk.

The NHS allow men, who dress as women (transvestites), to use the same changing rooms as female nurses - the nurses are extremely uncomfortable with it, for obvious reasons.

There’s literally zero risk of that happening is there?

[Goku]

 Misnomer, on 25 April 2025 - 03:46 PM, said:

Until she gets forced into a cubicle and ra ped by a guy wearing make-up, a skirt and a wig....then what? That's the risk.

How often is this happening?

[Misnomer]

 Goku, on 25 April 2025 - 04:33 PM, said:

How often is this happening?

We'd only know, based on prosecutions and, based on the conviction rates of rapists, the question could also be reversed - how many have gotten away with it?

Hence, I said, it's a 'risk'.

[Mr Mercury]

So we have people serving custodial sentences for posting comments on face book, comments that were removed and apologised for, yet still they were jailed and then we have this louse of a man free to walk the streets…two tier justice in two tier Keirs UK.

Samuel Gould, a former aide to Wes Streeting, has been sentenced at Barkingside Magistrates’ Court to 22 weeks’ imprisonment – suspended for two years – after admitting two counts of exposure. The Redbridge Labour councillor resigned last month after his guilty plea…

Streeting previously said there were “no words to express his horror” – the court was told Gould performed a sex act on himself while sitting in a car in front of a 13-year-old girl before following her. Avoids prison…

[Westbars Spireite]

Dirty bastard needs a good slapping.