Endometriosis charity appoints trans woman as the new head of the organisation.

We should never have pretended that it was ok for some men to be in women's spaces and that wouldn't have happened Galaxy if some hadn't pretended that it's possible to change sex.

Slight diversion. Just read that a transwoman Rukshana Kapali has been included on the annual BBC 100 Women list for 2023. So she’s taken the place of one biological woman. It’s just not fair.

If a man feels the need, or simply wants to identify as a woman - why can he not accept the title of transwoman?

Understandably, men may not wish to go through the complex and difficult process of transition.

Dickens

If a man feels the need, or simply wants to identify as a woman - why can he not accept the title of transwoman?

Understandably, men may not wish to go through the complex and difficult process of transition.

Good point Dickens-at least it would be the truth and not pretending to be something else.

Understandably, men may not wish to go through the complex and difficult process of transition.
In which case they should not be in women's spaces at all.

Or calling themselves women.

Doodledog

Who enforces that law, Glorianny? To whom would I report a situation in which I would not use a space or service, who would ban the transwomen, and how would they be informed? Would it happen 'on the door', or in advance? If the former, who ensures that women are not threatened by aggressive e TRAs? How do aggressive TRAs manage to intimidate women if this law has teeth? How widely known is this law? I have only heard of its existence from you - in no other area of my life has it been mentioned - any chance of a link to it, please?

Doodledog pretending you don't know about this law is a bit pathetic, it has been discussed so many times on these threads.
It is the Equality Act. But because I'm thoughtful, and who knows you might have memory problems, you can find the latest and most complete advice here www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/guidance-separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-equality-act-sex-and-gender-reassignment-exceptions.pdf
I hope it answers most of your questions.
It is ironic that you are now questioning who will enforce the act. It's a question I have asked many times about your posts about public loos. Who will ensure transwomen don't access them and how can that possibly be done without impacting on natal women who don't fit into feminine stereotypes? The answer is of course it can't.

There is no need to be rude. I am not pathetic. I asked as I have a feeling that this was proved to be untrue in an earlier thread, but that must have been something else you claimed.

It is not ironic that I am questioning it either. I have always said that if the situation is difficult to sort out it should be those who want the changes who should come up with solutions, not those who are at risk.

Also, your thoughtful link is to single sex services, not events or venues. As I'm sure you know, there is a difference.

It is you who wants things both ways. On on hand you say that the law protects women, but on the other, you say that it is impossible to tell whether someone is a woman or a transwoman. How does that work?

My question is this - you say that the law is able to protect women from intruders into their spaces by banning transwomen from them if women would object. How would I know if transwomen were planning to attend, and if I did know, and if that knowledge meant that I would object, then would I need to wait until the event itself and complain in front of potentially intimidating TRAs, or could I register an objection in advance? And whose responsibility would it be to let me know ahead of the event itself? It is not remotely ironic that I am questioning it - I have never supported (or believed) the idea that TW will be banned if women object, have I?

Doodledog I do hope Glorianny will be able to answer your questions in the last paragraph of your post.

Me too, Molly, but I'm not holding my breath. I've already asked it, but was called 'pathetic' for doing so.

Doodledog

There is no need to be rude. I am not pathetic. I asked as I have a feeling that this was proved to be untrue in an earlier thread, but that must have been something else you claimed.

It is not ironic that I am questioning it either. I have always said that if the situation is difficult to sort out it should be those who want the changes who should come up with solutions, not those who are at risk.

Also, your thoughtful link is to single sex services, not events or venues. As I'm sure you know, there is a difference.

It is you who wants things both ways. On on hand you say that the law protects women, but on the other, you say that it is impossible to tell whether someone is a woman or a transwoman. How does that work?

My question is this - you say that the law is able to protect women from intruders into their spaces by banning transwomen from them if women would object. How would I know if transwomen were planning to attend, and if I did know, and if that knowledge meant that I would object, then would I need to wait until the event itself and complain in front of potentially intimidating TRAs, or could I register an objection in advance? And whose responsibility would it be to let me know ahead of the event itself? It is not remotely ironic that I am questioning it - I have never supported (or believed) the idea that TW will be banned if women object, have I?

Why am I expected to solve your problems for you Doodledog?. I provided a link which you have obviously failed to read. From the link
This guide is for service providers (anyone who provides goods, facilities or services to the public) who are looking to establish and operate a separate or single sex service.
The word facilities covers venues.
Had you bothered to read the document you would have seen that it covers such things as swimming pools and changing rooms.
So first you complain there is no law to protect women's spaces and when I point out there is you complain that I haven't told you how it is enforced. How is any law enforced?

Mollygo

Doodledog I do hope Glorianny will be able to answer your questions in the last paragraph of your post.

The irony!

But Glorianny, you know and I know, that those TW with the intention of encroaching on female safe spaces will ignore the law, leaving females faced with challenging them and likely being hurt as a result.
The document you mentioned didn’t stop lying males claiming to be lesbian and the result wasn’t the banning of males in whatever guise, it was the closing of the venue.
Challenging is beginning to work.
I was delighted to see the entries at a recent swimming venue state male/open or female and a female boxer refusing to fight a male and a female football team refusing to play teams with males in because TW are male.

But why are males allowed to even try to enter female sports? Why condone cheating and lying?
By not condemning their actions and saying it’s up to the women (AHF) to act, you condone this lying and cheating.
Is it just because they are TW?

Why am I expected to solve your problems for you Doodledog?. I provided a link which you have obviously failed to read. From the link
This guide is for service providers (anyone who provides goods, facilities or services to the public) who are looking to establish and operate a separate or single sex service.
The word facilities covers venues.
Had you bothered to read the document you would have seen that it covers such things as swimming pools and changing rooms.
So first you complain there is no law to protect women's spaces and when I point out there is you complain that I haven't told you how it is enforced. How is any law enforced?
You are not expected to solve my problems for me 😂

I did 'bother' to read the linked document, which is government guidance for single sex services. A facility and a service are very similar, and not the same as an event. Or a venue.

You are the one who keeps using the excuse that there is difficulty in enforcing anything that protects women, so I am asking you how, in that case, you think the law you are so fond of citing works in operation. You keep avoiding answering.

I have always said that it is up to legislators (as opposed to feminists who care about women's safety) to solve the problems of self-id. It is you who keeps dismissing fears by saying that entrance to events based on 'gender' can't be policed and mention 'what is in people's pants' every time, yet at the same time you are saying that the law protects women so we should be happy with that.

If the law as it stands says that women can have an event made single-sex by saying that they wouldn't attend if transwomen are admitted, how is that policed? And I ask again, how would a woman who has decided not to attend on those grounds make her objections known?

From the document
^For example,you have chosen to provide a single-sex hospital ward because patients have told you they have legitimate concerns about staying on a mixed ward, e.g.privacy. If this is the reason for your decision, it would be good practice to
support this with evidence, such as a patient survey^

Presumably if the women in question had such strong objections she could make her views known to the organisers in person, by phone, by email or by letter. The way most people express their opinions.

Of course there are things which cannot be policed according to appearances and if you read the document you would see that one of the things it emphasises is that gender should not be judged by appearances.
The law protects women's spaces and the provision of those spaces. But in the real world some places are safer than others. It is of course absolutely impossible to protect anyone all the time. But we should remember that the largest number of victims of violence in public places are not in fact women, but are young men. Women are subjected to more domestic abuse by people they know.

I wonder which sex commits the most violence against the young men.
Children are mostly abused by people known to them too, this would not be a good reason to remove safeguarding practices in schools for example.

Glorianny

Why am I expected to solve your problems for you Doodledog?.

I got the impression that Doodledog was posing a theoretical question not asking you to solver her problems.

If someone in a debate is defending something that another person opposes, and that other person says, "ah, but - what if....."(etc), it's not usually construed as them telling you they have a problem that you need to deal with, rather that they are suggesting an aspect in the debate that hasn't been considered/ is not clear / or doesn't stand up.

Dickens

Glorianny

Why am I expected to solve your problems for you Doodledog?.

I got the impression that Doodledog was posing a theoretical question not asking you to solver her problems.

If someone in a debate is defending something that another person opposes, and that other person says, "ah, but - what if....."(etc), it's not usually construed as them telling you they have a problem that you need to deal with, rather that they are suggesting an aspect in the debate that hasn't been considered/ is not clear / or doesn't stand up.

Fine to have a theoretical problem, but when the answer to that problem has already been posted and it is just a question of reading the information and understanding it, the theoretical aspect disappears and it becomes a personal one.
I think it is fairly obvious that much of this is personal and not theoretical.

Glorianny
But we should remember that the largest number of victims of violence in public places are not in fact women, but are young men.

Your evidence for that Glorianny?
And is the violence against young men mostly committed by males or females?

And if more violence is committed against young men, why is that important in a discussion about the safety of females?

But since you’ve raised it, if most violence against young men is committed by males, that backs up the argument that males should not be allowed in female safe spaces, since the males can’t even refrain from beating up their own sex.

Are you once again, implying that women are less important, so violence committed against them doesn’t matter as much?

Women are subjected to more domestic abuse by people they know.

And when they been subjected to domestic violence by the people they know, which are mostly males, you still don’t feel that males should not be allowed and female refuges? Or should I say, you dance round quoting the law that expects women to risk for the damage by challenging males who arrive at female refuges.

You are deliberately or accidentally missing the point of what I am saying, Glorianny. I have repeated it several times, but will try once more beef giving up.

Me - 'Men should not be allowed in women's spaces.'
You - 'Ah, but it is impossible to police that without looking in people's pants, and what about masculine-looking women?'

Me - 'The law should protect women by legislating against men being able to access women's spaces/events simply by saying they are women.'
You - There is a law that does just that'. (Quote from a law about single sex services).
Me - 'But as you say, it is impossible to police. How, therefore, does that law have teeth?'
You - dance round the point for several posts, call me 'pathetic', speak to me as though I am a child who hasn't 'bothered' to do her homework, and accuse me of asking you to solve my problems.

Doodledog

You are deliberately or accidentally missing the point of what I am saying, Glorianny. I have repeated it several times, but will try once more beef giving up.

Me - 'Men should not be allowed in women's spaces.'
You - 'Ah, but it is impossible to police that without looking in people's pants, and what about masculine-looking women?'

Me - 'The law should protect women by legislating against men being able to access women's spaces/events simply by saying they are women.'
You - There is a law that does just that'. (Quote from a law about single sex services).
Me - 'But as you say, it is impossible to police. How, therefore, does that law have teeth?'
You - dance round the point for several posts, call me 'pathetic', speak to me as though I am a child who hasn't 'bothered' to do her homework, and accuse me of asking you to solve my problems.

OK let's look at what the gender critical propose based on their beliefs.
Transwomen are not women but men and should therefore use men's facilities.
Transmen are not men but women and should therefore use women's facilities.
Therefore there will be people who look like men using women's facilities, which means that any man who is intent on accessing them for nefarious purposes doesn't need to go to any bother dressing or presenting as a woman. He just has to say he's a transman.
So how does that make women safer?

Glorianny, I love to see you wriggle out of answering my post at 22:34, but
that’s wonderful!!!
You’ve finally acknowledged the danger that males in female spaces present to females.

TW are male therefore should not use female spaces.

I mustn’t be GC, because I’ve never said TM shouldn’t use male spaces.

Possibly transmen should not use male spaces, but it’s up to the males to decide if they will accept transmen in their spaces.

Would the presence of TM make males feel vulnerable like that 220lb martial arts expert claimed he did when faced by a female whilst he was in a female space?

Would the males be afraid of being punched in the face and losing teeth the way that female was?

In which case, they should start a campaign to keep male spaces free from females.

Could you remind me how many attacks transmen have made on males, in male safe spaces?
*Were the transmen attackers, if any exist, the tall, strong, muscular, deep voiced
females I used to hear about?*

Mollygo

Glorianny, I love to see you wriggle out of answering my post at 22:34, but
that’s wonderful!!!
You’ve finally acknowledged the danger that males in female spaces present to females.

TW are male therefore should not use female spaces.

I mustn’t be GC, because I’ve never said TM shouldn’t use male spaces.

Possibly transmen should not use male spaces, but it’s up to the males to decide if they will accept transmen in their spaces.

Would the presence of TM make males feel vulnerable like that 220lb martial arts expert claimed he did when faced by a female whilst he was in a female space?

Would the males be afraid of being punched in the face and losing teeth the way that female was?

In which case, they should start a campaign to keep male spaces free from females.

Could you remind me how many attacks transmen have made on males, in male safe spaces?
*Were the transmen attackers, if any exist, the tall, strong, muscular, deep voiced
females I used to hear about?*

So you want one rule for women and one for men. Single sex spaces are single sex spaces you can't have it your way for transwomen and another way for transmen.
I suppose you think transmen (who you think are women anyway) are fair game and it doesn't matter if they are assaulted.
But it doesn't matter anyway. Because if the law is applied according to your beliefs no one would be able to challenge any man accessing a woman's space because they might be a transman, Where transmen would choose to use is irrelevant. Legally they would be women. If transwomen are designated as men, transmen must be designated as women. That's what happens if your beliefs are enacted.

Even if someone's a trans man they are still a woman Glorianny and where has anyone on this thread or any thread on this subject, ever suggested that trans men are fair game and it doesn't matter if they're assaulted?

A trans man would still be honouring single sex spaces if they use those for women, because you can't change sex and they remain women. This has nothing to do with our "beliefs" because this is a biological fact.

As long as TW have the right to do what they want Glorianny you have shown that you don’t care. Your post is just another example of that.🤣