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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Mollygo

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

The irony!

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?

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

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

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

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.

Or calling themselves women.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Galaxy

The offending rate and type of crimes remains different for men than women, this is not influenced by any beliefs a man might hold.

This is the crux of the matter. The magical thinking of the trans movement that doesn't question the notion that TWAW leads to the cognitive dissonance. If they are women, the logic goes, then they will behave as women. Never mind their male bodies, male hormones, male heterosexual urges - they are now women, so will be perfectly safe to allow into the spaces where women undress, are unable to run away, or are otherwise vulnerable.

This has not been true of a section of the male population at any point in history. 26 years ago, 226 years ago, in 26 days time - where some men have access to vulnerable women they will take advantage of it. Massaging the figures to suggest that women are responsible for more sexual and violent crimes will not alter that, and nor will making sexual assault on a woman by a transwoman a 'woman on woman' crime.

As is routinely pointed out on here, 'policing' entry to women's spaces is problematic, and as is also routinely pointed out to counter that, it is not up to women to find the solution. However, making it an additional offence for a man without a GRC to be in a woman's space if he commits a crime might go some way towards a deterrent. If someone has gone to the trouble of getting a gender recognition certificate the chances are they genuinely wish to 'live as' a member of the opposite sex, and are thus less likely to be a threat. I do understand that not all transpeople want to jump through the hoops required to get one, but if it comes down to a clash of needs, with women's safety on one hand and men's inconvenience on the other, it seems to me that protecting women, in what have always been our spaces, is the obvious choice.

The offending rate and type of crimes remains different for men than women, this is not influenced by any beliefs a man might hold.

Mollygo

*As it happened 26 years ago you could maybe check.*
I could, but it simply highlights what women fear now.
I didn’t realise you feel distance means his actions don’t matter.

"I didn't realise you feel distance means his action don't matter."

I have no idea l feel that, anything else you'd like to tell me l feel? How utterly rude.

As it happened 26 years ago you could maybe check.
I could, but it simply highlights what women fear now.
I didn’t realise you feel distance means his actions don’t matter.

Mollygo

And just in case you were thinking of challenging a male in the female toilets . . .
Here is a #trans-identifying #FloridaMan named #PatrickHagan, who sucker-punched a woman in the face after she objected to his intrusion into a ladies’ room that she was using.

Hagan, a 6’3, 280 lb man with a black belt in tae kwon do, claimed that being questioned by a woman who was 10 inches shorter and 110 pounds lighter, with no martial arts training and no weapon of any sort, made him feel so threatened that he was compelled to punch the 40 year old #CherylPartsch in the mouth hard enough to knock out 5 of her teeth.

This vicious attack, committed by a larger, stronger, highly-trained assailant, caused damage that will cost approximately $60,000 in dental bills and a great deal of pain to repair. It should send a chill down the spine of every woman who opposes the existence of spaces where we can attend to our bodily needs in safety and privacy.

For his violent, unprovoked, and disfiguring attack on the smaller and much weaker Ms. Partsch, Mr. Hagan received only 30 months behind bars - far less time than it takes most Americans to earn the extra $60k it will take to fix the damage he caused to her mouth.

During his time in prison, he will not only be able to access “gender affirming care,” including hormone therapy, at the taxpayer’s expense; he will also be entitled to consideration for placement in a women’s prison, should the committee responsible for making that decision believe that he will be at risk in an institution for men.

No consideration whatsoever will be given to the safety or comfort of the #women who will likely be confined with Mr. Hagan, the overwhelming majority of whom will be survivors of male violence.

^I wonder how many of them he will abuse or assault over the course of 30 months?^

Sarah-Jane Baker, who spent 30 years in prison for attempted murder of a male relative, at the Pride march earlier this year...

"I was gonna come here and be really fluffy and be really nice and say yeah be really lovely and queer and gay... Nah, if you see a TERF, punch them in the f**** face"

... to roars of approval from the crowd.

Of course, Baker has serious - very - mental health problems.

But the crowd roared their approval... that's the worrying part. Not so much Baker who's clearly deranged (read his history - and I'm not prepared to respect his gender identity)

... that so many approved of the violence.

So, yes - who's going to challenge a transwoman in the changing room or loo?

Mollygo

And just in case you were thinking of challenging a male in the female toilets . . .
Here is a #trans-identifying #FloridaMan named #PatrickHagan, who sucker-punched a woman in the face after she objected to his intrusion into a ladies’ room that she was using.

Hagan, a 6’3, 280 lb man with a black belt in tae kwon do, claimed that being questioned by a woman who was 10 inches shorter and 110 pounds lighter, with no martial arts training and no weapon of any sort, made him feel so threatened that he was compelled to punch the 40 year old #CherylPartsch in the mouth hard enough to knock out 5 of her teeth.

This vicious attack, committed by a larger, stronger, highly-trained assailant, caused damage that will cost approximately $60,000 in dental bills and a great deal of pain to repair. It should send a chill down the spine of every woman who opposes the existence of spaces where we can attend to our bodily needs in safety and privacy.

For his violent, unprovoked, and disfiguring attack on the smaller and much weaker Ms. Partsch, Mr. Hagan received only 30 months behind bars - far less time than it takes most Americans to earn the extra $60k it will take to fix the damage he caused to her mouth.

During his time in prison, he will not only be able to access “gender affirming care,” including hormone therapy, at the taxpayer’s expense; he will also be entitled to consideration for placement in a women’s prison, should the committee responsible for making that decision believe that he will be at risk in an institution for men.

No consideration whatsoever will be given to the safety or comfort of the #women who will likely be confined with Mr. Hagan, the overwhelming majority of whom will be survivors of male violence.

^I wonder how many of them he will abuse or assault over the course of 30 months?^

As it happened 26 years ago you could maybe check.