Scarf in Suffragette colours not allowed in Scottish Parliament.

And yes we've said time and again cis is offensive, I think it's a deliberate act of contempt against women.

Glorianny oh dear you really shouldn't attempt to use numbers for your arguments. It didn't work when you tried to use an example for gender neutral aka mixed toilets in the past. In your refuge scenario, 1 transwoman aka male, 13 women, 12 places available. 1 person, the transwoman wants to make it a mixed sex refuge, 3 women want a single sex refuge, 10 women don't mind either way. That totals 13 women happy with single sex against 11 (10 women and one transwoman) that are OK with mixed sex. I think you'll find 13 is a larger number than 11, and therefore single sex is the way to go. Hope that helps!

Lathyrus

That’s been said many, many times Saetana and is ignored. One assumes to be deliberately offensive.

I think it’s continued use says everything about the contempt users have for women.

True re the contempt, and it’s used by the same people every time.

That’s been said many, many times Saetana and is ignored. One assumes to be deliberately offensive.

I think it’s continued use says everything about the contempt users have for women.

Please do not use the term "cis woman" - I am sure I am not alone in finding it highly offensive. I am a woman, end of.

As the research I offered a link to earlier shows most women will share with transwomen . . .

Does it? Or does it show that most of the women who were interviewed in one area would share with transwomen if there were no alternative? Or something else? As I said, I can't open the link, but the first thing I would have done would have been to look at the sample size and breadth, the way in which the questions were worded and how the researchers could show that their findings were representative of the wider picture. Otherwise it would be more of a magazine article than a piece of relevant research.

Molly's point is a good one - you can't, on a thread where there is overwhelming support for informed consent and transparency, reasonably say that we are wrong if you also say that the views of the 'greater number' should be adhered to.

I would suggest that if a law can't be enforced then it needs to be rewritten. There is no point in having laws (particularly those designed to protect the vulnerable) if they are widely ignored. And before you ask - no, I don't know what the best way of rewriting them would be. That is for either legislators to come up with or for men and transwomen to suggest, as it is they who are asking for women to take 'imposters' into our spaces. This should have been sorted out before women had gender issues thrust upon us.

Glorianny,🤣🤣🤣
It fascinates me how you write posts that are just as applicable to what you say as they are to the poster ‘s views that you’re addressing. e.g.
Funny how when services users are interviewed and their views match yours they count but any who disagree . . . are disregarded.

Or cater to the greater number .Isn't that how a democracy works

What if, as in my example earlier, you don’t agree with the greater number? How does your democracy work then?

What do you mean their views dont count for me. They are receiving a service, those who are unable (mostly through trauma) to share with men will self exclude.

But suppose that refuge could take say 12 women. There are 14 looking for places one is a transwoman. 10 of the cis women say they will share, 3 say they won't , So what you are saying is the views of the 3 should take precedence over the 10?
I would say that admission should only be decided on the basis of the immediate danger the person faced. So the transwoman might not be admitted, or she might. The other 13 cis women would be assessed on immediate need as well.

Funny how when services users are interviewed and their views match yours they count but any who disagree and who accept transwomen are disregarded.

As you well know the personal details of women who have used refuges are never revealed in any study.

What contradicts my previous statements? Do you mean consent. They are asking for one refuge in that area, one that is single sex. All the rest will be mixed sex.
I hope they win. We are slowly winning the debate on sport and prisons, its just a case of keeping ploughing on with the legal challenges.

G
No matter how much you say it, a link which proves your point does not the truth make. Statistics can be spun to show a desired outcome.

What is ^most women?^

Did those surveyed include males who say they are women?
How do you know it didn’t?

How did the survey ensure it didn’t?

How many females from groups who are not allowed to mix with males were included?

Did it include a realistic number of ‘AHF’ surveyed?
What is a realistic number?

Did the survey include females who have suffered at the hands of males, whether TW or not?

If you did a ‘survey’ on GN trans threads, then quite obviously the ‘greater number’ would protect females.
So why don’t you support that? Isn’t that how democracy works?

Glorianny

Rosie51

The basis of the argument seems to be that some men may use self ID to commit crimes so no one may use it.
Imagine if that was done with say the police force. Policemen have committed murder and rape so perhaps no man should be permitted to become a police officer. Nonsense isn't it.

Yes your argument is pure nonsense since there's not one iota of logic in it! Why does everybody have to go through security at the airport to the point of removing shoes, belts etc? Over 99.9% of people are entirely innocent and yet 100% must comply, because the 0.1% can cause huge harm.
Why were single sex spaces for women created in the first place? Not because 100% of men were a danger, but because it was impossible to tell which ones needed to be excluded. And decent men never minded.
Transwomen who truly identify 'with' women, can appreciate the concerns of women. I see post after post on twitter from such transwomen who say they wouldn't dream of compromising single sex spaces. They are also intelligent enough to know that no matter the body modifications they may have made, they remain male.

But single sex spaces are protected by law Rosie51 . The law is quite clear on that. If women would not use the service or facility transwomen even with a GRC can be banned.
Your problem seems to be that some women don't mind sharing some spaces with transwomen, because any attempts to enforce such views would mean policing how women look, and deciding who looks feminine enough to enter. In fact some women are perfectly happy with the status quo, the fact that you are not is evident, but you do not speak for all women.

And yet again you do the "protected by law" bit closely followed by the usual you can't enforce it.
I have never claimed to speak for all women, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I should be able to give away other women's rights because they don't concern me.

Galaxy

Many women are saying they wont use services that are mixed sex, there is legal action with regard to refuges in relation to that.

Which rather contradicts your previous statement.
It is such a pity that underfunding which is largely what prevents refuges providing trans, mixed and cis services is being ignored. If there was enough cash I'm sure most refuges would offer such services, as it is they find themselves having to decide between those who are willing to accept mixed provision and those who won't. As the research I offered a link to earlier shows most women will share with transwomen, a few won't. So the refuge chooses to cater to the greater number .Isn't that how a democracy works?

The law is quite clear on that. If women would not use the service or facility transwomen even with a GRC can be banned.
Once again you are making it a female’s job to change back a right that should not have been changed to suit males in the first place.

but you do not speak for all women

Of course we don’t. After all some males, thanks to tinkering with vocabulary in 2004, now consider they have the right to call themselves women. Those males do not appreciate being spoken for if it disagrees with their misogynistic pov.

No G. and you definitely do not speak for all females.

Many women are saying they wont use services that are mixed sex, there is legal action with regard to refuges in relation to that.

That's not how consent works. I am perfectly happy to share a bed with dh, I perfectly understand that many women would not want to!

Rosie51

^The basis of the argument seems to be that some men may use self ID to commit crimes so no one may use it.^
Imagine if that was done with say the police force. Policemen have committed murder and rape so perhaps no man should be permitted to become a police officer. Nonsense isn't it.

Yes your argument is pure nonsense since there's not one iota of logic in it! Why does everybody have to go through security at the airport to the point of removing shoes, belts etc? Over 99.9% of people are entirely innocent and yet 100% must comply, because the 0.1% can cause huge harm.
Why were single sex spaces for women created in the first place? Not because 100% of men were a danger, but because it was impossible to tell which ones needed to be excluded. And decent men never minded.
Transwomen who truly identify 'with' women, can appreciate the concerns of women. I see post after post on twitter from such transwomen who say they wouldn't dream of compromising single sex spaces. They are also intelligent enough to know that no matter the body modifications they may have made, they remain male.

But single sex spaces are protected by law Rosie51 . The law is quite clear on that. If women would not use the service or facility transwomen even with a GRC can be banned.
Your problem seems to be that some women don't mind sharing some spaces with transwomen, because any attempts to enforce such views would mean policing how women look, and deciding who looks feminine enough to enter. In fact some women are perfectly happy with the status quo, the fact that you are not is evident, but you do not speak for all women.

Imagine if there becomes a disassociation of Identity all together. Not just a trans-ference, a fluidity of identity, but None at all. What would the world be like. Would we be able to make rational, logical, legal judgments about anything, would we as a humans be able to create a progressively moral society, or would we descend into chaos. There is always a Power source as the driver behind All movements that seek to bring about paradigm shifts in ways of thinking. What might this purpose be - just imagine.

Requiring information from doctors isn’t the same as not allowing a patient to refuse treatment

The basis of the argument seems to be that some men may use self ID to commit crimes so no one may use it.
Imagine if that was done with say the police force. Policemen have committed murder and rape so perhaps no man should be permitted to become a police officer. Nonsense isn't it.

Yes your argument is pure nonsense since there's not one iota of logic in it! Why does everybody have to go through security at the airport to the point of removing shoes, belts etc? Over 99.9% of people are entirely innocent and yet 100% must comply, because the 0.1% can cause huge harm.
Why were single sex spaces for women created in the first place? Not because 100% of men were a danger, but because it was impossible to tell which ones needed to be excluded. And decent men never minded.
Transwomen who truly identify 'with' women, can appreciate the concerns of women. I see post after post on twitter from such transwomen who say they wouldn't dream of compromising single sex spaces. They are also intelligent enough to know that no matter the body modifications they may have made, they remain male.

The truth of the argument is that
had males stuck to being males to commit the crimes against females, instead of claiming to be women, in order to facilitate their opportunities to commit those crimes,
there wouldn’t be the suspicion that males who ID as TW are likely to commit crimes against females.

And of course the criminal males aren't going to kindly think that out & not do it.
So the law has to be such that it is not made easy for them.

Once again Glorianny you have failed to answer my question. Do you consider counselling being given to someone seeking a GRC as medical intervention?

The basis of the argument seems to be that some men may use self ID to commit crimes so no one may use it.

The basis of the argument seems to be that because someone carrying a knife may use it to commit crimes, no one should carry one.

The basis of the argument seems to be that because someone carrying a gun may use it to commit crimes, no one should carry one.

*The truth of the argument is that
had males stuck to being males to commit the crimes against females, instead of claiming to be women, in order to facilitate their opportunities to commit those crimes,*
there wouldn’t be the suspicion that males who ID as TW are likely to commit crimes against females.

As I keep pointing out, those TW who cheat in sport,
who rape or attack females,
who demand female rights, etc, etc
assisted by those TRA who support them or refuse to condemn their actions,
are responsible for the current state of affairs.

What is your point about insanity and murder Glorianny?
I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at.

As you clearly realise Glorianny, All Transwomen are Men.

People who self-diagnose anything for themselves, whether bi-polar, ulcers, impaired vision or anything else, can only access any financial or other benefits that are available to those with the condition if they get a proper medical diagnosis.

1. It seems that medical diagnosis, at present, is far too hasty.
2. The Scottish Government plans to do away with medical diagnosis altogether.