Scarf in Suffragette colours not allowed in Scottish Parliament.

Doodledog that's horrendous, and he made the girl pregnant. Poor lass, she was well and truly groomed. I don't understand the jury finding not guilty to the rape charges. He penetrated her resulting in a pregnancy, and she was too young to give her consent to sex. I know it's largely ignored with two consenting teens of similar ages but this was a man years older

Callistemon21

^Leicestershire Police - who said the 25-year-old identified as a woman at the time of the offences - were not able to give a current gender identity^
So this person raped a young girl, making her pregnant but Leicestershire Police are not able to establish his gender?

I know that not everyone agrees with me on the surgery thing, but I think that if someone is taking female hormones and has no penis they are unlikely to pose a threat.
I agree.

The juxtaposition of those comments sums up the problems caused by Stonewall and the recent 'explosion' in people saying they are trans.

Of course someone who has sex with and impregnates a girl has to be male. A man. Calling him 'they/she/this person' is ridiculous.

Someone born male but now without a penis and full of oestrogen is still male, but is not in remotely the same category as above, IMO. I would give them the right to be in female spaces, as I think it would be cruel not to and they are unlikely to harm women. It seems to me that the problem is that we are forced to treat people in the two categories as the same.

Unfair to those in the second, and to members of the public who are being coerced into denying the evidence of their eyes and the instincts which tell males and females apart.

Leicestershire Police - who said the 25-year-old identified as a woman at the time of the offences - were not able to give a current gender identity
So this person raped a young girl, making her pregnant but Leicestershire Police are not able to establish his gender?

I know that not everyone agrees with me on the surgery thing, but I think that if someone is taking female hormones and has no penis they are unlikely to pose a threat.
I agree.

Saetana Mermaids mission statement from the early days stated that LGB was the likely outcome for children with gender distress, with some others being heterosexual and only a small proportion being transexual. Now they seem to go for 100% 'born in the wrong body' so full on homophobia.

I am also curious to know why the explosion has happened, and share your concern.

Who is helped by cases like this one?

A 'transwoman' is jailed for having sex with a 14 year old, whose parents thought the perpetrator was a genuine friend.
There is no doubt that this person is male. You can see it at a glance, but the BBC are reporting it in mealy-mouthed terms, carefully using no pronouns at all, instead using 'the defendant', or 'the offender'. The police are 'not able to give a current gender identity for him.

Genuine transwomen are not helped by this at all. There should be much tighter definitions, but that would entail 'allies' explaining what the difference is between a man, a transwoman and a man who says he is a woman.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63785679

I am curious about the explosion in the trans community in the last decade. Many years ago myself and my late husband used to go to fetish/bdsm clubs. As well as those of us into various kinks, there was also a moderate contingent of what nowadays would be called trans people. However, back then they fit into three distinct groups:

1. Crossdressers - men who enjoyed wearing women's clothing but had no desire to either look like or become a woman.

2. Transvestites - men who did their utmost to look like women (and I've seen some incredibly convincing ones) but had no desire to actually become a woman.

3. Transsexuals - men who had gender dysphoria and actually wanted to become women. This third group was incredibly rare in comparison to the other two.

All these men came to the clubs because it was a safe and accepting space - and everyone used whichever toilets they were comfortable with - because we were a group of likeminded people who were all different in some way and because safe, sane and consensual was not just a mantra but strictly enforced.

The lovely "trans" people who we met would have been horrified at what the trans activists are doing now - they just wanted to get on quietly with their fetish/kink and did not want to take rights away from women. They had no "right" to use the women's facilities but the women were in agreement that those who felt more comfortable could do so. To be honest, we used the men's as well - whichever had the shortest queue lol! This was possible because we all felt safe and respected.

I am concerned that transvestites are possibly being pushed into thinking they are in the wrong body, the same as I am concerned about young gay and lesbian people being influenced in the same way due to homophobia. I've actually heard of homophobic parents being happier that little Jane is really little Johnny rather than a young lesbian. Genuine gender dysphoria is incredibly rare and I am worried about this contagion and where it is going to lead. We already have scandals and lawsuits on both sides of the pond kicking off, especially when it comes to young people who had been convinced by others they were trans and rushed into irreversible treatment.

I know that not everyone agrees with me on the surgery thing, but I think that if someone is taking female hormones and has no penis they are unlikely to pose a threat.

Which still brings us back to the 'how would you know?' question, which in turn brings me back to thinking that it's not up to women to sort that one out. If men/transwomen want to use female spaces then they should come up with the answer, and women should not be expected to 'put up and shut up' until that happens, as a solution will be a long time coming.

I have no interest I am afraid in what men have done or not done to their bodies. The presence of those men whether they have had surgery or not will mean some women exclude themselves from changing rooms refuges etc. We are where we are because we thought we were being kind. We were wrong.

FarNorth Why does this not surprise me at all?
The Scottish Govt has consistently refused to listen to several women’s groups trying to voice their concerns about the proposed GRR bill, so of course it wouldn’t want any discussion about single sex spaces, etc. to be heard at this conference.
Sinead Watson and Ritchie Herron were at Holyrood a week ago to talk to SMPs about their concerns. I’m not sure how many MSPs spoke to them but as far as I know no Green or SNP MSPs did.
I’ve just read on Twitter that someone interrupted the proceedings at the conference. NS said she was sorry if it was her presence that was the cause of that.

FarNorth

How about Ladies', Gents' and also Gender Neutral with urinals?

Yes, but that would only work in buildings where there is space and plumbing capacity to add a new set of facilities. It could be a requirement for new builds, but it's not necessarily possible to convert old ones, and who should foot the bill?

Here's the latest in Scotland - a conference run by Zero Tolerance, on how to combat violence against women and girls, advised participants that there was to be no talk of single-sex places or of how to define what a woman is.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6706e702-6f72-11ed-8a5b-f385de7508fe?shareToken=407f9a160bd8b1dbf625e6abdbcb805c&fbclid=IwAR3lAQPNE5Lv9x5-Y8jFM27tQEa9Ws-YNZa0Xg7UaauKWny4hKj79eRzxQ8

Glorianny, you say I also think that anyone who shows concern for all people is far more likely to support women than anyone who chooses to dismiss and vilify minority groups in order to achieve their aims.

But since you think men should take priority and that’s your version of concern for everybody, your ‘concern’ is not really a target for feminists to aspire to.

You keep mentioning these people who
dismiss and vilify minority groups but who are they?
Are they your friends? Or people you work with?
Can’t be posters on GN because if you ever bother to read posts on here, the condemnation is always for
1.those TW who are a danger to females and who show they are a danger to females by their actions
(not your blanket ‘all TW’ that you refer to.)

2. TRA and anyone, including you if it fits your behaviour, who supports the actions of the TW mentioned in 1 above and who support those who harm females like the attacks on JKR.

Sorry this response is a bit late but work takes priority.

How about Ladies', Gents' and also Gender Neutral with urinals?

Because men are used to women finding solutions or if there aren’t any to making men’s lives easier?

There really is not a solution other than to ask for every public building to be renovated. ‘Converting’ Ladies’ loos to ‘unisex’ inconveniences women, the Gents’ are configured so that if they were made ‘unisex’ women would have to walk past urinals, so replumbing to allow special loos for transpeople is the only way - and even then, many would not want to use them as doing so would be ‘outing’.

That wouldn't work to remove women's distress at knowing that any male who chooses could be lurking in women's facilities.

It also relies on women reporting crime & going through a legal process which probably won't end in conviction for the man, anyway.

Why are trans people & their supporters not asking for facilities to give privacy to everyone?

True. There is no easy answer other than to have an extra and mandatory penalty for anyone using the cover of trans to commit a crime. I’m not even sure that that would work, but off the top of my head I can’t think why not.

That brings you back to the question of whether toilets will have monitors to check inside people's pants .

I think it would screen out the vast majority of men masquerading as transwomen, though.

Committed to surgery would certainly work from the point of view that the person would lack the equipment to rape. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work,
according to a tweet from a person who had gone through the whole surgical transformation only to be rejected by men when they found out, because the person was still male.

No, Galaxy. That is what I think too.

I may have given a different impression because of having to follow such convoluted hypotheses as men pretending to be transmen in order to access women's facilities.

It is because some men are a threat to women that no men should be allowed in women's spaces. I would, however, make an exception for those who have committed to surgery, as IMO although that won't make them women it makes them far less likely to be a threat. I appreciate that that is not the view of everyone, but contrary to what appears to be popular opinion on here, I don't think the so-called 'GC' on here speak as one

So I think I take a slightly different view from others, my concern is men in womens spaces, transwomen are male, they dont appear to have any different offending profile from men, I don't think they are some sort of special group of men who are not a risk to women. They are not a potential risk because they are trans they are a potential risk because they are male.

So a man is more likely to look for a dress, buy a dress, buy a wig, buy and apply make up, shoes, tights etc? Not to mention make a legal statement, supply evidence of living as a transwoman which self ID requires.
But he won't need to.
Because all he has to do if he is challenged is say he's a transman, pretending is much easier when you don't need to dress up. What's 'convoluted" about it? A predatory man could pass a woman's toilet and just decide to go in

Yeah, nothing convoluted about that at all. Eminently sensible.

Don't hold your breath, Rosie. I'm still waiting to hear a definitions of 'man', 'transwoman' and 'man in a dress', and also for an explanation of the reasoning that Glorianny thinks proves that TWAW.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny I don't see a transman using male toilets as me putting them in danger, but them making a choice. If men are uncomfortable or feel threatened by these generally smaller transmen then it's for them to work out, nothing to do with me.

I've answered every question you've put to me so would you please be kind enough to explain how a man who becomes a transwoman lives and presents as a woman. What changes do they make to how they lived and presented as a man?

So they choose to use the women's facilities Rosie51, as you believe they have a right to. But they look like men. So people who look like men are in women's spaces, so what is to stop a predatory man entering as well and saying he's a transman?

I think most wouldn't use the women's facilities because they currently use the men's without any problem. They are not going to declare themselves transmen just to satisfy your wish. Have you even spoken to any transmen, the one I know wouldn't go near the women's unless compelled?

I've answered every question you've put to me so would you please be kind enough to explain how a man who becomes a transwoman lives and presents as a woman. What changes do they make to how they lived and presented as a man?

I assume that you can't give an answer to this part of my post which you quoted because you would need to fall back on stereotypical examples. Must be so gutting that this question is one you can't answer without having to admit that.

Doodledog

*In fact considerably less odd because he wouldn't need to do any of that, just wander in looking as male as he likes and assert he's a transman.*
But I do sympathise it must be awful to have a massive hole blown in your favourite hypothesis.
My hypothesis remains intact. Under self-id, all someone needs to do is assert their femaleness (regardless of appearance) in order to access spaces where women are vulnerable. That is worrying, but not odd.

What is odd is the idea that a man might pretend to be a woman who is pretending to be a man so that he can access women's spaces. That is odder than odd. And the fact that you can come up with this sort of thing with no consideration that the motive for such convoluted behaviour can only be detrimental to women is odder still.

So a man is more likely to look for a dress, buy a dress, buy a wig, buy and apply make up, shoes, tights etc? Not to mention make a legal statement, supply evidence of living as a transwoman which self ID requires.
But he won't need to.
Because all he has to do if he is challenged is say he's a transman, pretending is much easier when you don't need to dress up. What's 'convoluted" about it? A predatory man could pass a woman's toilet and just decide to go in

In fact considerably less odd because he wouldn't need to do any of that, just wander in looking as male as he likes and assert he's a transman.
But I do sympathise it must be awful to have a massive hole blown in your favourite hypothesis.
My hypothesis remains intact. Under self-id, all someone needs to do is assert their femaleness (regardless of appearance) in order to access spaces where women are vulnerable. That is worrying, but not odd.

What is odd is the idea that a man might pretend to be a woman who is pretending to be a man so that he can access women's spaces. That is odder than odd. And the fact that you can come up with this sort of thing with no consideration that the motive for such convoluted behaviour can only be detrimental to women is odder still.