Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

And thanks for your definitive Mollygo, much appreciated.

Be kind Mollygo, try not to take offence, we women must accept & accommodate the nebulous concept of being only the so called real deal along with the equally fantastic notion of lady dicks!

Oh! except now we absolutely don't.

Nannee49

Can someone on here define what a lady dick is, please?

The penis of a male who pretends to be a woman, but still has his equipment and wishes to use it on female.
Or possible what KS wrongly thought 1% of women have.

Oh, of course, all the crowds of transgender females crowding out the so called real deal
How rude, but not unexpected from someone who thinks it’s OK to pick and choose which rules to follow, and who supports TW over females.

Can someone on here define what a lady dick is, please?

Mollygo

You’re right to question the source of that info and I’m sorry I did not do so.

The following does have a verifiable source.

The fact that half of male prisoners who identify as transgender have been sentenced for sexual crime is strong evidence that transwomen exhibit a high propensity to commit sexual crime similar to that observed for men. They do not exhibit a low propensity to commit sexual crime like that observed for women.

^It appears that identifying as a woman does not reduce the risk that male people can pose to others. If identifying as a women did reduce the propensity to commit sex crime to female levels we would have expected to see just 3 or 4 of transwomen in prison with sex crime convictions. Instead we see up to 76.^

Give us that exact source , please .

Oops. The fact that men have facilities on every floor is irritating, but when they can also use the Ladies as they have become unisex the problem is exacerbated. Make students and staff, trans or not, use them when passing, which is often, as they are near the entrance to the building.

Maybe read the list before reacting?

Oh, of course, all the crowds of transgender females crowding out the so called real deal.

When you work in a building with one set of Ladies’ loos over three floors, and that doubles as the disabled loo it is difficult enough now that women are allowed in universities as both staff and students. The fact that men have facilities on every floor

Could you be more insulting to biological women than calling them the so called real deal? Why don't you think women are entitled to privacy away from male bodied people in any circumstances? Maybe you think there shouldn't be any single sex spaces, let all the males in?

Doodledog

No, it's definitely not what I would want. And as I've said on one of the current threads, in reality it usually means that a 'unisex toilet is made out of the Ladies' because of the plumbing arrangements precluding a third space and the fact that the Gents has a row of urinals. That really adds insult to injury, given that women take longer to pee because we had to remove clothes and have many have to deal with periods, and many others take children with them.

Making our loos even more crowded when men have fewer visitors to theirs, where they just have to unzip is really not the answer.

Oh, of course, all the crowds of transgender females crowding out the so called real deal .

eazybee
Not convinced this or any other government will endorse the Supreme Court Ruling unless they think it will earn them votes. Keir Starmer seems more afraid of the backlash from males.
You would have thought he’d be relieved that someone else has made the decision for him. Where are the high profile Rachel and Angela in all this?
Great if they’d supported women instead of men.

Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?
The question has been answered by the ruling that only biological women can be designated women, and only they are permitted to use single-sex spaces.

But it appears the Government has not given any endorsement of this; there are accusations that Labour MPs led by Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle, are meeting to discuss how to circumvent this ruling, and a growing fear that things will remain as they are, with transwomen allowed to use female only spaces and participate in female sports.

And the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has not said a word.

One hopes the Supreme Court will enforce its ruling, but if the Government does not endorse it, then how?
And all this for a very aggressive, very small minority.
How has it come to this?

Single sex toilets should be compulsory in buildings that stay open at night (eg in universities, hospitals and anywhere that can be accessed by the public - which includes universities and hospitals).

I've said this before, but in my old workplace the Ladies was near the entrance, and the building was on a public right of way which was used as a shortcut at all hours of day and night (the building was open until 9.00pm and accessible with swipe access 24/7.)

The Gents was deep inside the building, and it is unlikely that anyone not familiar with it would know where to look, but it wasn't uncommon for members of the public to use the Ladies. This wasn't a big problem during the day when the place was busy (and I only saw women in there), but I would have felt very uncomfortable at night to come across a man, whether he was staff, student or a member of the public, and a young student could be very vulnerable.

Obviously unless there is good security anyone can gain access whatever the signage, but as with pubs, as soon as it is acceptable for men to use the Ladies, it is much more difficult for people to challenge someone they think might pose a risk.

Dr Helen Webberley, the struck off GP who promotes transgenderism, has already tweeted out that in the light of the Supreme Court's clarification, all venues, schools, offices etc should immediately change their signage to just what each room holds. So toilet, shower, changing facilities and not indicate any restriction as to sex. I fully expect that some captured organisations will try, but I think there is an obligation under some circumstances to provide single sex accommodations, workplace changing rooms for example?

No, it's definitely not what I would want. And as I've said on one of the current threads, in reality it usually means that a 'unisex toilet is made out of the Ladies' because of the plumbing arrangements precluding a third space and the fact that the Gents has a row of urinals. That really adds insult to injury, given that women take longer to pee because we had to remove clothes and have many have to deal with periods, and many others take children with them.

Making our loos even more crowded when men have fewer visitors to theirs, where they just have to unzip is really not the answer.

I think if it starts to become problematic as Mollygo has described with TRAs saying that some transwomen are using women's toilets so they should be able to as well then councils may decide that all toilets will be unisex to avoid the time and money for them and the police to sort the complaints out.

This would not be what most of us want.

I think it was gravely irresponsible of a newspaper, regarding Brexit, to refer to judges as "enemies of the people", and I wonder if that attitude is leading a disregard of the rule of law, where people are now thinking that they can choose whether to abide by the law or not.

This cannot be said often enough, Smileless2012

Women's spaces are for women and women are defined by their biological sex as men are defined by theirs.

The lives and peace of mind of those who just want to live their lives have probably been turned upside down by the TRA's who don't care about them anymore then they care for women.

Difficult though this situation brought about by TRA and some TW, is for women and trans who have caused no harm, is it only me who finds it strange to read how many people are saying that it’s OK to choose which rules we follow and which we don’t.

It wouldn't work Doodledog. Unfortunately even though there are trans women who no longer have their male genitalia, and trans women who do but wouldn't dream of advertising the fact in a woman's safe space or do anything to make women feel uncomfortable or threatened, the law is clear.

Women's spaces are for women and women are defined by their biological sex as men are defined by theirs.

The lives and peace of mind of those who just want to live their lives have probably been turned upside down by the TRA's who don't care about them anymore then they care for women.

The only ones they give a damn about are themselves.

PS It should be borne in mind that women have, on the whole, been quietly gong about our own lives, and didn't ask for this to happen either.

I wish this hadn't happened to the 'quiet transwomen' who have been going about their lives, but it has, thanks to the loud and aggressive TRAs who have forced the issue.

So now we are left with a situation where there are going to be losers. The question is should it be a small number of TW who lose out, or the vastly more numerous group of women who lost so much to this movement? I, like others, would rather nobody lost out, but it's just not possible to separate one group of TW from another. How would that work? Would people who aren't 'feminine' enough have fewer rights than those who could do 'girly' more convincingly, and who would decide what 'feminine enough' actually means? I'm not sure I would pass that test, and I'm definitely a woman.

Yes as the event wasn’t filmed nor were attendees as they left, TRAs who’d participated recognised my group and let rip. One left Facebook and all other social media because she was identified and subjected to abuse. Vanities asked to leave the Green Party as her gender critical views weren’t welcome. She’d simply spoken of support for prof stott.
It’s been weird ands bit Alice through the looking glass

Absolute disgrace Iam. Surely criminal threats? I suppose the problem would be evidence? Absolute hate speech and as for those decisions....

Mollygo - thanks for clarifying that half of male prisoners who identify as transgender have been sentenced for sexual crime. It’s strong evidence that trans women exhibit a propensity to commit sexual crime to that observed for men

I remain shocked that my three friends were subjected to threats they’d be “raped to death with my lady dick”. They ‘provoked’ this by attending a women’s workshop where the contributed to a discussion after Guide leaders announced boys who self id as girls would share the same dorm as 13-16 year old girls at camp. Also, that neither the girls or their parents would be consulted or informed if this was to happen

You’re right to question the source of that info and I’m sorry I did not do so.

The following does have a verifiable source.

The fact that half of male prisoners who identify as transgender have been sentenced for sexual crime is strong evidence that transwomen exhibit a high propensity to commit sexual crime similar to that observed for men. They do not exhibit a low propensity to commit sexual crime like that observed for women.

It appears that identifying as a woman does not reduce the risk that male people can pose to others. If identifying as a women did reduce the propensity to commit sex crime to female levels we would have expected to see just 3 or 4 of transwomen in prison with sex crime convictions. Instead we see up to 76.