Sure sounds like censorship to me...

[sadkingbilly]

See below

[SueEllen]

You are quite right. The term doesn't mean what I thought it did. Thank you for the correction. It's also not the policy. Only legal women are allowed in the women's sauna.

Legal?

AHH bollocks...

[NotAllThere]

Legal?

AHH bollocks...

I.e. those in possession of a gender certificate. Which doesn't require a lack of bollocks.

If you are not legally a woman, you are not permitted to enter a women's sauna. Swiss law. Sorry if it offends you.

[vetran]

I.e. those in possession of a gender certificate. Which doesn't require a lack of bollocks.

If you are not legally a woman, you are not permitted to enter a women's sauna. Swiss law. Sorry if it offends you.

Seems reasonable one assumes its after an assessment with a medical professional?

[SueEllen]

I.e. those in possession of a gender certificate. Which doesn't require a lack of bollocks.

If you are not legally a woman, you are not permitted to enter a women's sauna. Swiss law. Sorry if it offends you.

What about toilets which appears the most hysteria is about?

(Women's toilets in the UK and most of Europe have full length cubicles there as they don't all tend to in the US.)

[vetran]

What about toilets which appears the most hysteria is about?

(Women's toilets in the UK and most of Europe have full length cubicles there as they don't all tend to in the US.)

Actually most of the fuss was the changing areas. As you say toilets have cubicles.

Though I have always doubted the sense of unisex toilets in venues serving large amounts of Alcohol.

[SueEllen]

Actually most of the fuss was the changing areas. As you say toilets have cubicles.

Though I have always doubted the sense of unisex toilets in venues serving large amounts of Alcohol.

To be fair same sex toilets with cubicles have the same risk in those venues...

[wattaj]

Your fixation of wanting the law to protect your feelings is not shared by most people, so what is clear to you is not what is clear to rational adults.

It's obvious that there will be women in the UK who don't like transwomen being in the same room as them let alone a changing room. That isn't contested by anyone. So why would they be asking for evidence of that from you?

The discussion about trans in changing rooms is about alleged safety not preventing discomfort. If there is no founded safety concerns, which you haven't demonstrated, then opposition to trans people in changing rooms sounds awfully like 'I don't want to change with the blacks, they make me feel uncomfortable'.

And, we're back...

I see that the discussion has moved on a pace over the weekend, but to very little effect in either direction: those that believe in objective reality are not persuaded by those that believe that vague handwaving is a cogent argument... and vice versa.

But, if I may, and in an attempt to address many of the points that have been raised, I'd like to come back on a few things:

Your fixation of wanting the law to protect your feelings is not shared by most people, so what is clear to you is not what is clear to rational adults.
...
The discussion about trans in changing rooms is about alleged safety not preventing discomfort. If there is no founded safety concerns, which you haven't demonstrated, then opposition to trans people in changing rooms sounds awfully like 'I don't want to change with the blacks, they make me feel uncomfortable'.

Your point RE "not shared by most people" is not supported by the reality that the attitude of the majority of people changes significantly when "medical transition" is introduced as a clarifying factor.

In fact, one could argue that the transgender lobby has done a remarkable job in hiding the truth from the wider public... a point underlined by the exposure of the "Dentons Playbook" in recent years.

And, once again, please do not conflate race with the transgender debate as these things are NOT the same: at no point in the fight for equality and civil rights was the unnecessary and experimental medicalisation of children; the insertion of mediocre, male-bodied people into women's sport; and the wanton destruction of safeguarding around single sex spaces a demand... that is the sole preoccupation of the transgender lobby.

My old mucka malvolio is quite correct when he points out that...

...The whole issue arises from a belief that your beliefs and rights transcend anyone else's, and that your sense of entitlement means you do not have to consider anyone else's...

The transgender movement reeks of entitlement.

But not everyone, as cojak points out:

Trans people are just trying to get on with their lives....

I have said previously that I believe that this is true. But, I also believe that these people are a minority within an otherwise shouty and emboldened movement that has no respect for the feelings of others.

...Why should they change if they are hurting no-one and offending no-one apart from those who think trans shouldn’t exist?

However, I do take exception with that final point: "...apart from those who think trans shouldn’t exist..."

I have not come across anyone within the GC movement that takes this view. No one. What I have found is that this is misinformation from the transgender side; a side that screams victim at any opportunity in an attempt to shut down debate.

Please do not be fooled.

And so, moving on...

Going into a changing rooms and getting changed is not indecent exposure regardless of the sex/gender of the people in the room. The sense of entitlement you have is off the scale...

It actually is: a male bodied person using a changing room designated for females to their "alarm or distress" is the very definition of indecent exposure.

You should look it up; a firm grasp of these details might be important to your future defense.

...The only choice you have is not to use that changing room, you have no choice in deciding who is and isn't allowed in, be it a trans women, an old women or black women.

Again with the race card. Find a better argument.

You are wrong.

vetran is not wrong.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...cases-naturism

If s66 doesn't capture naturists then it doesn't capture anyone getting changed in a changing room.

Naturalism is by consent. ALL parties are aware of the situation to which they have consented by entering into a shared space. This is not a defense upon which you should rely.

I have found that the general consensus tends toward 'live as you want, but you're still your birth sex; cope".

Which will prove interesting if trans men have to follow that argument and are forced to use women’s toilets. How will that help anyone? It seems to me that this trans debate is focused on trans women, which is also interesting.

Yes, this is an interesting point, and one that is worth spending a little time on...

Trans-identifying females can look very masculine given sufficient artificial testosterone and time to develop their desired body shape -- often looking more masculine than many natural men -- so how should one treat "transmen"?

Delicately, I would argue: transmen are still female and they still exhibit female psychology (i.e. they are significantly less likely to predate on women... in fact, I do not recall having seen any cases of that happening^*), but they might still inadvertently cause "alarm and distress" in a female designated space. So, what should one do? I don't think that they should be forced to use women's spaces, but that option should be available to them if they do not feel safe using male spaces... but this is a discussion that should take place between women and transmen. These are strictly female concerns and I don't think that it would be appropriate for me, as a male, to intrude... but, and having said that, I have no problem with transmen using male spaces; they are not a threat to my safety, or that of other males... though I might feel sad for them if I were to realise that they have transitioned.

There have also been women accosted for using the ladies because they didn't look feminine enough. One incident in the US of police ordering a tomboy out under threat of arrest because she wouldn't give him ID to prove she was female.

Yes, there have. And rightly so. I would hope that all women would challenge anyone in their spaces who looks indistinguishable from a man. The incident to which you refer -- though no doubt embarrassing for the transman -- could have been easily resolved by showing ID.

You are likely to retort with "why should she", well, because SHE LOOKS LIKE A ******* MAN and she has chosen to use a female space!

This is one of those have cake / eat cake situations. Pick one; both is not an option.

How does a toilet ban reduce the threat from sex offenders? Are women currently being assaulted in toilets now? If so are sex offenders known for obeying laws and signs?

"It already happens" is not the winner that you think it is. Yes, women are already sexually assaulted in what one would naturally assume to be a safe space, but this does not mean that we should further open up these spaces to men. There is no way to tell the good guys from the bad guy, so we keep ALL guys out. This is a fundamental premise of safeguarding.

So, JustKeepSwimming, a genuine question: how many women should be sacrificed so that men can wear frocks and pee in the ladies?

...I'm not trying to make it easier for offenders. You seem hell bent on discriminating against people trying to wave 'women safety' as your excuse without being able to actually articulate how women are safer with your discrimination.

If you don't want to answer that simple question, how about another. How do you enforce your new Jim Crow laws. Are we all going to have to show our passport when entering a toilet?

Ooh, ooh, I know; ask me!

Here's the thing, yes, you are trying to make it easier for offenders; that is what self-identification of gender does. It's not even being sneaky about it. It just brushes these concerns aside. Further, the statistics on physical and sexual assault are clear (~99% of physical assault, ~98% of sexual assault is perpetrated by males)... ~75% of victims are female.

I've mentioned this previously, but you have chosen to disregard this point. One can only assume that you have done so as it does not fit your narrative.

Weird, because many of the examples cited so far have explicitly said that the trans person's was made to feel uncomfortable. So, according to you, women aren't allowed to feel uncomfortable, but transwomen are. Again the tiny minority have their feelings and rights trumping the majority.

When my daughters were in their teens they went swimming at our local pool. In the changing rooms there was a transwoman standing around naked with their male genitals on display. It made them feel extremely uncomfortable. Why? Because they a) don't want to see the genitals of a strange apparent male, and b) don't want someone who looks male in the same room as them when they get changed.

Eventually the person was challenged by an older woman who told the person to put some bloody clothes on and stop parading around like a dick.

There wouldn't be any issues if people were discreet.

NotAllThere gets it.

In summary, JustKeepSwimming has no argument in support of [ his | her | ungendered pronoun ] position and, instead, has chosen to prevaricate and smear in pursuit of an ideological position more closely aligned with that of sex offenders. That is an odd hill on which to choose to die, but each to their own.

I'm off for a cup of tea.

Play nicely whilst I'm gone.




^* female accomplices to male sexual predators (e.g. Myra Hindley, Rose West) being the outliers to the general case of female psychology.

[vetran]

To be fair same sex toilets with cubicles have the same risk in those venues...

I'm not sure, willing to be educated.

A group of men getting into the ladies would normally attract the bouncers in my experience.

A singular man may be able to slip in but the ladies would probably eject him. He wouldn't be able to wait for a suitable victim.

[sadkingbilly]

geez, is this load of old bollocks still going?