Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

That said, I can understand why someone who genuinely feels they are a woman would want to be treated as one. And I suspect many trans people have been quietly going about, using the facilities of their assumed gender, without much trouble, even if they've been spotted by the apparently 100% reliable detectors all women have. The problem is that a group of men have seized on the freedoms that were granted, in some cases, and assumed, in others, and used them for their own ends, whether to gain access to places they shouldn't be (toilets, women's sports committee posts intended for women, etc.), or to escape consequences of previous misdeeds (going to a women's prison instead of one for men).

If I could turn back time and freeze it how things used to work, where the occassional transsexxual who was clearly trying not to make anyone uncomfortable was tolerated at the discretion of the females in those spaces but where we could raise the alarm on males who were acting up... I would do it in a heartbeat. But like you say - the good graces of society, especially of females, has been abused to a point where I don't know if we'll ever be able to back to that. Which is sad.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And that, whether you can face it or not, is naked bigotry. Trans people are people too.

Mmm... I'm going to challenge your assertion here. First, let's acknowledge that transgender identified people are still people. Nobody has suggested they aren't.

Now then,

And you know what? There is no difference between men putting on womanface for one reason or for another. It's all the same to us.

Rolfe states that from the perspective of females, there's no difference between males who are wearing womanface - they're all wearing womanface regardless of their reason or their belief.

You claim that's naked bigotry.

So try this on: If a white person were to put on blackface because they genuinely identify as black... do you think that's meaningfully different from the perspective of a black person to a white person putting on blackface in parody or in mockery or to otherwise appropriate an experience they don't have? How do you think a black person should tell them apart?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've used this argument before. Women in their restrooms are not 'oppressed'. The transwomen who are trying to be criminalized for peeing are.

Do you think that males who are not transgender identifying should be given the right to use female single sex spaces to pee? You've previously said no, and I've backed you up on that even though it's often confusing.

Do you think it criminalizes males trying to pee if they're required to use the male facilities?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not in this corner of the Internet.

It's disappointing that the entrenched positions have resulted in better solutions for everybody being dismissed because they are perceived as giving up territory.

The problem is that you think they're better solutions for everybody, because you're approaching this from the perspective of a male, and you're assuming that everyone uses restrooms the same way males do.

It's *not* actually a better solution for females, for a great number of reasons. Generally speaking, females interact with each other in restrooms in ways that males do not. Your solution is better for males, it might be better for transgender identified males... but it's not actually better for females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Absolutely. Hate won out.

JFC, what is wrong with you that you think females wanting to have spaces where we have privacy from males in order to be partially nude or otherwise vulnerable is "hate"? What is wrong in your head that you think acknowledging biological reality and sexual dimorphism is "hate"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fully carpeted?

I'll uh... show myself out.

Clam chowder.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not directed at me obv, but that's a hard "sex matters" line, unlike, say, a place to pee. Literally, bio sex is what the place is about.

Eta: I wouldn't expect a gay man to take an interest in a transman with a ... what did smartcooky call it?... ah, yes, 'card swipe reader'.

Sexual orientation is about sex, not gender.

FYI, some transgender identified females have actually insisted that gay males should be willing to take them on as sexual partners... and that it's bigoted of gay males to not want to have sex with "front holes".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Should the owners of an establishment be able to refuse a person entry or membership for any reason?

No, including the hypothetical Sall.

Do they have to give a reason at all?

Yes. And it better be a good one, such as the person was considered likely to be a danger to him or herself, other people or property in the establishment.

The logical consequence of your position is that females have no right to exclude males who just want to watch them shower and change clothes, unless those females can unequivocally prove that such a male is a danger.

Congratulations, you're advocating to legalize non-consensual voyeurism.

 

[smartcooky]

JFC, what is wrong with you that you think females wanting to have spaces where we have privacy from males in order to be partially nude or otherwise vulnerable is "hate"? What is wrong in your head that you think acknowledging biological reality and sexual dimorphism is "hate"?

Because it appears that his definition of "hate" is "any opinion anyone holds with which he disagrees"

 

[Ziggurat]

Creating laws doesn't prevent Trans individuals from going into Women's bathrooms.

Sure. But it provides a mechanism to remove them, and protect women who object to their presence.

It just criminalizes a human biological function.

There are no human biological functions which dictate that transwomen need to use the women's bathrooms rather than the men's.

 

[d4m10n]

Should the owners of an establishment be able to refuse a person entry or membership for any reason?

Yes, and there is actually common name for this particular freedom.

Do they have to give a reason at all?

Not if you're asking me.

What might be the harm from allowing fear and hatred to fester in a society based on some real but mostly imagined bogeymen with particular characteristics?

Sall wants to facilitate females connecting with other females, there's no need to envision bogeymen as you have here.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, and there is actually common name for this particular freedom.

It would seem likely that the Australian Federal Court has violated articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in siding with "Roxanne".

Maybe Sall should set up shop in the UK, where she can absolutely and legally exclude "Roxanne" from membership because the latter is a male and does not meet the former's criteria.

 

[Rolfe]

This is only ten minutes, it's a radio segment. It's Helen Joyce, who was a party to the court case, who is steeped in every detail, and who understands it as well as the judges who issued the judgement. She is admirably clear and admirably focussed, and anyone who wants to know what the actual situation is, rather than wishful thinking put out by people who are disappointed with the result, should take the time to listen.


Here's another very informative segment, 11 minutes this time. It's Baroness Faulkner on Radio 4. She is another person who is extremely knowledgeable on the law in this area, and will be responsible to a large extent for seeing that it is properly put into practice. She again explains the situation as regards single-sex spaces very clearly. That is, if male people are permitted in such a space, it is no longer single-sex, it is mixed sex. If any business or organisation provides a facility that is advertised as single-sex, whether it's an F or a wee silhouette on the door, then it must be genuinely single-sex. It is lawful discrimination to exclude all males from that space.


I note so often in these interviews that within seconds of starting, the interviewer jumps to "but what about these poor trans people, how will they be feeling today, they've lost all these rights, where is your sympathy?" And the subtext of this is of course, you horrible women, why couldn't you just #bekind. Helen in particular pre-empts this by saying, hang on a minute, can we first talk about the women, the women who have got their private spaces back, the women who have been vilified and even lost their jobs for advocating what was their right all along? Then they get on to the trans people, and again Helen's line is very good. It is an absolute shame that these poor people were misled into thinking they were allowed to do something they never were actually legally permitted to do.

One interviewer repeatedly asked whether there would be an increase in friction and conflict now, as a result of all this. Helen pointed out that the friction and conflict was being caused because male people were going where they should not be, and were not welcome, and this was the root of the friction. She pointed to the multiple tribunals going on relating to women who were disciplined for protesting against being forced to share toilet and changing facilities at work with a man. These will now come to an end pretty quickly.

So what should the poor trans people do now? Baroness Faulkner said very reasonably that they should petition and campaign for their own third spaces, if they didn't want to use the space appropriate to their sex. This of course is what they should have been doing all along, but not only did they not do that, they vociferously refused to use these when they were provided. If there are so very few of them, there should be very little difficulty in finding solutions.

Apparently she has been pressurising the NHS to stop this "trans people go on the ward congruent with their expressed gender identity" for some time, and she now seems to be loading for bear on that one. Good.

The bottom line is that in any situation where it is proportionate and legitimate to exclude men, it is proportionate and legitimate and obligatory to exclude men with special lady feelz or even a special lady piece of paper. It is very reasonable and desirable to consider some way to make them comfortable, but that way does not include giving them permission to encroach on women's spaces.

 

[Graham2001]

Meanwhile in America (Courtesy of the Libertarians at Reason<dot>Com)

A recently introduced Colorado bill seeks to require judges to consider "misgendering" as a form of "coercive control" during child custody disputes. If passed, the bill would pose a major threat to parents' First Amendment rights and prevent judges from considering the individual circumstances surrounding family conflict over a child's gender identity.

The bill, the Kelly Loving Act, requires that "when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control." Since the bill defines coercive control as a "pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions, including assaults or other abuse, that is used to harm, punish, or frighten an individual," it would essentially force judges presiding over custody disputes to consider it form of child abuse when a parent refuses to use a child's chosen name.

Colorado Bill Would Force Judges To Consider 'Misgendering' a Form of 'Coercive Control' in Custody Cases

 

[Rolfe]

That is abominable.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmm... I'm going to challenge your assertion here. First, let's acknowledge that transgender identified people are still people. Nobody has suggested they aren't.

Now then,

Rolfe states that from the perspective of females, there's no difference between males who are wearing womanface - they're all wearing womanface regardless of their reason or their belief.

You claim that's naked bigotry.

So try this on: If a white person were to put on blackface because they genuinely identify as black... do you think that's meaningfully different from the perspective of a black person to a white person putting on blackface in parody or in mockery or to otherwise appropriate an experience they don't have? How do you think a black person should tell them apart?

How are we even supposed to tell? All of them are going to say the words "I'm a genuine trans person". None of them are going to admit they're only trying it on for fun and profit. Are we supposed to be mind-readers?

I keep asking those concerned to debunk all the examples of criminal assault by transwomen to google the case of Andrew Miller a.k.a. "Amy George". That happened only 30 miles from me. It started as appeals to find a missing primary school child, a girl, who had disappeared on her way home from school. Then, several days later, the usual incomplete reports about a house being surrounded and police activity started to emerge, together with hairshirting in certain quarters that the "trans community" was bracing itself for something that was going to be very bad for their reputation.

Andrew Miller was the local butcher. He inherited the business, and it was going downhill, partly because he frequently stood behind the counter serving customers tricked out as "Amy", and this creeped people out. He was known as "the local tranny" and regarded as an all-round weirdo. This had been going on for at least ten years I think. He had Facebook profiles set up as both Andrew and Amy.



On this particular afternoon he had encountered the little girl on her way home from school and offered her a lift. It was cold, and the girl accepted. She knew not to accept lifts from strange men, but being young and inexperienced she didn't realise that the person whose car she was getting into was a man. He took her to his home, kept her prisoner there for several days, and raped her multiple times. She was rescued in the end because he fell asleep and she was able to get to his phone and dial 999.

When he was charged he reverted to being Andrew and appeared in court as Andrew, requesting male pronouns. Why? Because he was trying not to blacken the reputation of the trans community.

One case. But we have many many more. Absolute freaking weirdo, nobody could possibly maintain that he wasn't "genuinely trans" given the longstanding existence of the Amy persona and his habit of appearing in public and serving in the shop as Amy. And absolutely using womanface to entice a child into his car, when the child would not have accepted a lift from a man.

 

[Rolfe]

First police force changes search guidelines for trans women in wake of Supreme Court gender ruling | LBC

Trans women in custody will be searched by male officers following Wednesday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling, the British Transport Police have said.

www.lbc.co.uk

And I can see a first lawsuit coming on under the Equality act and indirect discrimination for a "gender reassigned" person subject to such a search.

Darat, I don't know where you're reading this stuff, but everything you're posting is a misinterpretation of the judgement based on profound misunderstanding. Give it a rest.

The judgement is the last word on the subject, and it is admirably clear and easy to understand. For the purposes of the EA, the word "sex" means actual XY/XX biological sex. That's it. Intimate body searches are to be carried out by someone of the same sex as the person being searched. No lawyer is even going to begin proceedings for someone who is offended because he was searched by another man, because he knows the person doesn't have a valid case. He will advise his prospective client of that, and that will be the end of it.

And on the other side of your proposed lawsuit, there would be the prospect of a female officer being required to search a male. Female officers are already up in arms about being made to do this, at the behest of Stonewall who have been giving illegal advice to everyone on the planet about this for the past ten years. They are repulsed and disgusted. It doesn't matter what the trans-identifying man wants, female officers are no longer going to be required to search him.

Repeat after me. Any time it is legitimate to exclude a male, it is legitimate and obligatory to exclude a trans-identifying male. That's it. Toilets, changing rooms, strip searches, the lot. That's the judgement, all 88 pages of it.

The only way this is going to change is if parliament passes new legislation that supersedes the 2010 act. They are not going to do that. They have finally realised that they've been backing the wrong horse and now they just want it all to go away as quickly as possible. Starmer has been making a colossal fool of himself declaring that he has always been in favour of women's single sex spaces. Sarwar ditto. Even Swinney is backpedalling, and declaring that he isn't going to bring that thrice-damned GRR act back from the dead.

Not only that, we've passed peak trans. Younger people scorn the fad. Maybe it's rebellion against having it rammed down their throats at school, maybe it's just passing out of fashion like being a goth. Also, if being trans doesn't get you in to watch the girls undressing or let you beat them at sports, how many will still see it as worthwhile?

It's not going to be quick, but we're looking at the beginning of the end in this country at least.

 

[smartcooky]

Darat, I don't know where you're reading this stuff, but everything you're posting is a misinterpretation of the judgement based on profound misunderstanding.

Is he ever!!

Give it a rest.

Amen to that!

The judgement is the last word on the subject, and it is admirably clear and easy to understand. For the purposes of the EA, the word "sex" means actual XY/XX biological sex. That's it. Intimate body searches are to be carried out by someone of the same sex as the person being searched. No lawyer is even going to begin proceedings for someone who is offended because he was searched by another man, because he knows the person doesn't have a valid case. He will advise his prospective client of that, and that will be the end of it.

100%, and those cases already in progress are dead in the water. As for the Peggie v NHS/Upton case, that is all over bar the shouting.

NHS board being sued by Sandie Peggie will 'consider' gender ruling |…

archived 16 Apr 2025 15:11:27 UTC

archive.is

​

"NHS Fife notes the clarity provided by today’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the legal definition of a woman. We will now take time to carefully consider the judgment and its implications."​

This is Executive code for... "we've screwed the pooch. How the ◊◊◊◊ are we going to back out of this without looking like a clown show"

NHS Fife has zero choice in the matter - they have to admit they were wrong. Upton will either have to use the men's, or NHS Fife will have to set aside a unisex changing room. If they try to make the women's toilet unisex while they leave the men's toilet for men only, they will end up facing a doozy of a lawsuit. Its either both unisex (so that women can get away from people like Upton) or a new facility.

And on the other side of your proposed lawsuit, there would be the prospect of a female officer being required to search a male. Female officers are already up in arms about being made to do this, at the behest of Stonewall who have been giving illegal advice to everyone on the planet about this for the past ten years. They are repulsed and disgusted. It doesn't matter what the trans-identifying man wants, female officers are no longer going to be required to search him.

There may have even been cases where female detainees were subjected intimate body searches by TMI police officers. British Transport Police policy was that if a biologically male police officer with a GRC searched a woman, that search is deemed to have been carried out by a female. Even worse, the detainee had no right to refuse to be searched by that officer.

Repeat after me. Any time it is legitimate to exclude a male, it is legitimate and obligatory to exclude a trans-identifying male. That's it. Toilets, changing rooms, strip searches, the lot. That's the judgement, all 88 pages of it.

There have been pages of this explanation Rolfe. IMO, those who don't get it by now, are wilfully refusing to get it.

The only way this is going to change is if parliament passes new legislation that supersedes the 2010 act. They are not going to do that.

Given that near 100% of politically right voters, and a huge chunk (probably more than half) of politically left voters agree with this ruling, any goverment trying that would be committing political suicide.

They have finally realised that they've been backing the wrong horse and now they just want it all to go away as quickly as possible. Starmer has been making a colossal fool of himself declaring that he has always been in favour of women's single sex spaces. Sarwar ditto. Even Swinney is backpedalling, and declaring that he isn't going to bring that thrice-damned GRR act back from the dead.

Not only that, we've passed peak trans. Younger people scorn the fad. Maybe it's rebellion against having it rammed down their throats at school, maybe it's just passing out of fashion like being a goth. Also, if being trans doesn't get you in to watch the girls undressing or let you beat them at sports, how many will still see it as worthwhile?

It's not going to be quick, but we're looking at the beginning of the end in this country at least.

%

 

[Aber]

Also, when I google "Tiffany Aching", all I get is a Terry Pratchett character.

A well-known dodge:

It's why Ireland's most well known offender has chosen to be known as Barbie Kardashian - it makes finding details about them online very difficult.

 

[Aber]

The spaces for changing rooms could be better utilised by having a unisex changing room with individual stalls. E.g., sports groups of one sex using a facility which would overwhelm the capacity of a sex-segregated changing room.

Not a solution.

See Swim England's recent report on voyeurism:

We strongly recommend that Organisations engage locally with pool providers to create simple barrier systems, or make use of natural barriers between cubicles (e.g. lockers) to enable mixed ‘changing villages’ to be used only as separate changing areas for either sex.