Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

This is absolutely fall-down funny.

Open Letter to Parliament: Trans Rights Now!

An open letter to Parliament, demanding action to ensure the rights of transgender and nonbinary Britons.

transrightsnow.uk

The perpetrators of that missive have taken it down, but fortunately it has been archived.

Open Letter to Parliament | Trans Rights Now!

archived 24 Apr 2025 22:20:36 UTC

archive.is

 

[Rolfe]

This long tweet is about trans activists, not trans people themselves. It demonstrates the shocking treatment of women who dare to speak up about this, and the difficulty they face getting justice.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915465481902809137

 

[angrysoba]

some

1. used to mean an amount of something without saying exactly how much or how…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Hope this helps...

But for clarification, clockwise from top left

1. Anthony Peers: a violent male who identifies as a transgender woman, was convicted in November 2024 at Liverpool Crown Court of two counts of rape, attempted rape, three charges of sexual assault and two offences of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The Liverpool Echo noted that Peers’ crimes were so disturbing that the details were too graphic to publish.

3. Jason Hill: a manipulative male who identifies as transgender. Served a 4½ year jail term imposed on being convicted paedophilia charges. He pretended be a teenage girl on Facebook to lure underage boys for an that he could sexually abuse them, and groomed them to send explicit sexual images of themselves.

5. Andrew Fleming: a violent male who identifies as a transgender woman, was convicted at Newcastle Crown Court in March 2024 of harassment putting a person in fear of violence, and of assaulting an emergency worker. Fleming undertook a campaign of harrassment against a neighbour, banging in the door at all hours of the night, cul;n=minating in threats to kill.

6. Sean Smith: a transgender identifying male. Arrested on one count of felony voyeurism when he was caught taking pictures of women in a Target changing room. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prisons and a $3000 fine.

7. Martin Tarling: a male who identifies as a transgender woman. This one's a real charmer - charged with nine offences at South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court in December 2023. Four counts of dumping bags of toxic materials, namely nappies containing human waste, at nurseries on South Tyneside, contrary to the Environmental Protection Act. One count of outraging public decency, by behaving in an indecent manner, namely by being inside a bin containing the waste of children, including with soiled nappies and disclosed garments and interacting with the soiled nappies in sight of the public. One count of criminal damage by smearing excrement on milk bottles intended for consumption by small children’ and on other parts of a nursery building, including the fire escape. One count of intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance between October 2022 and November 2023 at South Tyneside, without reasonable excuse, by continuously dumping adult human waste and other materials on the street and at nursery premises and interfering with the contents of clinical waste bins containing faecal matter from children and babies, one count of theft of a roll of clinical waste bags from a local nursery. Two counts of breaching a criminal behaviour order imposed by Nottinghamshire Magistrates’ Court in April this year, by being within 10 metres of a nursery without reasonable excuse, and/or ‘by removing items from a waste receptacle in direct contravention of said order.

8. Christopher Worton: A violent male who identifies as a transwoman. Convicted of five counts of rape against a child aged between 13 and 15. On release, breaching his sexual harm prevention order by visiting a home in the city, while a child was there, and by possessing indecent images of a child.

IMO, 6 out of 8 qualifies as "some".

You should work on making your arguments better.

If I put a picture of you up on some billboard or forum and said “some of these people are pedophiles” alongside some convicted pedophiles you might not like it, especially if I didn’t initially bother to point out who was not.

I don’t think you would be placated by some facile and sarcastic explanation of what the meaning of “some” is. No, I would expect you to be outraged at the insinuation.

So why not stop being a ◊◊◊◊, eh?

 

[d4m10n]

Right, that's why such people are royal pains in the asses.

Church-state separationists?

Third wave intersectional feminists?

Females who prefer third-person plural pronouns?

 

[Ziggurat]

The recent supreme Court judgement in the UK has moved the UK to self-ID.

The only possible explanation I have for your post is that you do not understand what the term "self ID" means in the context of this thread.

 

[Thermal]

Church-state separationists?

Third wave intersectional feminists?

Females who prefer third-person plural pronouns?

Aliens.

 

[Rolfe]

The recent supreme Court judgement in the UK has moved the UK to self-ID.

OK, I admit I'm agog to find out what Darat means by this. If he means that a GRC has about as much clout as a Blue Peter badge, and anyone who simply self-declares a trans status has in practice pretty much the same rights as a GRC holder (apart from some legal issues) then he's right. But that's not what self-ID is generally believed to mean.

Neither males with a GRC nor males without one are permitted to enter facilities designated for women only. This applies both to workplace facilities and those provided for the public. The only difference is that employers are obliged to provide single-sex facilities for their staff whereas providers of services to the public are not.

I am not yet entirely clear what this last bit actually means in practice. It certainly means that unisex toilets, that is a single lockable room containing all facilities, which may be used sequentially by people of either sex, are permissible, but in fact these are permissible in the workplace as well. However reading the details of the judgement it seems to me that simply slapping a mixed-sex notice on all the toilet doors is not a viable solution for services to the public, if the provider is so far-gone in wokeness as to put trans comfort above the comfort of everybody else. If there are two sets of facilities, one with urinals and one without, designating them both as mixed sex would be treating women less favourably than men, as it is easily arguable in law that women will not want to enter a room where men are using urinals, so men have two spaces while women only have one.

One might think that ripping out the urinals might solve this, forcing everyone to use a cubicle for everything, thus treating both sexes equally. But then the judgement says this.

It's hard to see how that can be applicable as a principle only to workplace situations, but be absolutely fine for facilities provided to the public. IANAL of course, but I find it hard to see how these "reasonable expectations" could be held not to apply in all these circumstances, which include "using sanitary facilities together". I know there are ultra-woke venues which have actually made all their facilities open to absolutely everyone, but I don't think it has ever been legal, and it's certainly open to legal challenge.

The bottom line though, is that if a facility is designated for one sex or the other, using any of the usually accepted signage, then that is what it must be maintained as. Any venue that has M and F, or little pictograms on the doors, has to ensure that only people who are that sex go into the respective facilities. That covers about 99% of places I've ever been in.

This article is admirably clear and really should be required reading.

For Women Scotland -v- The Scottish Ministers: The Seven Red Flags for Employers

So much excellent material has already been written about the FWS judgment. As well as the pieces I highlighted previously by Julie Bindel (link), Kathleen Stock (link) and Susannah Rustin (link), I would also add the articles by Janice Turner (link), Akua Reindorf KC (link), Elizabeth McGlone (link

www.linkedin.com

Here the author deals with the "case-by-case" excuse that has become somewhat widespread since the judgement, due to activists trying to get their lie twice round the world before the truth had had time to tie its shoelaces.



I find it difficult to imagine that the essential principles for the provision of sanitary facilities to the general public will vary substantially from the principles set down in the legislation covering the workplace.

 

[Rolfe]

This is a fairly hard-hitting article from the Telegraph about the BBC's reaction to events.

BBC to hold listening sessions for trans staff who face ‘hostility’

Corporation’s network asks employees who are concerned over Supreme Court ruling on definition of a woman to come forward

www.telegraph.co.uk

It's not dissimilar to the attitudes of a number of people in this thread. Everything has to be done for the comfort and convenience of trans-identifying people, but women aren't even worthy of consideration and should just shut up and suck it up.

Not any more.

 

[d4m10n]

The segregation of the rooms is based on gender identity, not comfort of amenities.

The segregation of the rooms is based on sex, not unverifiable subjective feelings inside someone's head.

You're going to need to notify a lot of people, States, and courts about that. They don't know.

Some places have indeed moved from segregation by sex to segregation by gender, which is why (to take one prominent example) Wi Spa initially defended their original decision to give Merager a pass to the women's area in terms of state law.

For our purposes here, we could choose to argue about which system would be most fair and equitable to service users without necessarily getting bogged down in the details about which jurisdictions made which policy changes and whether they did so in a manner which allowed for democratic feedback. Not saying the legal arguments aren't interesting, they just aren't all that generalizable across borders. California law won't help integrate bathrooms in Utah; UK Supreme Court decisions won't do much in the EU.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't do nuance, do you?

The critical question is whether anyone of the opposite sex is legally permitted to be in the wrong-sex space. If the answer to that is no, then the people to whom that space rightfully belongs have control. If they see somone transgressing the rule, they can ask that person to leave. What happens next will vary according to how intransigent the interloper is, but the rational move at that point would be to say excuse me, and go. End of incident, nobody died.

There are two situations where that doesn't happen. One is where the interloper's disguise is so perfect that the deception is not clocked. Bear in mind the behaviour has to be unremarkable as well as the visual appearance. The likelihood of this happening is greater for a transman in the Gents than a transwoman in the Ladies, simply because testosterone is a one-way street so it is more likely that a woman will succeed in masculinising herself than a man will succeed in feminising himself. Also, I understand men don't look at each other or make eye contact in the Gents, which makes it even more likely they will overlook a reasonably-passing transman. In the Ladies women engage with each other, make eye contact, and strike up small-talk conversations. It's a lot harder for a male person to negotiate past that, but still, some probably do.

The Supreme Court recognised this, but of course could not give any legal ruling that such people are allowed in the wrong-sex space. Their suggested remedy is slightly complicated but we needn't worry about that. The pragmatic situation is that very well-passing people will not be challenged because nobody will know.

The second situation is where the rightful occupant of the space recognises that there is an interloper present, but decides not to challenge him (or indeed her) for some reason. In a hurry, the person looks inoffensive, don't want a confrontation, whatever. In the past this was far from unheard-of, as Emily's Cat has said. Whether that sort of latitude will continue to be afforded an interloper after all the grief this tolerance has brought us is anybody's guess. Personally, I'm not in a very forgiving mood right now.

These things will happen. Maybe it's not perfection, but we live in an imperfect world.

What we absolutely do not want, will not countenance and will fight tooth and nail to prevent, is any legal right for a man to be in the female space or vice versa. That shifts the power to the person who is trying it on in the wrong place. If challenged, he (it's going to be a he, let's face it) can claim to be one of the special exceptions group, and then we're into "prove it!", and it all escalates from there. Not at all desirable.

If nobody at all is permitted in the wrong-sex spaces, then people who pass perfectly will simply go on doing it and nobody will be any the wiser. People who don't are taking a risk. It's on them. The critical thing is that anyone who is legitimately in that space and objects to the interloper has the right to ask him to leave. If he has any consideration for others, or indeed sense, he will quietly apologise and go.

QFT

 

[Emily's Cat]

We always look at behavior to see if someone is lying or not.

If I assert I'm a woman but am unwilling to change anything about my life or appearance and only want to enter women's bathrooms to assault cis-women, then it's reasonable to assume I'm lying.

Can you imagine a scenario where a male might be willing to put on some lipstick, a pink shirt, and shave, then go into the female restroom because they get off on listening to females urinate, or they're turned on by being in a place where females have their pants down on the other side of a simple barrier, or they want to place a hidden camera and get a sneaky peak at a female's nether regions without consent, or they find it titillating to masturbate in the stall next to females, or any number of other deviant behaviors?

Does putting on lipstick and a pink shirt and saying "I'm trans" make them a real transgender identified male, or are they a liar?

Alternatively, do you believe that it's perfectly acceptable for a male to engage in such behaviors without consent?

 

[varwoche]

Did their transition involve anything more than just self-ID?

No.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right, and I get that. My position on self ID is specifically to take the person's word for it that they are sincere, and not have an external paper bag test to satisfy others.

As I said to Ziggurat and others, that does not mean self ID is a magic ticket to do anything.

That's a very generous notion... but it's also irrelevant. If you hold the opinion that self ID is NOT a magic ticket, then you are opposed to self id.

Remember that in this context, self id does not mean "how a person sees themself"; Self id is a policy position - one wherein the only requirement for a person to be legally recognized as the opposite sex is for them to assert that they identify as the opposite sex, and that the act of them asserting such should then grant them legal access to all opposite-sex spaces and services.

Self ID in this context is not an abstract concept - it's an advocated basis for legal privileges.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Looping back to this, how come you ignored my question about how profound your sense that you aught to become a woman is? What are you willing to do for this feeling?

That's not a trivial question.

It's entirely trivial as long as you continue to dodge providing a basis for how much you think is necessary in order to support one's assertion.

Do you require a formal diagnosis and active treatment? Or is putting on lipstick and nail polish enough? Do you require surgery? Or just hormones? Do you the donning of stereotyped clothing?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think there is middle-ground.

Where do YOU think that middle ground is?

Share your perspective and your proposed policy, and we can discuss whether that makes sense, and stress-test the edge case scenarios.

 

[Thermal]

Can you imagine a scenario where a male might be willing to put on some lipstick, a pink shirt, and shave, then go into the female restroom because they get off on listening to females urinate, or they're turned on by being in a place where females have their pants down on the other side of a simple barrier, or they want to place a hidden camera and get a sneaky peak at a female's nether regions without consent, or they find it titillating to masturbate in the stall next to females, or any number of other deviant behaviors?

Does putting on lipstick and a pink shirt and saying "I'm trans" make them a real transgender identified male, or are they a liar?

Alternatively, do you believe that it's perfectly acceptable for a male to engage in such behaviors without consent?

Do you think such a weirdo could not effortlessly still do so, regardless of law? Wait a couple minutes till you are confident the rest room is empty, then close himself in a stall and perv away? It ain't rocket science to do so, and with no serious force of law penalties, the most that would likely happen is if he is caught entering, he'd be asked to leave?

That's why these arguments don't pack much punch. The practical application of them is to keep law abiding transpeople out, not save womankind from the pervy criminal hordes, which we know are vanishing rare (and undeterred by laws by definition anyway). Unlike, you know... actual transwomen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I actually am in agreement with you on a lot of this. Even if a transwoman doesn't *pass* all that well, if she is just doing her bathroom thing, let it go, much as we do in the gents room (your quite correct that we don't look at each other or talk much, IME).

If she is making anyone uncomfortable, for any reason, she should be asked to hit the road, and should comply if her intent is not to cause a scene. If her intent *is* to cause a scene, disturbing the peace and/or disorderly person charges should pop up, and be dealt with accordingly.

Now I get that the devil is in the details. What justifiably makes others "uncomfortable?" and all that road to Hell. But I think it's a starting point where everyone in this thread should find some common ground?

What if the male in question doesn't pass at all? What if they look like Eddie Hall in a pink shirt? Do you still think that as long as such obvious males are "just doing their bathroom thing", females should be required to allow them in?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why do you think gender dysphoria exists? Do you think it's real or just made up?

You speak as though gender dysphoria is evidence of souls. It's a magical inner essence that grants the chosen one the soul of the opposite sex through the transformative power of faith. Anyone who disagrees is seemingly a heretic.

 

[varwoche]

Are drunk drivers forbidden from drinking alcohol after they served their time?

Are cis-het rapists forbidden from walking on dark streets where lone women might be present?

You seem to think ongoing perversion is an enforcable lock with trans people. Is it so with any other group?

I suppose they could be forbidden as a condition of parole but that's besides the point. I'm just trying to get self-id advocates to grasp the implications of their position.

 

[Thermal]

That's a very generous notion... but it's also irrelevant. If you hold the opinion that self ID is NOT a magic ticket, then you are opposed to self id.

Remember that in this context, self id does not mean "how a person sees themself";

Holup: that's exactly what it means, and I've put up definitions to support that. All y'all are playing fast and loose with an alternate extremist definition, which I have said I does not represent my views. I'm speaking in English, not the Trans Wars Jargon Speech.

Self id is a policy position - one wherein the only requirement for a person to be legally recognized as the opposite sex is for them to assert that they identify as the opposite sex, and that the act of them asserting such should then grant them legal access to all opposite-sex spaces and services.

Self ID in this context is not an abstract concept - it's an advocated basis for legal privileges.

Only if your rhetoric needs that to make sense. Mine doesn't.

What if the male in question doesn't pass at all? What if they look like Eddie Hall in a pink shirt? Do you still think that as long as such obvious males are "just doing their bathroom thing", females should be required to allow them in?

If he ain't interfering with you, what's the problem? You just don't like his appearance?

And can we please drop this inane extreme anomaly transwoman thing? Eddie Hall ain't in your bathroom. I mean, what if a big ugly male walks into the men's room in a pink shirt? Does a small, weak man have reason to object about the scawy freak that kinda sorta might be a pervy criminal?