Assigned female at birth

Yes you can because where there is a need for single sex spaces that is protected.

I am easily able to recognise when that is the case while being inclusive

I cant discuss single sex provision if I cant talk about biological reality.

Absolutely all solvable issues when sensible heads get together and look at ways to prevent problems.

No need to call trans women men or say anything hurtful to trans people in order to achieve that

Prisons, refuges, sport, crine stats, not really about wees.

I might fall over. Its been for various reasons a stressful day and I have had wine.

Yes laws are in place to reduce incidence of crimes.

Given that trans people had been using the toilets they desired for decades without issue it made sense to protect that as a right.

Then the GC got all shouty and now some trans women, butch lesbians and any woman who looks a bit masculine may be verbally or physically attacked just for having a wee...

No one can see that's a problem caused by being shouty, not protecting people's rights to live as they always had?

Galaxy

Sorry that was about priests not being a danger to women. Some will be some wont. This all feels a bit surreal.

I get the impression that we are being asked questions like this in the expectation that we will trip over a hidden wire and fall over. You're right - it's a bit surreal.

Sorry that was about priests not being a danger to women. Some will be some wont. This all feels a bit surreal.

Eh?

All the law can do is attempt to limit opportunities for crime, and have to balance that with maintaining the freedoms we expect in a democratic society.

Clearly the law can't always protect children (or women, or men), but laws are in place to reduce the chances of crimes happening.

Doodledog

And no, I don't see all priests as offenders, but equally, I wouldn't allow them in female changing rooms (assuming that they were male - as in RC priests - in case this is a 'gotcha' moment), or in other places where women prefer to be amongst others of the same sex.

But they aren't a danger to women just to children.

FarNorth

I would hope that safeguards have been tightened around priests being alone with a child, just as they have for teachers.

So you would trust the law to protect children but not to protect women?

https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202203/medium-251974-screenshot-20220325-213611.jpg%3C/span%3E https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202203/medium-163910-screenshot-20220325-213550.jpg%3C/span%3E

From the government equalities office

Do we regard all priests as offenders? asks trisher.
I don’t know. I don’t personally, any more than I regard all males including TW as predators and harmful to AHF.
But is trisher using ‘we’ as a blanket term, or referring to herself by the royal “we” or just TTP?
Who knows? Well “someone” probably does and will be along to tell me in a while.

'case by case' isn't in the legislation.

IANAL, but it can't be, can it? Laws have to be watertight, or people won't know if they are breaking them. There can be mitigating circumstances that are decided on after the event, but there can't be laws that apply in some cases but not in others.

I agree that safeguarding should be (and probably has been) tightened around priests being alone with children and vulnerable women, too. Which is not to say that most priests are potentially harmful, but is to say that we have seen what happens when those who do have nefarious intent are able to access all areas.

I just wouldn't use that word. Negative connotations

the opposite is true and it is more unsafe for a trans person who presents as female to use a male bathroom.

And how about a person who presents as a boy, and is known to be female, who uses the boys ' toilet?

'case by case' isn't in the legislation.

A 'legitimate aim' could be to protect dignity and privacy, especially for female pupils. So I suggest we need to be providing more privacy instead of less.

I would hope that safeguards have been tightened around priests being alone with a child, just as they have for teachers.

Is that how you view it VS.

And no, I don't see all priests as offenders, but equally, I wouldn't allow them in female changing rooms (assuming that they were male - as in RC priests - in case this is a 'gotcha' moment), or in other places where women prefer to be amongst others of the same sex.

Sex segregation

Is that like race segregation?

trisher

I am atually fascinated by this idea that because a few people are actually abusive in order to keep others safe we need to ban all those people.
The example that came to my mind was priests. There have been quite a few child molesting priests. Does that mean that all priests should be kept away from children? Do we regard all priests as offenders?

Why do you think there was sex segregation in the first place?

Are you saying there should be no sex segregation.

I am atually fascinated by this idea that because a few people are actually abusive in order to keep others safe we need to ban all those people.
The example that came to my mind was priests. There have been quite a few child molesting priests. Does that mean that all priests should be kept away from children? Do we regard all priests as offenders?

That’s nice trisher.

You are twisting my words again. Naughty girl.
I did differentiate. I pointed out that if you as an adult, facilitate denial of safe spaces for women by saying they should be open to males, rather than supporting provision of safe spaces for AHF, you are a facilitator.
If you make excuses for men (sorry, people assigned male at birth, who cheat by taking places in female sports instead of acknowledging it’s wrong, or producing endless deviations to excuse them, you’re a facilitator.
OK, so it is too difficult for “someone” to understand and for that I’m sorry.