An example of modern stupidity. A trans female barrister used the female toilets in Portcullis House and this is portrayed by The Times as a
terrible mistake by the staff deserving of an apology to the wimmin's
rights campaigners who objected to this use of the female toilets.
The Times, quite wrongly, says that "even parliament... can be in breach
of the [Supreme Court] ruling". As if the Supreme Court had given any
sort of ruling about who could use women's toilets. The Times does not
permit any comments on this story.
quotes
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/house-of-commons-says-sorry-after-trans-barrister-uses-ladies-loo-dt7773jq2
The House of Commons has been forced to apologise after allowing a transgender woman to use female-only lavatories on the parliamentary
estate despite the recent Supreme Court ruling that protects single-sex spaces. Robin Moira White, a trans barrister who is a biological male,
was directed to use the ladies’ loos in Portcullis House last week after attending a meeting of the women and equalities committee in which the landmark judgment was discussed.
The barrister was questioned outside the lavatories by two women’s
rights campaigners, Kate Harris and Heather Binning, who had attended
the same hearing, and said White should not be using female-only loos.
Despite the Supreme Court giving clarity on the legal situation, the row highlights how even parliament — where laws are made — can be in breach of the ruling. It also shows how the lavatory issue remains a touchpaper
for trans activists and women’s rights campaigners.
White accused the two women of “embarrassing” behaviour and “shouting”
during the confrontation, a claim Harris denied. There are
gender-neutral toilets in the Commons.
In an email sent to Harris and Binning on Thursday afternoon, a senior
staff member in the House of Commons wrote: “You noted that an
individual, understood to be biologically male, had seemingly been
directed to the female facilities … At this point you made it clear that you were uncomfortable, left the facilities, and reported the matter to members of my team. We acknowledge that it is likely the individual you complained about should have not been directed to the female facilities
and we apologise for that.”
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue
to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,” White replied. “Service providers and those who provide workplaces don’t have a duty to police facilities, and I have never yet been challenged
on my use of facilities.”
unquote
NB - the barrister, Robin Moira White, concedes that he does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate. For some folk I suppose the possession
of that piece of paper would make all the difference.
An example of modern stupidity. A trans female barrister used the female toilets in Portcullis House and this is portrayed by The Times as a
terrible mistake by the staff deserving of an apology to the wimmin's
rights campaigners who objected to this use of the female toilets.
The Times, quite wrongly, says that "even parliament... can be in breach
of the [Supreme Court] ruling". As if the Supreme Court had given any
sort of ruling about who could use women's toilets. The Times does not
permit any comments on this story.
quotes
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/house-of-commons-says-sorry-after-trans-barrister-uses-ladies-loo-dt7773jq2
The House of Commons has been forced to apologise after allowing a transgender woman to use female-only lavatories on the parliamentary
estate despite the recent Supreme Court ruling that protects single-sex spaces. Robin Moira White, a trans barrister who is a biological male,
was directed to use the ladies’ loos in Portcullis House last week after attending a meeting of the women and equalities committee in which the landmark judgment was discussed.
The barrister was questioned outside the lavatories by two women’s
rights campaigners, Kate Harris and Heather Binning, who had attended
the same hearing, and said White should not be using female-only loos.
Despite the Supreme Court giving clarity on the legal situation, the row highlights how even parliament — where laws are made — can be in breach of the ruling. It also shows how the lavatory issue remains a touchpaper
for trans activists and women’s rights campaigners.
White accused the two women of “embarrassing” behaviour and “shouting”
during the confrontation, a claim Harris denied. There are
gender-neutral toilets in the Commons.
In an email sent to Harris and Binning on Thursday afternoon, a senior
staff member in the House of Commons wrote: “You noted that an
individual, understood to be biologically male, had seemingly been
directed to the female facilities … At this point you made it clear that you were uncomfortable, left the facilities, and reported the matter to members of my team. We acknowledge that it is likely the individual you complained about should have not been directed to the female facilities
and we apologise for that.”
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue
to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,” White replied. “Service providers and those who provide workplaces don’t have a duty to police facilities, and I have never yet been challenged
on my use of facilities.”
unquote
NB - the barrister, Robin Moira White, concedes that he does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate. For some folk I suppose the possession
of that piece of paper would make all the difference.
On 14 Jun 2025 at 19:28:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
An example of modern stupidity. A trans female barrister used the female
toilets in Portcullis House and this is portrayed by The Times as a
terrible mistake by the staff deserving of an apology to the wimmin's
rights campaigners who objected to this use of the female toilets.
The Times, quite wrongly, says that "even parliament... can be in breach
of the [Supreme Court] ruling". As if the Supreme Court had given any
sort of ruling about who could use women's toilets. The Times does not
permit any comments on this story.
quotes
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/house-of-commons-says-sorry-after-trans-barrister-uses-ladies-loo-dt7773jq2
The House of Commons has been forced to apologise after allowing a
transgender woman to use female-only lavatories on the parliamentary
estate despite the recent Supreme Court ruling that protects single-sex
spaces. Robin Moira White, a trans barrister who is a biological male,
was directed to use the ladies’ loos in Portcullis House last week after >> attending a meeting of the women and equalities committee in which the
landmark judgment was discussed.
The barrister was questioned outside the lavatories by two women’s
rights campaigners, Kate Harris and Heather Binning, who had attended
the same hearing, and said White should not be using female-only loos.
Despite the Supreme Court giving clarity on the legal situation, the row
highlights how even parliament — where laws are made — can be in breach >> of the ruling. It also shows how the lavatory issue remains a touchpaper
for trans activists and women’s rights campaigners.
White accused the two women of “embarrassing” behaviour and “shouting”
during the confrontation, a claim Harris denied. There are
gender-neutral toilets in the Commons.
In an email sent to Harris and Binning on Thursday afternoon, a senior
staff member in the House of Commons wrote: “You noted that an
individual, understood to be biologically male, had seemingly been
directed to the female facilities … At this point you made it clear that >> you were uncomfortable, left the facilities, and reported the matter to
members of my team. We acknowledge that it is likely the individual you
complained about should have not been directed to the female facilities
and we apologise for that.”
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, asked >> whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue
to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,”
White replied. “Service providers and those who provide workplaces don’t >> have a duty to police facilities, and I have never yet been challenged
on my use of facilities.”
unquote
NB - the barrister, Robin Moira White, concedes that he does not have a
Gender Recognition Certificate. For some folk I suppose the possession
of that piece of paper would make all the difference.
Of course the HC staff were not guilty of breaching a SC ruling. They were however in breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, and possibly the Equality Act by discriminating agains women wanting a single sex toilet.
On 14 Jun 2025 at 20:15:16 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 at 19:28:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, asked
whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue >>> to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,” >>> White replied. “Service providers and those who provide workplaces don’t
have a duty to police facilities, and I have never yet been challenged
on my use of facilities.”
unquote
NB - the barrister, Robin Moira White, concedes that he does not have a
Gender Recognition Certificate. For some folk I suppose the possession
of that piece of paper would make all the difference.
Of course the HC staff were not guilty of breaching a SC ruling. They were >> however in breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations >> 1992, and possibly the Equality Act by discriminating agains women wanting a >> single sex toilet.
Just a note, since the person involved didn't have a GRC then the UKSC decision has not in fact changed the legal position at all, just concentrated people's minds on it; AND meant that they don't need to ask an obvious male in
the ladies' changing room whether they have a GRC, as well as being shameless.
I appreciate of course that we don't all share the same opinion on this topic. I won't belabour the point. I recently attended an "Introduction
to Gender Identity" meeting
On 14/06/2025 22:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 at 20:15:16 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2025 at 19:28:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, asked
whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue >>>> to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,” >>>> White replied. “Service providers and those who provide workplaces don’t
have a duty to police facilities, and I have never yet been challenged >>>> on my use of facilities.”
unquote
NB - the barrister, Robin Moira White, concedes that he does not have a >>>> Gender Recognition Certificate. For some folk I suppose the possession >>>> of that piece of paper would make all the difference.
Of course the HC staff were not guilty of breaching a SC ruling. They were >>> however in breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations >>> 1992, and possibly the Equality Act by discriminating agains women wanting a
single sex toilet.
Just a note, since the person involved didn't have a GRC then the UKSC
decision has not in fact changed the legal position at all, just concentrated
people's minds on it; AND meant that they don't need to ask an obvious male in
the ladies' changing room whether they have a GRC, as well as being shameless.
The Supreme Court decision does not make it obligatory to exclude men (or trans
women who don't have a GRC) from women's changing rooms.
But it is spiteful and petty of the small group of women to follow Robin White
around and harangue that person for using a female toilet or changing room, not
because he is actually any sort of threat to women but because they want to stand up for a principle which I regard as absurd. You may say it isn't absurd.
But it does no harm to anyone if a trans person uses the toilet of their choice,
unless that trans person actually is a sex offender. And maybe different rules
should apply in public swimming baths or schools.
The "toilet police" is a petty minded, spiteful arrangement which would probably
be acceptable in a nation governed by fundamentalist religious nutcases.
But when the jobsworth employee at the House of Commons apologised to these wimmin, thereby giving them a useful bit of publicity for their cause, I think
he exceeded his authority.
I appreciate of course that we don't all share the same opinion on this topic.
I won't belabour the point. I recently attended an "Introduction to Gender Identity" meeting where prejudice against trans people and nonbinary people was
discussed, and the main speaker was a psychologist specialising in the topic. The overwhelming majority of attendees at the meeting were females of a wide range of ages and not one of them believed that women's toilets were sacrosanct
or that JK Rowling was right. So I remain of the opinion that the self-appointed
"defenders of women's rights" do not represent sensible, well educated women.
On 15/06/2025 10:02, The Todal wrote:
I appreciate of course that we don't all share the same opinion on
this topic. I won't belabour the point. I recently attended an
"Introduction to Gender Identity" meeting
What on earth possessed you? Was it compulsory?
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continueThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ...
to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,” White replied.
On 15/06/2025 11:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/06/2025 10:02, The Todal wrote:
I appreciate of course that we don't all share the same opinion on
this topic. I won't belabour the point. I recently attended an
"Introduction to Gender Identity" meeting
What on earth possessed you? Was it compulsory?
Do you mean you wouldn't want to go unless it was compulsory? Not even
to heckle?
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, asked >> whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue
to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,”
White replied.
That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ...
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour,That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ...
asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will
continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a
long time,” White replied.
On 6/15/25 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour,That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ... >>
asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will
continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a
long time,” White replied.
I know it sounds silly, but the toilet police were quite active when I
was younger, cracking down on cottaging. The local paper had a case
every few weeks.
That seems to have died out. I'm not sure if gay men moved to using the internet for liaisons, or the police were just too embarrassed to do it
after the George Michael video.
On 15/06/2025 12:02, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/06/2025 10:02, The Todal wrote:
I appreciate of course that we don't all share the same opinion on
this topic. I won't belabour the point. I recently attended an
"Introduction to Gender Identity" meeting
What on earth possessed you? Was it compulsory?
Do you mean you wouldn't want to go unless it was compulsory? Not even
to heckle?
Of course not. It would imply that I had nothing better to do.
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour,That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ...
asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will
continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a
long time,” White replied.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 20:32:35 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/15/25 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for aThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ... >>>
long time,” White replied.
I know it sounds silly, but the toilet police were quite active when I
was younger, cracking down on cottaging. The local paper had a case
every few weeks.
That seems to have died out. I'm not sure if gay men moved to using the
internet for liaisons, or the police were just too embarrassed to do it
after the George Michael video.
They still do it occasionally - ISTR a Clapham Common case not that long ago.
On 6/15/25 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour,That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will
continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a
long time,” White replied.
officer ...
I know it sounds silly, but the toilet police were quite active when I
was younger, cracking down on cottaging. The local paper had a case
every few weeks.
That seems to have died out. I'm not sure if gay men moved to using the internet for liaisons, or the police were just too embarrassed to do it
after the George Michael video.
On 6/15/25 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour,That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will
continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a
long time,” White replied.
officer ...
I know it sounds silly, but the toilet police were quite active when I
was younger, cracking down on cottaging. The local paper had a case
every few weeks.
That seems to have died out. I'm not sure if gay men moved to using the internet for liaisons, or the police were just too embarrassed to do it
after the George Michael video.
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour,That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will
continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a
long time,” White replied.
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue using
the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows
me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find
a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor should i
have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your aim
is not as good as it was.
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for aThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
long time,” White replied.
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue using
the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows
me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find
a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor should i
have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your aim
is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual
use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
I regularly use Baker Street station where there is a gents loo,
Op 15/06/2025 om 22:37 schreef The Todal:
I regularly use Baker Street station where there is a gents loo,
Uh? The toilets were removed in the mid 2000s. Have they been
reintroduced or is it a different Baker Street?
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for aThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
long time,” White replied.
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue
using the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers
follows me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually
possible to find a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public
building, nor should i have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your
aim is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual
use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without regard
to obligations and respect for differing views.
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a >>>>> long time,” White replied.That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue using >>> the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows
me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find
a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor should i >>> have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your aim >>> is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual
use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
The answer to that seriously isn't obvious to you?
On 16/06/2025 11:13, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “IThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
will continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it
for a long time,” White replied.
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue
using the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers
follows me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually
possible to find a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public
building, nor should i have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your
aim is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a
transexual use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
Because it upsets nobody if a person who looks like a woman uses the
women's toilets.
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without
regard to obligations and respect for differing views.
There, I tend to agree with you. The obsessive female campaigners and
their male supporters keep whining about their toilets and their right
to exclude anyone who appears to have the wrong genitalia, without
regard to respect for ordinary decent trans people trying to live a
normal life.
On 16/06/2025 11:13, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a >>>>> long time,” White replied.That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue
using the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers
follows me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually
possible to find a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public
building, nor should i have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your
aim is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual
use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
Because it upsets nobody if a person who looks like a woman uses the
women's toilets.
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without regard
to obligations and respect for differing views.
There, I tend to agree with you. The obsessive female campaigners and
their male supporters keep whining about their toilets and their right
to exclude anyone who appears to have the wrong genitalia, without
regard to respect for ordinary decent trans people trying to live a
normal life.
On 16/06/2025 14:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a >>>>>> long time,” White replied.That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue
using
the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows >>>> me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find >>>> a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor
should i
have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your
aim
is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual
use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
The answer to that seriously isn't obvious to you?
Seriously, it isn't. I'd go out of my way to avoid upsetting a work colleague, even if I thought they were totally wrong to be upset.
I agree it works both way. (Before you say it.)
On 16/06/2025 16:59, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 14:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>>>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a >>>>>>> long time,” White replied.That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue
using
the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows >>>>> me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find >>>>> a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor
should i
have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your >>>>> aim
is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual >>>> use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
The answer to that seriously isn't obvious to you?
Seriously, it isn't. I'd go out of my way to avoid upsetting a work
colleague, even if I thought they were totally wrong to be upset.
I agree it works both way. (Before you say it.)
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable to
use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo on display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or else
it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, you'd go
back to your work colleage and say please please can you just make an exception for me just this once and let me use the women's toilet which
I know is your special reserved domain. In your wisdom and mercy. Do I
need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal?
I think in that position I'd say to the upset work colleague, go fuck yourself. But you know me, I don't kowtow to jobsworths.
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable to
use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo on display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or else
it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, you'd go
back to your work colleage and say please please can you just make an exception for me just this once and let me use the women's toilet which
I know is your special reserved domain. In your wisdom and mercy. Do I
need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal?
On 16/06/2025 14:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a >>>>>> long time,” White replied.That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue using >>>> the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows >>>> me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find >>>> a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor should i >>>> have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your aim >>>> is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual
use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
The answer to that seriously isn't obvious to you?
Seriously, it isn't. I'd go out of my way to avoid upsetting a work colleague, even if I thought they were totally wrong to be upset.
On 16/06/2025 19:40, The Todal wrote:
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable to
use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo on
display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or else
it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, you'd
go back to your work colleage and say please please can you just make
an exception for me just this once and let me use the women's toilet
which I know is your special reserved domain. In your wisdom and
mercy. Do I need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal?
It's the whole "trans" movement that has caused this trouble with toilets.
In the past a woman wearing trousers wasn't strange. (It's called
"rational dress" I think.)
A man with long hair wearing a dress wouldn't attract much attention, provided his attire was reasonably convincing.
Nowadays everyone is looking at everyone else, and asking, "Is it a man?
Is it a woman?"
On 16/06/2025 19:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:40, The Todal wrote:
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable to
use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo on
display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or else
it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, you'd
go back to your work colleage and say please please can you just make
an exception for me just this once and let me use the women's toilet
which I know is your special reserved domain. In your wisdom and
mercy. Do I need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal?
It's the whole "trans" movement that has caused this trouble with toilets. >>
In the past a woman wearing trousers wasn't strange. (It's called
"rational dress" I think.)
A man with long hair wearing a dress wouldn't attract much attention,
provided his attire was reasonably convincing.
Nowadays everyone is looking at everyone else, and asking, "Is it a man?
Is it a woman?"
The rot started with that awful Mr Boy George, the pop singer and karma chameleon, and his friend Mr David Bowie, with their androgynous hairdos
and makeup. They subverted all the normal rules, just to attract
attention and sell records.
Now, with the Beatles, the loveable mop-heads, you knew they were proper
men.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 19:40:30 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:59, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 14:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>>>>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a >>>>>>>> long time,” White replied.That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue >>>>>> using
the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows >>>>>> me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find >>>>>> a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor
should i
have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your >>>>>> aim
is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual >>>>> use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
The answer to that seriously isn't obvious to you?
Seriously, it isn't. I'd go out of my way to avoid upsetting a work
colleague, even if I thought they were totally wrong to be upset.
I agree it works both way. (Before you say it.)
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable to
use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo on
display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or else
it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, you'd go
back to your work colleage and say please please can you just make an
exception for me just this once and let me use the women's toilet which
I know is your special reserved domain. In your wisdom and mercy. Do I
need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal?
I think in that position I'd say to the upset work colleague, go fuck
yourself. But you know me, I don't kowtow to jobsworths.
Women often use men's toilets, and in workplace it is remarkably unlikely they
would meet any adverse comment or behaviour.
On 16/06/2025 15:40, Ottavio Caruso wrote:Who is the lucky gentleman?
Op 15/06/2025 om 22:37 schreef The Todal:
I regularly use Baker Street station where there is a gents loo,
Uh? The toilets were removed in the mid 2000s. Have they been
reintroduced or is it a different Baker Street?
If you make your way to Platform 5 there is an open area where there is
a charity collecting box (or possibly it's a memorial) in the form of an artillery shell. Nearby you will find the gents toilets which have been
there for decades and are still in use.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 19:40:30 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:59, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 14:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will >>>>>>>> continue to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a >>>>>>>> long time,” White replied.That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue >>>>>> using
the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows >>>>>> me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find >>>>>> a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor
should i
have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your >>>>>> aim
is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual >>>>> use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
The answer to that seriously isn't obvious to you?
Seriously, it isn't. I'd go out of my way to avoid upsetting a work
colleague, even if I thought they were totally wrong to be upset.
I agree it works both way. (Before you say it.)
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable to
use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo on
display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or else
it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, you'd go
back to your work colleage and say please please can you just make an
exception for me just this once and let me use the women's toilet which
I know is your special reserved domain. In your wisdom and mercy. Do I
need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal?
I think in that position I'd say to the upset work colleague, go fuck
yourself. But you know me, I don't kowtow to jobsworths.
Women often use men's toilets, and in workplace it is remarkably unlikely they
would meet any adverse comment or behaviour.
On 16/06/2025 11:13, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, askedThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ...
whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue to
live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,” White
replied.
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue using the
women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows me into >>> the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find a unisex or >>> gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor should i have to go
looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your aim is >>> not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual use >> them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
Because it upsets nobody if a person who looks like a woman uses the women's toilets.
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without regard to >> obligations and respect for differing views.
There, I tend to agree with you. The obsessive female campaigners and their male
supporters keep whining about their toilets and their right to exclude anyone who appears to have the wrong genitalia, without regard to respect for ordinary
decent trans people trying to live a normal life.
On 16/06/2025 16:31, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:13, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, >>>>>> asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “IThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
will continue to live my life in the way that I have been living
it for a long time,” White replied.
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue
using the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers
follows me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually
possible to find a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public
building, nor should i have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your
aim is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a
transexual use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
Because it upsets nobody if a person who looks like a woman uses the
women's toilets.
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without
regard to obligations and respect for differing views.
There, I tend to agree with you. The obsessive female campaigners and
their male supporters keep whining about their toilets and their right
to exclude anyone who appears to have the wrong genitalia, without
regard to respect for ordinary decent trans people trying to live a
normal life.
Or, the obsessive trans women and their supporters keep demanding to use women only safe spaces without any regard to the feelings of women whose "normal"life was destroyed by male abuse.
On 16/06/2025 19:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:40, The Todal wrote:
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable
to use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo
on display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or
else it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon,
you'd go back to your work colleage and say please please can you
just make an exception for me just this once and let me use the
women's toilet which I know is your special reserved domain. In your
wisdom and mercy. Do I need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal?
It's the whole "trans" movement that has caused this trouble with
toilets.
In the past a woman wearing trousers wasn't strange. (It's called
"rational dress" I think.)
A man with long hair wearing a dress wouldn't attract much attention,
provided his attire was reasonably convincing.
Nowadays everyone is looking at everyone else, and asking, "Is it a
man? Is it a woman?"
The rot started with that awful Mr Boy George, the pop singer and karma chameleon, and his friend Mr David Bowie, with their androgynous hairdos
and makeup. They subverted all the normal rules, just to attract
attention and sell records.
Now, with the Beatles, the loveable mop-heads, you knew they were proper
men.
On 17/06/2025 11:44, kat wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:31, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:13, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, askedThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ...
whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue
to live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,”
White replied.
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue using >>>>> the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows me >>>>> into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find a >>>>> unisex or gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor should i have
to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your aim is
not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual use
them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
Because it upsets nobody if a person who looks like a woman uses the women's
toilets.
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without regard to >>>> obligations and respect for differing views.
There, I tend to agree with you. The obsessive female campaigners and their >>> male supporters keep whining about their toilets and their right to exclude >>> anyone who appears to have the wrong genitalia, without regard to respect for
ordinary decent trans people trying to live a normal life.
Or, the obsessive trans women and their supporters keep demanding to use women
only safe spaces without any regard to the feelings of women whose
"normal"life was destroyed by male abuse.
I think if there was a middle aged transfemale barrister using your toilets, not
only would there be no danger to any ladies suffering PTSD but the trans woman
might actually be able to fend off any predatory sex offender who crept into the
toilets. The transwoman might be physically stronger than other females. And the
transwoman could prepare and serve legal proceedings seeking an injunction against the predatory sex offender.
On 16/06/2025 20:21, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:40, The Todal wrote:
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam aroundIt's the whole "trans" movement that has caused this trouble with
the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable
to use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo
on display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or
else it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon,
you'd go back to your work colleage and say please please can you
just make an exception for me just this once and let me use the
women's toilet which I know is your special reserved domain. In your
wisdom and mercy. Do I need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal? >>>
toilets.
In the past a woman wearing trousers wasn't strange. (It's called
"rational dress" I think.)
A man with long hair wearing a dress wouldn't attract much attention,
provided his attire was reasonably convincing.
Nowadays everyone is looking at everyone else, and asking, "Is it a
man? Is it a woman?"
The rot started with that awful Mr Boy George, the pop singer and karma
chameleon, and his friend Mr David Bowie, with their androgynous hairdos
and makeup. They subverted all the normal rules, just to attract
attention and sell records.
Now, with the Beatles, the loveable mop-heads, you knew they were proper
men.
We still live in a world where male and female matter. Maybe one day
we'll be as indifferent to sex as we are to hair colour, but we're not
there yet.
A lot of things we hold dear would have to be abandoned, and I don't
just mean "macho" ideas. A lot of feminist doctrine (the stuff that emphasises how vulnerable the fair sex is) would have to go. (Metoo, Everyone's Invited, consent laws.)
On 16/06/2025 16:31, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:13, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, askedThat sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police officer ...
whether White would abide by the Supreme Court ruling. “I will continue to
live my life in the way that I have been living it for a long time,” White
replied.
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue using the
women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful stalkers follows me into >>>> the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't usually possible to find a unisex or
gender-neutral toilet in every public building, nor should i have to go >>>> looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if your aim is
not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a transexual use >>> them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
Because it upsets nobody if a person who looks like a woman uses the women's >> toilets.
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without regard to >>> obligations and respect for differing views.
There, I tend to agree with you. The obsessive female campaigners and their male
supporters keep whining about their toilets and their right to exclude anyone
who appears to have the wrong genitalia, without regard to respect for ordinary
decent trans people trying to live a normal life.
Or, the obsessive trans women and their supporters keep demanding to use women
only safe spaces without any regard to the feelings of women whose "normal"life
was destroyed by male abuse.
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:31, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:13, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 22:41, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
The Todal wrote:
Last month Nuala McGovern, the host of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s >>>>>>> Hour, asked whether White would abide by the Supreme Court
ruling. “I will continue to live my life in the way that I have >>>>>>> been living it for a long time,” White replied.
That sounds tantamount to flagging-down a passing toilet-police
officer ...
Well, let me translate what it actually means. I'll paraphrase.
I regard myself as a woman, I pass as a woman and I shall continue
using the women's toilets because unless one of my spiteful
stalkers follows me into the toilet, nobody cares. And it isn't
usually possible to find a unisex or gender-neutral toilet in
every public building, nor should i have to go looking for one.
To which I would say: good for you! In fact fill your boots, if
your aim is not as good as it was.
If there are gender-neutral toilets, why on earth wouldn't a
transexual use them and avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone?
Because it upsets nobody if a person who looks like a woman uses the
women's toilets.
The entire discussion is centred far too much on rights, without
regard to obligations and respect for differing views.
There, I tend to agree with you. The obsessive female campaigners
and their male supporters keep whining about their toilets and their
right to exclude anyone who appears to have the wrong genitalia,
without regard to respect for ordinary decent trans people trying to
live a normal life.
Or, the obsessive trans women and their supporters keep demanding to
use women only safe spaces without any regard to the feelings of
women whose "normal"life was destroyed by male abuse.
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men.
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about
the invasion of their safe spaces.
On 17/06/2025 14:29, Spike wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which
seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about
the invasion of their safe spaces.
As always, let's have a link to this data, please.
On 17/06/2025 14:29, Spike wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which
seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about
the invasion of their safe spaces.
As always, let's have a link to this data, please.
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or, the obsessive trans women and their supporters keep demanding to
use women only safe spaces without any regard to the feelings of
women whose "normal"life was destroyed by male abuse.
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which
seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men.
I think it's less "been forgotten" and more "isn't true".
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:29, Spike wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which >>> seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that >>> of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about >>> the invasion of their safe spaces.
As always, let's have a link to this data, please.
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, and it’s clear that at least one other person recalls it.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject,
which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who >>> are in fact transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence
against women over that of normal men.
I think it's less "been forgotten" and more "isn't true".
And the source of that data/rebuttal is…?
On 17 Jun 2025 at 12:36:07 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 20:21, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:40, The Todal wrote:
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around >>>>> the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unableIt's the whole "trans" movement that has caused this trouble with
to use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo >>>>> on display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or
else it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon,
you'd go back to your work colleage and say please please can you
just make an exception for me just this once and let me use the
women's toilet which I know is your special reserved domain. In your >>>>> wisdom and mercy. Do I need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal? >>>>
toilets.
In the past a woman wearing trousers wasn't strange. (It's called
"rational dress" I think.)
A man with long hair wearing a dress wouldn't attract much attention,
provided his attire was reasonably convincing.
Nowadays everyone is looking at everyone else, and asking, "Is it a
man? Is it a woman?"
The rot started with that awful Mr Boy George, the pop singer and karma
chameleon, and his friend Mr David Bowie, with their androgynous hairdos >>> and makeup. They subverted all the normal rules, just to attract
attention and sell records.
Now, with the Beatles, the loveable mop-heads, you knew they were proper >>> men.
We still live in a world where male and female matter. Maybe one day
we'll be as indifferent to sex as we are to hair colour, but we're not
there yet.
A lot of things we hold dear would have to be abandoned, and I don't
just mean "macho" ideas. A lot of feminist doctrine (the stuff that
emphasises how vulnerable the fair sex is) would have to go. (Metoo,
Everyone's Invited, consent laws.)
I am fascinated by the logic that says that if we were indifferent to each other's sex then somehow consent laws would not be necessary. Would assault and perhaps homicide be ok as long as done without reference to the victim's sex? Would whoever is bigger and stronge be able to enforce their wishes? I am genuinely mystified.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:29, Spike wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which >>> seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that >>> of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about >>> the invasion of their safe spaces.
As always, let's have a link to this data, please.
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, and it’s clear that at least one other person recalls it.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
[…]
Or, the obsessive trans women and their supporters keep demanding to
use women only safe spaces without any regard to the feelings of
women whose "normal"life was destroyed by male abuse.
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which >>> seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that >>> of normal men.
I think it's less "been forgotten" and more "isn't true".
And the source of that data/rebuttal is…?
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that 'women' who are in fact transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about
the invasion of their safe spaces.
--
Spike
On 17/06/2025 13:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025 at 12:36:07 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 16/06/2025 20:21, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:40, The Todal wrote:
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around >>>>>> the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable >>>>>> to use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo >>>>>> on display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or >>>>>> else it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, >>>>>> you'd go back to your work colleage and say please please can youIt's the whole "trans" movement that has caused this trouble with
just make an exception for me just this once and let me use the
women's toilet which I know is your special reserved domain. In your >>>>>> wisdom and mercy. Do I need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal? >>>>>
toilets.
In the past a woman wearing trousers wasn't strange. (It's called
"rational dress" I think.)
A man with long hair wearing a dress wouldn't attract much attention, >>>>> provided his attire was reasonably convincing.
Nowadays everyone is looking at everyone else, and asking, "Is it a
man? Is it a woman?"
The rot started with that awful Mr Boy George, the pop singer and karma >>>> chameleon, and his friend Mr David Bowie, with their androgynous hairdos >>>> and makeup. They subverted all the normal rules, just to attract
attention and sell records.
Now, with the Beatles, the loveable mop-heads, you knew they were proper >>>> men.
We still live in a world where male and female matter. Maybe one day
we'll be as indifferent to sex as we are to hair colour, but we're not
there yet.
A lot of things we hold dear would have to be abandoned, and I don't
just mean "macho" ideas. A lot of feminist doctrine (the stuff that
emphasises how vulnerable the fair sex is) would have to go. (Metoo,
Everyone's Invited, consent laws.)
I am fascinated by the logic that says that if we were indifferent to each >> other's sex then somehow consent laws would not be necessary. Would assault >> and perhaps homicide be ok as long as done without reference to the victim's >> sex? Would whoever is bigger and stronge be able to enforce their wishes? I >> am genuinely mystified.
You realise that the consent laws are about *disregarding* consent?
Females are apparently unable to decide what they want.
These are the figures compiled by the Ministry of Justice in respect of trans prisoners held in UK prisons.
quote :
Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending
rates in men and women over the same period.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject,
which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who >>>> are in fact transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence
against women over that of normal men.
I think it's less "been forgotten" and more "isn't true".
And the source of that data/rebuttal is…?
You're demanding evidence to rebut your vague memory? Are you for real?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject,
which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who >>>>> are in fact transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence
against women over that of normal men.
I think it's less "been forgotten" and more "isn't true".
And the source of that data/rebuttal is…?
You're demanding evidence to rebut your vague memory? Are you for real?
I’m looking for something more authoritative than your ’I think, etc’.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbd8u0Fpca5U1@mid.individual.net...
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which
seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that 'women' who are in fact >> transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about
the invasion of their safe spaces.
These are the figures compiled by the Ministry of Justice in respect of trans prisoners held in UK prisons.
quote :
Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending
rates in men and women over the same period.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
( At the foot of page 3 of 6 )
And are not to be confused with data from the Swedish Prison Study.
In this context it is also possibly as well to remember that, on the one hand
When a man decides he is in fact a woman, and as a result
demands access to women's toilets and safe spaces that
is simply how they feel; and so their feelings must be
respected.
Whereas on the other hand
When a woman claims that she feels uncomfortable with having to
share womens' toilets and safe spaces with tran-women, its clear
she cannot possibly really feel this way ; but can only think this
way, because she's an ignorant bigot who is brimming over with
hate.
So that to sum up
Men/transexuals - feelings
Women - ignorant bigots who are full of hate.
And what's more, clearly women are all so stupid that they're unable
to work all this out for themselves; but need it planted in their
dear little heads, by evil hate filled billionaire authors.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbd8u0Fpca5U1@mid.individual.net...
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which >>> seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that 'women' who are in fact >>> transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that >>> of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about >>> the invasion of their safe spaces.
These are the figures compiled by the Ministry of Justice in respect
of trans prisoners held in UK prisons.
quote :
Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending
rates in men and women over the same period.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
( At the foot of page 3 of 6 )
And are not to be confused with data from the Swedish Prison Study.
In this context it is also possibly as well to remember that, on the one hand
When a man decides he is in fact a woman, and as a result
demands access to women's toilets and safe spaces that
is simply how they feel; and so their feelings must be
respected.
Whereas on the other hand
When a woman claims that she feels uncomfortable with having to
share womens' toilets and safe spaces with tran-women, its clear
she cannot possibly really feel this way ; but can only think this
way, because she's an ignorant bigot who is brimming over with
hate.
So that to sum up
Men/transexuals - feelings
Women - ignorant bigots who are full of hate.
And what's more, clearly women are all so stupid that they're unable
to work all this out for themselves; but need it planted in their
dear little heads, by evil hate filled billionaire authors.
Thanks for supplying the data. I hope those who doubted it take note.
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, >>>>>> which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who >>>>>> are in fact transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence
against women over that of normal men.
I think it's less "been forgotten" and more "isn't true".
And the source of that data/rebuttal is…?
You're demanding evidence to rebut your vague memory? Are you for real?
I’m looking for something more authoritative than your ’I think, etc’.
In response to your utter vagueness? You can continue looking.
You can't put in no effort whatsoever and expect that to give you the
right to demand things from others.
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbd8u0Fpca5U1@mid.individual.net...
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which >>>> seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that 'women' who are in fact >>>> transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that >>>> of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about >>>> the invasion of their safe spaces.
These are the figures compiled by the Ministry of Justice in respect
of trans prisoners held in UK prisons.
quote :
Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending
rates in men and women over the same period.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
( At the foot of page 3 of 6 )
And are not to be confused with data from the Swedish Prison Study.
In this context it is also possibly as well to remember that, on the one hand
When a man decides he is in fact a woman, and as a result
demands access to women's toilets and safe spaces that
is simply how they feel; and so their feelings must be
respected.
Whereas on the other hand
When a woman claims that she feels uncomfortable with having to
share womens' toilets and safe spaces with tran-women, its clear
she cannot possibly really feel this way ; but can only think this
way, because she's an ignorant bigot who is brimming over with
hate.
So that to sum up
Men/transexuals - feelings
Women - ignorant bigots who are full of hate.
And what's more, clearly women are all so stupid that they're unable
to work all this out for themselves; but need it planted in their
dear little heads, by evil hate filled billionaire authors.
Thanks for supplying the data. I hope those who doubted it take note.
Take note of this nonsense that bears no resemblance to what you said?
Ok, it's noted. Should I also note that you endorse the rather
unpleasant opinions he espouses later in his post?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I’m looking for something more authoritative than your ’I think, etc’.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, >>>>>>> which seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that ’women’ who
are in fact transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence
against women over that of normal men.
I think it's less "been forgotten" and more "isn't true".
And the source of that data/rebuttal is…?
You're demanding evidence to rebut your vague memory? Are you for real? >>>
In response to your utter vagueness? You can continue looking.
You can't put in no effort whatsoever and expect that to give you the
right to demand things from others.
Not all of us can recall detailed minutiae from specific posts made in one
of the busier groups in UK Usenet, so surely we must admire your
superiority in this facility, so recently demonstrated in a post of yours recalling a thread from some four years ago.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbd8u0Fpca5U1@mid.individual.net...
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which >>>>> seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that 'women' who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that >>>>> of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about >>>>> the invasion of their safe spaces.
These are the figures compiled by the Ministry of Justice in respect
of trans prisoners held in UK prisons.
quote :
Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending
rates in men and women over the same period.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
( At the foot of page 3 of 6 )
And are not to be confused with data from the Swedish Prison Study.
In this context it is also possibly as well to remember that, on the one hand
When a man decides he is in fact a woman, and as a result
demands access to women's toilets and safe spaces that
is simply how they feel; and so their feelings must be
respected.
Whereas on the other hand
When a woman claims that she feels uncomfortable with having to
share womens' toilets and safe spaces with tran-women, its clear
she cannot possibly really feel this way ; but can only think this
way, because she's an ignorant bigot who is brimming over with
hate.
So that to sum up
Men/transexuals - feelings
Women - ignorant bigots who are full of hate.
And what's more, clearly women are all so stupid that they're unable
to work all this out for themselves; but need it planted in their
dear little heads, by evil hate filled billionaire authors.
Thanks for supplying the data. I hope those who doubted it take note.
Take note of this nonsense that bears no resemblance to what you said?
Ok, it's noted. Should I also note that you endorse the rather
unpleasant opinions he espouses later in his post?
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
On 17 Jun 2025 at 17:39:05 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 13:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025 at 12:36:07 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 20:21, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:40, The Todal wrote:
So you, as a trans female, needing to use a toilet, would roam around >>>>>>> the building in search of a gender-neutral toilet, obviously unable >>>>>>> to use the gents because of your twinset and pearls and permed hairdo >>>>>>> on display, maybe not being able to find a gender neutral toilet or >>>>>>> else it's occupied or else it's out of order, and then, you reckon, >>>>>>> you'd go back to your work colleage and say please please can you >>>>>>> just make an exception for me just this once and let me use theIt's the whole "trans" movement that has caused this trouble with
women's toilet which I know is your special reserved domain. In your >>>>>>> wisdom and mercy. Do I need to buy you lunch as well, to seal the deal? >>>>>>
toilets.
In the past a woman wearing trousers wasn't strange. (It's called
"rational dress" I think.)
A man with long hair wearing a dress wouldn't attract much attention, >>>>>> provided his attire was reasonably convincing.
Nowadays everyone is looking at everyone else, and asking, "Is it a >>>>>> man? Is it a woman?"
The rot started with that awful Mr Boy George, the pop singer and karma >>>>> chameleon, and his friend Mr David Bowie, with their androgynous hairdos >>>>> and makeup. They subverted all the normal rules, just to attract
attention and sell records.
Now, with the Beatles, the loveable mop-heads, you knew they were proper >>>>> men.
We still live in a world where male and female matter. Maybe one day
we'll be as indifferent to sex as we are to hair colour, but we're not >>>> there yet.
A lot of things we hold dear would have to be abandoned, and I don't
just mean "macho" ideas. A lot of feminist doctrine (the stuff that
emphasises how vulnerable the fair sex is) would have to go. (Metoo,
Everyone's Invited, consent laws.)
I am fascinated by the logic that says that if we were indifferent to each >>> other's sex then somehow consent laws would not be necessary. Would assault >>> and perhaps homicide be ok as long as done without reference to the victim's
sex? Would whoever is bigger and stronge be able to enforce their wishes? I
am genuinely mystified.
You realise that the consent laws are about *disregarding* consent?
Females are apparently unable to decide what they want.
The law relating to consent applies equally to males as to females.
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your
interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that hypothesis.
On 2025-06-18, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Not all of us can recall detailed minutiae from specific posts made in one >> of the busier groups in UK Usenet, so surely we must admire your
superiority in this facility, so recently demonstrated in a post of yours
recalling a thread from some four years ago.
Thanks, that's appreciated, but you must also appreciate that you can't
just demand detailed rebuttals of things for which you provide no cite.
If you want others to put the work in to rebut something, you need put
the work in to find and substantiate the thing you want rebutting.
On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your
interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that hypothesis.
On 2025-06-18, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbd8u0Fpca5U1@mid.individual.net...
It was mentioned in an earlier interminable thread on the subject, which >>>>>> seems to have been forgotten, that data shows that 'women' who are in fact
transsexual men have a nine-fold rate of violence against women over that
of normal men. It is little wonder that normal women are concerned about >>>>>> the invasion of their safe spaces.
These are the figures compiled by the Ministry of Justice in respect >>>>> of trans prisoners held in UK prisons.
quote :
Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending
rates in men and women over the same period.
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
( At the foot of page 3 of 6 )
And are not to be confused with data from the Swedish Prison Study.
In this context it is also possibly as well to remember that, on the one hand
When a man decides he is in fact a woman, and as a result
demands access to women's toilets and safe spaces that
is simply how they feel; and so their feelings must be
respected.
Whereas on the other hand
When a woman claims that she feels uncomfortable with having to
share womens' toilets and safe spaces with tran-women, its clear
she cannot possibly really feel this way ; but can only think this
way, because she's an ignorant bigot who is brimming over with
hate.
So that to sum up
Men/transexuals - feelings
Women - ignorant bigots who are full of hate.
And what's more, clearly women are all so stupid that they're unable >>>>> to work all this out for themselves; but need it planted in their
dear little heads, by evil hate filled billionaire authors.
Thanks for supplying the data. I hope those who doubted it take note.
Take note of this nonsense that bears no resemblance to what you said?
Ok, it's noted. Should I also note that you endorse the rather
unpleasant opinions he espouses later in his post?
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your
interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Hence the question mark at the end of my sentence. This indicates that
it is a question. I hope this assists your future understanding of the written word.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:06:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:Well it does support it, just very weakly and unconvincingly.
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your
interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that
hypothesis.
On 18/06/2025 21:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:06:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:Well it does support it, just very weakly and unconvincingly.
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your >>>> interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that
hypothesis.
Thanks for the clarification. You can imagine how welcome it is. :)
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:06:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your
interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that
hypothesis.
Well it does support it, just very weakly and unconvincingly.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:06:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>> On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your >>>> interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that
hypothesis.
Well it does support it, just very weakly and unconvincingly.
Given the group’s apparent zeitgeist, you are always free to post data or analysis (with links!) that support your view. In the mean time that data posted and linked by Mr Bookcase is the best we appear to have on the
topic, and is based on a finite population (a statistical term) of
thousands.
On 19 Jun 2025 at 09:32:18 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:06:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your >>>>> interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that
hypothesis.
Well it does support it, just very weakly and unconvincingly.
Given the group’s apparent zeitgeist, you are always free to post data or >> analysis (with links!) that support your view. In the mean time that data
posted and linked by Mr Bookcase is the best we appear to have on the
topic, and is based on a finite population (a statistical term) of
thousands.
Is it actually necessary to point out that the statistical characteristics of men and transwomen in prison are unlikely to accurately reflect those of men and transwomen who are not in prison?
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
On the point of transwomen probably sharing male tendencies to sexual violence
I don't disagree with you, but this study is really not useful quantitative evidence of this.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Jun 2025 at 09:32:18 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:06:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your >>>>>> interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a
nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that >>>>> hypothesis.
Well it does support it, just very weakly and unconvincingly.
Given the group’s apparent zeitgeist, you are always free to post data or >>> analysis (with links!) that support your view. In the mean time that data >>> posted and linked by Mr Bookcase is the best we appear to have on the
topic, and is based on a finite population (a statistical term) of
thousands.
Is it actually necessary to point out that the statistical characteristics of
men and transwomen in prison are unlikely to accurately reflect those of men >> and transwomen who are not in prison?
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of
sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
On the point of transwomen probably sharing male tendencies to sexual violence
I don't disagree with you, but this study is really not useful quantitative >> evidence of this.
Have you considered writing to the Home Office with your concerns about
this data?
On 19 Jun 2025 at 12:49:34 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Jun 2025 at 09:32:18 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:06:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 12:05, Spike wrote:
“Thanks for supplying the data” is how I replied to Mr Bookcase. Concerning
what you feel you might also note is something personal to you and your >>>>>>> interpretations of what in fact wasn’t stated.
Just to be clear, you said:
"data shows that ’women’ who are in fact transsexual men have a >>>>>> nine-fold rate of violence against women over that of normal men."
As has already been pointed out, the data quoted doesn't support that >>>>>> hypothesis.
Well it does support it, just very weakly and unconvincingly.
Given the group’s apparent zeitgeist, you are always free to post data or
analysis (with links!) that support your view. In the mean time that data >>>> posted and linked by Mr Bookcase is the best we appear to have on the
topic, and is based on a finite population (a statistical term) of
thousands.
Is it actually necessary to point out that the statistical characteristics of
men and transwomen in prison are unlikely to accurately reflect those of men
and transwomen who are not in prison?
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of >>> sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
On the point of transwomen probably sharing male tendencies to sexual violence
I don't disagree with you, but this study is really not useful quantitative >>> evidence of this.
Have you considered writing to the Home Office with your concerns about
this data?
I am not in the least concerned about the data. It tells us something I am quite prepared to believe *about prisoners*. It doesn't purport to be representative sample of the general population.
I am not in the least concerned about the data. It tells us something I am quite prepared to believe *about prisoners*. It doesn't purport to be representative sample of the general population.
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:2608712254.fe42d877@uninhabited.net...
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of
sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
But if its assumed that transitioning, whether genuine or feigned, offers predatory
males far more opportunities to exploit women, then why should such a strategy
be restricted to those convicted of a crime ?
Which was maybe your actual point ?
bb
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I am not in the least concerned about the data. It tells us something I am >> quite prepared to believe *about prisoners*. It doesn't purport to be
representative sample of the general population.
Wrong !
The data doesn't tell us anything about *prisoners* at all.
What it tells us about, are the type of offences which were committed by those
individuals, when as members of *the general population*, they were arrested, tried, and convicted for various offences before the Courts.
Thus it was that
Of 3812 women, taken from the general population, who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 125 were convicted of a sexual offence = 3.3% of the total
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence
= 58.9% of the total.
Of 78781 men, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence 13234 were convicted of a sexual offence = 16.8% of the total.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
On 19 Jun 2025 at 21:39:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2608712254.fe42d877@uninhabited.net...
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of >>> sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
But if its assumed that transitioning, whether genuine or feigned, offers
predatory
males far more opportunities to exploit women, then why should such a strategy
be restricted to those convicted of a crime ?
Which was maybe your actual point ?
bb
My guess would be that they do this to get a quieter time in prison rather than to aid predation when they are released.
But who knows?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:6975257795.b577bc79@uninhabited.net...
On 19 Jun 2025 at 21:39:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2608712254.fe42d877@uninhabited.net...
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of >>>> sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
But if its assumed that transitioning, whether genuine or feigned, offers >>> predatory
males far more opportunities to exploit women, then why should such a strategy
be restricted to those convicted of a crime ?
Which was maybe your actual point ?
bb
My guess would be that they do this to get a quieter time in prison rather >> than to aid predation when they are released.
It would also aid their predation whilst in prison, no doubt.
But who knows?
But wasn't the point made earlier that transitioning isn't the simply process that ill-informed critics might otherwise suppose ?
So that for instance, before being accepted it was necessary for a trans-woman
to have lived for two years as a woman. However defined.
So how would that apply to convicted criminals who might decide to transition possible following arrest ?
Even allowing that some might spend two years on remand before conviction, assuming they were assigned to a men's prison at the start. how exactly could they go about spending two years living as a woman ?
Or put another way if it was that straightforward, why wouldn't more prisoners
be acting similarly ?
So how would that even be possible ?
bb
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence
= 58.9% of the total.
On 19/06/2025 21:26, billy bookcase wrote:
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence >> = 58.9% of the total.
No, it doesn't tell you that, because it doesn't tell you how many of those 76 were
transwomen at the time of the offence.
It's entirely possible that none of them were. It's plausible that some/many of the 76
decided to pretend to be trans purely in order to be transferred to a prison for women.
That may simply be because life for sex offenders in male prisons is pretty grim.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:1033r8v$2jev$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/06/2025 21:26, billy bookcase wrote:
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence >>> = 58.9% of the total.
No, it doesn't tell you that, because it doesn't tell you how many of those 76 were
transwomen at the time of the offence.
It's entirely possible that none of them were. It's plausible that some/many of the 76
decided to pretend to be trans purely in order to be transferred to a prison for women.
That may simply be because life for sex offenders in male prisons is pretty grim.
But then how is it, that while you've been able to work out this "cunning plan"
whereby men can simply avoid these "pretty grim" men's prisons, by
simply pretending to be women, that the authorities haven't also worked
this out ?
And so have let them all get away with it ?
Or for that matter, if it was that simple, how comes there are *any*
men serving time in these "pretty grim" men's prisons at all ?
Why aren't they all pretending to be women instead ?
Over to you !
bb
On 20/06/2025 17:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:1033r8v$2jev$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/06/2025 21:26, billy bookcase wrote:
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence
= 58.9% of the total.
No, it doesn't tell you that, because it doesn't tell you how many of those 76 were
transwomen at the time of the offence.
It's entirely possible that none of them were. It's plausible that some/many of the
76
decided to pretend to be trans purely in order to be transferred to a prison for
women.
That may simply be because life for sex offenders in male prisons is pretty grim.
But then how is it, that while you've been able to work out this "cunning plan"
whereby men can simply avoid these "pretty grim" men's prisons, by
simply pretending to be women, that the authorities haven't also worked
this out ?
And so have let them all get away with it ?
Indeed. The DM will tell you how stupid the authorities were. The authorities have
changed the rules.
GIYF, but here's a link, anyway:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-transgender-prisoner-policy-comes-into-force
On 20 Jun 2025 at 13:50:56 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:6975257795.b577bc79@uninhabited.net...
On 19 Jun 2025 at 21:39:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2608712254.fe42d877@uninhabited.net...
And that is even before we note the frequency with which men convicted of >>>>> sexual violence decide to become transwomen.
But if its assumed that transitioning, whether genuine or feigned, offers >>>> predatory
males far more opportunities to exploit women, then why should such a strategy
be restricted to those convicted of a crime ?
Which was maybe your actual point ?
bb
My guess would be that they do this to get a quieter time in prison rather >>> than to aid predation when they are released.
It would also aid their predation whilst in prison, no doubt.
But who knows?
But wasn't the point made earlier that transitioning isn't the simply process
that ill-informed critics might otherwise suppose ?
So that for instance, before being accepted it was necessary for a trans-woman
to have lived for two years as a woman. However defined.
That's only to get a gender recognition certificate. To be accepted is, I think, instantaneous.
On 20/06/2025 17:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:1033r8v$2jev$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/06/2025 21:26, billy bookcase wrote:
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried
and convicted of crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were
convicted of a sexual offence = 58.9% of the total.
No, it doesn't tell you that, because it doesn't tell you how many
of those 76 were transwomen at the time of the offence.
It's entirely possible that none of them were. It's plausible that
some/many of the 76 decided to pretend to be trans purely in order
to be transferred to a prison for women. That may simply be because
life for sex offenders in male prisons is pretty grim.
But then how is it, that while you've been able to work out this
"cunning plan" whereby men can simply avoid these "pretty grim" men's
prisons, by simply pretending to be women, that the authorities
haven't also worked this out ?
And so have let them all get away with it ?
Indeed. The DM will tell you how stupid the authorities were.
The authorities have changed the rules.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:103457r$54j5$1@dont-email.me...
On 20/06/2025 17:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:1033r8v$2jev$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/06/2025 21:26, billy bookcase wrote:
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence
= 58.9% of the total.
No, it doesn't tell you that, because it doesn't tell you how many of those 76 were
transwomen at the time of the offence.
It's entirely possible that none of them were. It's plausible that some/many of the
76
decided to pretend to be trans purely in order to be transferred to a prison for
women.
That may simply be because life for sex offenders in male prisons is pretty grim.
But then how is it, that while you've been able to work out this "cunning plan"
whereby men can simply avoid these "pretty grim" men's prisons, by
simply pretending to be women, that the authorities haven't also worked
this out ?
And so have let them all get away with it ?
Indeed. The DM will tell you how stupid the authorities were. The authorities have
changed the rules.
GIYF, but here's a link, anyway:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-transgender-prisoner-policy-comes-into-force
quote:
At present more than 90% of transgender women are housed in men's prisons
unquote:
So that it seems highly unlikely that many more than 10%, if any, of those
76 transgender prisoners would have faked their condition in order to be transferred to a women's prison. Not that that would have necessarily been such a "soft touch", in any case. Given their limited prospects of success. As would doubtless have been explained to them.
This is indeed, a very strange argument
On the one hand, pro-trans advovcates take pains to stress the obvious sincerity
of people wishing to transition. Which is fair enough.
But on the other hand, in order to discredit inconvenient statistics, they appear equally willing to admit how easily the situation is open to abuse,
by the unscrupulous.
In fact, almost to the extent of insisting that this
must be the case
bb
On 20/06/2025 20:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:103457r$54j5$1@dont-email.me...
On 20/06/2025 17:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:1033r8v$2jev$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/06/2025 21:26, billy bookcase wrote:
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence
= 58.9% of the total.
No, it doesn't tell you that, because it doesn't tell you how many of those 76 were
transwomen at the time of the offence.
It's entirely possible that none of them were. It's plausible that some/many of the
76
decided to pretend to be trans purely in order to be transferred to a prison for
women.
That may simply be because life for sex offenders in male prisons is pretty grim.
But then how is it, that while you've been able to work out this "cunning plan"
whereby men can simply avoid these "pretty grim" men's prisons, by
simply pretending to be women, that the authorities haven't also worked >>>> this out ?
And so have let them all get away with it ?
Indeed. The DM will tell you how stupid the authorities were. The authorities have
changed the rules.
GIYF, but here's a link, anyway:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-transgender-prisoner-policy-comes-into-force
quote:
At present more than 90% of transgender women are housed in men's prisons
unquote:
So that it seems highly unlikely that many more than 10%, if any, of those >> 76 transgender prisoners would have faked their condition in order to be
transferred to a women's prison. Not that that would have necessarily been >> such a "soft touch", in any case. Given their limited prospects of success. >> As would doubtless have been explained to them.
This is indeed, a very strange argument
It would be, but that notice I linked is dated 2023. The data you rely
on was from 2019, when the rules were completely different. My
recollection is that the rules were changed a couple of times between
2019 and 2023, but GIYF.
On the one hand, pro-trans advovcates take pains to stress the obvious sincerity
of people wishing to transition. Which is fair enough.
But on the other hand, in order to discredit inconvenient statistics, they >> appear equally willing to admit how easily the situation is open to abuse, >> by the unscrupulous.
Up to 76 of 13234 sex offenders are unscrupulous. Who'd have thought it!
In fact, almost to the extent of insisting that this
must be the case
I'm saying that the data being quoted was not collected for the purpose
it's being used for.
I'm saying that the data being quoted was not collected for the purpose
it's being used for.
So what?
On 21/06/2025 12:27, Spike wrote:
I'm saying that the data being quoted was not collected for the purpose
it's being used for.
So what?
That was shorthand for saying that the data has holes in it when used
for the present purpose. It would probably have been possible to
tabulate gender status at the time of the offence, as well, but
unfortunately it wasn't done.
On 20/06/2025 20:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:103457r$54j5$1@dont-email.me...
On 20/06/2025 17:20, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:1033r8v$2jev$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/06/2025 21:26, billy bookcase wrote:
Of 129 transwomen, taken from the general population who were tried and convicted
of
crimes meriting a custodial sentence, 76 were convicted of a sexual offence
= 58.9% of the total.
No, it doesn't tell you that, because it doesn't tell you how many of those 76
were
transwomen at the time of the offence.
It's entirely possible that none of them were. It's plausible that some/many of the
76
decided to pretend to be trans purely in order to be transferred to a prison for
women.
That may simply be because life for sex offenders in male prisons is pretty grim.
But then how is it, that while you've been able to work out this "cunning plan"
whereby men can simply avoid these "pretty grim" men's prisons, by
simply pretending to be women, that the authorities haven't also worked >>>> this out ?
And so have let them all get away with it ?
Indeed. The DM will tell you how stupid the authorities were. The authorities have
changed the rules.
GIYF, but here's a link, anyway:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-transgender-prisoner-policy-comes-into-force
quote:
At present more than 90% of transgender women are housed in men's prisons
unquote:
So that it seems highly unlikely that many more than 10%, if any, of those >> 76 transgender prisoners would have faked their condition in order to be
transferred to a women's prison. Not that that would have necessarily been >> such a "soft touch", in any case. Given their limited prospects of success. >> As would doubtless have been explained to them.
This is indeed, a very strange argument
It would be,
but that notice I linked is dated 2023. The data you rely
on was from 2019, when the rules were completely different. My recollection is that the
rules were changed a couple of times between 2019 and 2023, but GIYF.
On the one hand, pro-trans advovcates take pains to stress the obvious sincerity
of people wishing to transition. Which is fair enough.
But on the other hand, in order to discredit inconvenient statistics, they >> appear equally willing to admit how easily the situation is open to abuse, >> by the unscrupulous.
Up to 76 of 13234 sex offenders are unscrupulous. Who'd have thought it!
So that what the "Cosy Option" theorists need to explain, is this. Why
would a trans rapist prefer to take their chances in a women's
prison, where they would stick out like a sore thumb, (although
its probably not their thumbs they'd need to worry about) rather than
among their fellow rapists in a men's prison ? Where they would be
much more likely to fit in.
bb
On 23/06/2025 19:14, billy bookcase wrote:
So that what the "Cosy Option" theorists need to explain, is this. Why
would a trans rapist prefer to take their chances in a women's
prison, where they would stick out like a sore thumb, (although
its probably not their thumbs they'd need to worry about) rather than
among their fellow rapists in a men's prison ? Where they would be
much more likely to fit in.
Perhaps, they are hoping for more chances to fit in?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:03:49 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,958 |