Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
As I keep saying, the risks are asymmetric. A man in a woman’s toilet poses a risk to the women. A woman in a man’s toilet is at risk from men.
Either way, it is an assertion of trans ideology that they have no choice but to role-play as the opposite sex, and it is an assertion that ought to be challenged, because as far as I can see, if a man slaps on lipstick and a dress and then complains he would be vulnerable in a men’s toilet, he has made himself vulnerable and he ought to be asking himself, in the first instance, what he could be doing to mitigate that. Beyond that, we ought to be challenging the men in the men’s toilet to see if they really do have such a narrow and fragile conception of masculinity that they can’t cope with unconventional forms of dress. And we also need to make very clear that whosever problem this is, it is not the women, who want to have only women in their single-sex women’s private space. A great big chunk of the trans rights movement is just men’s rights in lipstick, trying to make women give way to them. It is misogyny on stilts and it has to stop.
We might also ask ourselves how we survived the 1980s, which had more than its fair share of androgeny, cross dressing and New Romantics, all using the correctly sexed pub toilets. And somehow there was no genocide of Culture Club fans.
Trans dogma needs challenged. We need to stop assuming the bleating about genocide and lives at risk is true and start demanding receipts.
|
Social media is going wild over this. There's suggestions that trans people could/should use the disabled toilet, disabled people complaining that there is usually only one & they will have to wait (especially relevant where a disability/illness gives rise to extra toileting needs, especially at short notice), some venues are saying that they will ignore the law and a few saying that they will designate one or both toilets as gender neutral. Also, there are claims that the Government will amend the law to negate this ruling.