Littlespideyling52

1. implies that queers are allied with every single woman, which keeps the phrase as is meant to be: made by nonqueer women for nonqueer women. (because, of course, queerness is only safe in its existence when nonqueer women don't feel threatened by it, being included at all times.)

2. implies men can only be there when they're gay (despite the fact that 'theys' is included and clearly meant to speak to transgender people alone), which immediately is both trans male erasure and "nonqueer guys don't belong at pride" rhetoric.

3. excludes gq/nonbinary people who use it/its and neopronouns/no pronouns, or people who use more than one pronoun set.

4. refers to the gq/nonbinary people who are included with their pronouns rather than their identities.

5. very noncoincidentally refers to girls, gays (presumed effeminate men) and 'theys' (presumed 'afabs') specifically. which could mean nothing.

They want total control over you. Not just trans people. Not just queer people. You. Everyone.

Trans people are just a scapegoat. They want total control over everyone's self expression. They want the right to mold you into their perfect little cog in their dehumanizing machine.

The EHRC ruling affects everyone and if you don't see the harm because you think it only impacts trans people then you're lacking sense and decency. No one should be gender policed to have a wee, and the second you give strangers the right to harass others who they believe don't fit their idea of what a perceived gender 'should be' then you're apart of the problem.

Everyone would be at risk of harassment.

And for fcks sake trans people deserve respect and safety which should be common sense at this point!

This stupid policy is just making trans people and gender non conforming people more anxious and ostracised publicly. It's not just about those who will be 'wrongly accused of being trans' that matter (not that they don't, before you fuss). However when it's a trans person being 'accused' of being trans and therfore harassed, that's not right either. (is that sentence simple enough to understand) We don't deserve to be accused and excluded. So don't just offer pathetic token care for those you think deserve it more by being cis gender.

We, trans people, deserve the same amount of outrage when we are accosted and othered. Are we not worthy of protest too? (I suppose all these guidances and legalisations made without input of trans individuals give me the answer)

How is that protection? This protects no one no matter how much you try to rationalise it.'It's to protect women and children'How again is this protecting anyone?If someone wanted to harass and assault someone in the toilets, then this can just do the simple task of pushing a door open. I don't think a rapist or abuser will care if the door happens to have a silhouette of a dress, I think crime prevention would be much easier by now if that was the case. What about all the women and and men who will be hurt and harassed when you force them to use another bathroom because you think that what they were assigned at birth based on genitals matters? What about using this conviction to tackle violence against women when the abuser is a white cis man, domestic abuse, stalking, misogyny that shows up every goddamm day?!

I doubt anyone wants to be in a public toilet more than they need to so just let people piss in peace. Those who support this or support the instigators such as terfs (you probably know of JK Rowling at this point but some believe nostalgia is a good enough excuse to continue helping her fund towards hate. You CAN'T separate art from the artist if they are currently using the money to fund anti lgbtqia groups.) then remember you're condoning societal exclusion, dehumanisation, misogyny and bigotry by allowing those who think they 'can always tell' what makes 'a real woman' or a 'real man'.

Something else I have noticed on top of what you describe is that very often transmascs (of any ‘type’, gender identity, sexuality, and so on) that are not medicalized or not medicalized enough to pass are ALSO sidelined and dismissed, if not outright treated with hostility, in LGBT+ spaces, including ones that explicitly say they are 'trans inclusive'. So we are also sidelined if a person in these spaces deems us to be 'too cishet', but in the opposite sense - too much like a cis woman whose masculinity is not 100% irrefutable and unclockable.

And this applies not just to transmascs that choose to have a more 'feminine' gender presentation, but also just as much to transmascs that DO style themselves as masculine as possible but get still read as ‘tryhard girls wanting to feel special’ by onlookers entirely because of physical characteristics they cannot (yet) change such as facial features, voice, height, visible breasts even through binders &/or tape, body fat distribution, etc.

So we’re essentially damned if we do and damned if we don’t: we either aren’t trying hard enough and are silly little girl interlopers bothering the Real Queers or, the second we start to pass a bit too well, we’re evil rapey threats scaring the Real Queers.

batman #153