BY PAUL T HORGAN
Of one thing we can be absolutely certain, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that transwomen are actually not women, is that discordantly-attired members of the trans rights movement have almost zero professional PR behind them.
Their latest street protests have revealed a cohort of freaks and oddballs who have made absurd pronouncements as if they were the victims. In fact they are the victimisers, as numerous real women will attest.
The focus of their current protests seems to be the right to use women’s toilets. This seems to be deliberate, which may suggest that, despite their garish appearance, they do have some semblance of thinking behind their warped advocacy. This is because they are trying to make people think that the only issue is, and always has been, which toilet these maladjusted people should be using, but this is a classic form of misdirection play.
The choice of toilet is in fact the least significant issue regarding transwomen’s demands to access women-only spaces. Country Squire Readers will be relieved to hear that I have not performed research into the interiors of women’s toilets, but I understand that, unlike men, women’s bodily activities in toilets can only be reasonably conducted in a seated position. This means that there are actually lockable toilet stalls in contrast to the urinals that men may use. This is why there is the running joke, based on reality, of the long queue for the ladies’ in theatres at the interval, while the gents’ queue is notable for its absence. Toilet stalls take up considerably more space than urinals, and if the floor area for both sexes’ toilets are the same, there will be fewer actual facilities for women.
So while a women’s toilet is a women-only space, if a transwoman were to use a women’s toilet, he would be doing so while not compromising the privacy of women, or indeed himself
This, however, is absolutely not the case in women’s changing rooms, and it is significant that the transgender lobby is completely avoiding discussing this topic, because it causes their argument to fail, and fail badly.
Women do not want to see men’s penises in their changing areas, or showers. They also do not want to see a badly-disguised man asserting a perversion of an equality agenda looking at them in various stages of undress. These are the reasons why there are single-sex spaces, and have been in human society for centuries.
There is also the issue of transwomen being sent to women’s prisons and committing sexual assaults on women. All of these real-life issues are deliberately being ignored by trans demonstrators when they focus on which toilet they should be using.
Therefore the toilet issue seems to be a deliberate deflection by transgender advocates, and is a strong indicator that their advocacy is about asserting their imagined right above others instead of acting in anything approaching good faith or compassion. This omission destroys any argument that trans rights are part of an equality agenda. Their advocacy creates more victims than it allegedly protects. Letting men into women’s spaces as a ‘cure’ for their mental disturbance suggests that all alternatives have been exhausted. They haven’t.
The real problem is that the whole equality industry is based on language before objective reality. So the lofty pronouncements are used to dictate human activity as if the pronouncements are either realisable or indeed real.
The trans rights lobby is in fact about crafting a narrative using an equality agenda to make it acceptable for a man to expose his penis at random women in confined spaces whether women like it or not. It is also being used by men to cheat at sports.
Other men are using this equality agenda to be able to sexually assault women, as well as to shame women who only want to have sex with other women into having sex with them, as well as shaming homosexuals into having sex with them. The term ‘transgender lesbian’, describing a man who declares himself to be a woman, but who still only wants to have sex with women, is ludicrous. In the 1970s, it would have been a Monty Python sketch, and may even have been one that they rejected for being too absurd. It is absurd to believe that a lesbian would want to have sex with a man just because the man declares himself to be a woman, and shaming a lesbian into what is actually heterosexual sexual activity for fear of being labelled transphobic seems to be just one slight remove from rape.
So this explains why trans rights activists are focusing excessively on which toilet they want to use. It is because a women’s toilet is the least significant single-sex space of those that these men and their misguided supporters demand they should be allowed to use. If a man was walking around a gents’ toilet displaying his penis at all therein, he would likely be committing a criminal offence, despite the location. The fact that the trans lobby regard men as being entitled to access women’s toilets as a major achievement in their ‘struggle’ says far too much about their ideals, as does their extreme, defensive rhetoric when told they still have to use the gents’.
Given this focus by trans rights activists on women’s toilets and their self-declared and rather disgusting “piss protests”, it seems strange that authorities and other regulatory bodies are still kow-towing to an ideology that has been struck down by the highest court in the land.
The trans rights movement has for years been taking the piss, and has been allowed to get away with it by varying levels of officialdom and firms, as well as a rather too supine media. If they are going to do it from here on in, they should be doing it in the correct spaces, as set down by law.
Paul T Horgan worked in the IT Sector. He lives in Berkshire.