I'm sure it's nice at the Switzerland/ Luxembourg/Ireland/(anywhere will be cheaper) offices.

What on earth is the point of this? We needed a survey to tell us that 65% of Britons earn less then their CEO?

Actually I suspect it's quite a lot more than 65%, so this proves that SOME people can think further than their own pocket.

I didn't say anything about YOU. Those are the rules of self-id.

Source?

Then they don't mind self-id being dropped. Great.

Source for 'mostly'?

So? A bloke who wants to perv can also self-id.

'Nobody may' means nobody is allowed to. That doesn't mean they don't.

They don't.

Predators just put a wig on and self-id in. Or not. A wig is not required.

Great question.

I'd like to read the Greens' solution to this, that is well considered and creates disadvantages for nobody.

I'll let venue security and the police deal with that.

So you DO think trans people are bad people who will break the law and disrespect women.

That sounds transphobic.

You have a comprehension problem.

I'll try again: that's irrelevant as hormone therapy is not required to self-id.

Because they know self-id shouldn't allow people into spaces reserved for the opposite sex.

I could have a 'misogynists' list. But what would be the point? We're here to discuss important subjects, not bury them.

Milli Hill (@millihill) I'm replaying (in my mind) the opening moments of AntiSocial yesterday in which I was asked what I'd been up to in the past four years, and was then slightly admonished for saying I'd written two more books and naming them. This was followed by the male guest stating, "I have written no books in this time but I have brought up two children which I do with a lot of love." Which, had I said it, would presumably have been considered boring and a bit tradwife (I have actually been doing that too for past 4 years, with 3 children, whilst writing two more books). Being admonished for plugging my books, at the time, threw me a bit, and for a few minutes I had to work hard to concentrate again on what was being said. But now that I'm reflecting on it, what was I supposed to say?My writing work also positions me as an authority, it was the main reason I was there and being asked for my view. Even if I was wrong to plug my books, I still think it was interesting that I was ticked off for it and that the male guest then offered up his loving parent story. Particularly since the entire debate was about how men and women get treated differently in our culture, and how when women are in a room with men (as I was, virtually), they are often encouraged to be smaller, to take up less space, and to diminish their achievements. You can find the links to listen and / or read about it here. https://millihill.substack.com/p/discussing-female-only-spaces-live

substack.com/@millihill/n...

As ever women can’t do right for doing wrong.

ACTUALLY 'hated against trans people' or just pointing out downsides of what some trans people want?

Close... my argument that is any male has the potential to endanger women.

Should males be allowed in, their identity doesn't matter. If they decide to attack it's too late.

When males are not allowed in, why do we need to verify? Trans people are decent and respect women and the law.

Why do you think that, when told they are not allowed in a space, trans people will break that rule?

Aren't trans people decent, law abiding, respectful people?

Irrelevant, as nobody knows how aggressive or predatory a male identifying themselves into a female space is.

The clue is in the name: 'self'. Anyone can say how they identify and nobody may question it.

Identity is not mentioned in UK self-defence law. Why do you think it would be?

Ah, so we can tell the potentially-predatory and guaranteed-to-never-be-predatory males apart simply by asking them?

I haven't said that. I've said you have the same risk potential as all males.

Irrelevant.

We create laws needed to protect people regardless of how they are enforced.

You haven't suggested why you think trans people aren't law-abiding?

Reader intelligence is assumed.

Why do you think there's a need to check genetalia?

Doesn't matter. Self-id doesn't require it.

They don't have to go though any process to self-id.

No killing is OK. I'm not aware of any UK law that suggests that. Nobody would propose such a thing. Self- defence rules are mostly sensible and not wise to try to exploit.

That doesn't address my point.

Why do you think increasing the potential for assault on women is progressive?