Den 05.08.2026 kl. 19.26 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
When I use "unisex" bathroom, I mean a facility with a lockable door
that can be used by anyone. The lockable door ensures the privacy.
I don't think that that is enough for all women to feel safe when they
have a very private thing to handle (not just peeing).
I shouldn't have written that. I have no idea how women feel in
different situations. The article had just made me wonder if unisex bathrooms was a good idea.
The real existing situation where men are unambiguously inconvenienced when it
comes to toilet provision is in maternity hospitals (at least the ones I have been in.) This was a minor annoyance. Four months in obstetrics and gynaecology
was the worst job of my life, but not for that reason.
Le 06/08/2026 a 10:20, Aidan Kehoe a ocrit :
The real existing situation where men are unambiguously inconvenienced
when it comes to toilet provision is in maternity hospitals (at least
the ones I have been in.) This was a minor annoyance. Four months in obstetrics and gynaecology was the worst job of my life, but not for
that reason.
Women may have made a poor decision when they became viviparous. It's so
much easier to lay an egg.
Hibou (cousin to the old dinosaurs)
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> writes:
Den 05.08.2026 kl. 19.26 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
When I use "unisex" bathroom, I mean a facility with a lockable door
that can be used by anyone. The lockable door ensures the privacy.
I don't think that that is enough for all women to feel safe when they
have a very private thing to handle (not just peeing).
I shouldn't have written that. I have no idea how women feel in
different situations. The article had just made me wonder if unisex bathrooms was a good idea.
Over 40 years ago, before all the media/political crap about public
bathrooms happened,
or so each of blacksmiths, weavers, potters and (I forget) another
serious craft. Something calamitous had happened to the women's
facility and the only option (unless you walked a couple of hundred
yards to another building) was the men's.
The men's had urinals of course, and cubicles with doors. There was a ceratin amount of laughter about the whole thing but it was a bunch of
mostly young people liberal and creative enough to have chosen careers
as independent artists. Everybody behaved themselves and it was a non-problem. If anyone was deeply offended, felt threatened or was
otherwise unable comfortably to cope, they didn't organize a protest
or hurl accusations.
In article <87ik5mtsz1.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere>, mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere says...
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> writes:
Den 05.08.2026 kl. 19.26 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
When I use "unisex" bathroom, I mean a facility with a lockable door >>> that can be used by anyone. The lockable door ensures the privacy.
I don't think that that is enough for all women to feel safe when they >> have a very private thing to handle (not just peeing).
I shouldn't have written that. I have no idea how women feel in different situations. The article had just made me wonder if unisex bathrooms was a good idea.
Over 40 years ago, before all the media/political crap about public bathrooms happened,
I'm astonished you think this is media/political crap about toilets.
https://tinyurl.com/4rbdkavu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2edeyzz0xmo
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 06/08/26 02:03, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 05.08.2026 kl. 17.46 skrev Hibou:
And anyway, some men piss on the seat. Gosh! Some might even do it
misogynistically if compelled to use unisex facilities.
Not just the seat. They piss all over the floor. I've played in a bridge
club where it took less that half an hour for the floor to be pissed. A humouristic sign didn't make any difference. One line thereon:
Stand closer. It's not as long as you think.
One solution that really does cut cleaning bills, I'm told, is to paint
a picture of a fly on each urinal. I first met this at Schiphol airport, but the idea has since spread to other places.
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
If you follow affairs in the USA you will know that there is an Ohio congressman called Max Miller, who appears to be a really charming chap,
but is accused of slamming his ex-wife into a wall, attacking her with scalding hot water, pointing a gun at her head, and fracturing their 2-year-old daughter's collarbone. However, all that pales into
insignificance compared with the really shocking claim that he circulated
a photograph in which his daughter's genital region could be discerned.
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 06/08/26 02:03, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 05.08.2026 kl. 17.46 skrev Hibou:
And anyway, some men piss on the seat. Gosh! Some might even do it
misogynistically if compelled to use unisex facilities.
Not just the seat. They piss all over the floor. I've played in a bridge
club where it took less that half an hour for the floor to be pissed. A
humouristic sign didn't make any difference. One line thereon:
Stand closer. It's not as long as you think.
One solution that really does cut cleaning bills, I'm told, is to paint >> > > a picture of a fly on each urinal. I first met this at Schiphol airport, >> > > but the idea has since spread to other places.
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
If you follow affairs in the USA you will know that there is an Ohio
congressman called Max Miller, who appears to be a really charming chap,
but is accused of slamming his ex-wife into a wall, attacking her with
scalding hot water, pointing a gun at her head, and fracturing their
2-year-old daughter's collarbone. However, all that pales into
insignificance compared with the really shocking claim that he circulated
a photograph in which his daughter's genital region could be discerned.
Veux pas le savoir,
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 21:13:49 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.[-]
Lodder) wrote:
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted:
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
If you follow affairs in the USA you will know that there is an Ohio
congressman called Max Miller, who appears to be a really charming chap, >> but is accused of slamming his ex-wife into a wall, attacking her with
scalding hot water, pointing a gun at her head, and fracturing their
2-year-old daughter's collarbone. However, all that pales into
insignificance compared with the really shocking claim that he circulated >> a photograph in which his daughter's genital region could be discerned.
Veux pas le savoir,
More shocking are the current reports of Max withholding the "Blue
Bunny" from his daughter. The blue bunny is a stuffed toy that the
child carried and slept with. When Max had custody, there were
several times he didn't send the child back to her mother with the toy
and held it back for days.
Any parent who has a child who had a favorite stuffed toy, knows
there's no peace until the toy is reunited if separated for any time.
That's abuse of the child and the mother.
With our daughter, it was "Honey Bunny". We once turned back almost
an hour into a road trip to return home for "Honey Bunny".
What astonishes me, Janet, is how many real women are lobbying in
favour of letting men invade women's spaces. Emily Thornberry MP is
just one example out of many possible ones. Can you explain why this
should be so?
On 08/08/26 02:42, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:
What astonishes me, Janet, is how many real women are lobbying in
favour of letting men invade women's spaces. Emily Thornberry MP is
just one example out of many possible ones. Can you explain why this
should be so?
One advantage of a unisex public toilet: a man who wants to molest a
woman in there has to deal with the fact that there will be other men
coming through the door. In a women-only facility there is less protection.
Hibou wrote:
Women may have made a poor decision when they became viviparous. It's so
much easier to lay an egg.
Hibou (cousin to the old dinosaurs)
But she has to sit on it, and to keep the hatchlings warm,
in the perhaps vain hope that M. Hibou will bring in dinner every day,
for weeks on end. [...]
Peter Moylan wrote:
One solution that really does cut cleaning bills, I'm told, is to paint
a picture of a fly on each urinal. I first met this at Schiphol airport,
but the idea has since spread to other places.
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
The design has been much copied.
Le 06/08/2026 a 09:51, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
Peter Moylan wrote:
One solution that really does cut cleaning bills, I'm told, is to paint
a picture of a fly on each urinal. I first met this at Schiphol airport, >> but the idea has since spread to other places.
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
The design has been much copied.
Hmm. Kiss my arse!
The rim is the wrong place, not a good aiming point. In any bowl there--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
should be a sweet spot? where the stream will bounce off in safe
directions. That's the place to put the painted fly.
?Term under review.
Le 07/08/2026 a 09:47, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
Hibou wrote:
Women may have made a poor decision when they became viviparous. It's so >> much easier to lay an egg.
Hibou (cousin to the old dinosaurs)
But she has to sit on it, and to keep the hatchlings warm,
in the perhaps vain hope that M. Hibou will bring in dinner every day,
for weeks on end. [...]
Sitting on eggs and hunter-gathering in the supermarket are shareable
tasks, in line with our Zeitgeist.
Le 06/08/2026 |a 10:20, Aidan Kehoe a |-crit :
The real existing situation where men are unambiguously inconvenienced
when it
comes to toilet provision is in maternity hospitals (at least the ones
I have
been in.) This was a minor annoyance. Four months in obstetrics and
gynaecology
was the worst job of my life, but not for that reason.
Women may have made a poor decision when they became viviparous. It's so much easier to lay an egg.
Hibou (cousin to the old dinosaurs)
Hibou wrote:
Sitting on eggs and hunter-gathering in the supermarket are shareable
tasks, in line with our Zeitgeist.
But Mme. Hibou hasn't caught up with the Zeitgeist.
She is strictly a tradwife. She has no choice about it,
because she is far too heavy to do the gathering for the family.
The heaviest M. Hibou is still way lighter than the lightest Mme.
The rabbits will just laugh at her.
What worked fine for your loose-living cousin
(let Mme. T. Queen do the egg-carrying and providing)
will not work as nicely for Mme. Hibou.
Flight is much harder than stomping through the forest,
Beira's Place, in Edinburgh, as I'm sure you know. I have been going through its web site and cannot find anything that can be called
"using a toilet has now become weaponised by anti-transgender hate groups". Can you point out what I've missed?
You have missed their assertion that they help all women equally but transgender women aren't (in their opinion) women.
Gosh. So your criterion for weaponising use of a toilet is following a policy that men who say they are women are not women. Can you not find anything more hateful than that that Beira's Place is guilty of?
Incidentally the thanks you get for defending Amnesty's slander is to get dumped in the toilet yourself by Amnesty. It now says: "We apologise for the publication of the briefing 'A growing threat: the anti-rights movement
in the UK.' This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK." Oh dear. Do you still think they were right to slander Beira's Place and many other charities?
In article <1rz0url.1633uog1fykxskN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid says...
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
[...]
Only time to address a few points as I am packing for a holiday.
For Women Scotland did not form in a vacuum for the purpose of
oppressing trans- people.
They have done almost nothing else.
[...]
I get the impression you see the issue mainly, or even solely, in terms of the rights of trans- people. These people must have their rights, like anybody else.
But it has to be recognised that granting their desired rights in full would impinge upon other people's rights, in particular those of women.
There is no conflict between transgender rights and women's rights, this has been manufactured. Look at the number of replies from people who
live outside the UK saying they don't know what the fuss is all about.
They're all men, and some of them are apparently unaware of what happened in UK law and politics in recent years. Ignorance can be
excused.
What's harder to understand is if they are unaware of any "fuss" about
sex identity in international sports.
I believe a women's group should be able to open itself to or restrict itself from trans-women, as appropriate.
They have done so for decades where it mattered and didn't need a law to behave sensibly.
Lets remember who didn't "behave sensibly".
For decades we didn't need law to define the sex of a "father" who carried a foetus in her uterus and gave birth through her vagina. Until
"self identifying transman " demanded to be registered as the father of
the child she gave birth to.
We shouldn't have needed a law that a convicted male rapist cannot self-identify as a woman, in order to be incarcerated in a womens prison where he raped more women with his penis. Until he did.
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 06/08/2026 |a 09:51, J. J. Lodder a |-crit :
Peter Moylan wrote:
One solution that really does cut cleaning bills, I'm told, is to paint >>>> a picture of a fly on each urinal. I first met this at Schiphol airport, >>>> but the idea has since spread to other places.
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
The design has been much copied.
Hmm. Kiss my arse!
FYI, sitting on red-lipped urinals to get your arse kissed
is not recommended.
Apart from fellow users objecting strongly to the indecent exposure
the thing may not be fixed to the wall by sufficiently strong bolts,
Jan
(boggled)
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Beira's Place, in Edinburgh, as I'm sure you know. I have been going through its web site and cannot find anything that can be called
"using a toilet has now become weaponised by anti-transgender hate groups". Can you point out what I've missed?
You have missed their assertion that they help all women equally but transgender women aren't (in their opinion) women.
Gosh. So your criterion for weaponising use of a toilet is following
a policy that men who say they are women are not women. Can you not
find anything more hateful than that that Beira's Place is guilty of?
As discussed in other threads, the terms "Men " and "Women" are
artificial constructs which canot be applied rigidly to the wide
spectrum that occurs in the real World.
If you cannot tell whether someone is a man or a woman, it does not
matter which toilet they use.
Incidentally the thanks you get for defending Amnesty's slander is to
get dumped in the toilet yourself by Amnesty. It now says: "We
apologise for the publication of the briefing 'A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK.' This document should never have been published, and full responsibility for this error rests with Amnesty International UK." Oh dear. Do you still think they were right to
slander Beira's Place and many other charities?
Amnesty didn't slander them, Beira's Place threatened to sue Amnesty for slander but were never required to prove it.
----
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Gosh. So your criterion for weaponising use of a toilet is following a policyBeira's Place, in Edinburgh, as I'm sure you know. I have been going
through its web site and cannot find anything that can be called
"using a toilet has now become weaponised by anti-transgender hate
groups". Can you point out what I've missed?
You have missed their assertion that they help all women equally but
transgender women aren't (in their opinion) women.
that men who say they are women are not women. Can you not find anything more
hateful than that that Beira's Place is guilty of?
As discussed in other threads, the terms "Men " and "Women" are
artificial constructs which canot be applied rigidly to the wide
spectrum that occurs in the real World.
Le 06/08/2026 a 09:51, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
Peter Moylan wrote:
One solution that really does cut cleaning bills, I'm told, is to paint
a picture of a fly on each urinal. I first met this at Schiphol airport, >> but the idea has since spread to other places.
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
The design has been much copied.
Hmm. Kiss my arse!
The rim is the wrong place, not a good aiming point. In any bowl there should be a sweet spot| where the stream will bounce off in safe
directions. That's the place to put the painted fly.
|Term under review.
On 07/08/2026 06:29, Hibou wrote:
Le 06/08/2026 a 10:20, Aidan Kehoe a ocrit :
The real existing situation where men are unambiguously inconvenienced
when it
comes to toilet provision is in maternity hospitals (at least the ones
I have
been in.) This was a minor annoyance. Four months in obstetrics and
gynaecology
was the worst job of my life, but not for that reason.
Women may have made a poor decision when they became viviparous. It's so much easier to lay an egg.
Hibou (cousin to the old dinosaurs)
I've occasionally been tempted to speculate on the ways that human
society would have been different if we'd been marsupials. AI-controlled artificial pouch, anyone?
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 11:01:30 +0100 Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid>
wrote:
I've occasionally been tempted to speculate on the ways that humanMany many improvements could be made to humans, but god didn't let
society would have been different if we'd been marsupials.
AI-controlled artificial pouch, anyone?
us evolve that way; what a mysterious fellow.
[std stuff- vagus nerve, single point of failure heart, rubbish
stomach protection, cruddy weight distribution for an upright stance
- poor choice of excretary and reproductive tract location, lack of
handy integrated transport bag, poor water retention,
non-can-opening fingernails etc..]
The rest, however, shows a complete misunderstanding of what Darwin said >about natural selection. The idea that one can discover the direction of >man's evolution is based on the assumption that evolution will go in a >preferred direction, and possibly the assumption that there is a guiding >intelligence. The use of a machine to evolve oneself ignores the fact
that most mutations are unfavourable; going into that machine would be a >death sentence.
Darwin's famous paper had been published over 70 years earlier. Surely
people would have understood it by 1930. Well, apparently not.
Ar an nao|| l|i is fiche de m|! I||il, scr|!obh Liz Tuddenham:
[...] [ 13.179 [...]There is no type of official record or document in
the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex. For example, sex on passports and driving licences may be changed with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and birth certificates may reflect the acquired gender of someone who has a GRC.]
It is clear from this that they consider sex assigned at birth to be
the only legitimate definition of "sex". A Gender Recognition
Certificate specifies that the reassigned sex is "for all purposes" and this has not been changed, so this Guidance goes aginst the law in many cases. (The Supreme Court defined "Biological Sex" to mean the sex recorded on the original birth certificate only for certain specific purposes - and using toilets wasn't one of them. )
[. 13.178 Where an individual confirms, in response to such a request, that they are not of the sex for which the single or separate-sex
service or association in question is intended, they may be required to leave and thereafter be excluded from the service.]
From this, according to the ECHR Guidance, anyone can be prevented from using the facility if their sex assigned at birth does not conform with the designateed sex of the facility (as I originally stated). So a transwomen who transitioned 30 years ago and has used the Ladies
without the slightest problem during the whole of that time has to now
be told she must use the Gents.
This Guidance is illegal because it contravenes the Supreme Court definition of a "Single Sex Space" and Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 but it hasn't stopped employers trying to
enforce it on their transgender employees even before it has become
law. 169 Members of Parliament have told the Minister that they think
it should not be made law, but it has been pushed through without a
vote.
To be clear, international conventions override national law, so rulings according to international conventions are not illegal if the relevant
nation is a signatory to the convention. The relevant country has the
option of pulling out, or (less likely in Western Europe these days) of starting a war to force the convention to be changed should the that
country feel the convention is not to its satisfaction.
If the UK feels that the EHCR ruling is not to its satisfaction, it has
the option of pulling out of the convention, war with the other
signatories, or providing a document which is reliable evidence of sex.
The last is likely the most sensible use of resources.
Welcome back!
There is no such "wide spectrum". There are women, men, and a
vanishingly small number of sexual anomalies. I'm a member of a social
group of ~50 people from a wide spectrum of ages with slightly more
women than men, and every one of us is distinctly male or distinctly
female.
If you cannot tell whether someone is a man or a woman, it does not
matter which toilet they use.
As I noted in another post on this thread, I no longer share that view.
Janet <nobody@home.com> posted:
In article <87ik5mtsz1.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere>,What astonishes me, Janet, is how many real women are lobbying in favour of letting
mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere says...
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> writes:
Den 05.08.2026 kl. 19.26 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
When I use "unisex" bathroom, I mean a facility with a lockable door >> > >>> that can be used by anyone. The lockable door ensures the privacy.
I don't think that that is enough for all women to feel safe when they >> > >> have a very private thing to handle (not just peeing).
I shouldn't have written that. I have no idea how women feel in
different situations. The article had just made me wonder if unisex
bathrooms was a good idea.
Over 40 years ago, before all the media/political crap about public
bathrooms happened,
I'm astonished you think this is media/political crap about toilets.
men invade women's spaces. Emily Thornberry MP is just one example out of many
possible ones. Can you explain why this should be so?
https://tinyurl.com/4rbdkavu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2edeyzz0xmo
All those (and other) examples are just brushed aside as one in a million exceptions.
If you define 'men' and 'women' by the ability to reproduce,
Den 09.08.2026 kl. 13.01 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
If you define 'men' and 'women' by the ability to reproduce,
... at some period of their life. That they choose not to, doesn't
change anything.
On 09/08/26 07:24, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 11:01:30 +0100 Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid>
wrote:
I've occasionally been tempted to speculate on the ways that humanMany many improvements could be made to humans, but god didn't let
society would have been different if we'd been marsupials.
AI-controlled artificial pouch, anyone?
us evolve that way; what a mysterious fellow.
[std stuff- vagus nerve, single point of failure heart, rubbish
stomach protection, cruddy weight distribution for an upright stance
- poor choice of excretary and reproductive tract location, lack of
handy integrated transport bag, poor water retention,
non-can-opening fingernails etc..]
I'm currently re-reading "Before the Golden Age", a collection of 1930s science ficttion. I'll probably discard it after reading, because the proportion of crap is higher than Sturgeon's Law would predict, but it
does give a good sampling of how SF developed over time.
One of the first stories is about a "scientist" who has studied
evolution. He claimed to have discovered the mechanism for evolution
(cosmic rays) and a way of accelerating evolution (a machine to increase
the intensity of cosmic rays). He wanted to know how humans would evolve
in the future, so with the aid of this machine he evolved himself by a
few thousand years each time, becoming a "future man".
(They knew of the existence of cosmic rays in 1930, but didn't know much about them.)
The idea about cosmic rays was a good guess. There are multiple
mechanisms for genetic variation, and gene damage by cosmic rays is one
of them. Nowhere near as important a mechanism as the fact that we have
two parents, but still ... . Darwin himself observed that variations
could develop in a species, but he didn't have a mechanism other than
random chance.
The rest, however, shows a complete misunderstanding of what Darwin said about natural selection. The idea that one can discover the direction of man's evolution is based on the assumption that evolution will go in a preferred direction, and possibly the assumption that there is a guiding intelligence. The use of a machine to evolve oneself ignores the fact
that most mutations are unfavourable; going into that machine would be a death sentence.
Darwin's famous paper had been published over 70 years earlier. Surely
people would have understood it by 1930. Well, apparently not.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
[...]
Only time to address a few points as I am packing for a holiday.
OK, I'll be briefer in this post than the last one.
For Women Scotland did not form in a vacuum for the purpose of
oppressing trans- people.
They have done almost nothing else.
They formed to defend women's rights. Any "oppression" of trans- people
is purely incidental and unfortunate.
Trans-women, who are still basically men, can also be a violent threat,
can't they?
Banning transwomen from toilets will not increase women's safety in
any way.
I agree with you here, too.
But the feelings of women in general on
sharing them with trans-women deserve some recognition.
On 09/08/26 07:24, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 11:01:30 +0100 Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid>
wrote:
I've occasionally been tempted to speculate on the ways that humanMany many improvements could be made to humans, but god didn't let
society would have been different if we'd been marsupials.
AI-controlled artificial pouch, anyone?
us evolve that way; what a mysterious fellow.
[std stuff- vagus nerve, single point of failure heart, rubbish
stomach protection, cruddy weight distribution for an upright stance
- poor choice of excretary and reproductive tract location, lack of
handy integrated transport bag, poor water retention,
non-can-opening fingernails etc..]
I'm currently re-reading "Before the Golden Age", a collection of 1930s science ficttion. I'll probably discard it after reading, because the proportion of crap is higher than Sturgeon's Law would predict, but it
does give a good sampling of how SF developed over time.
One of the first stories is about a "scientist" who has studied
evolution. He claimed to have discovered the mechanism for evolution
(cosmic rays) and a way of accelerating evolution (a machine to increase
the intensity of cosmic rays).
He wanted to know how humans would evolve
in the future, so with the aid of this machine he evolved himself by a
few thousand years each time, becoming a "future man".
(They knew of the existence of cosmic rays in 1930, but didn't know much about them.)
The idea about cosmic rays was a good guess. There are multiple
mechanisms for genetic variation, and gene damage by cosmic rays is one
of them. Nowhere near as important a mechanism as the fact that we have
two parents, but still ... . Darwin himself observed that variations
could develop in a species, but he didn't have a mechanism other than
random chance.
The rest, however, shows a complete misunderstanding of what Darwin said about natural selection.
The idea that one can discover the direction of
man's evolution is based on the assumption that evolution will go in a preferred direction, and possibly the assumption that there is a guiding intelligence. The use of a machine to evolve oneself ignores the fact
that most mutations are unfavourable; going into that machine would be a death sentence.
Darwin's famous paper had been published over 70 years earlier. Surely
people would have understood it by 1930. Well, apparently not.
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
Ar an nao|a-| l|a-i is fiche de m|arCo I|a-|il, scr|arCoobh Liz Tuddenham:
[...] [ 13.179 [...]There is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex. For example, sex on passports and driving licences may be changed with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and birth certificates may reflect the acquired gender of someone who has a GRC.]
It is clear from this that they consider sex assigned at birth to be
the only legitimate definition of "sex". A Gender Recognition Certificate specifies that the reassigned sex is "for all purposes" and this has not been changed, so this Guidance goes aginst the law in many cases. (The Supreme Court defined "Biological Sex" to mean the sex recorded on the original birth certificate only for certain specific purposes - and using toilets wasn't one of them. )
[. 13.178 Where an individual confirms, in response to such a request, that they are not of the sex for which the single or separate-sex service or association in question is intended, they may be required to leave and thereafter be excluded from the service.]
From this, according to the ECHR Guidance, anyone can be prevented from using the facility if their sex assigned at birth does not conform with the designateed sex of the facility (as I originally stated). So a transwomen who transitioned 30 years ago and has used the Ladies
without the slightest problem during the whole of that time has to now be told she must use the Gents.
This Guidance is illegal because it contravenes the Supreme Court definition of a "Single Sex Space" and Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 but it hasn't stopped employers trying to
enforce it on their transgender employees even before it has become
law. 169 Members of Parliament have told the Minister that they think it should not be made law, but it has been pushed through without a vote.
To be clear, international conventions override national law, so rulings according to international conventions are not illegal if the relevant nation is a signatory to the convention. The relevant country has the option of pulling out, or (less likely in Western Europe these days) of starting a war to force the convention to be changed should the that country feel the convention is not to its satisfaction.
If the UK feels that the EHCR ruling is not to its satisfaction, it has
the option of pulling out of the convention, war with the other signatories, or providing a document which is reliable evidence of sex.
The last is likely the most sensible use of resources.
There is confusion between the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) and
the EHRC (Equalities and Human Rights Commission). What you have
described as an international convention is the ECHR (sometimes
abbreviated to ECtHR for clarity); the recent legislation has come from
the EHRC which is an unelected UK government quango.
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 07:08:56 +0100
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 06/08/2026 |a 09:51, J. J. Lodder a |-crit :For me it is a point at about 20 degrees off base (my preference left) , where splashback is minimal - the stream mostly redirected inward and
Peter Moylan wrote:
One solution that really does cut cleaning bills, I'm told, is to paint >>>> a picture of a fly on each urinal. I first met this at Schiphol airport, >>>> but the idea has since spread to other places.
Another Dutch design has red woman's lips (or Mick Jagger's)
painted on the rim.
Rejected by the Americans of course as grossly indecent.
The design has been much copied.
Hmm. Kiss my arse!
The rim is the wrong place, not a good aiming point. In any bowl there
should be a sweet spot-| where the stream will bounce off in safe
directions. That's the place to put the painted fly.
-|Term under review.
down toward the central base exit.
Gosh isn't this an exciting topic to discuss to see if international preferences differ?!
/~~~~~\
| |
\ /
\x /
\./
x marks the spot
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
[...]
Only time to address a few points as I am packing for a holiday.
OK, I'll be briefer in this post than the last one.
For Women Scotland did not form in a vacuum for the purpose of oppressing trans- people.
They have done almost nothing else.
They formed to defend women's rights. Any "oppression" of trans- people
is purely incidental and unfortunate.
Their idea of defending women's rights is entirely the oppression of transpeople and they appear to exist for that express purpose.
Their [For Women Scotland] webpage is full of anti-transgender
campaigns and there is nothing else they claim to be doing.
[...]
Trans-women, who are still basically men, can also be a violent threat, can't they?
No more than any moderately strong woman and in many cases less so.
After a few months on female hormones they begin to lose body strength
and can no longer perform as men (the hormones that were used to
'chemically castrate' Alan Turing). If they have had 'the Operation',
they don't have a penis. Women have more to fear from a predatory
lesbian than a transwoman.
In the UK and in more-civilised countries with self-declaration there
has never been an instance of a transwoman attacking another woman in a toilet.
Banning transwomen from toilets will not increase women's safety in
any way.
I agree with you here, too.
A recent interesting story has been told by a transwoman who was in a
toilet cubicle and heard another woman outside shouting violent
transphobic abuse. She eventually realised it wasn't directed at her
but at another woman who had short hair. She came out of the cubicle
and helped defend the short-haired woman against the aggressor until a security guard arrived and evicted the trouble-maker.
But the feelings of women in general on sharing them with trans-women deserve some recognition.
At the moment, transwomen don't have to wear a pink triangle or have a
number tattooed on their arm, so there is no reason why anyone should be
able to identify a transwoman in a toilet if she is behaving correctly.
When the anti-transgender hate groups realise that "We can always tell"
is a lie, they will probably start demanding some form of identification
- the head of the EHRC has already hinted in a Channel 4 interview that
she would like to go down this path.
----
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
If you define 'men' and 'women' by the ability to reproduce, there are
21 million people in the UK over the age of 50
and at least 6 million
children who physically cannot breed. In addition there are many more
adults who have not produced children for social reasons.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
At the moment, transwomen don't have to wear a pink triangle or have a
number tattooed on their arm, so there is no reason why anyone should be
able to identify a transwoman in a toilet if she is behaving correctly.
Apart from being 6' 2" tall with broad shoulders, like the "woman" my
sister encountered emerging from the ladies' that I described before.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
[...]
Only time to address a few points as I am packing for a holiday.
OK, I'll be briefer in this post than the last one.
For Women Scotland did not form in a vacuum for the purpose of oppressing trans- people.
They have done almost nothing else.
They formed to defend women's rights. Any "oppression" of trans- people is purely incidental and unfortunate.
Their idea of defending women's rights is entirely the oppression of transpeople and they appear to exist for that express purpose.
I suggest that they're not excessively concerned with the rights of transpeople, except in as much as they collide with the rights of women.
The two sets of rights (or "rights") frequently do collide.
Have a look at https://www.stonewall.org.uk sometime.{...}
In practice, it advocates strongly for the rights of
trans-people, and doesn't give a damn about any other group's rights, not even lesbian and gay rights any more.
At the founding of For Women Scotland, the Scottish Government had
just made/were about to make a law that anybody could change their sex by submitting a piece of paper to a registry office, with or without
opposite sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery or whatever.
After that it would be open season for men in the ladies' and all other formely female-only spaces. This law was vetoed by the British
Government (thankfully).
In the UK and in more-civilised countries with self-declaration there
has never been an instance of a transwoman attacking another woman in a toilet.
I think that's a bold and slightly irrelevant thing to say. More to the point is whether a biological man, whether or not a transwoman, has ever attacked a woman in the women's toilets, and whether the chances of that would increase with free access of transwomen and "transwomen" to the ladies'. That was one of the scenarios that FWS was formed to fight
against.
A recent interesting story has been told by a transwoman who was in a toilet cubicle and heard another woman outside shouting violent
transphobic abuse. She eventually realised it wasn't directed at her
but at another woman who had short hair. She came out of the cubicle
and helped defend the short-haired woman against the aggressor until a security guard arrived and evicted the trouble-maker.
Hopefully such aggression will be a passing fad, once the new laws/regulations/codes of practice have had time to bed in.
But the feelings of women in general on sharing them with trans-women deserve some recognition.
At the moment, transwomen don't have to wear a pink triangle or have a number tattooed on their arm, so there is no reason why anyone should be able to identify a transwoman in a toilet if she is behaving correctly.
Apart from being 6' 2" tall with broad shoulders, like the "woman" my
sister encountered emerging from the ladies' that I described before.
When the anti-transgender hate groups realise that "We can always tell"
is a lie, they will probably start demanding some form of identification
- the head of the EHRC has already hinted in a Channel 4 interview that
she would like to go down this path.
Why do you continue using "anti-transgender hate groups" to characterise groups like FWS?
They don't call Stonewall or people with your views
"misogynists", though they have at least equal grounds for doing so.
As discussed in other threads, the terms "Men " and "Women" are
artificial constructs [...]
Le 08/08/2026 |a 20:21, Liz Tuddenham a |-crit :
As discussed in other threads, the terms "Men " and "Women" are
artificial constructs [...]
Nonsense! They encapsulate an almost universal division that is rooted
in nature and is at the heart of how our species reproduces itself.
Le 08/08/2026 |a 20:21, Liz Tuddenham a |-crit :
As discussed in other threads, the terms "Men " and "Women" are
artificial constructs [...]
Nonsense! They encapsulate an almost universal division that is rooted
in nature and is at the heart of how our species reproduces itself.
Hibou wrote:
Le 08/08/2026 |a-a 20:21, Liz Tuddenham a |a--crit :
As discussed in other threads, the terms "Men " and "Women" are
artificial constructs [...]
Nonsense! They encapsulate an almost universal division that is rooted
in nature and is at the heart of how our species reproduces itself.
As we don't reproduce in public toilets (well, not very often), why
apply that division in places where it isn't needed, isn't applicable
and isn't enforceable? Most of our lives are not spent reproducing; the concept of 'men' and 'women' is irelevant most of the time.
Well, my own feeling (others must speak for themselves) is that sex, the >distinction between men and women, is omnipresent in human relations,
When it comes to loos, the criterion is not so much whether one can
stand up to pee or not, whether one wipes one's bum from front to back
or vice versa; it's about how people feel about performing these
intimate acts in the presence of the opposite sex.
Hibou wrote:
[...]
When it comes to loos, the criterion is not so much whether one can
stand up to pee or not, whether one wipes one's bum from front to back
or vice versa; it's about how people feel about performing these
intimate acts in the presence of the opposite sex.
How often have you shared a cubicle with someone else?
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
For Women Scotland did not form in a vacuum for the purpose of oppressing trans- people.
They have done almost nothing else.
They formed to defend women's rights. Any "oppression" of trans- people is purely incidental and unfortunate.
Their idea of defending women's rights is entirely the oppression of transpeople and they appear to exist for that express purpose.
I suggest that they're not excessively concerned with the rights of transpeople, except in as much as they collide with the rights of women. The two sets of rights (or "rights") frequently do collide.
All types of women have a right to safety and privacy, there is no clash except in very specialised circumstances.
They [For Women Scotland] are using the natural fears of women as a
stick to beat trans women, ....
.... there has never been a case of a transwoman raping any woman in a toilet. This is a totally fabricated 'problem' that does not exist in reality.
Have a look at https://www.stonewall.org.uk sometime.{...}
In practice, it advocates strongly for the rights of
trans-people, and doesn't give a damn about any other group's rights, not even lesbian and gay rights any more.
Where on earth have you seen that? Stonewall has backed away from trans rights.
In the UK and in more-civilised countries with self-declaration there
has never been an instance of a transwoman attacking another woman in a toilet.
I think that's a bold and slightly irrelevant thing to say. More to the point is whether a biological man, whether or not a transwoman, has ever attacked a woman in the women's toilets, and whether the chances of that would increase with free access of transwomen and "transwomen" to the ladies'. That was one of the scenarios that FWS was formed to fight against.
They have had free access for decades and there has never been a
problem. There will be problems from now on and they will affect far
more cis-women than trans-women.
But the feelings of women in general on sharing them with trans-women deserve some recognition.
At the moment, transwomen don't have to wear a pink triangle or have a number tattooed on their arm, so there is no reason why anyone should be able to identify a transwoman in a toilet if she is behaving correctly.
Apart from being 6' 2" tall with broad shoulders, like the "woman" my sister encountered emerging from the ladies' that I described before.
And was she a transwoman or just a 6'2" tall woman with broad shoulders
and possibly a hormanal abnormality?
How would you know and what business of anyones would it be to ask - as
long as she was doing nothing wrong?
When the anti-transgender hate groups realise that "We can always
tell" is a lie, they will probably start demanding some form of identification - the head of the EHRC has already hinted in a
Channel 4 interview that she would like to go down this path.
Why do you continue using "anti-transgender hate groups" to characterise groups like FWS?
Havvbe you seen their behaviour and comments - if that isn't hate, I
don't know what is.
They don't call Stonewall or people with your views "misogynists",
though they have at least equal grounds for doing so.
I'm not a mysogynist and neither are any of the transwomen I know, they
want all women to be treated properly and not split up into categories
and discriminated against.
(Neither do they want to be discriminated *for* because all forms of discrimination are wrong and so-called 'focussed positive'
discrimination is just widespread negative discrimination under another
name - which leads to resentment.)
----
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
In article <ndtjm8Ftk6aU3@mid.individual.net>,
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Well, my own feeling (others must speak for themselves) is that sex, the >>distinction between men and women, is omnipresent in human relations,
That is quite contrary to my experience. For the vast majority of
people I interact with, their sex is completely irrelevant to our >relationship.
Well, my own feeling (others must speak for themselves) is that sex, the >>> distinction between men and women, is omnipresent in human relations,
That is quite contrary to my experience. For the vast majority of
people I interact with, their sex is completely irrelevant to our
relationship.
And I agree with both of you.
Like Hibou, I am aware of the sex of most of the people I interact
with, but like you, I find that in most cases their sex is irrelevant
to our relationship.
Women need privacy from men (and vice versa), hence have single-sex
spaces. Transwomen are men (in British law and any objective scientific view).
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
[...]
Women need privacy from men (and vice versa), hence have single-sex
spaces. Transwomen are men (in British law and any objective scientific view).
The British law was drawn up by people whose scientific knowledge is on
a par with a four-year-old.
You appear to have no scientific or even personal knowledge of
transpeople and I can see it is pointless trying to educate you as you
are too entrenched in the propaganda put out by the hate groups. This
is not meant as an insult but as an explanation of why I no longer wish
to waste my time going around in circles dealing with the same nonsense
again and again.
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
[...]
Women need privacy from men (and vice versa), hence have single-sex
spaces. Transwomen are men (in British law and any objective scientific view).
The British law was drawn up by people whose scientific knowledge is on
a par with a four-year-old.
You appear to have no scientific or even personal knowledge of
transpeople and I can see it is pointless trying to educate you as you
are too entrenched in the propaganda put out by the hate groups. This
is not meant as an insult but as an explanation of why I no longer wish
to waste my time going around in circles dealing with the same nonsense
again and again.
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
[...]
Women need privacy from men (and vice versa), hence have single-sex
spaces. Transwomen are men (in British law and any objective scientific view).
The British law was drawn up by people whose scientific knowledge is on
a par with a four-year-old.
You appear to have no scientific or even personal knowledge of
transpeople ....
.... and I can see it is pointless trying to educate you as you are
too entrenched in the propaganda put out by the hate groups.
This is not meant as an insult but as an explanation of why I no
longer wish to waste my time going around in circles dealing with the
same nonsense again and again.
----
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
Yesterday I edited a Wikipedia article about a distinguished biologist who transitioned around the turn of the century. Before that she had published important well-cited work under her birth name (1350 citations for one paper --
that's a lot -- but I haven't checked them all). It seemed to me (and still does) that she would not want her earlier work to be completely forgotten because no one could find it or associate it with her, so I added her birth name in the space provided.
athel.cb@gmail.com hat am 10.08.2026 um 19:00 geschrieben:
Yesterday I edited a Wikipedia article about a distinguished biologist who transitioned around the turn of the century. Before that she had published important well-cited work under her birth name (1350 citations for one paper --
that's a lot -- but I haven't checked them all). It seemed to me (and still does) that she would not want her earlier work to be completely forgotten because no one could find it or associate it with her, so I added her birth name in the space provided.
If I understand it right and that biologist transitioned to a man, I
have a linguistic objection to using she/her in any reference after the transition.
Did you not have a chance to ask that biologist if and how they want to associate their earlier work with their present name?
Times move onrCa <https://pic.infini.fr/tiKANCWT/Uyzl6f32.jpg> (link
valid 15 days)
As I said above, discrimination is normal and needed in a civilised
society. Trans-people not getting everything they want is a
different thing from them being discriminated against.
Den 10.08.2026 kl. 16.45 skrev Steve Hayes:
[...]
Well, my own feeling (others must speak for themselves) is that sex,
the
distinction between men and women, is omnipresent in human relations,
That is quite contrary to my experience.-a For the vast majority of
people I interact with, their sex is completely irrelevant to our
relationship.
And I agree with both of you.
Like Hibou, I am aware of the sex of most of the people I interact
with, but like you, I find that in most cases their sex is irrelevant
to our relationship.
I don't think that anyone can interact with another person without being aware of their sex at some level.
Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> posted:
athel.cb@gmail.com hat am 10.08.2026 um 19:00 geschrieben:No, you don't understand it right. It was a man who transitioned to a woman.
Yesterday I edited a Wikipedia article about a distinguished biologist who >>> transitioned around the turn of the century. Before that she had published >>> important well-cited work under her birth name (1350 citations for one paper --
that's a lot -- but I haven't checked them all). It seemed to me (and still >>> does) that she would not want her earlier work to be completely forgotten >>> because no one could find it or associate it with her, so I added her birth >>> name in the space provided.
If I understand it right and that biologist transitioned to a man, I
have a linguistic objection to using she/her in any reference after the
transition.
I call her she because that's what she wants to be called. Do you find that objectionable?
I'm puzzled as to why you leapt to the wrong conclusion.
Did it fit better with the myth you wanted to create about my character?
Would you have
been happier if I had written "Before that he had published important well-cited
work under his birth name", thereby risking Liz's wrath?
Did you not have a chance to ask that biologist if and how they want to
associate their earlier work with their present name?
As she doesn't keep it a secret herself it didn't occur to me that she would want
others to keep it secret.
No, of course not. I'd consistently use they/them, but I can see the
problem if Liz now wants she/her. If I got a chance, I'd ask her which pronoun she prefers with reference to the time and the publications
before transition, especially if there's also a reference to the
previous name. Even better, if possible, I'd ask her to review my text
and approve it or change it.
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 08/08/2026 |a-a 20:21, Liz Tuddenham a |a--crit :
As discussed in other threads, the terms "Men " and "Women" are artificial constructs [...]
Nonsense! They encapsulate an almost universal division that is rooted
in nature and is at the heart of how our species reproduces itself.
As we don't reproduce in public toilets (well, not very often), why
apply that division in places where it isn't needed, isn't applicable
and isn't enforceable? Most of our lives are not spent reproducing; the concept of 'men' and 'women' is irelevant most of the time.
Den 11.08.2026 kl. 09.13 skrev Silvano:
No, of course not. I'd consistently use they/them, but I can see the
problem if Liz now wants she/her. If I got a chance, I'd ask her which
pronoun she prefers with reference to the time and the publications
before transition, especially if there's also a reference to the
previous name. Even better, if possible, I'd ask her to review my text
and approve it or change it.
Asking other people's advice is commendable, but I do not let other
people decide what I write.
Nonsense! They encapsulate an almost universal division that is rooted
in nature and is at the heart of how our species reproduces itself.
Someone pointed out that Darwin showed that moneys made men of
themselves, as opposed to the Bible, which showed that men made
monkeys of themselves.
Whatever you think of that, the fact that the meaning of "men" has
changed since the 1950s and no longer distinguishes men from monkeys,
but only from women, shows that it is indeed an artificial construct.
"Man" used to mean the same as Russian "chelovek", but does no longer.
We no longer have an English word for that concept.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 53:40:01 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,196 |
