I think that's also largely because it's women who feel vulnerable with men in their 'intimate'/'private' places like bathrooms or sleeping spaces - not so much for men. So questions like, "will the prison rules make this person share a room with me on the basis of their self-identification as a woman" are more of a concern for women than for men.

And of course efforts aimed at elevating women in e.g. STEM. If you have a women's tech group, or a women's gaming group, giving special help to women because their gender puts them at a disadvantage, do you, should you, must you, include trans women? That's going to come up about women not about men. Men's groups of these days tend to be much less relevant.

I agree the ruling should have considered both genders equally though. Actually, does it not? Or was it just the discussion, not the actual ruling, that was all women-focused not men?

[–] sureok@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 hours ago

It is only about trans women. The discussion, the case etc. As usual.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

It came about after the Scottish government included transgender women in quotas to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.

Trans women experience all the opposite of what trans men do. Their status plummets on transition. They experience more violence abuse and harassment than cis men, trans men or cis women. The idea of excluding them from women's stuff is ignorant.

As to people "feeling safe", people "feel unsafe" for lots of reasons. Differences in perceived race, sexual orientation, disabilities so forth. Perceived gender variance is only one reason. Should we segregate sleeping spaces by race?

On the other hand, I guess I can take advantage of these things and these spaces?? I'm assigned female at birth. I'm a biological woman?? Nobody would guess to look at me. And as I've been saying I've had many years of male privilege. But if we're checking documents, well nobody can argue with me if I want to. Nor with the OP.