Reminds me of other discussions in the past where some male takes the stance that since we haven't first found a solution for males who are victims of male sexual violence, we can't try to find a solution to address female victims at all. We have to solve male problems first, and only after everything is perfect for males can we turn our attention to females.
Well you did a ◊◊◊◊ job of it, then.
I'd go as far as to say that 30% are also pervs, and especially dangerous when legal constraints are relaxed.
You seem hell bent on trying to solve any other problem than the problem people actually have: Men inviting themselves into communal intimate spaces for women, without their consent, but with legal backing.
There's probably never going to be a good way to figure it out for real. For example, most males are perfectly safe and aren't going to commit any sexual offenses ever. But the ones that aren't safe cause a LOT of harm. I don't know what percentage of males are responsible for the harms that females experience. Let's assume for argument's sake that only 5% of males that cause harm... but they're responsible for harms that 80%+ of females experience.@Emily's Cat - I really appreciate the breakdown; of course I've no way to validate or disconfirm, it's just good to get a sense of where you're coming from.
You too, @Rolfe
www.theguardian.com
Or you can view it as a long delayed reaction to ridiculous demands from TRAs. And please stop talking about gays. This analogy is both wrong and stupid.Far right weaponising LGBTQ+ rights in Europe to sow division, campaigners say
At the start of Pride month, groups report rise in hate crimes as politicians use laws and speeches to target trans people in particular
That's how this is such a clever play: find something to unite the self-styled liberals and the conservative far-right in hate. You've all been played and you don't even realise it.
You are cherry-picking individuals with severe behavioural problems and using them as examples to stereotype an entire group.
Some conservatives don't like the idea of gay people in the same toilets as them. Should gay people have to use the opposite biological sex toilet facilities? Where should bisexual people toilet when out in public? With the justifications used in this thread, because some of them are voyeuristic or predatory, the whole group of gay and bisexual people cannot be trusted and should be excluded. Perhaps we should make gay and bisexual people wear a symbol so we can easily identify and exclude them from places that some people are not comfortable being around them? I wonder where that might lead...
Our feelings shouldn't impact on the freedom of other individuals to go wherever they like in public if they are just going about their business and not harming anyone.
I view it as if we are all living in a nightmare where we repeat the same mistakes from history over and over and over again.
Still talking about gays? This has nothing to do with sex segregation, women’s change rooms, sports, safe places etc etc.
The brave progressive male wants to do away with all sex segregation, thus removing fundamental protections for women. Everything gets sacrificed at the altar of politics, even one's nominal allies.
Its the usual canard that TRA's all spam the debate with.... "oh, gays and lesbians went through the same prejudice years ago, this is just history repeating but trans people are the victims this time"
Cherry-picking is unavoidable when the cherry tree holds a bumper crop of low-hanging fruit.
Doesn't bother me, and never has
Of course not, they should use the facilities that align with their biological sex, just like everyone else should.
Same as everyone else - use the facilities that align with their biological sex
Yup, just exactly the same as all other males. A small number of males cannot be trusted, so all of us must be excluded.
And the feelings of some individuals shouldn't impact on the rights of others
Based on his sex/gender, yes. You're trying to gloss over that with some misdirection.
Because he knowingly entered the club (and then further into the locker room) without permission, knowing he was not allowed to be there, not because he was a man/male entering a woman's space.
Right, but that has nothing to do with anything. The defendant was found to be guilty of criminal trespass because he trespassed into a 'separately secured or occupied' part of the building, not because he was male entering a women's space. The court compared the trespass to breaking into an individual office within a building. He would have been found guilty of exactly the same offense, under the court's reasoning, if he trespassed into the men's locker room (that was a separate secured and occupied part of the building reserved for men/male club members only).
We all have, I'm sure. But your example here is irrelevant; it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender or sex legality for restroom access. Which is what we were talking about. And you know this.
They are not bad analogies, they are uncomfortable for you and others who have become so indoctrinated with hate you openly use derogatory terms such as 'womanface' for transsexual women, safe in the knowledge that few left in this thread will call you out on it. Do you also use 'retard', 'spastic', 'fag' and 'dyke'?
And maybe the male sex offenders that want the unrestricted access to women's safe spaces you demand will give you a badge too
Just for clarification: I'm pointing out that for any "tranny perv" you can hold up as "things that never happen that just keep happening", I can hold up worse in the general population. You're just basically showing very bad people who are also trans, with no indication whatsoever that there are proportionally more bad transpeople than cis folk. It's the very definition of cherry picking. As soon as y'all stop screwing around in the dozens of cherries and get into the several thousands, you might have a point. Till then, you are simply demonstrating that people do bad things and it is often on video nowadays.
