I do not. What the data shows is that it is (counterintuitively) very rare. So vanishingly rare that if you used such rare occurances in any other context, you would dismiss them out of hand as noise range aberrations that will occur in any public policy, and cannot be reasonably prevented. The kind of people that do the weird freaky ◊◊◊◊ are doing it with or without policy on their side. This mythical beast that would be a gruesome goblin if only he was allowed to is a figment of the imagination. The real weirdos are doing their weirdo things whether they are allowed to or not, and the behaviors you describe are criminal, and fully prosecutable when caught.
So very few females get raped in reality, that it really is just a rare occurrence. They should be dismissed out of hand, because it really is just noise range aberrations. And you know, the people that are going to rape are going to rape whether they're allowed into a female-only space or not, so there's no point in making a policy that keeps males out - it's not going to stop the dedicated rapists. Besides, if it actually does happen, rape is fully prosecutable when they're caught anyway. So obviously females shouldn't worry their little heads about it.
That's how you come across. You have very literally and blatantly just completely dismissed the concerns of females. You're quite clearly telling us that we are overreacting and we should just be okay with bad actors, voyeurs, and exhibitionists being given LEGALLY BACKED access to areas where we're naked or vulnerable... all because
you have decided in your manly fashion that it's a risk that
you're willing for
us to take.
That argument is the dead-on equivalent of saying men cannot work in a school system, because some one in a million freak might slip through the cracks. Consider your argument here:
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. We do (or at least used to do) background checks on people working with children, and had safeguards in place to prevent bad actors from being able to gain access to kids in order to do bad things.
On the other hand, TRAs are saying we should have ZERO safeguards at all when it comes to female safety.
We went over that one. It came from some unknown screenshot of a chat room from 2003, with three anonymous participants. We cannot even verify if it is real or (as it would seem) another bull ◊◊◊◊ put-on.
Yet here you are, holding it up as if it was verified fact, commonplace and representative. That detracts from any serious discussion, as does the imaginary AGP arguments.
Posters leave this thread in droves, and don't return, because of arguments like this. They are ridiculous. We should be able to talk about this rationally, without resorting to the alt right Twitter twat postings that some here relish in repeating.
You, and others, have made some very persuasive points in this debate, but when you lower yourself to this kind of argument, it detracts mightily from your credibility and your honesty comes into question.
That 2003 anonymous screenshot has dead zero credibility, yet you hold it up as if it is representative. That's why some of us push back. Not because of your better points, but because arguing at that level.of disingenuousness casts doubt on your motivations.
Before we go any further, do you get why your well thought and persuasive arguments are undermined by relying on that kind of bull ◊◊◊◊?
Things that we were told would never happen, then they happened, then they happened again and again and again... But those things that keep happening are "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" that undermines my argument?
I don't hold it up as representative - I hold it up as a blatant instance of males exploiting loopholes that allow them to violate female boundaries with the force of law behind them.
You keep dismissing those things that have actually happened, because apparently YOU think it's a risk that WE should find acceptable. It's not a risk you have to face, it's a risk females face. But you, in your infinite male wisdom have decided it's not a big enough risk for us to have a voice for, and if we object, well... clearly we're all cherry-picking bigots.
