FWR being trolled by a user called AidaP

Certainly a probable much wider use colloquialism than ‘fuck x with a splintery rolling pin’.

Have you read the now multiple posts about safeguarding and how safeguarding principles work for creating protective law?

Care to address the excellent points that poster made in refuting your assertion that women as a sex class are not inherently vulnerable compared to men as a sex class?

Or are you going to use the normal tactic that FWR detractors use which is to ignore the well written post and criticise the poster instead. We usually assume that’s because posters can’t refute the argument so they attempt distraction and derailing.

It's a colloquialism, isn't it? Tell me you're x without telling me...

She made a point about why someone may not understand the needs of some women. Do you see that as a personal attack?

If you see it as an attack, report it and the mods will decide.

No i think the constant speculation about someones wider character and experiences due to their views on this one issue is weird and we need to call it out. The fact that someone would even think that's ok to say because they disagree with makes them a vile misogynist.

Perhaps you have something to say about what @selffellatingouroborosofhatewrote then? Is that also a problem?

You know that calling someone a weirdo is a personal attack, don’t you? And is against the guidelines?

There is a difference between making a wrong assumption and directly attacking someone.

It is also not just about physical risk to safety. There are many types of harms that female people need female single sex provisions to be safeguarded against:

Harms include:
-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces and vice versa. They are all important.

selffellatingouroborosofhate has covered a lot of excellent points. I also have a distinct sense of deja vu here posting this as I am sure I posted something like this answer in reply for glovedhandcec previously. I suspect that it was summarily dismissed.

However, if of course is not just sexual assault that is an issue. Female people need safeguarding because the risk with any physical attack is greater. Greater risk of it happening, but also greater risk of injury and serious injury including life changing and life limiting injury.

This is because (and we even have studies proving this now) male people generally have a physical advantage over female people. So much so that the weakest 25% of male people are still stronger than 90% of female people. Even those male people who choose to suppress their testosterone (or electively remove the source of their testosterone) are still not as weak as the weakest woman. Because is also is not just about muscle mass, skeletal leverage and bone mass, connective tissue and other aspects all play a part. (Happy to link the studies as evidence we have them easy to find).

The point is that safeguarding is not about completing eliminating risk, it is about minimising it while allowing people to go about their lives. Hence there are no toilet monitoring in person or using id cards as some people who try to use extreme arguments mention. Instead societies such as the UK use laws and policy and public knowledge so that people know where they should and shouldn’t be going. And it should work that if a male person knowingly enters a female single sex provision they will be legally be able to be removed. Hopefully before any harm can be done.

There are weak arguments presented to refute these safeguarding principles such as: but what about female on female violence? Yes. It happens . However, so that people can use publicly accessible facilities the by laws and national laws have to be usable and reasonable. It is reasonable to expect that the average female on female attack will not produce the same injury level as a male on female attack.

Due to grip strength of male people, (again, happy to provide studies showing grip strength differences, even male children have greater grip strength before puberty) it is also less likely that a female person has a chance to escape when a male person holds onto them vs a female person.

Can female on female attack happen ? Yes. It is probably less likely though if you look at conviction rates as a gauge for propensity for violence.

Is there a reasonable expectation it will be less likely to cause serious injury and more likely the victim can escape? Yes. So that is why sex segregated spaces exist and how public provisioning can be meet the expectations of usage flow.

It was never just about privacy and dignity even though those are really important too.

To nitpick, there is the option of 'women only' and 'mixed'. But men deserve some privacy too.

You are spot on about vulnerability to pregnancy, though.

Was he banned? He's not posted anything for a few days now, thankfully.

No its for privacy. Not safeguarding. Women arent inherently vulnerable adults.

Tell me you've never been raped without telling me...

Men have similar same sex provision.

What other provision could men possibly have, given that the women are in the women's provision? Come on, apply some logic here. The only possible options are "men-only" and "no provision for men at all". The latter would usually be unfair.

One of these four statements is not like the others.

• Men can force women to become pregnant.
• Men cannot force other men to become pregnant.
• Women cannot force men to become pregnant.
• Women cannot force other women to become pregnant.

It's not about decision-making capacity. It's about physical vulnerability. Women are physically vulnerable in ways that men are not. This has to be acknowledged for our rights to be protected.

If we don't acknowledge that women are physically weaker and smaller and at risk of forced pregnancy, then there's no way to make the argument for:

• women's separate sports
• women's separate dormitories, loos, showers, and changing rooms
• public spaces being designed to make rape and sexual harassment harder
• women's DV and rape survivor services

Vulnerability is not about decision-making capacity. Analogy: Professor Stephen Hawking was one of the cleverest men alive in the late 20th century, perfectly able to make his own decisions. Yet he was vulnerable because he was physically disabled. Dame Evelyn Glennie is a hugely talented percussionist, but she is vulnerable because her deafness reduces her situational awareness.

Vulnerability simply means being at elevated risk compared to others. Women are at infinitely higher risk of forced pregnancy than men.

No one has embraced a role of "fragile feminine". The thing about "embracing" is that it's a choice. The thing about being raped or sexually assaulted is that it isn't a choice. My sexual assailants forced the "fragile feminine" victim role onto me. I never embraced it and it's offensive to talk about fragility as if it's something that women choose.

That's just how my autism manifests. There's a few of us auties on FWR.

Safeguarding isn't about lack of capacity but about mitigating risk.

In the case of children and some disabled adults, a lack of capacity contributes to the risk of harm that those people face. But it's the risk of harm that triggers safeguarding measures.

Most adult women have capacity to make our own decisions. This capacity doesn't and can't protect us from being raped, battered, or murdered by men who are bigger and stronger than we are, nor can it protect us from being left pregnant by our rapists.

Acknowledging this risk that men pose to women doesn't breed misogyny. Denying this risk is misogyny.

That’s useful to know, thank you 😊

Perhaps an alert has gone out. Asking for back up?

Just FYI - @MNHQ doesn't go anywhere or link to anyone/anything!

Very true.

It could just be me, but it feels like MN mods have been more inclined to delete in the last few days/since a certain couple of posters have been active, than in recent times.

I meant the ‘report’ button. 🤦‍♀️ Tired brain today.

There have been a LOT of deletions though. Including a whole thread.

Somebody uber-sensitive has been mashing the delete button.