The Simple Problem with Those Anti-Trans Protesters' Big Stunts

Fuck Vice.

It reminds me of the alt right when you point out their white nationalist crap is racist. Then they turn on you and claim that pointing out racism is the real racism.

Thanks Fox, for doing just that.

Great post haXXor

haXXor - thanks for your clarity in explaining the dynamics at play.

I think foxonsecurity should also get a meter to assist in the brave services they are performing.

www.scientology.org.uk/faq/scientology-and-dianetics-auditing/what-is-the-emeter-and-how-does-it-work.html

@MidgeBabe I don't think that changes to the GRA necessarily will change that though. With that, it's about getting terminology correct and avoiding one group railroading another. That's one area where we need to remain focussed

Are you instead thinking of the EA?

The GRA is the means by which a trans person gets a legal fiction of a sex change. This legal fiction allows them to be treated as the acquired legal sex under almost all circumstances and ATM it's gatekept by the need to get two doctors to sign off and also must live as if they were the acquired legal sex for two years. Hence, it's quite hard to get one. Making it a self declaration means we'll get a lot more male people with female legal sex and docs to prove it, so someone challenging a male in female spaces is more likely to be told "actually I'm legally female". This, combined with crybully social media users like that Oxford student who started tweeting at Primark after their friend was challenged and asked for ID to use the female fitting rooms even though said friend was let in after showing ID, makes women and organisations stay quiet instead of challenging.

So another cheese layer in the swiss cheese stack of measures to keep women and girls safe is "we trust psychiatrists to keep AGPs and transtrenders out of a
legal right to most female spaces and only let GD folk in".

Excellent post, HaXXor.

"The simple problem with those big stunts? They make people talk. And we don't want that."

HaXOr I like your explanation of why safe sex spaces work now

I don't think that changes to the GRA necessarily will change that though. With that, it's about getting terminology correct and avoiding one group railroading another. That's one area where we need to remain focussed

Also I don't believe that you need to change the GRA to end up in that situation. The girl guides are acting independently of any legal changes. That's why it's so important that the GRA is written carefully, so that abuse of rights can be challenged legally and a push back made against changes that increase discrimination agaiant women

As a PP stated, we use peer enforcement (the "competent guardian" of criminology) to keep males out of the loos.

In fact, not even that: there are two cheese layers before we get to "competent guardians" being in the same space as rapists and targets and preventing rapes by being there.

First cheese layer: we use peer enforcement of single-sex spaces to keep the offender (male, rape weapon person) from getting near the target (female, unpatchable security vulnerability person), enabling women and girls to visit the loo alone. The 94% of men who do not use their penises to rape are also part of that peer enforcement, by challenging a man attempting to enter the ladies as he makes the attempt, or summoning the police/attendant if a man persists in trying to enter the ladies even when challenged.

Second cheese layer: we use the social norm that males use the men's loos and females use the women's loos to filter non-rapist men from risky men, because non-rapist men aren't going to use the women's loo intentionally and, if they do by mistake, they will leave when challenged. Hence, a male in the women's loos has already red-flagged himself as a threat, just by being there, and women in the area can take informed action (e.g. leave, go in in groups for safety, call the police, etc). If social norms change (e.g. multiple occupancy mixed toilets become widespread or males become more tolerated in the ladies loos), we won't be able to rely on a male's presence in the ladies as a red-flagging criteria. We'll have to either take a greater risk of rape or not pee, and no one can hold it in forever.

The "competent guardian" third cheese layer only kicks in if/when a rapist is already inside the loo, the presence of multiple women in the loo acts as a deterrent to rape. This is the last cheese layer, and two cheese layers failed if you had to rely on this one for safety.

Bearing in mind how few rape cases make it to court "you can report your rape, that will deter a rapist" is not a cheese layer. If the three cheese layers fail and a female is raped, a police report is incident post-mortem, not prevention. The aim here is prevention.

The GRA changes, which take away females' ability to challenge men by taking away our ability to presume legal entitlement to enter female space based on visual assessment of biological sex, remove the second cheese layer completely and fill the first with so many holes that it's near-useless, forcing us to rely on the third cheese layer, and if you are the only woman in the loo, you don't even have that any more. This puts any female who wants to go anywhere on her own or with only male company (e.g. husband) on a bladder leash, and that's not on.

I was in Germany once and some fool town planner had put a bench right outside a women's loo. Two guys were sitting on that bench and verbally sexually harassing every woman who used the loo. It was very intimidating. They were deterred from entering only because bystanders can stop them or call the police. Imagine if they could self-id as women... And men will, oh they will: if they will choose jobs (John Worboys, Ian Huntley) to get access to victims and risk their wages and liberty to abuse, if they will risk HIV and hepatitis B to shove used tampons up their arses for sexual thrills, if they will break into houses to wear teen girls knickers to wank and film it (which was useful evidence in the trial), they will fill in GRC forms.

The Feminism & Women's Rights boards, Mumminmum.

what is FWR women?

As a PP stated, we use peer enforcement (the "competent guardian" of criminology) to keep males out of the loos.

And indeed, Fox knows perfectly well that the vast majority of FWR women would prefer FWR to be a woman-led space with woman-led conversations. So Fox considers it a victory to destroy any "competent guardian" function within FWR via appeals to "transphobia". Fox doesn't care whether we're transphobic or not - the aim is to destroy FWR as a woman's space.

From Wikipedia on Vice Media:

Sexual harassment

On December 23, 2017, The New York Times reported that there have been four settlements involving allegations of sexual harassment or defamation against Vice employees. In addition, over twenty other women stated that they had experienced or witnessed sexual misconduct, including unwanted kisses, groping, lewd remarks and propositions for sex, at the company. In a statement provided to The New York Times, Vice co-founders Shane Smith and Suroosh Alvi said, "from the top down, we have failed as a company to create a safe and inclusive workplace where everyone, especially women, can feel respected and thrive."

In January 2018 it was announced that president Andrew Creighton and chief digital officer Mike Germano were suspended as the company investigated charges against them. Vice’s COO/CFO Sarah Broderick sent a memo to staff on 02/01/2018 announcing the suspension of Creighton, who paid a $135,000 settlement in 2016 to a former employee who said she was fired after turning him down, and Mike Germano, who’s served as chief digital officer. Germano founded Carrot Creative, which was acquired by Vice in 2013; he’s been accused of pulling a former colleague onto his lap at a company party, as well as telling his former strategist Amanda Rue he originally didn’t want to hire her “because he wanted to have sex with her.”

Vice has also been criticized by current and former employees for featuring work by Terry Richardson, a photographer facing accusations of sexual abuse by multiple models.

@FoxonSecurity, quoting the Vice article was a great own goal.

@FoxOnSecurity Your twitter says that you are trans and prefer she/her pronouns. PPANBU to infer from that that you were observed male at birth.

Claims that GRA changes don't remove a cheese layer are disingenuous. We are already being pressured not to challenge people who appear to be in the wrong loo and the change in law will enormously increase the chance of challenging someone with a GRC and falling foul of the law, which will have a chilling effect on women's ability to challenge.

Here's my analysis from the perspective of someone who requires reasoned paranoia and a security mindset to do her job:

Situation

• All males are born with a rape weapon (or intrusion tool, as you prefer) built into their bodies. It's more commonly called a "penis".
• All females are born with an unpatchable security vulnerability built into their bodies. It's more commonly called a "vagina".
• Males are typically bigger and stronger than females and are often socialised to have a sense of entitlement to sexual access to females.

All males are therefore a potential hazard to all females and, when those females need to expose that unpatchable security vulnerability (e.g. to use a toilet), they need a safe place free of males. Males who need to expose their rape weapon should do so in a private place to avoid alarm. This paragraph is the underlying reason for toilets being sex-segregated: the rape weapon people are kept away from the unpatchable security vulnerability people. Toilets should never be about "gender identity" because gender identity doesn't affect whether you have a rape weapon.

The inherent threat that all males pose to all females is why even minor behaviours like staring are intimidating to females, which is another reason to keep males out: they can't stare if they aren't there.

As a PP stated, we use peer enforcement (the "competent guardian" of criminology) to keep males out of the loos. This peer enforcement is under attack and the GRA changes would give legal weight to that erosion of our right to challenge. With males like Danielle Muscato (google that name, look at pics) entering women's homelessness shelters by claiming to be transwomen already, I'm not at all unreasonable to be worried.

Huge amounts of how we do safeguarding of women and children is by teaching vulnerable people that they have a right to challenge threatening behaviour and a right to have and enforce boundaries, essentially "people-hardening". Telling us that we shouldn't challenge someone who we think might be in the wrong loo flies in the face of that.

Interesting what you learn when you do a bit of digging. Below is a direct quote from an interview with the Broadly editor at Vice: www.standard.co.uk/tech/broadly-editor-zing-tsjeng-book-female-heroes-history-a3784606.html.

Quote begins:

Back to Broadly, a magazine that sits in the stable of Vice Media — which last year was accused of having a macho culture and had to settle four sexual harassment claims.

Tsjeng [an editor at Vice] declines to talk directly about allegations of harassment, saying she’s only been at Vice for three years, and adding that the company has committed to pay parity by the end of 2018. That was announced via email to the UK office.

Tsjeng declines to talk directly about allegations of harassment, saying she’s only been at Vice for three years, and adding that the company has committed to pay parity by the end of 2018. That was announced via email to the UK office.

And as for the gender wars being waged at Vice? [Editor's reply] “This is probably the optimist in me saying this — but I think there’s a real chance for a company to show moral leadership in a time like this.”

Quote ends.

I just took a look at Vice's web site. One of their latest articles is "We Asked People at a UFO Conference About Their Alien Encounters "My first abduction experience happened in the womb because my mum was abducted."" That's some serious journalism, there. I am sure that a Pulitzer nomination is winging its way to Vice offices as we speak.

Under staffing I expected to find "Tin Foil Hat Editor" but, alas, had to be content with a person (wouldn't want to mis-gender h**) named Phoebe who rejoices in the title of "MUNCHIES UK EDITOR".

What a silly article. It reads blah blah hyperbole hyperbole hyperbole blah blah hyperbole hyperbole hyperbole...

There is little to no factual content in the article - it is an op-ed piece that, ironically, exposes the logical weaknesses of the pro-self ID campaign.

This is a fantastically eloquent piece by Megan Nolan. She makes her points clearly, concisely and quite beautifully. It's worth quoting some of them

OK, here goes ...

prancing around
squalid little display
their tedious point
nerdy smirk
irritatingly self-satisfied kooky kid
smug smart-arse
transphobic pageantry
completely stupid
sheer thick-headedness

Even the tories have stated We are committed to a respectful and evidence-based discussion.

Shame Megan Nolan isn't. Doesn't look like you are either SMG, or you OP if you're plugging this as a reasonable article.

Yes they are rattled! Keep doing what you do, you top blokes

There's honestly no point wasting the energy on deconstructing 'self ID will lead to no increased threat/violence/problems for women'.

Its just such a ridiculous argument to me.

Obviously making everything unisex will lead to an increased risk for female people. Its part of the reason we have separate facilities in the first place, as people acknowledge the statistics of male on female violence. Any attempt of mitigating the risk somewhat should be supported, not made out to be 'phobic' of male people.

Thing is there's going to be no impact on women's safety like now really, let's be honest here, if there's a guy in the women's changing rooms and he's challenged and let's say he goes 'I'm a woman', but dressed as a guy, with a guys ID and so on then it's common sense really and should be dualt with apportly

So this means that Pips Bunce or Travis Alabanza, for instance, should only be allowed in the women's on days when they're wearing dresses AND identifying as female? What about someone in jeans & a plain T-shirt who isn't carrying ID?

There's honestly no point wasting the energy on deconstructing 'self ID will lead to no increased threat/violence/problems for women'. It's just the latest version of #nodebate in a patronising tone and a game plan of repeat a lie often in a stuck record fashion enough it might just possibly get believed. You might as well invest in debating 'I see what I eat' is the same as 'I eat what I see' with the Mad Hatter.

The obvious question to ask is why do people stating clearly and repeatedly that women's feelings are stupid and irrelevant, that they do not care about women's privacy, rights or safety, that children's safety is pretty meh as well and the only people of value, interest and priority should be men wanting increased freedom at the cost of women want to spend all this time on a female rights forum? To repeatedly say over and over 'shut up shut up shut up' in various different ways.

Ooh what a giveaway.

Thing is there's going to be no impact on women's safety like now really, let's be honest here, if there's a guy in the women's changing rooms and he's challenged and let's say he goes 'I'm a woman', but dressed as a guy, with a guys ID and so on then it's common sense really and should be dualt with apportly

Assuming you mean dealt with appropriately I think I should address this. Yes common sense should prevail but the lobby groups have ensured that it doesn't and that service providers are too frightened to challenge.

I am clearly a woman. I have short hair which may confuse, um, nobody, because I am clearly female. I am short, I have curves, I don't grow hair on my face, I have a high pitched voice. I have said to several people "I am a man" or "I identify as a man" and been given access to male spaces. Now I don't cause a threat in there, because I'm a woman, but there was no check as to what I meant or how I could possibly, with my woman body, woman voice, woman clothes, be a man.

These things already happen and there are no challenges.

The guidance given by Stonewall et al is wrong, and has created these situations where staff and customers are frightened to challenge anyone who says they're trans and accesses opposite sex facilities. The encouragement for anyone who says they're trans to be accepted as such is madness.

And it's not just about attacks - though these frighten me - it's about male behaviour and the male gaze. One man in a women's space will change the feeling in the room entirely. Perving at women, making them feel uncomfortable is pretty normal behaviour for men and we have spaces where we have respite from it. Why are people trying to steal them from us? Particularly to satisfy a group with a disproportionate number of fetishists?

Pretending that women are as likely to attack, and as likely to be as intimidating to other women as men are is so far beyond disingenuous as to be pretty much lying.

Yes.

Sarah Ditum gave this fool and her silly article the contempt it deserved:

https://twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1004661081929932800?s=20

I'm not asking you to plead your case, just to fill in a fairly blatant missing piece of your argument, because I read your freely available article and it was worth literally every penny I spent on it.

Yy Terfs well observed