Why can’t all women see the dangers?

Even if - EVEN IF - you didn't really get the issue, if you saw a whole bunch of women who you knew to be intelligent and well-read, and they were saying "HANG ON, there is a big problem here", wouldn't you at least want to know what they were on about before you dismissed it?

I can understand women arguing that they don’t mind unisex toilets and not being able to make the empathetic leap to understand why unisex services and facilities aren’t always appropriate. That is just a failure if imagination.

I can’t understand why any feminist wouldn’t be able to see that no protection or service for women can be logically justified if ‘women’ has no objective definition.

It's inverted totalitarianism in play isn't it? Here's that concept explained in a different arena (I find it easier there)
kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/inverted-totalitarianism-and-neoliberalism-oh-dear/
and on wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

I don't know why. I really don't. I didn't follow the "trans" threads on here for ages because I thought it didn't concern me plus FWR was scary .
As soon as I saw the facts I knew in my heart self id was wrong wrong wrong FOR WOMEN and I have never doubted that.
But then, I think I missed a "female socialisation" memo somewhere along the line as I don't give a shit abut being nice or about what other people think.
I think women don't have dicks, so sue me.
I'm guessing other women are "nicer" than me, that's all.

‘Why doesn’t everyone agree with me?!?!?’

Why can't ALL women see the danger?

'Women are not a hive mind.'

FFS. I know what women are. I am one.

Lol.

Promoting an emphasis on consensus and fitting in over anything else.

This is exactly what is happening isn't it. The Romans, faced with widespread discontent as their society grew and became unequal, re-invented christianity to do it, to maintain some sort of social consensus and order. Somehow, we're doing it to ourselves without a forced religion.

Thank you VanillaRose for identifying the problem. That we must all concern ourselves with how certain vocal individuals 'feel on the inside' rather more than with our actual experiences of outside reality.

And then go and take a running hike with it. Perhaps you can identify yourself out of falling off the cliff.

I do sort of see where Jurgen is coming from. I think the reasons women can't see the dangers include all the reasons stated here but I think we're naive if we think they SHOULD see the reasons just because they're women.

I was attacked at Uni by a man who lay in wait and dragged me into an alleyway. My friend still insisted on walking home a couple of miles on her own through woods late at night despite knowing he was still on the loose (I offered her a lift or my floor to sleep on). She just did not accept she was at risk. I think some people have to experience something themselves to understand a risk and that applies to men and women.

However, I would say that most sensible men and women do think that self-ID is a crazy idea when they look at the facts (even if they don't like admitting it). The problem is that a lot of the mainstream media aren't giving them the facts.

Lol 

Oh crikey, Charley50, I wouldn't bother doing that.

Sorry responding to @MsVanillaRoseAuntof7

People can 'identity' how they like, but they shouldn't have the 'right' to have it enshrined in law, and to use their assumed 'identity' to trample on other people's real rights as vulnerable people.

How dare that part-time 'woman' accept a top women in business award, knowing that it means a born woman will miss out? Knowing that women are massively underrepresented in business still, absolutely due to being blocked because of their sex. Wtf!

100 influential BAME origin people results came out today. Do you think there's a 'BAME identifying' Caucasian on that list who sometimes goes to work in an Afro wig? I doubt it!

Or Tanya Love. Although they (and they boyfriend) seem to be menacing Maninpink full time these days.

Yes, the dangers really aren't non-existent, google Karen White, Christopher Hambrook, the times investigation into sexual crimes in 'gender neutral' changing rooms, Sean Patrick Smith, nine women in homeless shelter california.

These are active sex offenders who used the move from sex to gender segregation to find and assault victims. These women would have remained safe in sex segregation.

Then there are women who are rape survivors who are traumatised by being required to share women only spaces with TW who are visibly male - google Kristi Hanna.

I cannot understand people who continue to say 'it never happens' even though it IS happening, just as was predicted. Sex segregated spaces were to protect women and girls from sexual assault. Removing sex segregated spaces has, predictably, given male sexual predators a chance to target women.

It is not anti-trans to say this This is not about transpeople. It is about male sexual predators.

Who says that trans doesn't exist (LOL my arse)?

For a brilliant example of how the trans ideology just falls straight over its own feet as soon as you start to unpack the commentary...

(Jump to 9 minutes and the person interrupts, and then sits down to discuss with the filmmaker.)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3401708-there-are-only-two-genders-change-my-mind?msgid=81991647

LOL. You lot insist you that nobody is trans because you cannot see how trans people feel inside, but you expect other people to see non-existent dangers.

But if TWAW then we know how they feel, surely? If being a woman is the "innate sense of feeling like a woman" (courtesy of GG UK) then how do transwomens feelings "inside" differ?

And the dangers are not non-existent. Karen White?

Women are trained to be nice and put others first. I read research saying girls are far more likely than boys to say they must put others before themselves. I think this is part of it. Cultural ingraining to be nice and 'inclusive'. I see this starting already in children aged 3 that I work with.

Wanting to be liked and fear of being disliked.

Not imagining it ever affecting you.

Lack of empathy for women you don't see as being 'like you' (prisoners, working class women in refuges/ homeless women in women's accommodation).

Regarding yourself as a certain type of person, and thinking people like you think this.

Having a commitment to a vague and ill thought through notion of 'inclusiveness'.n

Political cynicism, from politicians not wanting to speak out.

LOL. You lot insist you that nobody is trans because you cannot see how trans people feel inside, but you expect other people to see non-existent dangers.

I think group work has its place but I am concerned that it's being used as a teaching tool to control large classes of children - by seating 'quiet' or 'studious' or 'diligent' children with 'easily distracted' or 'slower' or 'can be disruptive' children.

Not a criticism by and large of teachers, who are doing a bloody tough job with not near enough funding, support and far too much interference. However if you have a very large class of children it's easy to put them into groups to work and rely on some to 'police' the others and get everyone through the results that are needed. Especially when this style of learning is being pushed and promoted by the state.

The issue being that it's bloody unfair to the kids who want to learn, to make them responsible for another child's behaviour. It's also well known that girls are commonly in the back seat when making decisions and presenting in mixed-sex groups, regardless of how much of the work they have done.

I guess the 'good' thing about women like her is that once she sees it in action, she will be loudly announcing it to the world.