Shameful, incoherent, poorly referenced, completely biased piece of 'journalism' from the Guardian

I'm curious as to the threshold here. What would be an acceptable number of women harmed before it would be ok to reconsider?

n+1

If it transpired that many were abusing the system in bad faith then it would be right to re-evaluate what is happening to establish what has gone wrong

It’s as though ‘Me Too’ never happened.

It appears that the main mistake made by some of the key players was not to wait a year or so. How thrilling to know that you can expose yourself to women and claim to be a victim if they complain.

How any of this helps people who suffer from gender dysphoria and need privacy is a mystery.

I'm curious as to the threshold here. What would be an acceptable number of women harmed before it would be ok to reconsider?

What would be the definition of harm? Would there have to be touching? How bad would it have to be before it reached an unacceptable level. If its just the sight if a penis its ok? If they don't get dressed after 30 mins its not ok?

Who's going to set these levels?

I believe this is possible from a good faith position.

I would actually argue that this is not possible from a 'good faith' position. But I can see many people believing this as a means to placate any discomfort they might feel.

I would say each to their own, except as a parent I see decisions made using this position as incredibly dangerous. To ignore the known risks and give a subset of a sex class a special exemption is ludicrous. As pp's have said before. Should we give a Prince or a priest a special exemption to enter the female single sex spaces if they are male?

Sorry too early.

You always plan for the worst possible outcome, not just deal with it once it had happened.

There are too many possible scenarios to go into depth on everything, but I do broadly believe in self-ID rights to use facilities.

I believe this is possible from a good faith position.

If it transpired that many were abusing the system in bad faith then it would be right to re-evaluate what is happening to establish what has gone wrong. But I don't think this you should anticipate this in advance. Or act in bad faith yourself to give the example of what you fear will happen.

So, I'm unfolding my risk assessment matrix, going to go with you and accept that the risk of something occuring is low, however the consequence severity is high as it goes up to risk of murder and includes (in likely increasing severity) discomfort, sexual assault and rape. Plus all the risks of disengagement from services.

In any other situation mitigations would be put in place. (So chance of building A going up on flames is low, consequences high - mitigations may include fire alarms, sprinkler systems, on site fire service etc)

No males in women's spaces. They don't belong there, they make women uncomfortable and violate our privacy and dignity and all this disingenuous dancing on the head of a pin is entirely beside the point.

So, I read that post and see that some people are very comfortable with women and children being collateral damage for inclusion.

They are. Women have a big job ahead of us to protect our rights, because once won, they are never secure.

it's clear that the poster here who is valiantly arguing that the right of men to expose themselves is more important than the right of women and children to participate in leisure activities without being used as sexual props just thinks women and children aren't as important as men

it's quite upsetting to meet people who hold these views, but also instructive

Always.

I consider that perception of risk is not the same as actual risk

So, how does this play out in every day life.

Do you believe that seat belts in cars, special child seats in cars are worthwhile? Vaccinations, door locks?

Do you believe that we should lock people away in prisons for murdering someone? or that we should wait fo them to murder n+1 of people before considering locking them away?

Maybe you would be so honest and answer the question posed pages ago to you.

Do you think it is acceptable for a male to expose their penis in a female naked section of a spa to a 6 or 9 year old girl on the edge of a hot tub? Do you then think it is acceptable for that naked male to get into the hot tub with the naked child?

So, I read that post and see that some people are very comfortable with women and children being collateral damage for inclusion

Oh yes indeed. @suggestionsplease1 is very happy for women and children to lose access to spaces, or be subject to sexual abuse if they do venture into mixed sex spaces, provided men are happy.

THE POINT IS IT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL THERE

you're a bit slow aren't you?

I have read suggestion's post. And I was struck by two things.

1. the MoJ conducted this experiment (only it was real life) by putting males in with females in prison. Look at the results.

1. the same premise is being used in women's sports right now. We have the doctor from the OIC stating that TWAW but fully acknowledging that there are physical advantages that do not decrease enough to compete fairly. But, we are going to do it anyway and let's see.

So, I read that post and see that some people are very comfortable with women and children being collateral damage for inclusion.

@suggestionsplease1 How many times do women and girls have to say NO before you and the rest of the mad genderists clean out your fucking ears? We don't want men of any fucking description in our spaces.....how many times!!!! Why are you supporting men waltzing in where women and little girls are vulnerable and possibly undressed? What's your agenda?

Sorry, my previous post should say 'Do you think that mixed sex changing rooms would be a good way to safeguard women, given that statistic'?

@suggestionsplease1

Also, are you suggesting that women who might be uncomfortable or fearful of a male bodied person in an intimate female space are paranoid and that their fears are entirely irrational, and therefore they just need to overcome them?

Again: 98% of sexual offences are carried out by males. What do you make of that statistic? Do you think there are things that can be done with regards to safeguarding, taking that statistic into account? Do you think that mixed sex changing rooms

98%... And yet the narrative from your ilk is still 'relax ladies, whaddaya getting so hysterical about, nothings gonna happen'....

NEVER. HAPPENED.

it's clear that the poster here who is valiantly arguing that the right of men to expose themselves is more important than the right of women and children to participate in leisure activities without being used as sexual props just thinks women and children aren't as important as men

it's quite upsetting to meet people who hold these views, but also instructive

That's a 'yes' to mixed sex spaces then?

And if women don't like that, are uncomfortable with it, feel anxious or worries about it then it's just tough shit, the feelings of the male in that space come first and foremost always?

Cheers... Thanks a fucking lot.

I'm a definite no to mixed sex spaces.

The obvious answer is third spaces. There can be mixed sex facilities in which women who are happy to undress and be vulnerable in mixed sex spaces can have all the freedom to do so that they wish, and which provides trans people with the comfortable alternative to the sex based provision. Have gender based additional third spaces. Have fourth and fifth spaces.

But retain a female only space for those women who would otherwise be excluded.

I don't know if this ignorance of that fact that many men are sexually motivated to expose themselves to women and children is naivete, genuine ignorance or just not thinking that women and children being used as unwilling props for men's sexual satisfaction is a problem.

which is it @suggestionsplease1 ?

Soz multiple cross post - my post was to suggestions in case it wasn't clear.