And it seems that my autocorrect simply cannot leave ‘goolies’ as is. Quite funny to see it changed to goodies and goalies even after I changed it back both times.
Anyway, I have noticed that Ides has posted in this direction of thinking before - that it is ridiculous to think that just one male can oppress many women just through their presence. Even in jails it seems that Ides believes this phenomena cannot happen.
It is the ‘scale’ argument. How can one transitioned male oppress women? But it seems some posters also think women are pathetic for having an understanding of how this happens.
One male.
Let’s look at ‘one male’. Lia Thomas. How many women’s lives did this male affect? Even to start with, by exposing their ‘penis and goolies’ in the dressing room. Then by taking women’s places in the events they have trained for, trained for much of their lives for. Then by creating a hostile environment for those team mates and competitors who disagree that Thomas should be able to compete ‘as a woman’. Then by breaking records and setting new ones that may never be broken in that league, because Thomas is a male.
Yeah…. Just one male.
One male.
Shall we consider the harm one male can do in a prison. We have the court evidence and now a study, that show that even without physical contact, males cause great harm in female prison estates. I am happy to post links and discuss, but from what I have known of ides it won’t matter.
One male in a female prison estate will cause harm to many female prisoners, and to female prison guards and staff. Including the females who have to search that body with a ‘penis and goolies’. And there are documented instances of those ‘penises and goolies’ being deliberately exposed while showering.
Just one male can cause that wide spread harm in one prison.
One male.
So let’s revisit the toilet situation. One male can be the one that causes multiple women to self exclude. Or just one woman. How many women being harmed by one visit to the toilets by a transitioned male is enough for ides to say.. yeah ok. That is a knock effect that is harmful.
Is it one for one? If the effect of one transitioned male having access causes one woman to self-exclude from ever using that toilet, visiting that store, that theatre, that work place again, is that ok with ides? Because that male has now got the freedom to use female AND male toilets of their choosing, whenever they want. And the woman doesn’t have that choice so doesn’t come back. Or would the knock on effect be considered too. A workplace situation, meaning that potentially a whole family is now without a much needed wage.
Still pathetic, ides.
I know what comes next. That I will be accused of manufacturing a situation that will ‘never happen’. Except it is. Women are telling us they are self excluding all the time. It is just that some people will always ignore those stories because they are ‘kind’ to who they think are the only marginalised and ‘most vulnerable’ … the owner of that ‘penis and goolies’.
Pathetic. Isn’t it.