WTF is the 'female patriarchy'?

Yep. Don’t put men in there.

And what is this group ZT actually doing.

police Scotland have recorded increase in domestic violence for past 5 years

www.gov.scot/publications/domestic-abuse-recorded-police-scotland-2020-21/pages/2/

@Onnabugeisha

Your argument makes no sense even if I give you the benefit of the doubt in your motivations, and assume you are not simply trying to distract us from focusing on this issue of single sex spaces for women.

Protecting vulnerable women in prison from being raped by convicted sex offenders would be an easy thing to do. Just stop putting them in women’s jails. So your argument about how we can’t possibly focus on that so called ‘small thing’ because of all the other bigger problems is a nonsense. The government could stop it happening today if it wanted. And then we would have plenty of time for the other things that you are so concerned we address.

Why do you not see this as the obvious solution?

Interesting. Glasgow womens aid
archive.ph/2022.11.29-233715/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3f7ea796-7004-11ed-8a5b-f385de7508fe?shareToken=f4ee833af1df85b5e2462ddc32bb4644

....Rachel Adamson was going to discuss?

Sorry posted too soon.

Any woman who supports the placing of violent male sex offenders into female prisons is supporting the patriarchy. Do you think that's what

So now we have a hierarchy of women who deserve to be protected from male violence do we?
Smacks of victim blaming and othering to me.
Bit like how a white Mc mother being raped or murdered would provoke more outrage and probably a more determined Police response than a black prostitute.
ALL women deserve to be safe, wherever they are and whoever they are

I see it as a form of DARVO.

Well said Rocksludge!!

Nicola Sturgeon was 100% right to say no whataboutery on the TW issue in a meeting specifically for a VAWGs.

Nicola Sturgeon should accept that, as first minister of Scotland, she is personally responsible for any violence women in Scottish prisons experience as a direct result of her policies to allow biological males in women’s prisons.

That is not whataboutery. It’s asking her to take responsibility for the safety of women and girls in the care of the state.

It’s probably the only aspect of male violence against women and girls over which the state has absolute control. And her policies choose to make them vulnerable rather than safeguarding them.

This matters a great deal. Because, if we cannot trust the state to look after women
in prisons and protect them from
male sexual violence, we cannot trust the state to protect ANY woman or girl from male violence.

Is not a minor, insignificant distraction from the real issues. How women are treated when the state is in control of their entire life is fundamental to how women are treated when the state has less influence or control.

No one is saying ‘what about TW’.

We are talking about female-only spaces. And ensuring that biological men do not have access to them. The rights of women to be imprisoned in female-only spaces.

And each one of those heinous acts against millions of women and girls has one thing in common....they were committed by a male.

TW are male. They are included in all discussions by virtue of their biological sex.

The evidence shows that they commit offences at the same rate as non-trans males. They are not a sacred caste who cannot be discussed any more than vicars, policemen, or male pizza delivery people.

The discussion is around keeping women safe and a major factor of this not allowing access to women in vulnerable situations. Some TW wish to have this access male pizza delivery people not so much.

No it’s really not. It’s not making a decision to allow male sex offenders in womens prisons, it’s saying, let’s set this issue to one side for now and priories the other 99.99% of women and 100% of girls.

There’s no “hierarchy” of women by deciding to focus the vast majority of women and girls before focusing on a select subset of women. It is merely a decision to do something that will benefit millions of women and girls ahead of doing something that will benefit only a few women.

So you really think that a society, which deliberately puts violent male sex offenders into places where vulnerable women , the majority of whom have already been victims of male violence, are unable to escape them, gives a damn about the other 99.9%.

And there it is, you are defending your echo chamber. You don’t want diverse opinions from other women. Cheers.

I’m asking you to not derail the work of other feminists by riding in on a high horse and going “what about TW?” every fucking chance you get. Its hindering, not helping.

Nicola Sturgeon was 100% right to say no whataboutery on the TW issue in a meeting specifically for a VAWGs.

In what world is low priority= doesn’t matter? Every woman matters equally but I’m not going to say that 1-3 female prisoners matter MORE than millions of girls. Which is what you are literally arguing.

And you’re all being unrealistic to think feminists can address everything at once or even half a dozen things at once. To get anywhere we have to prioritise the needs and then tackle them. You’re defending whataboutery. Why can’t we talk about the safety of Uni students from the 99.99% of male attackers without someone going “what about TW?” I mean why? It just derails everything and no progress is made at all.

Well it makes sense to me. It should be easy to solve .... no biological men in women's prisons, no rapes. Job done. 100% protection for vulnerable women in this situation.
This then makes it easier to argue for no men in other situations which should be single sex, protecting more women.
As an aside, there is no acceptable minimum level of rape in ANY setting.

We do not throw other women under the bus.

Sure, you go ahead and spread yourself thin. You won’t get very far with that approach. It’s why the suffragists focussed on get the vote and only on get the vote.

I think it is a derail to insert identity politics into what should be a straightforward discussion about VAWGs. 99.999% of rapists and attackers are not transwomen; TW attacks are as statistically significant as attacks by pizza delivery men.

You have met resistance on this issue of TW, so you are wasting time and effort on this niche issue when you should be like a river and flow around the rock to tackle the issues that affect most women and girls.

Society isn’t going to care overmuch about a few TW raping when men raping is so rampant and goes unpunished. It actually is to the patriarchy’s benefit for all this palaver about TW being such a threat and danger as it takes the focus off the far more numerous men who are daily raping women and girls. They’re laughing at us fighting over what is a woman semantics because we are spinning our wheels getting nowhere on the bigger issues because of it.

I am confused. Who is saying that you can't talk about young women in uni being raped?

Is this coming from the same place that dictates that women can't hold two thoughts in their heads simultaneously?

If you want to solve the VA uni WG problem you still need to address the fact that 6 ft blokes can identify their way into their single "sex" flats, changing rooms, toilets etc. There's no safe space away from blokes for them either. Especially not in the lesbian groups.