Is it safety or separation?

btw, I know many decent men who don't think like that, but have met too many who do think their inclinations trump anything a woman might feel, and something about they way they were educated and socialised left that unchallenged.

I'm guessing HQ agreed with you and kicked him off.

can anyone wonder why we want to be able to get away from them?

distilled essence of male thinking

I’m stunned that it’s not my consent matters in the offence of rape. it’s his inclination. I don’t think I’ll get over that one for a long time.

I am still fucking agog that anyone thinks that single sex categories should be categorised by someone's 'personality traits', the degree, at the time, to which they embrace some of their 'traits', their 'inclinations'. Their “psychological, behavioural & cultural commonalities".

This disordered thinking really is something to see.

So in effect, we shouldn't have single sex provisions at all. Because the reality is that anyone can enter any space they fucking want to based on what they think and how that influences their behaviour on that day/week/year.

It really is an absurd argument but I am glad that readers have been given the opportunity to see how it is argued by activists who rely on misinformation to support their case.

Yep, they really do do our work for us!

I think we should thank the OP who plopped and run for creating a thread that really does highlight the MRA arguments and their absurdity so well. As well as just how fucked up and harmful those arguments really are.

Well done @OneFlakyMaker !

😆I still miss it, but hooray for the return of classic green and purple

Whoops! read post properly to avoid foot in mouth situation.😀

Indeed, the whinger was getting hissy about @RedToothBrush using the word 'we'. I knew another bloke in another place who always challenged the use of 'we' in discussion - it's obviously one of the things the basement-dwellers learn, and I was delighted to be able to point out that MN functionality means that Red can see that she is part of a collective 'we' with many shared views.

That line of discussion really is just fuckwittery. It highlights just how far into fuckwittery someone will go to validate their identity when an identity is not based on material reality.

The need to create a material real linkage pushes someone to confidently present total bollocks as being scientific reasoning. And they simply cannot keep their concept coherent.

Of course, as it loses coherence, so does the poster.

Men valuable. Women not.

Male supremacism.

Legislation for personalities would be interesting to watch go through parliament...

Dean is talking about RTB’s posts though.

More accurately described as his posts considering that Hows is a man.

But you see it’s his inclination that matters. It doesn’t matter if he physically raped and strangled you even though you said no. It’s his inclination that is important here. You, the victim, me, collateral damage.

The whole ‘personality’ direction is just bonkers.

How the fuck do we work out personalities to allow into a single sex provision? Do we have lots of spaces just for groups of personality types?

How the fuck do we also work out what some man’s ’inclination’ is when he enters a space that is for female people?

(I mean, apart from the fact that any male person accessing a female single sex provision is doing so knowing their presence may harm female people- thereby they absolutely are the ones to keep out)

The concept of segregating using the suggested basis is absurd. This thread jumped the shark.

Yes I’ve seen it irl in a panel interview by women. The man in the panel was bemused at the fawning behaviour of the women.

I’d love to understand what deep rooted instinct creates that. Self protection to appease a clearly disordered man?

That's fascinating. I'd never thought of it before, but my goodness does it make sense and ring true to me.

Smile Love.

When the creep knows it makes you feel really uncomfortable.

Exactly. This is merely the 2020s updated version of 'you're beautiful when you're angry darling' and the kind of inadequate who would enjoy shouting at women in the street with his bum crack out, hoping to get a reaction.

Having spent a number of years working in a male dominated industry, my experience is that this is rational learned behaviour on the part of women.

Briefly, people have more confidence in men. If a man skips a question he doesn't want to answer it doesn't really hurt him. In fact it helps him because he stays on message and gets his point accross without confusing his audience with sidetracks.

But if a woman skips a question people notice. They think she doesn't know her stuff. So she has to deal with it. Even if it's trite and the man asking it should know the answer if he'd been paying attention or gave it a little thought. But it's a no win situation for her because by answering she's broken her own momentum and her message is not as clear.

Not helped by the fact that too many men don't challenge men but see women as soft targets to make themselves look good.

As you can no doubt tell it really pisses me off and IMO is a big factor in the glass ceiling still persisting after all these years.

Indeed a devolvement of a TRA poster becomes much more evident after they get laughed at for calling WSSS transphobic etc

When a poster themselves prove that a UK court agrees that males of all types pose a risk to women the argument for the ladybrain ends up being the fallback position.

And full melt down happens when they fail because women just say no and the UK law agrees that no means no.

I’ve not seen it either. Thank you.