Is it safety or separation?

Seeeee the conspiratorial thingy I mentioned upthread?

No. They’re not identical. Neither are they identical by reference to their sex. The law gives protection on the grounds of sex, not on the grounds of behavioural and psychological traits.

Cultural traits may or may not be protected under law depending on the specific situation under discussion.

The point is PRECISELY that we SHOULD NOT be engaging with the question, because it's a dishonest question that only benefits men.

The point is PRECISELY that we SHOULD NOT be engaging with questions that seek to create a narrative that safeguarding is ever illegitimate and that it's akin to racism. Because it's a false equivalence and this narrative only benefits men.

The point is PRECISELY that we SHOULD NOT be engaging with people who are either creeps, pervs or enable them.

Glad you are keeping up with previous posts and having a hissy fit over the fact that we refuse to let you control the narrative and undermine women's existing lawful rights.

The answer is no. We aren't going to play by your rules because they don't work for us. It IS that simple.

Are you suggesting men & women on average are identical in respect to behavioural, psychological & cultural traits?

Go ahead, shock me by not dodging again….

I’ve engaged. Both with the op and with you.

you have ignored me.

How is my reasoning for a safe space due to my violent rape and sexual assault a “collective psychosis”?

You're absolutely deluded. The position on here has always been clear. No men in women's spaces because they are men. Very simple. What don't you understand about that?

No. You asserted. I disagreed. I showed the flaws in your logic and the lies in ypur claims.

You have given no basis for your self-serving belief that "commonalities" of behaviour cherry picked by you should be more relevant than the undeniable commonalities of sex and sex based experiences women share.

We all see that you do not in fact have any real organising principles behind your beliefs. You just twist in the wind grabbing any disjointed assertion that you think will serve your real cause of inserting yourself into female only spaces and concepts.

But at the end of the day, female people exist. We are a material reality in the world and you cannot word-salad that away.

Any argument you make that does not respect that simple fact, the reality of female existence, is easily demolished by the material fact of our existence.

And any argument you make that does respect that simple fact cannot give you what you want.

Give it up mate. What you want is not fair and it's not reasonable. Drill down and it is based on nothing more than the lies men tell each other about women and the social power of men to impose it on to women.

One has to wonder exactly what there is left to discuss.

Men have to stay out of the ladies. Debate finished.

What a remarkable statement coming from you who has spread misinformation over threads for weeks.

Indeed. Perhaps he really believes there are hordes of women who don't agree with us.

That men ignoring women's consent and violating their boundaries in direct breach of the law isn't indicative of their attitude to women in general.

The “hostility” on the fb group thread?

Women have pushed back on those who have shown little understanding to those who wanted the social group to remain single sex. It has not been confirmed by that OP how many of the group wanted to the group to remain female only so the discussion then became hypothetical.

And all along there are posters in that discussion declaring that they don’t care, as if that mattered in a group where women have stated that they did care. That is where the pushback is occurring. Posters are pushing back where is the lack of consideration some people have for those who DO need the group to remain female only.

I think there is a rather obvious oversimplification of the discussion on that thread being spread .

Wouldn’t it be awesome for male people to just acknowledge they are male and not demand access to female single sex provisions. It doesn’t matter how super feminine they are or how masculine they are, if they are male people they should respect female people’s need for single sex spaces.

Not separatism because that is a mischaracterisation of the aim. That claim is catastrophisation in action.

A bit like how I engaged and engaged with you and you didn’t answer any of my questions no matter how many times I asked over the weekend?

What on earth does that mean? Total word salad

It means that the charges of MN being a propaganda source are legitimate given the there's no serious engagement in discussion on some issues (Certainly not all) rather a defensive & disinformation stance.

And Howse is a prime example of the point that just keeps proving!

It's genius.

In your opinion.

Wouldn’t do to make self important declarations without that qualifier now, would it?

Lol.

One man says a thing. Many women disagree with him.

The man considers the plural women using the plural pronoun to refer to themselves "self important".

The man continues to pronounce his lofty solo judgements.

False equivalence.
You are assuming there isn't a commonality there when as we have already discussed there clearly is.

Well, to be honest your posts give off a totally self important everyone should listen to me vibe so perhaps you might want to take a look at how you yourself are coming across?

Well, to be honest your posts give off a totally self important everyone should listen to me vibe so perhaps you might want to take a look at how you yourself are coming across?

Can you please explain this further?

What's that got to do with the price of fish? 🫠

True but that isn't relevant to the charge of self importance.

To be fair, its not unlike Trumps personal propaganda arm Fox News/'defend defend defend' innit?