Is it safety or separation?

'Personality traits' bring to mind the old saying about opinions.

Polite version:

They are like armpits, everyone has them and some of them stink.

Wash regularly, use deodorant, don't stick them in people's faces.

😂

By a 'Maleometer'.

A maleometer can not be questioned. Its an empty box with the words 'all males must be listened to and taken at face value'.

Its like something out of a fantasy novel based on Orwellian observations.

'Inclination' has got nothing to do with material and observable reality.
Men with trans identities spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on performing femininity, on selecting clothes and on choosing hairstyles etc It is always very consciously put together - and this is more than apparent to the casual observer. I see such men around in my city all of the time and the incongruence is immediately apparent within a split second of sight.

Both drag and being a 'femme' performing trans identified man share the same set of processes for assuming 'a female identity'.The wives of men who have taken their cross dresssing full time talk of how much time and money and emotional energy is spent on perfecting their look; on buying underwear etc Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner talks of how it takes hours for him to get ready in the morning.

None of this intention or inclination turns a man into a woman in any meaningful sense. You clearly do not realise how deeply insulting it is to suggest that being female/a woman is nothing but an intentional performance or set of expressions.

Totally.

it really is eye opening to watch the meltdown when they don't get what they want.

If that is all you took from that post, it is really a sign of your blindness to how abusive to women your point under discussion really is.

These are your words:

“I have had the same concerns in terms of the gender critical movement moving towards separatism as that undermines the feminist project. I think it’s spawning from the idea that women would endure less direct misogyny in a separatist-minded spaces, but the problem is when men are separated from women, they become even more misogynistic. They then have even less incentive to hire women or vote for women.”

Maybe take a moment to read this section of your post and read our comments about why this is abusive and try to understand what we are pointing out.

If you feel there is context in the post that I have missed, feel free to discuss it. I have read it back a few times to make sure I wasn’t misreading it. However, from your further interactions I don’t believe I have misinterpreted your words.

Just to be clear, you own posts are confirming to me that you believe that no female only group should exist outside of those necessary for safety because female people have a “Social Responsibility” that we all benefit from. Is that right?

That the “Social Responsibility” is to never have a female single sex group that excludes male people. Ever. Despite the fact that most female people interact with male people all day long. Despite the fact that most female people interact in family groups and socially with male people everyday.

Your personal definition of this “Social Responsibility” is that there should be no aspects of life that make people are excluded from unless it is only for safety. Because female people need to be open access so male people know how to treat female people with respect?

Is that correct?

At last he has said what I've been saying all along though.

There is literally no reason for these men to be in women's spaces that does not ultimately boil down to "because it's what they want".

And as a society we need to normalise saying that it's perfectly fine for these men not to get what they want.

Mate, you don't have any idea what women talk about when you're not there. It's never, ever happened to you and never will.

How are personality traits objectively measured?

hahah!!

We all got that? We must let men into our spaces based on what they want,

I mean it's very funny, but it's also very scary that there are many men out there who truly believe this.

"But it's what I want".

Yeah?

No.

I don't give a fiddlers about other people's motivations. I want them to act with civility.

Well Done.

Men rape.
Women don't. They don't have penises.

Man sexually abuse at a rate which is huge.
Women don't. The number of offenders is tiny, and where it happens, often it is aiding a male.

Personality traits aren't 'feels' but a biologically influenced reality.

Which is why we don't want male in female spaces.

Their motivation doesn't matter. We can't govern access to single sex spaces based on someone's motivation.

It doesn't matter why he is wearing a skirt and lipstick, he is still not a woman and cannot come into women's spaces.

Oh yeah, male & female discussions are just soooo identical…Just ask Trump!

Says the foreign bloke on a UK feminist forum for the sole purpose of being here to harass women wanting to talk about laws that affect them, protect themselves from abuse and improve the lives of women generally.

Ok then.

I see self awareness runs deep.

The personality trait to rape is a solely male trait. Biologically influenced reality right there.

I can see that, and also how it fits with Kathleen Stock's speculation that the thing the current violent illusion-fantasy fascists hated so much about Charlie Kirk was that he had accepted adulthood, clothes, responsibilities, sexuality and all . . .

grown-ups baaad . . .

The act of him raping me fecking matters.

The act of him putting his hands round my throat until I pissed myself and passed out fecking matters.

I see you.

Personality traits aren't 'feels' but a biologically influenced reality.

So that I can be blamed for men raping me? As you said?

The effect on women is the same if a man is present. We dgaf about the particular nuance of his motivation.

If you could grasp how little we care about why a man is disrespecting boundaries, you may get a glimmer of understanding. But that would require empathy.

I mentioned how the OPs discussion of separatism reminded me of 2 influential toilet designers.

The following links should come with trigger warnings for anyone who has been assaulted. There are line drawings of disembodied penises and ‘everting’ vaginal pockets and how the shape of them reminds the author of a street map which might upset. There’s also mention of concentration camps and phobic feminist fantasies. The second article is easier to comprehend.

These are articles from two influential American designers of gender-neutral toilets, whose body of work is ‘evidence’ and referenced for ‘inclusive’ design for many schools, public buildings and even the government-funded U.K. public toilet consultation for people with long term health conditions (for Document T):

Professor Susan Stryker: https://aaa.org.hk/en/like-a-fever/like-a-fever/on-stalling-and-turning-a-wayward-genealogy-for-a-binary-abolitionist-public-toilet-project/type/essays

Professor Joel Sanders: https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/profiles-and-interviews/interview-with-joel-sanders

These ‘inclusive’ designs have NOT been analysed in-situ (Sanders admitted this in Spring 2024). I have read a lot of their work and their two opinions why safety is ‘improved’ are that more people (‘good’ people?) will be around the private toilets to notice and that an adult and a child of different sex can go in together. I can give lots of real life examples to debunk both these opinions, where the design has had tragic outcomes.

Their designs are categorically not about safety. These two have earned a lot of money lecturing around the world about inclusive design. I can dismantle their ideas about ‘inclusivity’ and demonstrate, with lots of real life evidence, their designs are for healthy men. There are safety implications for every other demographic.

Taz, I hope you're okay and able to take 5 minutes to do something grounding. A walk or five minutes outside, feel the air on your face. Even a bit of deep breathing. Sending you my best.

The categorical error you are making here is that it's not the act but the inclination that matters. A man in drag's motivation isn't the same as a trans person. But a trans person's inclination is the same as a CIS person's. Organic motivations are hardly superficial.