Just to be really clear here as there seems to be some confusion.
I don't believe that female toilet needs have anything to do with 'femininity' and I stand by my statement that the person who made that statement about female single sex toilets being “sacred palaces of femininity” was using that terminology in a misogynistic way. Because no female person has to be 'feminine' to need female single sex toilets for a wide variety of needs. And the poster, who has a long history on this board, regularly makes statements that are completely ideological in nature and emotionally reasoned with no evidence at all to support those statements.
Which you, Kokoareyouhere, seem to agree are valid and 'female' needs not 'feminine' needs.
You Kokoareyouhere, were not in any way 'targeted' by any discussion that was quite clearly aimed at the poster who used that terminology and posted early this morning (which I reposted for clarification at Helleofabore · Today 13:17). Therefore this post:
Helleofabore · Today 12:40
The derision towards any female needing to exclude males was unmissable.
Was not directed at you nor did it include you in the discussion as it was a direct reply to Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 12:28.
You, Kokoareyouhere, confirmed multiple times that you are not the other poster, yet have somehow believed that posters are posting about you.
Then this post Kokoareyouhere · Today 13:18:
No, it was not. To repeat, I am a woman. Why would I wish to “shame” other women? Listen to yourself.
Came again in response to the continued discussion about the post several of us were discussing before you entered the thread which you have again wrongly assumed was about your posts but were not.
Just to be clear again:
Helleofabore · Today 13:07
Of course the use of ‘sacred’ by the poster making the original statement was to position anyone who believes that female people require single sex provisions to remain female single sex is ideological to discredit any argument made that female people need their own provision due to unique needs. It was used to shame any female who admits to needing a provision that excludes group of male people that the poster insists are not causing any harm based on nothing by emotional reasoning.
Clearly says: by the poster making the original statement. ie: the post made byTransParentlyAnnoyed · Today 02:31. Meaning that it had nothing at all to do with your posts.
I hope that clarifies just who my posts have been referring to. As I said when you asked me a question, I have not made any assumptions at all about you.