Another BBC mess: "Do you think it’s right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?" Let's ask some men...

Pointing to a horrific crime that happened in a park does not prove that a park and an isolated, unlit carpark carry the exact same risk profile.

Statistically and behaviorally, environment, visibility, and foot traffic drastically alter opportunity and risk

Pointing to a horrific crime that happened in a park does not prove that a park and an isolated, unlit carpark carry the exact same risk profile.

Statistically and behaviorally, environment, visibility, and foot traffic drastically alter opportunity and risk

Nick Wallis seems to believe that there is a real person behind the reply. Let's see if the follow up question about Sex Matters being told that they were not needed gets a similar tone of reply.

Partially, yes. People modify their behaviour based on who is present, the layout of the space, and the presence of witnesses. I was mostly talking about a well designed mixed sex space with plenty of footfall in a visible areas.

Would he be just as dangerous in a busy public park as he would in a quiet carpark?

Yes.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/man-jailed-after-terrifying-sex-attack-broad-daylight

Woman suffers serious sexual assault while walking dog near park
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvelr99xj0o

So what makes you think that man would be just as dangerous in a mixed sex space?

So, trans-identified men ARE men after all? Interesting.

And are you saying that trans- identified men ARE dangerous in female spaces?

But that, if we make the space mixed-sex, with OTHER MEN AROUND, miraculously, these trans-identified men are suddenly not dangerous?

Curiouser and curiouser.

So, trans-identified men are dangerous BECAUSE there are only women around.

I don't think this is really the argument you want to be making.

Why would he be just as dangerous? I’ve pointed out that the space and the expectations surrounding it could change behaviour, but you’re ignoring that. So what makes you think that man would be just as dangerous in a mixed sex space? Would he be just as dangerous in a busy public park as he would in a quiet carpark?

So are you saying a man would behave better if women were using the same facility? Why?

I did answer the original question.

You didn't.

The question is:
But don’t TIM claim they are unsafe in male spaces? If toilets are unisex, the very males TIM are afraid of will be in those spaces with them. Won’t that make the TIM unsafe?

I think it’s a matter of expectations. A cis man using the mens probably isn’t expecting a female-presenting person to use the space and could respond negatively.

This is not an answer to the question. The question is not about how "cis" men might respond, but that trans-identified men claim they are unsafe in spaces where "cis" men are. Don’t TIM claim they are unsafe in male spaces?

I think it’s the same logic for why someone might find a mixed sex space at work safer than a public one.

This is not an answer to the question. Making all toilets uni/mixed-sex means that they will be spaces where "cis" men are. Where trans-identified men say they feel unsafe.
If toilets are unisex, the very males TIM are afraid of will be in those spaces with them. Won’t that make the TIM unsafe?

It's really not a puzzle unless you really need it to be:

TIMs are "unsafe in spaces where "cis" men are."

If we make everything mixed-sex, then...

TIMs will still be "unsafe in spaces where "cis" men are."

Won't they?

I did answer the original question.

You didn't.

The question is:
But don’t TIM claim they are unsafe in male spaces? If toilets are unisex, the very males TIM are afraid of will be in those spaces with them. Won’t that make the TIM unsafe?

I think it’s a matter of expectations. A cis man using the mens probably isn’t expecting a female-presenting person to use the space and could respond negatively.

This is not an answer to the question. The question is not about how "cis" men might respond, but that trans-identified men claim they are unsafe in spaces where "cis" men are. Don’t TIM claim they are unsafe in male spaces?

I think it’s the same logic for why someone might find a mixed sex space at work safer than a public one.

This is not an answer to the question. Making all toilets uni/mixed-sex means that they will be spaces where "cis" men are. Where trans-identified men say they feel unsafe.
If toilets are unisex, the very males TIM are afraid of will be in those spaces with them. Won’t that make the TIM unsafe?

It's really not a puzzle unless you really need it to be:

TIMs are "unsafe in spaces where "cis" men are."

If we make everything mixed-sex, then...

TIMs will still be "unsafe in spaces where "cis" men are."

Won't they?

😁

Why would that be a problem? I no more want trans/TRA voices silenced than I want GC Femimist voices silenced.

Indeed, the last thing I want is for TRAs to have an excuse to complain they aren't getting a fair deal.

Plus, GC Feminist arguments always hit best when a Genderist is there trying to counter them. If there's no Genderist to demonstrate the batshittery is real, a GC commentator has to choose between downplaying their summary of "the other side" to sound fair, or laying it out and sounding batshit themselves. So much of Genderism is so illogical and unbalanced with regard to considering basically anyone not trans that if you don't see it first hand you can't believe it is actually happening😂

Why would he be just as dangerous? I’ve pointed out that the space and the expectations surrounding it could change behaviour, but you’re ignoring that. So what makes you think that man would be just as dangerous in a mixed sex space? Would he be just as dangerous in a busy public park as he would in a quiet carpark?

Why would he be just as dangerous? I’ve pointed out that the space and the expectations surrounding it could change behaviour, but you’re ignoring that. So what makes you think that man would be just as dangerous in a mixed sex space? Would he be just as dangerous in a busy public park as he would in a quiet carpark?

I think that would be ok actually. Since TRAs haven't got a leg to stand on in the face of GC arguments let them speak.

But if he is dangerous to “female presenting people” in a male space, surely he would be just as dangerous to them in a mixed sex space? Why would he act differently in a mixed sex space? If men were so respectful of women, surely they wouldn’t rape, assault and murder them?

if you think TIM are women, then he would be around women if a TIM used the male toilet wouldn’t he? So therefore his behaviour around women would be the same in a male facility and a mixed sex facility wouldn’t it? Unless of course, you are saying TIM are not women?

I did answer the original question. I just didn’t treat it like the logic puzzle you are proposing.

Your framing ignores a pretty important variable: the type of space the person is using will have an impact on their behaviour. Unless you think a cis man in a single sex space would never behave differently in a mixed sex space with women?

You're arguing the wrong argument, or answering the wrong question, or at least one for which we are not awaiting an answer.

The question/ argument is:
But don’t TIM claim they are unsafe in male spaces? If toilets are unisex, the very males TIM are afraid of will be in those spaces with them. Won’t that make the TIM unsafe? Surely if TIM are safe in unisex spaces, they will be safe in the male toilets

Would you like to take a stab at giving a well-reasoned answer to this, that actually answers this conundrum, not a different one that you would prefer to answer?

That's what we are missing.