Kenwood Ladies Pond Authoritarians

Famously the only two options. You're not helping the cause here.

So what is another option? I know, men keep out of female spaces even if they claim they feel like women.

The users of the pond vote and decide. Oh look, they did. It didn't go your way. The ponds remain trans inclusive and Venice Allen's histrionic screaming fit about it changed nothing. Perhaps she could lend her voice to dealing with real issues facing women rather than banning trans people from using the ladies' pond.

No one is suggesting banning trans people 🙄

It is being suggested that

1. it's not unreasonable to have a single sex provision made for women (in the original female sense) who don't feel any particular alignment fo whatever it is trans identifying male people feel, but do feel alignment to the half of humanity that is female, and
2. Should a provider disagree and decline to provide a female-only facility that is fine as well, but that provider should not then be claiming they offer a woman-only service. Because that is belittling and offensive to the female half of humanity who inconveniently do continue to matter as well.

There are consequences. The management know this.

The management have said they are going to have to spend money changing the women’s facilities (only 10 years old and a big operation to install) to increase individual privacy. This has economic, space, environmental, health and safety implications.

Making sure a cubicle is well aired to prevent damp, the floor is easily mopped, the cubicle isn’t misused and the occupant(s) are able to seen/heard in an emergency will be things a risk assessment picks up, if they do one, now they want an official change of use.

The toilets, for instance, will have to be enclosed, in separate rooms, with the sink and dryer in with the toilet. In unisex toilets the turnover will be slower so the excepted calculations are you need 25% extra units for a comparable turnover to single sex cubicles within a washroom. Or you have less toilets and bigger queues.

These are the realities of the decision to change the space to mixed sex.

Any deviations in design are against building regulations.

'Belittling and offensive'? Just not to the overwhelming majority of users of this particular service who have been happy to include trans people for decades.

Oh,issues like being threatened and assaulted by men? Good idea. Now, first we’d need to decide what a man was? Any idea? I think it’s an adult human male. What’s your take?

I suppose if you go through life thinking an assault by a man is somehow worse than one by a woman by virtue of their sex, then really definitions are the least of your worries. But then again you do seem to think that assaults by trans women are worse than by biological men for some reason.

It was a clear and simple question.

Aren't you going to answer it?

But trans women are biological men so why would I think there is a difference? And men commit 99% of all SA and 100% of all rapes so……

Hey, plenty of people are more than happy with establishments that are unwelcoming to people who don't share their tolerance for sexism. It doesn't make sexism actually right though.

And of course, breaking the laws that exist to give women a fair shot at participating in society without being reduced to sexist stereotypes because you happen to have a few blokes who like the sexist stereotypes thank you very much is never going to be a good look even if as you helpfully point out sometimes the sexism is set up to cater for people who really do enjoy it.

Assault by a man is not necessarily worse than a woman dear, just far far far far far more likely.

Regardless of whether said man (in the original sex based sense obviously) happens to identify as a man or not.

The behaviour aligns with the sex you see, not the "gender".

Yes, victims of assaults by woman are definitely less worthy of support than victims of your particular penchant.

No one said that. Try reading what is actually said.

Ah yes, it's all about trans women, rather than trans people. Sure. Trans men don't exist. You don't have to make hating trans people your entire personality like the rollingpinofdoom one.

For the terminally stupid, assault by a man can result in pregnancy. That is worse.

Gaslighting won't work on me. It's very clear what she was getting at. You may not agree but that was absolutely her inference.

Assault by a woman can result in death. Of the two - which is worse to deal with?

Are you trying to imply that assault by a man never ends in death?

I have to wonder whether these people who worry so much more about being assaulted by women than men (original sex based meaning obviously), assuming of course that they are female, have actually had it happen to them that over their lives they've experienced far more sexual aggression by women than men, and this very end-of-the-bell curve experience is clouding their perception of the usual risk distribution.

Or is it just that they know damn well that just like the rest of us the number of times they have faced sexual aggression or entitlement or boundary pushing from female people is orders of magnitude lower than the number of times they faced these things from male people, but they have somehow convinced themselves that their and our reality is of less significance than the theoretical risk that someone, somewhere, might be being unfairly harsh to a trans person.

Nice whataboutery. Give me the stats on women murdered by women. Women sexually assaulted by women. Now compare them to women murdered by men. Women sexually assaulted by men. You are comparing a fucking mountain to a spec of dust. That is why men are not welcome in spaces where wonen are vulnerable. And since transwomen are men....

It may have been your inference. You seem to have confused imply and infer.

Also clearly you don't know the meaning of gaslighting.

Clearly not. But nice try at deflection.

Yes it really was clear. Which is why I can clearly see it was not what you are trying to get away with claimimg.