To think this is why spaces should be kept single sex?

[Bluntfuckit]

twitter.com/mummabeeblu/status/1573690566889570307

This poor girl.

I've got three DDs I can't imagine how I'd be if this had happened to one of them.

Primark staff were helpful but say it's happened previously.

No shit, predators are of course going to prey on easy access semi clothed women.

We need to rise and revolt.

I didn’t say you mentioned them - why are you being so disingenuous?

Again; I agree with single sex spaces. But I don’t agree that they’re the solution here. If you don’t agree, fair enough but your posts are very repetitive and accusatory. Nobody is making you reply to me.

It's really obvious what some posters have tried to do here. I'm really grateful to those that have articulated themselves much better on this than I did, MN was where years ago I quietly took in the arguments of both sides and became GC.

I don’t think single sex spaces will stop cameras, no. I think we’d be much safer in locked doors (single sex or otherwise) with a security patrol as standard in any situations where women are vulnerable to predatory men.

Like in the Covid hotels, where women were harassed by the security staff?

Will the security who will constantly guard womens spaces be male by any chance or another female who has to deal with these creeps herself?

And then as an additional reason why unisex spaces aren't the answer just re-read @OMG12 's post again about being flashed by "accident", which we all know is so easy for everyone else to handwave away as genuine accident. We know the real likely hood is, that was no accident.

Why not teams of both?

You said that trans people had nothing to do with what happened to that woman. I never mentioned trans people, so why did you bring them up if you weren't trying to imply that I had mentioned them?You didn't actually realise I hadn't mentioned them, did you? You were so anxious to try to discredit the case for single sex spaces as transphobia that you literally couldn't absorb anything else. Then you were reduced to trying to demand that I justify a post that had nothing to do with me. Embarrassing.Perhaps you think your constant deflection and disingenuousness have successfully buried this clear agenda. They haven't.

That was my response to you asking why unisex spaces wouldn't work.

Any reason you could possibly put into words why you think I'm wrong on any point?

Any words you could give us to support your belief that unisex spaces are safer than single sex spaces?

Any way you can explain why you still believe that unisex spaces are safer than single sex spaces given all the actual factual evidence that shows this is in fact not true at all. That in fact shows, in reality unisex spaces are more likely to have acts of predatory sexual behaviours etc etc?

Nope, just the blind reiteration of a belief, some circular and non logical arguments and deflections, right?

Please continue to shine more light down, you're doing people a favour here but not the one you think you are.

Your 'solution' is more complicated than just single sex spaces so its ridiculous.

I didn’t say you mentioned trans people

What’s my ‘clear’ agenda? You seem determined to paint me as something with your repeated ‘what about male female and unisex spaces’ on repeat - come out and say it. Wouldn’t want to be disingenuous, after all.

@Thelnebriati & @DontTouchThat exactly! Great point.

So you want a two person security team of one male and one female covering every changing area at all times, rather than single sex as we’ve always had?

Meanwhile back in the real world…

I haven’t said unisex spaces are safer.

I’m asking you why single sex spaces should be the starting point, when actually, the starting point could just as easily be lockable changing rooms and staff on patrol.

But if we jump through a heap of hoops, bend backwards and really really try, we could accommodate penises in women's spaces, it would probably be kind or something

But who watches the male security guard as he is working with the female security guard?

Who watches the watchmen? How many teams do you need to employ to watch over the other to justify?

Why not just simplify the problem and make it single sex spaces as standard and build from there?

I mean it's a toughie! A real head scratcher!

Because I don’t think single sex spaces alone will stop predatory behaviour.

Again, I don’t think penises should be in women’s spaces.

I'll humour your ongoing intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness for now.

No, dear, you didn't say the words "You mentioned trans people."

But you did say to me: "Trans people had nothing to do with what happened to that woman."

But I hadn't mentioned trans people. All I'd done was make the case for single sex spaces.

There was literally no reason at all to say that unless you thought I'd brought trans people into it.

But I hadn't.

You did. Repeatedly.

When you frantically backtracked and realised you were the only one who had brought trans people into it, you started scrabbling around demanding that I justify someone else's post.

Your entire mission on this thread is to undermine single sex spaces, dishonestly attempt to frame any defence of them as transphobia and then madly deflect and obfuscate when caught out on it.

It's really embarrassing, but it's illustrating the absurdity of the position beautifully.

I'll point you to your reply here:
I don’t think single sex spaces will stop cameras, no. I think we’d be much safer in locked doors (single sex or otherwise) with a security patrol as standard in any situations where women are vulnerable to predatory men.

And my post here as why single sex spaces should be the starting point:
Because of religious reasons, because a woman has suffered trauma and all the other reasons GC people have already repeatedly stated.
Because having unisex spaces means penis in women only spaces.
That is just another way of saying, flashing/voyeurism or assault might happen occasionally but we are ok with those odds.
Because what happens when the guard goes on break, or isn't paying attention, is distracted, or just doesn't care.
Because what about the tiny hidden cameras you can get easily these days.
Because what about the times when a small, quiet, locked and private area is the last place you would want to be.
Because there is more safety in: Numbers of women, in women's only spaces even just with flimsy curtains.
Than: Male bodied people being allowed in women's spaces, regardless of the measures taken to ostensibly keep women safe.
Single sex spaces says that we are not ok with it happening at all, so penis doesn't belong in women only spaces
The above isn't an exhaustive list either. I'm sure there are other reasons that I could articulate if I sat and thought about it for, oh I don't now 2 seconds.
You say you're GC but are not understanding some foundational concepts apparently.

as a reply.

Want to respond to any of the rest of the post:

Any reason you could possibly put into words why you think I'm wrong on any point?
Any words you could give us to support your belief that unisex spaces are safer than single sex spaces?
Any way you can explain why you still believe that unisex spaces are safer than single sex spaces given all the actual factual evidence that shows this is in fact not true at all. That in fact shows, in reality unisex spaces are more likely to have acts of predatory sexual behaviours etc etc?
Nope, just the blind reiteration of a belief, some circular and non logical arguments and deflections, right?
Please continue to shine more light down, you're doing people a favour here but not the one you think you are.

The push for unisex changing rooms/toilets etc benefits one sex and that is male

this is male entitlement nothing less

and this is what we have to put up with

NO males should be in female spaces

I'm a woman and I like single-sex spaces so you and everyone else who loves to 'splain how they couldn't possibly help women feel safer can either #BeKind or go fuck yourselves, I'm not much bothered which.

I haven’t mentioned transphobia once. Why are you saying I have?

And your response here closes this round of Circular Argument the family edition.

It brings us right back to the reduction of likely hood scenario. Which you claim at turns to both understand, but yet not understand.