To be alarmed at the number of women who are throwing support behind causes that are clearly anti-woman?

[DorothyGaleFromKansas]

With the recent threads about flags/immigrants and Charlie Kirk etc, there seem to be a bewildering number of women supporting causes that directly go against their own interests, and it’s baffling and frankly a bit disturbing.

Reform have voted against tougher laws on stalking, sexual harassment and upskirting, against clamping down on revenge porn, and against further protections in the workplace. Farage cited Andrew Tate as “an important voice for men”.

Then you have Trump, who was found to have committed rape, forced himself into changing rooms where teenagers were undressing, made sexual comments about his own daughter, not to mention 34 other felonies, and that’s before we even get to the Epstein files.

Charlie Kirk said that women should only vote if they were voting for the candidate chosen by their husband, that women shouldn’t go on to higher education unless it was to find a husband, that women should have to submit to their husbands, and that little girls as young as 9 or 10 including his own daughters should be forced to give birth to babies conceived as a result of rape.

What has happened to us that there are so many women willing to endorse attitudes like this? And how do we fix it?! How have we sunk so low that there are women who think this is what we all deserve? It’s terrifying.

Do you really think a rapist gives a shiny shit if a space is “open to them” or not?

So you don’t lock your doors then? Burglars are going to burgle you anyway? Let’s just do away with safeguarding measures such as locks and ring doorbells because it’s only a tiny minority who may burgle your house.

Most men won’t harm you, so why do single sex spaces exist? Sick of asking this point.

I see you don’t have a great understanding of how crime works, so let me explain. Opportunistic theft is a thing. Thieves trying doors to see where they can take something is common. Rapists trying multiple public loos to see which ones allow transpeople is not. Hope this helps.

🫣 I work in ‘crime’, I have a much better understanding than you so let me help YOU out. I see you also don’t understand the concept of basic safeguarding. Theft is theft. Whether it’s targeted or opportunistic, you still lock your door. Predators are predators. Trans people are allowed in loos, why do rapists need to see which ones trans people are allowed in to. That doesn’t even make sense.

The risk that being a member of the male sex class - statistically the more problematic sex class, does not change whether a man say you are a woman or not. One cannot tell the difference between a man who wants to cause you harm between a man who doesn’t. This includes men who say they are women, or else trans women offenders would not exist. That is why single sex spaces exist.

Does that help you? (Probably not from your comprehension so far).

Dorothy has just wheeled out one of the most ridiculous arguments in existence - I’m not sure there’s much logic occurring.

Your explanation makes a lot of sense though.

I’ve just run this past my 10 year old and she got it perfectly first time.

It really shouldn’t be difficult for any adult. However, I think part of the problem may be that we’re trying to demonstrate our position to OP and co using evidence, fact, reason and logic. But they haven’t got to their position using any of those things. They’ve got there on emotion only. And you can’t use facts, evidence and logic to reason somebody out of a position they arrived at using none of those things and only emotion/blind faith.

A bit like a Christian wouldn’t be able to reason a Muslim away from Islam and into Christianity or vice-versa. Neither of them used logic, facts or evidence to fall in love with their religion in the first place. So no counter arguments or facts land. They just want to believe what they believe, regardless of the facts. And if it’s part of their identity it’ll be even deeper rooted.

So we see ‘progressives’ being very wedded to the Omnicause grab bag of fashionable positions that enable them to feel good about how virtuous they are. Feeling morally superior to others is so deliciouslu seductive they won’t give up that view of themselves for love nor money. Nor for facts, evidence or logic, it would seem.

Obviously laws don't always stop criminals. We have them anyway. A bit like the background checks parents are asked for when they go in to their DC's school to help out.
Now I am a very nice and law-abiding person (albeit GC, so according to some, at best a very silly woman who doesnt understand that she's being manipulated, and at worst a literal Nazi). However, my DC's school wouldn't let me do times tables with the children without a DBS check. Obviously I could demand that they do away with such nonsense on account of me being lovely. But of course I am not special and should not be treated as a special case.
And this despite the fact that I am highly unlikely to be a paedo due to my sex, as the vast majority of paedophiles, and indeed all sex offenders are male, whereas I am female.
However the law couldn't work if an exception were made for me, because how could anyone know whether the other people thereby gaining access to children were in fact paedophiles.
Really not extreme or revolutionary.

I want all men, rapists or not, to stay out of women only spaces or at least to be told to stay out. Is that clear?

An eminently reasonable position. No idea why this is apparently so controversial.

Still no answer why we should welcome men into women’s spaces then? Why we should think of them as women rather than men? Because they tell us to? No. Believing everything men say is not a sensible rule to live by whether it’s the man who hit you once saying he’ll never do it again, or men who say they are women saying that they’re lovely and they haven’t just been posting on Reddit about “killing terfs” or anything.

Is it taken out of context though? For me, that means it changes the meaning but if you look at everything hes DOCUMENTED as saying, all of that WAS in the context of his beliefs.

Nobody has taken them out of context as they still have the same meaning behind them he said when he stated them. Him being dead doesn't change that.

And it really is that simple. If you don’t want women to vote for other parties, tell the ones you do want them to vote for to stop supporting luxury beliefs that make them unelectable. I will decide what’s in my interest.

This.

just bumping this in case you missed it @DorothyGaleFromKansas

But now women are totally disempowered to do anything about men in their spaces, because people like you will accuse them of being transphobes.

Explain to me how this benefits women again?

Ok…. Stepping slowly out of here 😊

We keep all men out of specific women's spaces.

Why would we make an exception for one group of men? On what grounds?

I see the thread has been taken over and completely dominated by the usuals. As usual.

Oh what?! Why was @DorothyGaleFromKansas ridiculous response to me deleted?! I hate when the absurdity of trans ideology ‘arguments’ aren’t left to stand for all to see.

I really can’t be arsed explaining this a third time. People are looking up sound bites of his quotes -already without context - and posting them as proof of whatever their narrative happens to be. The information is out there. Do the work yourself. I don’t agree with the vast majority of his beliefs, but as has been said many times before, it benefits no-one to misquote.

OH FFS sake. Please stop insulting the intelligence of those taking part in a thread you started. Your thread title asked why so many women supported causes that were anti women. Then you threw yourself behind one that has a hugely detrimental effect on womens rights.

Nicely side stepped. We see you Dorothy 👀.