FWR being trolled by a user called AidaP

[Hedgehogforshort]

Hi MNHQ can you please address the issue of a certain poster called AidaP who is not participating in debate he is just trolling.

to be clear this person is a trans woman who has been convicted of violence and is posting promotion of acts of violence against women elsewhere.

in particular there is one elsewhere about using a roughly hewn rolling pin to rape women.

you realy need to look in to him it is just so not on that he is being allowed to bother us here.

Was he banned? He's not posted anything for a few days now, thankfully.

To nitpick, there is the option of 'women only' and 'mixed'. But men deserve some privacy too.

You are spot on about vulnerability to pregnancy, though.

selffellatingouroborosofhate has covered a lot of excellent points. I also have a distinct sense of deja vu here posting this as I am sure I posted something like this answer in reply for glovedhandcec previously. I suspect that it was summarily dismissed.

However, if of course is not just sexual assault that is an issue. Female people need safeguarding because the risk with any physical attack is greater. Greater risk of it happening, but also greater risk of injury and serious injury including life changing and life limiting injury.

This is because (and we even have studies proving this now) male people generally have a physical advantage over female people. So much so that the weakest 25% of male people are still stronger than 90% of female people. Even those male people who choose to suppress their testosterone (or electively remove the source of their testosterone) are still not as weak as the weakest woman. Because is also is not just about muscle mass, skeletal leverage and bone mass, connective tissue and other aspects all play a part. (Happy to link the studies as evidence we have them easy to find).

The point is that safeguarding is not about completing eliminating risk, it is about minimising it while allowing people to go about their lives. Hence there are no toilet monitoring in person or using id cards as some people who try to use extreme arguments mention. Instead societies such as the UK use laws and policy and public knowledge so that people know where they should and shouldn’t be going. And it should work that if a male person knowingly enters a female single sex provision they will be legally be able to be removed. Hopefully before any harm can be done.

There are weak arguments presented to refute these safeguarding principles such as: but what about female on female violence? Yes. It happens . However, so that people can use publicly accessible facilities the by laws and national laws have to be usable and reasonable. It is reasonable to expect that the average female on female attack will not produce the same injury level as a male on female attack.

Due to grip strength of male people, (again, happy to provide studies showing grip strength differences, even male children have greater grip strength before puberty) it is also less likely that a female person has a chance to escape when a male person holds onto them vs a female person.

Can female on female attack happen ? Yes. It is probably less likely though if you look at conviction rates as a gauge for propensity for violence.

Is there a reasonable expectation it will be less likely to cause serious injury and more likely the victim can escape? Yes. So that is why sex segregated spaces exist and how public provisioning can be meet the expectations of usage flow.

It was never just about privacy and dignity even though those are really important too.

It is also not just about physical risk to safety. There are many types of harms that female people need female single sex provisions to be safeguarded against:

Harms include:
-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces and vice versa. They are all important.

You know that calling someone a weirdo is a personal attack, don’t you? And is against the guidelines?

There is a difference between making a wrong assumption and directly attacking someone.

Perhaps you have something to say about what @selffellatingouroborosofhatewrote then? Is that also a problem?

No i think the constant speculation about someones wider character and experiences due to their views on this one issue is weird and we need to call it out. The fact that someone would even think that's ok to say because they disagree with makes them a vile misogynist.

She made a point about why someone may not understand the needs of some women. Do you see that as a personal attack?

If you see it as an attack, report it and the mods will decide.

It's a colloquialism, isn't it? Tell me you're x without telling me...

Care to address the excellent points that poster made in refuting your assertion that women as a sex class are not inherently vulnerable compared to men as a sex class?

Or are you going to use the normal tactic that FWR detractors use which is to ignore the well written post and criticise the poster instead. We usually assume that’s because posters can’t refute the argument so they attempt distraction and derailing.

Have you read the now multiple posts about safeguarding and how safeguarding principles work for creating protective law?

Certainly a probable much wider use colloquialism than ‘fuck x with a splintery rolling pin’.

Nope. I came back to more than 10 notifications so I dont read any of them. I just saw that vile speculation on this page. I did see they had quoted me multiple times and that points to a level of fixation I'm not interested in encouraging either.

Well quite. I wonder if it would have been more acceptable to say 'Tell me you've never been fucked with a splintery rolling pin for having GC views without telling me...'?

Nope because women don't inherently need safeguarding and I dont support that likd of archaic misogyny.

I think the tactic is that if all else fails, launch an ad hom attack that means you don’t have to consider anything that person says because you reject them as a person. Rather than reading and responding to what they said and evaluate the point even if the words are not those you want to read, as in you feel that they are objectionable words being used.

And suddenly MNHQ moderating is infallible (on a thread about how it isn’t)

I see.

A good thing then that safeguarding will continue to happen all around you and that you will be safer for it.

Assuming that someone disgsres with you because they have never been raped is completely vile. You are so entrenched in this issue that normal decency has escaped you.

Any women who cares about other women wouldnt ever speculate that a woman must never have experienced sexual.abuse and that is why they feel differently than they do. That's some misogynistic bullshit.

No, men arent the people that make me most unsafe. white people are.

Of course it fails at time to time.

I expect the issue with the poster those thread is about though is recognising whether it is abuse and intended abuse. His straight out and easy to recognise attacks have all been immediatley deleted. Those were never the issue under the scope of this thread as far as I could see.

I see it as an attack, yes. Thanks for the tip.

Notifications are just a way of alerting you that people have responded to your posts. If you have a lot just go back to the point where you left the thread (bookmarks are an excellent function when they’re working properly) and read the thread from there to see how the discussion has gone since you last visited the thread. Or just turn off notifications altogether if they cause you stress.

It’s very odd to assume that posters are fixated with you because they replied to you. And, dare I say, a little rude too to say that you aren’t going to read the points addressing your assertion. Just repeating the assertion without a rationale isn’t really moving the discussion forward.

Anyway, I have the answer to my previous question. Distraction and derailing is your choice of engagement style.

Won't be doing that when there are pages and pages left. I just ignore the person/people spamming me with quotes. If I have 5 or 6 notifications from you, youre fixated and I'm not interested.