The Simple Problem with Those Anti-Trans Protesters' Big Stunts

[FoxOnSecurity]

This sums it up really about the problem with anti trans stunts.

www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/kzknma/the-simple-problem-with-those-anti-trans-protesters-big-stunts

That's really interesting haXXor, have bookmarked.

And yes, so true.

Doubt old Foxy cares though.

I just checked: Fox is listed on Twitter as being (paraphrasing somewhat) an IT security analyst specialising in, amongst other things, social engineering. For those who are not familiar with security concepts, "social engineering" is when you trick, coerce, or persuade people to achieve your desired outcome, rather than attacking hardware or software. People are often the weak point in an organisation and common "people-hardening" techniques include things like teaching people not to respond to phishing emails, to challenge anyone not wearing an ID badge, not to let people tail-gate them through an access-controlled door, that kind of thing.

So Fox actually knows full well what the impact on women's safety will be if we don't feel we can challenge males in the ladies loos, because Fox deals with this stuff for a living.

ManFriday are a fine bunch of chaps.

Sterling work chaps! Seconded!

FYI Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes founded men's right group the Proud Boys. Vice hates women.

Brilliant podcast about the Proud Boys here www.thisamericanlife.org/626/white-haze

I read the Vice piece. They're so rattled.

Are you fox fisher?

the humour is an absolute killer when the whole credibility of your ideology depends on everybody taking it deadly seriously and never questioning any of it

Man Friday you are geniuses and that article has cheered me right up

Man Friday are not anti trans protesters

They are protesting to raise awareness of the consequences of self ID, and to retain sex segregated spaces where they are needed.

Is foxy jaaaaanniiisssssssss

I'm getting confused now.

There's the one who wanted advice on where to buy cheap sanitary towels to deal with daily bleeding, the one who keeps trying to explain science to Babelfish & the one who decided to call us all men (even though it wasn't Friday).

Was that all the same poster or different ones?

@haXXor that really sums it up to what I do, good round up to what social engineering is. Thing is there's going to be no impact on women's safety like now really, let's be honest here, if there's a guy in the women's changing rooms and he's challenged and let's say he goes 'I'm a woman', but dressed as a guy, with a guys ID and so on then it's common sense really and should be dualt with apportly (remember the law does cover stuff like this) But let's say a trans women comes in, keeps herself to herself, has all the correct documents and so on, then what's the fuss?

That's a brilliantly simple model haXXor and explains the impact of giving sex offenders an easier way to access vulnerable women really intuitively. Thanks for posting.

Here's my relevant theory, which is from criminology - routine activity theory.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routine_activity_theory

A crime exists because there is a combination of an offender, a suitable target and a lack of a capable guardian.

At the moment, the courtesy system means people using/supplying women's spaces act as a capable guardian as they can challenge any male appearing person if they sense a threat. (And trans women have been using our spaces unchallenged for years, which shows that if no threat is perceived women are happy for trans women to share space)

If self-ID comes in, women and girls won't be able to perform that capable guardian function. Indeed we already see guidance suggesting that women raising concerns are the problem and should be the ones asked to use private spaces instead.

Routine activity theory shows that removal of the capable guardian will increase crimes.

@FoxOnSecurity

1. You know perfectly well that women are being told we must NOT challenge anyone in any women's space because they know their gender best' and to do so would be considered trans phobic.

2. Many organisations and companies are making changes to policies. Trans activists say 'oh the GRA won't make any difference' but that's because so many places are already accepting self-id as law. We are being told that 'I'm a woman because I say so' is enough.

3. If the GRA changes to a self-id model, then anyone could have 'all the correct documents and so on'. It won't mean anything except that they chose to apply for the documents.

Great post Quentin.

there's going to be no impact on women's safety like now really complete lie, out and out lie

if there's a guy in the women's changing rooms and he's challenged

We aren't allowed to challenge
It's dangerous to challenge

and let's say he goes 'I'm a woman', but dressed as a guy with a guys ID

are transwomen to be banned from 'dressing as guys'?

(remember the law does cover stuff like this)

Yes, with self ID the appropriate law will allow a man with a female SiD to be there send will criminalise mBut let's say a trans women comes in, keeps herself to herself, has all the correct documents and so on, then what's the fuss?

Final par
Yes, with self ID the appropriate law will allow a man with a female SiD to be there send will criminalise me for challenging him

let's say a trans women comes in, keeps herself to herself, has all the correct documents and so on, then what's the fuss?

They are men in the women's change. You are not the first trans to demonstrate the paucity of your understanding and empathy with women.

Thing is there's going to be no impact on women's safety like now really, let's be honest here,

IF self ID goes through, TIM will be able to self identify into women’s prisons as a default and there will be no mechanism for doing this case by case or insisting on separation from the main population of women. So men, in showers and confined locked spaces with vulnerable women.

Do you consider that totally safe? If so, why?

If his posts here are examples of Fox's social engineering skills then he's not very good at it.

@Bowlofbabelfish from what I've been told from a source, there's going to be safe guards in place for things like that, his words were 'we don't want the male estate saying their women just to get a easier stay' its going to be common sense as well

Fox: told from a source indeed.

You are already challengingvthe Equality Act. It's not safe and will not protect women against self aiD.

@AngryAttackKittens you mean her... I'm not male or anything. Oh and I'm not even trying to social engineer on here, if I was, you wouldn't even notice.

Sure, babes, we totally believe you.

his words were 'we don't want the male estate saying their women just to get a easier stay' its going to be common sense as well

Oh and how does this undoubted legal expert think that will be possible if these men are legally allowed to declare themselves women and be treated as women according to overall prison policy? It seems you are proposing some gatekeeping. I think you'll find that's very exclusionary.