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

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.

This is a perfect explanation and I will be using it going forward. Thank you!

lol @ veiled threat.

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

I have found them generally ready to be filed in my mental category of lordly pronouncements.

i'm not male or anything

What a pointless thing to say. We have no idea what you mean by that and, to be fair, neither do you.

What a pointless thing to say. We have no idea what you mean by that and, to be fair, neither do you.

Good point

We have no idea what you mean by that and, to be fair, neither do you.

Security foxes are foxes!

At this point "I'm not male" could mean anything from "I was born with a uterus and 2 X chromosomes" to "I have an enormous penis" to "I'm actually a sentient geranium".

both!

Fox gloves ARE gloves

The OP illustrates beautifully the saying that men are afraid women will laugh at them.

Gets you right in the feelz, doesn't it.

Lets also mention this again - men and women are different sizes on average.

DP is a foot taller, and about 50% heavier than me. A similar difference to that between me and my 8 year old. DP is no more scared of women in male space than I am of an 8 year old, because of the size differential.

Pretending that women are as likely to attack, and as likely to be as intimidating to other women as men are is so far beyond disingenuous as to be pretty much lying.

Yy Terfs well observed

Sarah Ditum gave this fool and her silly article the contempt it deserved:

https://twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1004661081929932800?s=20

I'm not asking you to plead your case, just to fill in a fairly blatant missing piece of your argument, because I read your freely available article and it was worth literally every penny I spent on it.

Pretending that women are as likely to attack, and as likely to be as intimidating to other women as men are is so far beyond disingenuous as to be pretty much lying.

Yes.

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

Assuming you mean dealt with appropriately I think I should address this. Yes common sense should prevail but the lobby groups have ensured that it doesn't and that service providers are too frightened to challenge.

I am clearly a woman. I have short hair which may confuse, um, nobody, because I am clearly female. I am short, I have curves, I don't grow hair on my face, I have a high pitched voice. I have said to several people "I am a man" or "I identify as a man" and been given access to male spaces. Now I don't cause a threat in there, because I'm a woman, but there was no check as to what I meant or how I could possibly, with my woman body, woman voice, woman clothes, be a man.

These things already happen and there are no challenges.

The guidance given by Stonewall et al is wrong, and has created these situations where staff and customers are frightened to challenge anyone who says they're trans and accesses opposite sex facilities. The encouragement for anyone who says they're trans to be accepted as such is madness.

And it's not just about attacks - though these frighten me - it's about male behaviour and the male gaze. One man in a women's space will change the feeling in the room entirely. Perving at women, making them feel uncomfortable is pretty normal behaviour for men and we have spaces where we have respite from it. Why are people trying to steal them from us? Particularly to satisfy a group with a disproportionate number of fetishists?

There's honestly no point wasting the energy on deconstructing 'self ID will lead to no increased threat/violence/problems for women'. It's just the latest version of #nodebate in a patronising tone and a game plan of repeat a lie often in a stuck record fashion enough it might just possibly get believed. You might as well invest in debating 'I see what I eat' is the same as 'I eat what I see' with the Mad Hatter.

The obvious question to ask is why do people stating clearly and repeatedly that women's feelings are stupid and irrelevant, that they do not care about women's privacy, rights or safety, that children's safety is pretty meh as well and the only people of value, interest and priority should be men wanting increased freedom at the cost of women want to spend all this time on a female rights forum? To repeatedly say over and over 'shut up shut up shut up' in various different ways.

Ooh what a giveaway.

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

So this means that Pips Bunce or Travis Alabanza, for instance, should only be allowed in the women's on days when they're wearing dresses AND identifying as female? What about someone in jeans & a plain T-shirt who isn't carrying ID?

There's honestly no point wasting the energy on deconstructing 'self ID will lead to no increased threat/violence/problems for women'.

Its just such a ridiculous argument to me.

Obviously making everything unisex will lead to an increased risk for female people. Its part of the reason we have separate facilities in the first place, as people acknowledge the statistics of male on female violence. Any attempt of mitigating the risk somewhat should be supported, not made out to be 'phobic' of male people.

This is a fantastically eloquent piece by Megan Nolan. She makes her points clearly, concisely and quite beautifully. It's worth quoting some of them

OK, here goes ...

prancing around
squalid little display
their tedious point
nerdy smirk
irritatingly self-satisfied kooky kid
smug smart-arse
transphobic pageantry
completely stupid
sheer thick-headedness

Even the tories have stated We are committed to a respectful and evidence-based discussion.

Shame Megan Nolan isn't. Doesn't look like you are either SMG, or you OP if you're plugging this as a reasonable article.

is the marvellous SwearyG talking about ManFriday and what it's about. Respectfully, and with reference to evidence.

Yes they are rattled! Keep doing what you do, you top blokes

What a silly article. It reads blah blah hyperbole hyperbole hyperbole blah blah hyperbole hyperbole hyperbole...

There is little to no factual content in the article - it is an op-ed piece that, ironically, exposes the logical weaknesses of the pro-self ID campaign.

I just took a look at Vice's web site. One of their latest articles is "We Asked People at a UFO Conference About Their Alien Encounters "My first abduction experience happened in the womb because my mum was abducted."" That's some serious journalism, there. I am sure that a Pulitzer nomination is winging its way to Vice offices as we speak.

Under staffing I expected to find "Tin Foil Hat Editor" but, alas, had to be content with a person (wouldn't want to mis-gender h**) named Phoebe who rejoices in the title of "MUNCHIES UK EDITOR".

Interesting what you learn when you do a bit of digging. Below is a direct quote from an interview with the Broadly editor at Vice: www.standard.co.uk/tech/broadly-editor-zing-tsjeng-book-female-heroes-history-a3784606.html.

Quote begins:

Back to Broadly, a magazine that sits in the stable of Vice Media — which last year was accused of having a macho culture and had to settle four sexual harassment claims.

Tsjeng [an editor at Vice] declines to talk directly about allegations of harassment, saying she’s only been at Vice for three years, and adding that the company has committed to pay parity by the end of 2018. That was announced via email to the UK office.

Tsjeng declines to talk directly about allegations of harassment, saying she’s only been at Vice for three years, and adding that the company has committed to pay parity by the end of 2018. That was announced via email to the UK office.

And as for the gender wars being waged at Vice? [Editor's reply] “This is probably the optimist in me saying this — but I think there’s a real chance for a company to show moral leadership in a time like this.”

Quote ends.

@FoxOnSecurity Your twitter says that you are trans and prefer she/her pronouns. PPANBU to infer from that that you were observed male at birth.

Claims that GRA changes don't remove a cheese layer are disingenuous. We are already being pressured not to challenge people who appear to be in the wrong loo and the change in law will enormously increase the chance of challenging someone with a GRC and falling foul of the law, which will have a chilling effect on women's ability to challenge.

Here's my analysis from the perspective of someone who requires reasoned paranoia and a security mindset to do her job:

Situation

• All males are born with a rape weapon (or intrusion tool, as you prefer) built into their bodies. It's more commonly called a "penis".
• All females are born with an unpatchable security vulnerability built into their bodies. It's more commonly called a "vagina".
• Males are typically bigger and stronger than females and are often socialised to have a sense of entitlement to sexual access to females.

All males are therefore a potential hazard to all females and, when those females need to expose that unpatchable security vulnerability (e.g. to use a toilet), they need a safe place free of males. Males who need to expose their rape weapon should do so in a private place to avoid alarm. This paragraph is the underlying reason for toilets being sex-segregated: the rape weapon people are kept away from the unpatchable security vulnerability people. Toilets should never be about "gender identity" because gender identity doesn't affect whether you have a rape weapon.

The inherent threat that all males pose to all females is why even minor behaviours like staring are intimidating to females, which is another reason to keep males out: they can't stare if they aren't there.

As a PP stated, we use peer enforcement (the "competent guardian" of criminology) to keep males out of the loos. This peer enforcement is under attack and the GRA changes would give legal weight to that erosion of our right to challenge. With males like Danielle Muscato (google that name, look at pics) entering women's homelessness shelters by claiming to be transwomen already, I'm not at all unreasonable to be worried.

Huge amounts of how we do safeguarding of women and children is by teaching vulnerable people that they have a right to challenge threatening behaviour and a right to have and enforce boundaries, essentially "people-hardening". Telling us that we shouldn't challenge someone who we think might be in the wrong loo flies in the face of that.

From Wikipedia on Vice Media:

Sexual harassment

On December 23, 2017, The New York Times reported that there have been four settlements involving allegations of sexual harassment or defamation against Vice employees. In addition, over twenty other women stated that they had experienced or witnessed sexual misconduct, including unwanted kisses, groping, lewd remarks and propositions for sex, at the company. In a statement provided to The New York Times, Vice co-founders Shane Smith and Suroosh Alvi said, "from the top down, we have failed as a company to create a safe and inclusive workplace where everyone, especially women, can feel respected and thrive."

In January 2018 it was announced that president Andrew Creighton and chief digital officer Mike Germano were suspended as the company investigated charges against them. Vice’s COO/CFO Sarah Broderick sent a memo to staff on 02/01/2018 announcing the suspension of Creighton, who paid a $135,000 settlement in 2016 to a former employee who said she was fired after turning him down, and Mike Germano, who’s served as chief digital officer. Germano founded Carrot Creative, which was acquired by Vice in 2013; he’s been accused of pulling a former colleague onto his lap at a company party, as well as telling his former strategist Amanda Rue he originally didn’t want to hire her “because he wanted to have sex with her.”

Vice has also been criticized by current and former employees for featuring work by Terry Richardson, a photographer facing accusations of sexual abuse by multiple models.

@FoxonSecurity, quoting the Vice article was a great own goal.

As a PP stated, we use peer enforcement (the "competent guardian" of criminology) to keep males out of the loos.

And indeed, Fox knows perfectly well that the vast majority of FWR women would prefer FWR to be a woman-led space with woman-led conversations. So Fox considers it a victory to destroy any "competent guardian" function within FWR via appeals to "transphobia". Fox doesn't care whether we're transphobic or not - the aim is to destroy FWR as a woman's space.