Gina Martin not happy women don’t want trans women in their sex segregated spaces

[happydappy2]

Gina Martin, who successfully campaigned to make upskirting a crime, has tweeted hat she is not happy that women referenced that particular law in regards M&S changing rooms becoming mixed sex. I suspect she has very woke friends leaning on her to speak out but even so, womens rights are not hers to give away. I wonder what she really thinks about denying teenage girls the right to single sex changing facilities.

Separate male and female changing rooms exist because of the societal concept that men somehow wouldn't be able to behave themselves appropriately around women and/or vice versa in a shared space, which is a bit infantilising.

It's not infantilising, it's reality. Jésus wept, how much evidence do you need?

Women were unable to be full participants in the public sphere until businesses built toilet facilities for women.
That is why driving women out of the public sphere appears to be the main reason misogynist males are supporting trans rights: the right to unfettered access to women and girls in various states of undress and the right to displace women and girls in the public sphere.

Gina has a narrow sphere of interest and influence. That's sad. It's a real shame that she's capable of identifying and fighting against these issues, right up until the point that a male tells her she's doing it wrong.

Or several males.

Think about that, Gina.

It's all about Gina isn't it?

Gina doesn't like upskirting = upskirting must be specifically banned.

Gina doesn't mind a transperson using a facility for women and girls = anyone who objects is a bigot.

Gina has all the arguments off pat - but these are the arguments of what, 2 years ago. They have been demonstrated to be incorrect and naive.

I wonder if she has a new bff who is ‘educating’ her?

And yes - it’s all about her. How tiresome.

I’ve just read the Twitter thread and several of her replies. It still boggles my mind when I come across people that stupid.

Sounds like a school girl debate.

Regardless whatever is being done, I'm not putting myself at risk of being assaulted. These are strangers, strange, unknown to us, males, most of them heterosexual or bisexual, a large percentage of them still have their penises. I'm not the only one who is afraid to use women's loos now. I use the disabled. If someone wets themselves it can be cleaned up. If I'm raped in a loo, much much harder to 'clean up'. I probably wouldn't leave my home ever again. Not only that, some of them wank in toilets. The very thought of that in a cubicle near me is utterly repulsive and a complete invasion of my rights and privacy.

I do wish that more women could recognise the glee with which some men greet the discomfort of women. And the twitch of the chub with which that glee is accompanied.

Yes. What about that don't they get? In a small way, it can be seen every time this stuff gets posted on social media, and hordes of men rush in to talk over women, gloating that we aren't allowed female only spaces.

It's all reminding me of that policewoman who took a video of the women's toilets in her station under the aegis of "inclusiveness" and posted it on Twitter.

It was so obvious that some male fetishist had persuaded her that it would be a kind, inclusive thing to do.

Was she reprimanded for that (or given a medal?)

Just read the thread - Gina voices support for TW who say they have been assaulted - but not the women. Charming...

Also - many TW are stating they’ve been upskirted. Interesting - if true a different motivation compared to upskirting women for sexual kicks - checking to see if male appendage is present and correct?

Gina voices support for TW who say they have been assaulted - but not the women

Yes, odd, isn't it?

Silly wee girl. Why exactly does she think women will listen to her now? Puffed up arrogance.

Thing is she's not silly or a girl.

She is a determined woman who kept pushing for a law to help women and girls, to close a loophole and raise this crime in the public eye at the same time.

She got loads of shit for it and kept going.

That's what bothers me about this. I simply can't understand how the above squares with her comfort at letting any male who says the magic words into and all spaces which by social agreement or by law are reserved for females.

We need to understand WHY she thinks like that rather than just dismissing it and her.

Maybe she is a gatherer of causes. sounds like ego.

We need to understand WHY she thinks like that rather than just dismissing it and her.

It's because she's acquainted with transwomen, presumably of the HSTS variety, and sees them as victims.

She appears to be quite prepared to accept that men might take advantage of the loophole, but does not believe they are trans.

She doesn't yet realise that according to the definition, they are.

She should, even given what she truly believes, still accept that sex segregation is necessary, because of all the
'loophole men'. But she doesn't. She still thinks that women should put 'deserving'
men first even if they don't want to.

She will, hopefully, realise about the overwhelming number of men for whom
this is a fetish - and how the ideology says she must accept that.

But I suspect she will still trutrans her way through everything, because, despite fighting up skirting, she has still been raised in a patriarchy and will put men first.

It's a journey. I still don't think she'll get to the last stop, but she might get further along than she is.

Has Gina expressed concern for anyone on her Twitter thread who's been upskirted or otherwise sexually assaulted who is of the vagina having category of human? If not that puts rather an odd spin on her campaign.

Gina being on very good terms with Keir Starmer would maybe influence her wanting to see things from that point of view - Keir big on self-id etc.

Same message from a Labour leader - different messenger.

Unfortunately, going by another thread it looks as if lots will want to pretend otherwise and only see positives in Keir when exactly same message is coming from him. The PinkNews interview in February leaves no doubt.

That's what bothers me about this. I simply can't understand how the above squares with her comfort at letting any male who says the magic words into and all spaces which by social agreement or by law are reserved for females.

We need to understand WHY she thinks like that rather than just dismissing it and her.

Yeah, I agree with this. People are entitled to their opinions, and if we want to change their minds, we need to understand where they come from.

In my experience a lot of women like her are very influenced by what they see as the medical world's support of gender ideology. They take the view that these people are the experts, this is science etc. It's difficult to argue against them i a way because they don't see the nitty gritty, challenging the medical information, as their area to navigate. They are also very influenced by the participation of groups like Stonewall.

Maybe that's not where she is coming from, but it strikes me as a real possibility.

When the discussion started, I thought she was making a distinction between voyeurism and upskirting; and the difference between places where you'd expect privacy and places you wouldn't so the question was one of which law would apply in a changing room.
But it quickly became apparent that she doesn't care about preserving changing rooms as single sex spaces although she is also one of those people who can't explain how women can distinguish between predatory men and 'genuine transwomen' or who can explain why we should ignore the fact that transwomen offend at the same rate as men.
I'm tired of people being willfully ignorant. Just once, I'd love someone to say 'oh, yeah, you're right we can't tell who is predatory by looking at them so let's go with the statistics and keep single sex spaces to ensure women's safety.'

We need to understand WHY she thinks like that rather than just dismissing it and her.

That's all very nice to say, but there's limited point in trying to do the right thing with someone who will never extend you the same courtesy in return. As you'll see on this thread, and many others, there are many attempts to rationally discuss, ask questions, logically engage with view points and a courtesy and genuine attempt to understand you never see from someone not representing the GC viewpoint. It's never engaged with, it's never responded to .

They know damn well their views don't stand up to debate, it's a faith based position. It's in need of a good therapist. I'm not a therapist and I'm not anyone's mummy either, I don't need to understand them and work out how to manage their behaviour. I expect other adults to behave like adults.

"when all men can be a woman, then everyone's a woman"

So the old term "woman," is airbrushed out of existence, and everything that defines or protects those who were defined by this old term, along with it.

*We need to understand WHY she thinks like that rather than just dismissing it and her.

That's all very nice to say, but there's limited point in trying to do the right thing with someone who will never extend you the same courtesy in return*

Indeed- I think the question is WHY she doesn’t think the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls is important.

Why does she voice concern on Twitter about attacks on TW but not for the women.

But that's the point. She was passionate about upskirting. To protect girls and women and get a law so the men could be prosecuted. Where before it fell down a gap between voyeurism and sexual assault.

She does care about women and girls. So I want to understand why she believes that opening up all single sex things (prisons, sports, communal changing at swim clubs etc etc to anyone on a basis of self ID.

It just doesn't follow.