This is why we shouldn't have to share our safe spaces !! Terrifying!

[Mamacherie]

Saw this post on twitter and it is just terrifying how he justifies this type of thinking and behavior as if it is normal. This is why we need our own safe spaces. Imagine letting this guy in ???

'box's 'nice'! Bloody autocorrect...

@EmpressJKRowlingSpartacus

Unless anyone has any bright ideas on how we can write the law so that we keep weirdos like this out while letting the nice transwomen in.

I know some very nice men who I’m sure aren’t a threat.

Still not getting changed in front of them.

This. My son, my son-in-law, my daughter's father-in-law are among them. No threat whatsoever. But I'm as prude as prude can be when it comes to undressing in their company.

Call me an old-fashioned bigot, but I don't love the idea of having male people who fantasise about dismembering women and possibly wearing our skin next to me when I'm in a state of undress and vulnerable, and don't really want them in my (or my daughter's) safe spaces. I know, I know, I should have the police called on me for harbouring such horrible opinions.

I miss the days we were allowed to laugh at people like this and call them weirdos and perverts.

@Alexandernevermind

I miss the days we were allowed to laugh at people like this and call them weirdos and perverts.

But now that's "kink shaming".

Don't forget everyone it's just a "few individuals" and some "isolated incidents". Yes I know that in normal language an isolated incident is something that only happens once, not multiple times, but that isn't what it means here. In this context an isolated incident can refer to any number of incidents. The more likely they are to form a pattern, the more they must be considered unconnected, and no matter how many there are they are always "one offs". And it's definitely just a "few individuals", not groups. Even if there are enough individuals to form quite a large group, its definitely not a group. Even if the majority behaved in this way, they would still just be lots of individuals, together but not in a group, repeatedly doing their multiple one off isolated incidents (which only ever count as 1, remember) +. Nothing that should be used to make any kind of connections or perform any sort of group analysis. Everyone clear on that?

Why can't one criticise kinks these days?

And is that just to be polite or will the police come knocking if you say owt (online) like what happened to Harry the owl?

Serious questions.

I'm referring to this new thing called kink shaming...

Here we go again 🤦‍♀️

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

How to prevent this while letting the 'box's tw in is easy: bring back and strengthen the gatekeeping.

The requirement to satisfy a doctor that you're not motivated by sexual perversion served a safeguarding function. It was supposed to weed out people such as the delightful specimen in the OP.

I propose we make the production of a GRC mandatory if a male wishes to access female spaces (actually I don't, but in the interests of a pragmatic solution that the middle ground would accept). And I propose that in order to acquire a GRC a male must be able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of doctors of both sexes trained in identifying misogynistic and potentially dangerous thoughts/traits/behaviours, that he is not a threat.

Their privacy rights should not override our safety rights. Tighten GRC rquirements, and then no GRC = no entry. Job done.

And if that means businesses have to stump up for toilet attendants then so be it - job creation is pretty important, after all!

The problem with this is that it might well weed out complete, off the scale, nutcases, but it won't weed out your common or garden misogynist, sexist, bully, lech.

An overlong stare, a smirk - not necessarily the tools in trade of a psychopath, but a very ordinary man.

No thanks.

@Holothane

Here we go again 🤦‍♀️

Go on - what have I done now?

So I'm probably going to annoy people with this thought experiment, but if you inserted "black" instead of TRA into this debate, you wouldn't view it as a justifiable argument. "Because some black people are criminals, black people you meet are more likely to be criminals?" Nobody except a racist thinks that's an acceptable POV, and yet what you're doing with the safe spaces argument is the same thing. I am also very worried about the whole thing, and think a lot of TRAs are insane, but this is a weak argument. Focus on the GRC as it stands, and accept trams women with a GRC. If they're genuine they would absolutely see why it's a sensitive issue and I don't think they'd be getting their tackle out in full view. Maybe I'm wrong.

Can't we report him to West Yorkshire Police? They are very keen on investigating Twitter posts that people find offensive.

I'm probably going to annoy people with this thought experiment, but if you inserted "black" instead of TRA into this debate, you wouldn't view it as a justifiable argument. "Because some black people are criminals, black people you meet are more likely to be criminals?"

It's a 'thought experiment' that has been discussed many, many times on here before.

Men pose a far greater safety risk to women than other women do. There is no evidence to suggest that males who identify as women pose any less of a threat to women than males who identify as men.

If you believe that segregation is wrong, the logical argument to make is that all spaces should become mixed-sex. In the deep South, desegregation happened for all people, not just a cohort who 'identified' as a different race.

The reasons for keeping males and females separate are very different from the reasons for racial segregation. Your thought experiment rests on a false equivalence.

@Tootletum

So I'm probably going to annoy people with this thought experiment, but if you inserted "black" instead of TRA into this debate, you wouldn't view it as a justifiable argument. "Because some black people are criminals, black people you meet are more likely to be criminals?" Nobody except a racist thinks that's an acceptable POV, and yet what you're doing with the safe spaces argument is the same thing. I am also very worried about the whole thing, and think a lot of TRAs are insane, but this is a weak argument. Focus on the GRC as it stands, and accept trams women with a GRC. If they're genuine they would absolutely see why it's a sensitive issue and I don't think they'd be getting their tackle out in full view. Maybe I'm wrong.

It's not black people who are responsible for 98% of sex crimes though, it's male people. That's why the argument can't be arbitrarily changed.

I don't understand the concept of inserting another protected characteristic into the argument.

You might as well insert disabled people. 'You wouldn't exclude disabled people from women's spaces, would you?'

It's segregation by sex. Not colour, disability, sexual orientation. Because those protected characteristics are not responsible for almost all sex crimes

Sex. Because of the way sex crimes are committed and by whom.

I think it's the concept of discrimination that gets people inserting other groups.

You are allowed to lawfully discriminate. It just means recognising and understanding a difference.

For instance the equality act protects sexual orientation, where, say, a lesbian can legitimately discriminate against all men.

.. So I'm probably going to annoy people with this thought experiment..

Not annoyed - amused would be a better word.

My views on this aren't at all fixed, so thank you for your views. I am just not really sure how to resolve it all. I had understood that the GRC process was going to remain the same. So if that's the case, what does it all mean for those who have a GRC? I started out in this debate convinced that the very existence of Karen White made any presence of any male bodied person in a female space unacceptable, but I increasingly feel sorry for those I consider hugely vulnerable trans people who just want to live their lives and who would also struggle to go into a male changing room.

As someone more new to the issues being uncovered here I find it very useful to read the example of inserting black in place of transwoman, I was semi nodding along thinking 'yep, good point'.

The answers provided had me nodding along thinking 'yep, good rebuttal, that clearly explains the issue' much more wholeheartedly.

Please never forget that there are newbies to the discussion visiting this board every day. Replies which show exasperation to the same old questions being asked are it a good way to welcome people into the fold. The vast majority of people who've been through discussions online have already made up their mind, mostly for the FWR side I hope.

@CrossPorpoises

I wonder what it is that makes him hate women and children so much?

Probably that they are not as subservient as he believes they ought to be

You nothing but it’s rules this rules that females will have no space left soon.

Whenever the spurious "racially segregated toilets" analogy comes up, I find it useful to compare and contrast the reasons given for the segregation in both cases.

Racial segregation of toilets in the American South prior to the Civil Rights Movement - the reason came down to this: whites thought blacks were lesser, and whites held the power.

Sex segregation of toilets in pretty much every country in the world (barring a few western nations which are now trying to make a gender neutral point) - borne out of the fact that men commit 99% of sexual offences, their victims are predominantly women, and that without single sex toilets women are unsafe (see, for instance massive prevalence of rape in rural India in areas without indoor toilets where women have to go into nearby fields to relieve themselves).

So in one instance, the imposition of segregation is driven by arbitrary prejudice on the part of the dominant power grouping in a society, in the other it's driven by a desire to protect the less powerful group from a real, and well-documented danger from the more powerful group (NAMALT etc. but enough of them and not conveniently marked with the mark of Cain upon their foreheads).

So sex segregation is completely different to the Deep south "color bar."

The question then becomes whether TWAW and should be included in the social category of "people allowed to use the women's toilets" (i.e. that category should be determined by something other than sex). The existence of individuals as clearly dangerous as the person in the OP makes me think the answer is a clear no.

Please never forget that there are newbies to the discussion visiting this board every day. Replies which show exasperation to the same old questions being asked are it a good way to welcome people into the fold. The vast majority of people who've been through discussions online have already made up their mind, mostly for the FWR side I hope.

That is very true and I am a firm believer in speaking to the lurkers and the newbies, because I was a lurker (and actually, am still a newbie!)

It's just that sometimes people bring up certain arguments as a sort of 'gotcha' - although I appreciate this was not the case here. Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort by some TRAs to paint GC feminists as racist, which is quite tiresome. I hope that provides some context for the exasperation expressed in the replies given.