The Guardian have upped their game, we’re now Anti-trans for asking for same-sex spaces

[AMCoffeePMWine]

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/18/dozens-arrested-in-los-angeles-as-anti-trans-protest-outside-spa-turns-violent

“Women carrying signs reading “protect female spaces” and “It’s worse in women’s shelters”. Calls to defend “female spaces” and “women’s shelters” have become rallying cries of anti-trans groups, who have falsely suggested that trans-inclusive policies endanger cis women.”

This, according to the Guardian, is what makes women anti-trans. It’s infuriating. Using “Falsely” to describe women’s experiences of having biological males in female spaces.

All this from one woman saying No to willies waggling in front of women and girls.

And yeah @mishy - what "cis" predator would bother putting on a dress just to abuse women, right?!

Considering Larry Nassar went to the fucking trouble of becoming a licensed OSTEOPATH in order to gain access to girls on the US women's gymnastics team. He ended up sexually assaulting hundreds of them.

And Andrew Wheeler went to the fucking trouble of becoming a licensed PARAMEDIC in order to sexually assault women https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55590067

From the BBC article:

"Police believe his decision to become a paramedic "was influenced by the access it would give him to potentially vulnerable members of the public and this breach of trust makes his appalling offences all the more deplorable"."

But yeah, putting on a dress will be too much trouble.

MishyJDI's post can always be relied on to miss the point. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

@MishyJDI it’s already happening in prisons. Scotland, California and Canada have already had incidents of sexual assault due to self ID. Do you think these women are just collateral damage?

Also, men don’t have to put on a dress under self ID laws, they just go in as a man. As under self ID they just have to internally identify as a woman.

Obviously the police can deal with any assault, however by then it’s already happened and women have been harmed - which could have been avoided.

The difference between this and say the gay rights movement or desegregation, is that these movements did not try and override sex based rights. With the latter they rightly asked for rights that were being hoarded by white people. The female sex is itself an oppressed group based on sex.

Just to be clear I think trans people deserve respect and dignity. However trans activists would be better putting efforts into creating a third space and instead of infringing other groups rights.

@MishyJDI

If transwomen want more acceptance then they should learn to know their place and acknowledge there are women's spaces where they don't belong. Being naked with women and children with cock and balls is one of them.

I remain very sceptical on this! I'm all for safeguarding, but it needs to be appropriate, proportionate and inclusive. Not based on fear of a minority.

This always makes me wince when I see this argument.

The whole basis of safeguarding is to assume the worst, until proven wrong, and then you still check with updates and further checks. No one should be above safeguarding, not any group or individual.

Safeguarding is in place because we know through horrific past cases that predators will take advantages of loopholes. Self ID is like an open door for predators, however they identify because it's based on what they say they are and the chilling effect means this cannot be challenged.

Single sex spaces are part of safeguarding because males however they identify are statistically much more likely to be sexual predators. That's not a matter of debate - that is a fact.

Men make up almost half the population so it's not a fear of a tiny minority. Women have reason to fight for safeguarding.

Arguing against safeguarding is a massive, worrying red flag.

“Safeguarding needs to be inclusive” 😂😂😂

Arguing against safeguarding is a massive, worrying red flag.

And publishing an article in one of the world’s most famous papers that calls those who want safeguarding to be bigots is a flag so big and red it could be seen from space.

It's not difficult to understand. Most women do not want free range penis anywhere near them when in a vulnerable position. It's irrelevant whether said penis belongs to a pre op TW or a guy pretending to be one. We just don't want penis.

@lionheart

Another article that makes one wonder yet again, 'What happened to the Guardian?'

As of May 2021, it had a circulation of 108,639. Just two years ago it had a circulation of 141,160. Ten years ago, its circulation was 279,308.

It will be interesting to see how it addresses the precipitous drop in readership.

Blackandwhitehorse

@MishyJDI it’s already happening in prisons. Scotland, California and Canada have already had incidents of sexual assault due to self ID. Do you think these women are just collateral damage?

Not collateral damage, they think they are liars.

@Beefcurtains79 or as a family friend so charmingly put 'it's only a few women who have been raped'. It amazing how 'be kind' works, isn't it?

Waitwhat23

@Beefcurtains79 or as a family friend so charmingly put 'it's only a few women who have been raped'. It amazing how 'be kind' works, isn't it?

Translate: Be kind to sex offenders or else.
With family friends like that who needs enemies eh?

I see that my post about feelings has been deleted, so I will try again.

I'm all for safeguarding, but it needs to be appropriate, proportionate and inclusive. Not based on fear of a minority.

How can safeguarding be inclusive if, by definition, it includes sexual offenders? To be inclusive you include everyone or you exclude people. It can't be Schrodinger's safeguarding.

Blinded by righteousness they're heading out to where the ice becomes thin.

Perfectly put.

Translate: Be kind to sex offenders or else.

This in today's Sunday Times shows where that gets you:

archive.fo/fvKRK

No dress required
Nothing required, just a declaration
Reporting it will result in fuck all except perhaps the person reporting being given a talking to for being a bigot because 'female penis'
Oh but we can report after a crime has been committed, oh how fabulous. That will be such a comfort to the victims that could have been protected by SAFEGUARDING. It can be reported! Great! And then brushed aside with lack of evidence.
Oh but a man will come in and attack you anyway if they want, so yeah let's just remove any safeguarding issues and make it even easier! Don't call it out when a male with a semi wanders round women and girls, don't call management to remove them when they sidle up next to a child because it's probably a harmless lady peen you bigot. Just don't look, feel unsafe, uncomfortable. But if they are there to commit a crime, the only point you're allowed to say anything now is when they start attacking you, and just hope someone comes to the rescue.

Just, and I cannot stress this highly enough, fuck off.

Surely anyone reading this thread can see the desperate attempts at obfuscation and confusion for what they are.

1. it’s impossible to watch the video and not be clear that the flashing happened. There are many upset women and at least one upset little girl in it. Plus all the evidence evidence it’s not the first time.
2. this form of flashing is legal so how would the police be involved?
3. “pretending to be trans” is hardly an onerous effort when literally any man can just march right in to the women’s section, get his dick out and get in the jacuzzi next to a little girl. The extent of the “pretending” necessary is saying “It’s OK, I’m transgender” if challenged.

TRAs have succeeded in sowing a lot of confusion in the past, it’s their main “debate” tactic. But to get confused by the bollocks presented on this thread you’d have to be some desperate libfem idiot who actively wants to be confused so they don’t have to admit what they’re supporting. I don’t think the confusion-sowing tactic is going to work for much longer. More and more people are going to wake up to the fact that what’s happening is very simple.

If it's US/Australian Guardian what is the recourse wrt complaints? Presuming the PCC doesn't cover it?

I remain very sceptical on this! I'm all for safeguarding, but it needs to be appropriate, proportionate and inclusive. Not based on fear of a minority.

Adult male people are not a minority. Safeguarding is not required to be 'inclusive. By definition it is applied to all those in a risk group in order to prevent a small number within that group who represent risk, eg a small minority of those employed in schools are predatory paedophiles but all adults employed by schools are DSBS checked and required to abide by all Safeguarding policies.

Apologies for typo above, should read DBS.

As mentioned above, The Guardian isn't regulated by IPSO:

www.ipso.co.uk/complain/who-ipso-regulates/?letters=g

The recourse would need to be a complaint to The Guardian or, if a matter was serious enough, the courts.

This article has finally made me unsubscribe from the guardian. I don't now how they can publish such shut