Shameful, incoherent, poorly referenced, completely biased piece of 'journalism' from the Guardian

[JustcameoutGC]

So, we are all right wing anti-trans nuts.
The WiSpa incident didn't happen
Or if it did then that would be no problem
(make up your mind people)
The violence was all directed towards the TRAs.

If you needed an excuse to cancel your subscription, this would be it.

@sailmeaway

NEVER. HAPPENED.

So you agree that penis in a female naked spa is such a ludicrous and outrageous concept that this story must be made up then?

Sorry, my previous post should say 'Do you think that mixed sex changing rooms would be a good way to safeguard women, given that statistic'?

@suggestionsplease1 How many times do women and girls have to say NO before you and the rest of the mad genderists clean out your fucking ears? We don't want men of any fucking description in our spaces.....how many times!!!! Why are you supporting men waltzing in where women and little girls are vulnerable and possibly undressed? What's your agenda?

I have read suggestion's post. And I was struck by two things.

1. the MoJ conducted this experiment (only it was real life) by putting males in with females in prison. Look at the results.

1. the same premise is being used in women's sports right now. We have the doctor from the OIC stating that TWAW but fully acknowledging that there are physical advantages that do not decrease enough to compete fairly. But, we are going to do it anyway and let's see.

So, I read that post and see that some people are very comfortable with women and children being collateral damage for inclusion.

@sailmeaway

NEVER. HAPPENED.

DOESN'T MATTER

THE POINT IS IT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL THERE

you're a bit slow aren't you?

So, I read that post and see that some people are very comfortable with women and children being collateral damage for inclusion

Oh yes indeed. @suggestionsplease1 is very happy for women and children to lose access to spaces, or be subject to sexual abuse if they do venture into mixed sex spaces, provided men are happy.

@sailmeaway

NEVER. HAPPENED.

Welcome back. We have had the conversations with Suggestions.

Maybe you would be so honest and answer the question posed pages ago to you.

Do you think it is acceptable for a male to expose their penis in a female naked section of a spa to a 6 or 9 year old girl on the edge of a hot tub? Do you then think it is acceptable for that naked male to get into the hot tub with the naked child?

I consider that perception of risk is not the same as actual risk

So, how does this play out in every day life.

Do you believe that seat belts in cars, special child seats in cars are worthwhile? Vaccinations, door locks?

Do you believe that we should lock people away in prisons for murdering someone? or that we should wait fo them to murder n+1 of people before considering locking them away?

it's clear that the poster here who is valiantly arguing that the right of men to expose themselves is more important than the right of women and children to participate in leisure activities without being used as sexual props just thinks women and children aren't as important as men

it's quite upsetting to meet people who hold these views, but also instructive

Always.

So, I read that post and see that some people are very comfortable with women and children being collateral damage for inclusion.

They are. Women have a big job ahead of us to protect our rights, because once won, they are never secure.

No males in women's spaces. They don't belong there, they make women uncomfortable and violate our privacy and dignity and all this disingenuous dancing on the head of a pin is entirely beside the point.

There are too many possible scenarios to go into depth on everything, but I do broadly believe in self-ID rights to use facilities.

I believe this is possible from a good faith position.

If it transpired that many were abusing the system in bad faith then it would be right to re-evaluate what is happening to establish what has gone wrong. But I don't think this you should anticipate this in advance. Or act in bad faith yourself to give the example of what you fear will happen.

So, I'm unfolding my risk assessment matrix, going to go with you and accept that the risk of something occuring is low, however the consequence severity is high as it goes up to risk of murder and includes (in likely increasing severity) discomfort, sexual assault and rape. Plus all the risks of disengagement from services.

In any other situation mitigations would be put in place. (So chance of building A going up on flames is low, consequences high - mitigations may include fire alarms, sprinkler systems, on site fire service etc)

Sorry too early.

You always plan for the worst possible outcome, not just deal with it once it had happened.

I believe this is possible from a good faith position.

I would actually argue that this is not possible from a 'good faith' position. But I can see many people believing this as a means to placate any discomfort they might feel.

I would say each to their own, except as a parent I see decisions made using this position as incredibly dangerous. To ignore the known risks and give a subset of a sex class a special exemption is ludicrous. As pp's have said before. Should we give a Prince or a priest a special exemption to enter the female single sex spaces if they are male?

I'm curious as to the threshold here. What would be an acceptable number of women harmed before it would be ok to reconsider?

What would be the definition of harm? Would there have to be touching? How bad would it have to be before it reached an unacceptable level. If its just the sight if a penis its ok? If they don't get dressed after 30 mins its not ok?

Who's going to set these levels?

If it transpired that many were abusing the system in bad faith then it would be right to re-evaluate what is happening to establish what has gone wrong

It’s as though ‘Me Too’ never happened.

It appears that the main mistake made by some of the key players was not to wait a year or so. How thrilling to know that you can expose yourself to women and claim to be a victim if they complain.

How any of this helps people who suffer from gender dysphoria and need privacy is a mystery.

I'm curious as to the threshold here. What would be an acceptable number of women harmed before it would be ok to reconsider?

n+1

n+1

Well its not like we have decades of information regarding what happens when checks aren't made and sufficient safeguarding put in place...

There's a word for repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome...cant quite remember what it is...

If it transpired that many were abusing the system in bad faith then it would be right to re-evaluate what is happening to establish what has gone wrong. But I don't think this you should anticipate this in advance. Or act in bad faith yourself to give the example of what you fear will happen.

Jesus wept.

How many examples already occurring do you need?

Do you live in a box, with your fingers permanently in your ears, singing 'la, la, la, I can't hear you'?

How any of this helps people who suffer from gender dysphoria and need privacy is a mystery

it is, isn't it? Why would being legally allowed to expose your genitals to children and members of the opposite sex help gender dysphoria?

Everyone is missing the point. The premises owners have the right to make the rules as long as they don't discriminate unlawfully. Their place their rules. If you don't like it that's tough. And if they had a "no penises" policy how the f**k would they police that?

@Gottalife

Everyone is missing the point. The premises owners have the right to make the rules as long as they don't discriminate unlawfully. Their place their rules. If you don't like it that's tough. And if they had a "no penises" policy how the f**k would they police that?

No one is missing that point at all. Have you actually read the thread?

@Gottalife

Everyone is missing the point. The premises owners have the right to make the rules as long as they don't discriminate unlawfully. Their place their rules. If you don't like it that's tough. And if they had a "no penises" policy how the f**k would they police that?

crikey, by removing the man exposing his penis from the women's area?

just a guess

And if they want to offer mixed sex naked spas, that's fine. I just think they'd get limited take up in the US and certainly here in the UK. Just be honest about it.

Their place their rules. If you don't like it that's tough.

On the contrary. I don't believe they have the option to set policies that would exclude males from that section.

Or.... have you missed that point.

And great empathy for the women who are excluded because of this discrimination.

The women of California who were not aware of the potential for harm, are waking up to that potential now though.

@Gottalife

Everyone is missing the point. The premises owners have the right to make the rules as long as they don't discriminate unlawfully. Their place their rules. If you don't like it that's tough. And if they had a "no penises" policy how the f**k would they police that?

Well that's us wommin told. No need for further discussion I guess. Nothing to see, just all need to stay at home.