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.

fwiw, I do get more shit now, in terms of comments and looks. Was in a city centre very recently and was very aware of being stared at in a ladies loo, and I also got an unpleasant comment from a group of young men on the train. I think I've been called a d*ke more in the past few months than I ever remember being called that when I was much younger (though, to be fair, the most common insult tended to be 'lemon' which has significantly less bite, despite the somewhat incoherent intent to shame the lesbian that it comes with).

I don't blame women discussing and defending their rights and protections for this, because they are my rights and protections too.
I lay it at the door of the bullies who want to police how women look and simultaneously gaslight people with this cobblers that a man can be a woman for any reason. We didn't open the box of stupid, you lot did. And we pay for it, as we knew we would. Ta very much.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

Has anyone seen any evidence that the countries already using self declaration have experienced a rise in attacks against women or children?

'but 'attacks' aren't the problem are they @suggestionsplease1 ?

the problems are

• women and children self excluding from leisure facilities and things like residential school trips because of the risk of being subjected to indecent exposure from males

• women and children ACTUALLY being subjected to indecent exposure from males

I've asked you how we'd track the lost opportunities due to self exclusion, but you didn't answer

and in your utopia, indecent exposure will be perfectly legal and thus impossible to track

women and children will just have to

• stay at home
• or put up with seeing unwanted dicks
• and put up with increased worry about seeing unwanted dicks and not being able to do anything about it

I don't really want to live in your universe if it's all the same to you

• Women's refuges are being shut down.

• Women's prisons, including those with mother and baby units are now mixed sex.

• Women and girls are losing out to places in sports teams, sporting events and scholarships to males.

• Actual harm that is happening to women and girls is being minimised and denied, those women being brushed off as crazy/liars

Nothing to see here

I wonder what some posters think they are achieving.

Maybe just enjoying poking at some women for fun?

I don’t know NiceGerbil.

I suspect though that readers will make up their own minds seeing what questions have been answered and how. Those reading along tend to read between the lines and get a sense of the motivations of all posters as we all do.

Suggestionplease1, you are making the classic mistake of thinking the lack of evidence of attacks is evidence of no problems with self id. Lack of evidence does not mean nothing happens, just that women don't report, police don't take note (as there is no crime committed like with stalking) or women self exclude.

It is the same as saying there is a decrease in rapes instead of verifying if there is indeed a decrease in rapes or a fear of reporting rapes or lack in trust in the police and judiciary system.

Or as in the Netherlands, a decrease in the number of reported stolen bicycles doesn't mean less bicylces get stolen, it just means less people take the effort to report because nothing comes out of it anyway. So why bother?

Just as women won't report feeling excluded, because of fear being called a bigot, so why bother... or like with the lady at wispa, you get villified on social media and called a religious nutter who lied anyway.

I don't think suggestion is making any mistakes tbh.

I think they are well aware of what their posts say.

@NiceGerbil

I don't think suggestion is making any mistakes tbh.

I think they are well aware of what their posts say.

So do I, because it is consistent and never looks for or considers evidence.

It is bullying.

Or answers any questions.

The post I wrote got an 'answer' that was completely and utterly random!

I'm very sorry to hear that Floral. I can well imagine how this is making life harder

@Floisme

I'm very sorry to hear that Floral. I can well imagine how this is making life harder

It's worth underlining that in a female toilet I may get a few nervous or curious stares, (which is a tad uncomfortable, even for a confident gobshite like me) but the people who make comments or menaces when I'm out and about are most definitely men.

The Independent reported this in a similar way the weekend after

Ignoring totally what the issue was about (female spaces for females)

Once again we are reminded males have the upper hand

Independent piece

'The LAPD confirmed to The Independent the viral video was never officially brought to its attention.'

IT'S LEGAL FOR NAKED MALES TO BE IN THERE YOU UTTER DIMWITS.

this outrage at a dick in the spa, when the whole point of the activism that got the law changed was for the dick to be in areas like the spa ..

Hypocritical disingenuous arseholery at maximum off the scale levels.

If on the other hand it can be established that someone was acting inappropriately in that spa, beyond what state laws permit, by exposing with deliberate intent to distress others, that is very serious too and requires appropriate action to prosecute, and safeguarding steps within the spa.
@suggestionsplease1 what if someone was acting inappropriately in that spa, but within the bounds of Californian law?

I just wanted to check something as indecent exposure laws vary a lot.

In California:

'Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

1. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

is guilty of a misdemeanor.'

Well now we've the actual law.

On the one hand naked penis people are definitely allowed in the women's (equality law)

On the other hand it's illegal if others could be offended. (Or annoyed! I like that).

The nakedness is certainly wilful.

Not sure how they define public.

As it would be fine for a business to have mixed sex things if they wanted. And eg nudist places exist.

I'd say that the equality law is the one that applies in this spa.

Self ID must be allowed.

So. Legal. As long as the person says woman then it's fine.

This utter determination to ignore the real world with all of this is so, frankly, it's insulting. And crass.

1. No male will exploit this
2. If they did then there's no additional risk. And anyway men attack women and girls all the time. That's life for you so get over it.
3. It didn't happen.
4. If it did then there would have been reports to the police. Obviously. (Women and girls rarely report. Pointless. Seen as trivial. And anyway no law has been broken so why would they. This why no reports thing is utterly nonsensical).
5. Woman seems religious? Well then. So what. She should be ignored by everyone and assumed to be a liar just based on that).

Etc etc.

And all to try and, for some reason. Push the point that it didn't happen. When the fact is it's LEGAL and the reason it's legal is because activists fought for the law to be changed so it was legal!.

At least the 50% ish who said so what it's only a cock. Get over it. If you don't like it don't go there. Teach your children not to be in any way phased by random cocks about the place.

At least they were honest.

This demonstrates perfectly when new laws are made without any consideration to the interaction with existing laws. So which law trump's the other?

I think the discrimination one as the spa is private not public.

And mixed nudism etc is fine if that's what a company does and customers want that. I mean that would be advertised as such obviously.

But the law is saying that men can get their cocks out in nude "female" spaces so any woman in such a space has consented to men doing that in front of them. So women have no recourse against male flashers (or voyeurs), except to avoid any such "female" spaces.

I believe in some jurisdictions they've ended up with three mixed-sex no-nudity spaces, all functionally the same, but called "male", "female" and "mixed". Barring nudity altogether is the only way to function in such a legal environment. It (for some unfathomable reason) causes problems if you let strange men in close quarters with women, nude.

Male female and mixed does happen. Eg I think the Hampstead swimming ponds my daughter uses were (or still are (hopefully) that (she uses women only). A bit similar to the waiting rooms at my tube station - women only which includes the toilet and then a mixed one (men don't have one only for themselves, but that is fine - they can cope I am sure).
Nudist beaches and colonies are a different matter - people choose those. I have used those and have no problems because that was my active choice.

Hampstead ponds are now mens mixed and mixed.

That's a shame. My daughter has not been recently because the Covid 19 measures they put in spoilt it, she said - a guard or at least some person on duty, have to change in a different place rather than looking out at trees etc etc.

we will have to go with my mother's advice when we were small children (and we spent a lot of time alone in a large park - Jesmond Dene actually in Newcastle which had its fair share of flashers back in the day)... either ignore them or tell them it looks very small and then apparently the erection will just droop. I think we only saw one once or twice and made a run for it.

Is there any evidence of self-exclusion from countries that use self declaration for say swimming pool/ spa facilities in Ireland and all the other countries that use some form of self-declaration?

I'm sure gyms, swimming pools etc track customer trends but I've not heard of any issues.

I believe when rights are extended they are used with sensitivity and care by the people who benefit from them who do not want to distress others - after all doing this would jeopardise the rights that were gained.

If people are acting in bad faith that can, and has been, tackled.

Self ID doesn't need to be a case of just saying 'I ID as a man/woman' either - Ireland have a solemn declaration stating, amongst other things "i) have a settled and solemn intention to live in the preferred gender for the rest of my life" There aren't 10,000s of men signing this statement, in fact the evidence I have found (annual report for 2019, link below) shows that from 2015-19 there were a total of 599 applications - out of a population of 4,904 million, that constitutes just 0.012% of their population. They just aren't medicalising it in the same way as some other countries, which hopefully leads to people taking less drastic steps of surgery, with all the potential health consequences that brings.

I am sure readers of these boards will be able to advise very clearly what the negative consequences of this has been in Ireland, so please do share the evidence / stats that you have (I know how important facts and evidence are for many GC feminists so I have no doubt you have this.)

If you're presently lacking in evidence, and acknowledging that self-exclusion from facilities amongst women is a possible consideration, have you lobbied city councils in Ireland to share anonymised stats on the use of their facilities according to sex/ ethnicity/ religion/ age etc? (if they happen to record all the above for their users.) That way you could demonstrate if a decline has occurred in use amongst certain demographics since the Gender Recognition Act came in in 2015.

If that has occurred and could be attributed to the impact of GRA I would quite happily re-evaluate my stance on how these issues are handled, because I would see that the situation of overall harm might weigh in the balance differently.

opac.oireachtas.ie/Data/Library3/Documents%20Laid/2021/pdf/DSPdocslaid090321_090321_113436.pdf

Do please explain what it means to live as another ‘gender’ without resorting to stereotypes about clothing and hair

This spa was male (nude), female (nude), and mixed (non-nude).

That works and provides a meaningful 2-way choice for each individual.

The law has made it mixed (nude), mixed (nude), and mixed (non-nude).

People can now only take the nude option if they agree to mixed-sex. This especially disadvantages women. And these spaces are still safeguarded as if single-sex. No chaperones or guards on duty to monitor the males, and the setup encourages lone males to enter. Very, very high risk. Real mixed-sex spaces are made safer by having multiple males prezent. The lone male is far more dangerous.