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.

@OrlandointheWilderness

Viewing as a pure piece of journalism, what the fuck is that?!? I don't think I've ever read such a poorly written, incoherent and crappy researched article! Have we no standards left in journalism?! That is a piece of lower quality than you find in The Sun ffs! Just appalling.

This is one of my biggest problems with it all - first and foremost this is very poor, biased reporting. Emotional, manipulative and one-sided, with a lot of unevidenced opinion masquerading as fact. Somewhat well and good in an opinion piece (albeit a crap one) but writing that has no place in a news report. 'Anti trans'? Who is the journo to make that call in this instance?

That this made it through every single sub, editor, or media lawyer who might have cast their eye over it, in a renowned international media organisation - is appalling.

Appalling too is the amount of praise Sam Levin was getting on social media for his 'investigative journalism' . If this is what young people are being fooled into believing is quality, high standard news reporting and analysis then it really is quite frightening.

It would just be so, so helpful if someone could explain how we are supposed to tell the difference between a naked be-penised person with a male gender identity and a naked be-penised person with a female gender identity.

Then if I ever found myself in such a situation, feeling discomfort, I could know whether (a) I am a terrible transphobe who needs to check my privilege and educate myself, or (b) justifiably uncomfortable and in a vulnerable situation from which I should remove myself.

I'm sure a poster here could explain how I am supposed to tell the difference. I look forward to the explanation.

Appalling too is the amount of praise Sam Levin was getting on social media for his 'investigative journalism' hmm. If this is what young people are being fooled into believing is quality, high standard news reporting and analysis then it really is quite frightening.

For a long time, too much 'journalism' has involved repeating quotes from Twitter. No analysis or commentary. Just a trawl through Twitter.

Good point above. Many flashers, even those we sometimes came across in the 1960s as small children in parks, think everyone will be delighted to see them. My daughter and her school friend once came across one who was totally naked which is different from most of them exposing himself to girls from their school not far from school. I think the police caught him in the end.

It is common sense to most people why we keep men away from areas where girls change (and women for that matter) as there have always been and always will be a small minority of men up to no good (and I write that as someone who as a child and in my own family has never had a problem with nudity at home and we used to swim naked in isolated rivers etc but that is very different).

The effect that a scenario has on a person is always variable though isn't it?

The feeling of threat is not always proportionate to the actual threat, and the burden shouldn't always be on the ones that others feel threatened by to change their behaviour to accommodate the feeling of threat experienced by others.

For eg, if a person of X ethnicity felt threatened by the presence of someone of XX ethnicity, and justified their feelings of threat by saying 'O but I heard about someone being assaulted by someone of XX ethnicity recently' I don't believe that anyone of XX ethnicity should have to change their law abiding behaviour to accommodate the sensation of threat that X ethnicity has just because they have incorrectly generalised from something they've heard and feel uncomfortable around them.

You could swap that for different sexualities as well of course.

Maybe EdgeOfACoin we need to simply ask their intention?

Oh. Wait. Wouldn’t that be considered an aggressive and phobic thing to do? So… scrap that.

Maybe all those uncomfortable could leave quietly?

Oh. Wait! That will be considered a micro aggression. And just as hateful. So … scrap that.

No, no. We have to assume that their intention is pure. That they are simply women too. Because the act of trying to identify their intention is hateful.

And let’s not forget that any female who is retraumatised by that action is responsible for their reactions. And they really, really should do something about that.

Any female with religious restrictions aren’t likely to be there because they have already read the policy and know they can’t enjoy the spa being easy in the knowledge it is female. (And they cannot start their own female only spa, because that would be illegal!)

However, the males simply cannot be expected to be excluded from the naked female section. They might feel excluded. And if you try to ascertain their intention, that is going to be a transphobic act for sure.

@suggestionsplease1

The effect that a scenario has on a person is always variable though isn't it?

The feeling of threat is not always proportionate to the actual threat, and the burden shouldn't always be on the ones that others feel threatened by to change their behaviour to accommodate the feeling of threat experienced by others.

For eg, if a person of X ethnicity felt threatened by the presence of someone of XX ethnicity, and justified their feelings of threat by saying 'O but I heard about someone being assaulted by someone of XX ethnicity recently' I don't believe that anyone of XX ethnicity should have to change their law abiding behaviour to accommodate the sensation of threat that X ethnicity has just because they have incorrectly generalised from something they've heard and feel uncomfortable around them.

You could swap that for different sexualities as well of course.

But we don't segregate by ethnicity, we do segregate by biological sex in certain situations. So no, we can't just 'swap' and use ethnicity as an analogy.

And again, what kind of male even wants to get their cock out in a place where they know that women who see it may well be very uncomfortable and distressed?

Many places did used to segregate by ethnicity though didn't they? And the justifications used then were often biological as well.

We also don’t safeguard by race or sexual orientation.

The dismissal of the risk of males to commit sex crimes is very enlightening.

Regarding the intention of a male in a female single sex space. There is a much higher potential that any male being in a female single sex space is likely to be of harm to the females there. Therefore it is much more likely that their ‘intention’ is going to result in some form of harm.

To deny otherwise is dangerous to women and girls.

@suggestionsplease1

Many places did used to segregate by ethnicity though didn't they? And the justifications used then were often biological as well.

So are you saying that you don't think that there should be segregation by biological sex then? That it should be abolished like segregating by ethnicity was, and everywhere should be mixed sex?

Should we have sex segregation or not?

@suggestionsplease1

Do you understand that over 98% of sexual crime is carried out by males?

@suggestionsplease1

Many places did used to segregate by ethnicity though didn't they? And the justifications used then were often biological as well.

In the UK we did not ever segregate by ethnicity. We did not have separate schools or water fountains or benches for white people and black people.

Stop pretending that we did.

I don't deny that there were racist people sticking up signs saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' but that is very different from official policy. And such signage has been illegal here since at least the 1970s.

And your dragging up of other countries' past policies just suggests that we should do away with all spaces segregated by sex - there should be completely mixed prisons, mixed sports, etc.

As we have seen many posts from women calling this racist trope out, please stop asserting that segregation by race is in any way applicable to segregation by sex.

Maybe you have not read the posts from women on this forum who call this racism out.

I always remember my brother taking a mixed group of people including someone from Nigeria into a Glasgow pub in the 70s and the barman saying that one of the group couldn't go in. It wasn't the guy from Nigeria but the diminutive blonde woman from France.

@suggestionsplease1

Many places did used to segregate by ethnicity though didn't they? And the justifications used then were often biological as well.

I'm not sure why you keep conflating ethnicity and sex when they're two entirely separate things.

Why do you think some thing are separated by sex?

Do you think everything should be mixed sex?

What do you think will be the final outcome of making everything mixed sex?

Who do you think will benefit when everything becomes mixed sex?

So suggestions you would think it ok that, say a group frequented by members of the black community, many of whom have had experiences of assault and intimidation by white members of the KKK - let’s say it was a space where they can support each other through the violence and intimidation they have experienced, should happily accept a white person attending because it would be wrong to generalise? Would no one have the right to say “actually, there are other groups you can join and your presence is unsettling to people who cannot be sure of your motivation for attendance.”

Would that be wrong? Would the white person be fine to say “I’m not racist, I want to join your group you should get over your fears?” Or would that seem, at best, insensitive?

And again, what kind of male even wants to get their cock out in a place where they know that women who see it may well be very uncomfortable and distressed?

I actually think this is the crux of it. I think some states or countries etc have rightly got inclusive laws, and they are actually used very sensitively by the people they extend to, and are not abused.

So for people who dislike the inclusive laws and can't find a naturally occurring scenario suitable enough to raise tensions and publicity, the temptation is to act in bad faith to provoke such a scenario. Eg, Hamstead Heath swimming ponds, sending men into women's changing rooms in US states favourable to trans rights.

There have been plenty of 'naturally' occurring scenarios. They get dismissed by people like yourself who wilfully refuse to believe women and girls who have been harmed because it doesn't suit your ideology.

Many places did used to segregate by ethnicity though didn't they? And the justifications used then were often biological as well.

What is the biological difference between females of different ethnicity? None
What is the biological difference between a male and a female human? Too many to list.

@suggestionsplease1

And again, what kind of male even wants to get their cock out in a place where they know that women who see it may well be very uncomfortable and distressed?

I actually think this is the crux of it. I think some states or countries etc have rightly got inclusive laws, and they are actually used very sensitively by the people they extend to, and are not abused.

So for people who dislike the inclusive laws and can't find a naturally occurring scenario suitable enough to raise tensions and publicity, the temptation is to act in bad faith to provoke such a scenario. Eg, Hamstead Heath swimming ponds, sending men into women's changing rooms in US states favourable to trans rights.

I don't understand what you mean by this post at all I'm afraid?

I have 2 simple questions for you:

Do you think that certain spaces should be segregated by biological sex or do you think that all spaces, changing rooms, prisons, refuges, hospital wards, should be mixed sex?

Do you believe that women have the right to certain spaces in certain situations where they won't encounter male bodied people?

Oh now we’re in “it never happens” territory, as if all the times it’s happened aren’t enough and people need to manufacture scenarios. Honestly, why do you bother? We all see what you’re doing.

@suggestionsplease1

Many places did used to segregate by ethnicity though didn't they? And the justifications used then were often biological as well.

Nah we are back at the removal of sex segregation. Female people don't need/deserve respect, boundaries or dignity but should just get naked in the presence of male strangers.

You’re arguing for mixed sex spaces to be the standard, your method of policing that is to rely on the decent nature of flashers and exhibitionists not to abuse it, and the moral force you’re attempting to use to leverage that is racism, suggestions

Just own it.

I disagree with all of it, by the way. I do not wish to be educated out of my preference for single sex spaces when naked, I do not think that flashers and exhibitionists can be relied on to behave well, and I don’t buy the attempt to create equivalence with the racism of previous generations and other cultures.

I do find it fascinating that it's so bloody obvious that men shouldn't get their knackers out in front of women and kids that it can't be openly justified so we have a cavalcade of denials or a straight swap to pretend we are talking about racial segregation.

You're so transparent we could use you as a shop window.

Anyone noticed suggestions never answers any of the questions put to them? Is it that you can't, or won't?