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.

NotBadConsidering

So far we have touch on most of the popular themes, including using race and sexual orientation as an example. And no where has there been any acknowledgment as to the pattern of male sex crime, the fact that there is no proof that transition decreases this to a female level so that this subset of males should have special exemptions for this safeguarding.

Let us also not forget what this thread is all about. Activists declaring to the world that the incident was faked, was made up. Are we all listening... IT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN!

Oh... but if it did happen... it is all ok. Because it is legal, there is even an investigation happening apparently despite it being legal.

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.

I can't decide if this just naivety or plain stupidity. Of course anything could be abused and it is absolutely foolish to think that it wouldn't be. That is also before we get into this idea that all transwomen are some pure souls who would never cause harm to another person. exhibit A Karen White

As always on these threads, I think it's worth recapping on the crime of indecent exposure.

• We know that a significant subset of men gain sexual enjoyment from exposing their genitals to women and children
• It is the intent to expose that makes it a crime, not the hoped for reaction of the victim. IN the UK one cannot accidentally commit indecent exposure
• however in many cases, the hoped for reaction in the victim is fear
• As with the rapist and murderer of Sarah Everard, we know that indecent exposure is often a gateway crime to more serious, contact sexual offenses

I don't know much about the gender identities of men or women. But I do know that a lot of men get their rocks off showing their knobs to women and children, and LA have made it legal

@suggestionsplease1

For me this issue has shone a light on the extent to which many people who see themselves as liberal/leftie will just go along with whatever they think their ‘side’ is on any given issue - to validate their seeing themselves (and others seeing them) as progressive or liberal-minded.

There is an off-the-shelf, box-set of positions to take, and self-id has been packaged away with anti-racism, BLM etc - the front cover neatly placed over what used to be women's rights: if self-id campaigners were commonly presented by ‘our side’ as driven by incels, sissy porn, men’s rights and misogyny, then many of those who intone TWAW would be gender-critical. The TRA movement has been remarkably successful in capturing the liberal left (from liberal Tories to the SWP), but the groupthink may well be reversed in the future: e.g. many lefties of a certain age voted ’No’ in 1975 and Remain in 2016 just because that’s what all their friends in the party were doing at the time.

Rather than examine each issue critically and independently, many of us declare adherence to the current canon articles of our faith. Tapping into a line and a general drift on your ‘side’ is an easier way to know your ‘position’ than examining the issue in depth. I have been active on the left all my life, and unfortunately have come across this dissonance many times e.g. vocal anti-racists who spew racist bile when drunk, male 'feminists' who are super-pervs etc. There have always been undertones of this unsubtle broad-brush approach in the Guardian (e.g. the benign racism behind not covering Cologne NYE assaults or the poaching of NHS staff from underdeveloped countries because they think it’s broadly ‘against’ our side).

This irrational apologism for flashing and barely-disguised misogyny has made me call into question comrades’ declared ‘positions’ on every other issue.

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.

Suggestions Do you have any knowledge of safeguarding? Can you tell us how you think these inclusive laws can be enacted around children?

What is the subjective difference in experience for a woman or a child if:

• a penis is visible with no ill intent
• a penis is visible with the intent to cause harassment and intimidation
• a penis is visible as it gives sexual pleasure to the owner to expose themselves to women and children

The intent of the penis owner isn't relevant. And the penis can be on display with the most innocent intents possible, the fact still remains:

Many women think in terms of biological sex and do not want to be in a state of vulnerability and undress with male bodies, regardless of who owns that body (even fathers and brothers) and what the intent may be

Many women find this threatening, intimidating and breaks their boundaries of privacy and dignity

Many women would be unable to use a women's space if someone with a penis is present in it. Therefore excluding women from women's spaces, and mostly these will be vulnerable women.

This doesn't work, does it? It's a bit of an inclusion and diversity fail.

So basically we should trust people to be sensitive and to do the right thing?
What can possibly go wrong?

It's a bit of an inclusion and diversity fail

only if you think that women and children's feelings are important. I think @suggestionsplease1 has made it very clear that they don't think that at all.

It's something they have in common with all other proponents of gender ideology, so that's nice

So for people who dislike the inclusive laws

What laws? There are exceptions because female sex based needs are recognised in law.

And can we be honest that you don't mean 'inclusive'? Because mixed sex provisions are not inclusive. It appears that you regard culture, race, faith, disability, trauma and a desire for privacy, dignity and safety as behaviour problems to be disciplined rather than diverse needs to be included and catered for. Inclusion means 'everyone'. All needs. Solutions that work for all.

What you actually mean is 'male centric'.

Many women would be unable to use a women's space if someone with a penis is present in it. Therefore excluding women from women's spaces, and mostly these will be vulnerable women.

This doesn't work, does it? It's a bit of an inclusion and diversity fail.

I think it is very clear that to those who argue for complete blanket inclusion, that those women simply do not matter. Only the male matters in this instance. And their intention has to always been assumed as 'innocent' until proven otherwise.

Hence, why I want to know how someone who believes something like this thinks safeguarding does work, or should work. Because I have learned something about safeguarding from these boards, but still no virtually nothing about how people who are in these situations believe safeguarding works.

For instance, if you were a teacher of primary school children and believed that a semi-erect penis of a male getting into a spa with a naked 9 year old was ok if the intention is not to expose themselves in an illegal way, how does this play out in other scenarios that would relate to children in your care? What about if you took your class of girls to the swimming pool and a male was in there changing in the communal area in the female section? What action would that teacher take?

@Floisme

So basically we should trust people to be sensitive and to do the right thing? What can possibly go wrong?

Yes.....

like the two males who use women's toilets who mocked female toilet habits and had a good old laugh about it on twitter. And all the other males who use women's toilets joining in mocking the sounds that females make using the toilet.

That kind of 'sensitive' obviously.

These threads always remind me of Paxo vs Howard on newsnight.

Who knew Michael Howard was so inspiring to so many!

And their intention has to always been assumed as 'innocent' until proven otherwise.

If it's a reasonable expectation for female humans to regard a male getting naked in front of them as innocent and based on genuine need until they're actively harassed and assaulted demonstrating otherwise...

then I think it's a reasonable expectation for male humans to regard a female person asking for privacy, dignity and sex based spaces as innocent and based on genuine need too, until the male person has experienced active harassment demonstrating otherwise.

Even then, the female experience is the one that risks ending up actively physically injured where the male risk is one of injury to feelings and dignity.

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?

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.

I consider that perception of risk is not the same as actual risk, we all have our own individual risk perceptions and tolerance for risk, and complete risk avoidance is not possible and not compatible with other values that are important.

I trust that there are general mechanisms in place to safeguard people, irrespective of gender, and that these should be robustly called upon.

I believe that investigations to alleged incidents should be taken very seriously in order to prosecute individuals who are guilty of crimes that already exist in the eyes of the law, or to establish if a hoax has occurred so that the perpetrator/s can be prosecuted for that as well, as these have huge consequences for harm and discrimination to vulnerable minorities.

I am not naïve enough to think that women are incapable of abuse, in fact, being in the lesbian community I know about our horrible stats for domestic abuse in lesbian relationships.

I have been very clear on many threads that I view this from an overall harm perspective, and, weighing up all potential for harm for all people, I consider that risk of harm and negative overall outcomes is greater for when trans people are not included.

Shall we abandon DBS checks, locking cars, locking houses and employment references and work on the good faith position, or would this be hopelessly naive, unrealistic and uninsurable?

No, the 'women do it too' (2% to 98%) doesn't make it any better.

No, it is not ok to require women to put up with self ID with the right of consideration only after they've suffered sufficient (proven, evidenced, witnessed, CPS accepted) harm - bearing in mind that less than 1% of rapes actually end in prosecution.

You consider the risk of harms and negative over all outcomes for people who were born male is greater when trans people are not allowed to choose their sex based space. You are not giving anything like equal consideration or humanity to those born female.

And this still does not include all the female people excluded from the one and only female space by the inclusion of men. Which makes it Not Inclusion. Those women really won't vanish in a puff of logic. Either you care about inclusion and vulnerability equally for all people regardless of any protected characteristic - in which case answers are needed that provide a range of diverse spaces for all needs which will have to include some sex based spaces - or you believe that some male born humans are more valuable, vulnerable and important to provide for than the female humans, and it is ok to exclude and risk female humans if it benefits vulnerable male ones.

That's not inclusion. That's just good old fashioned sexism.

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

Ah, so women and children have to be harmed before anything is done? It's worth trying it out?

How will you measure the women and children who self exclude from leisure facilities and other shared facilities because a man may legally expose himself to them there @suggestionsplease1 ? With your 'overall harm perspective', I presume you do care about them, yes?

If men exposing themselves to women and children is legal, how do you propose to track if any 'abuse' is taking place?

So is that a 'yes' to mixed sex spaces? It would appear to be from your answer.

Soz multiple cross post - my post was to suggestions in case it wasn't clear.

I don't know if this ignorance of that fact that many men are sexually motivated to expose themselves to women and children is naivete, genuine ignorance or just not thinking that women and children being used as unwilling props for men's sexual satisfaction is a problem.

which is it @suggestionsplease1 ?

@Deliriumoftheendless

These threads always remind me of Paxo vs Howard on newsnight.

Who knew Michael Howard was so inspiring to so many!

I think when you can't think of a logical answer to a reasonably straight forward question the best response is to not answer the question but make veiled inferences of racism and or homophobia. 👍

I'm a definite no to mixed sex spaces.

The obvious answer is third spaces. There can be mixed sex facilities in which women who are happy to undress and be vulnerable in mixed sex spaces can have all the freedom to do so that they wish, and which provides trans people with the comfortable alternative to the sex based provision. Have gender based additional third spaces. Have fourth and fifth spaces.

But retain a female only space for those women who would otherwise be excluded.

@suggestionsplease1

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?

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.

I consider that perception of risk is not the same as actual risk, we all have our own individual risk perceptions and tolerance for risk, and complete risk avoidance is not possible and not compatible with other values that are important.

I trust that there are general mechanisms in place to safeguard people, irrespective of gender, and that these should be robustly called upon.

I believe that investigations to alleged incidents should be taken very seriously in order to prosecute individuals who are guilty of crimes that already exist in the eyes of the law, or to establish if a hoax has occurred so that the perpetrator/s can be prosecuted for that as well, as these have huge consequences for harm and discrimination to vulnerable minorities.

I am not naïve enough to think that women are incapable of abuse, in fact, being in the lesbian community I know about our horrible stats for domestic abuse in lesbian relationships.

I have been very clear on many threads that I view this from an overall harm perspective, and, weighing up all potential for harm for all people, I consider that risk of harm and negative overall outcomes is greater for when trans people are not included.

Soooooo...

That's a 'yes' to mixed sex spaces then?

And if women don't like that, are uncomfortable with it, feel anxious or worries about it then it's just tough shit, the feelings of the male in that space come first and foremost always?

Cheers... Thanks a fucking lot.

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

NEVER. HAPPENED.

@suggestionsplease1

Also, are you suggesting that women who might be uncomfortable or fearful of a male bodied person in an intimate female space are paranoid and that their fears are entirely irrational, and therefore they just need to overcome them?

Again: 98% of sexual offences are carried out by males. What do you make of that statistic? Do you think there are things that can be done with regards to safeguarding, taking that statistic into account? Do you think that mixed sex changing rooms

98%... And yet the narrative from your ilk is still 'relax ladies, whaddaya getting so hysterical about, nothings gonna happen'....