Woman harassed in women's bathroom by a gender critical woman who thinks she is trans, she is upset by the experience.

[MargaritaPie]

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1586295024672808961

Actually you defended the idea of Marg claiming Berkshire police could have been posting about a “witness” by posting multiple links you found where police said they were looking for a witness. It was patently obvious from the Berkshire police tweet that they were not looking for a witness, so my misremembering of it being victim instead of witness was immaterial. You clearly believe that it was okay for Marg to claim it might be a witness they were looking for, otherwise you wouldn’t have gone looking for such links.

You were replied to several times on this thread pointing out that the specific links you posted explicitly state they’re looking for a witness, which Berkshire police did not. You aren’t just “calling me out”. That came later. You’re defending MargaritaPie’s posting of such on the Berkshire police thread.

More to the point it's "gender neutral" so completely irrelevant to the threat of men in women's spaces because train toilets have never been single-sex.

I am reminded though of how we are always told that "gender neutral" toilets (train ones usually being given as examples, just after the one in your house) are completely safe. Looks like that argument is blown out of the water.

It can’t be lying because it’s a question I am asking that is directed at you, hence the ?? It’s not a statement of what you think, hence no full stop. Grammar is so important to understanding sentences isn’t it? (That’s a question too)

And posting that the person in the photo might be a witness isn't "posting the facts" at all

But that’s not what she said is it? She never said they “might be a witness”
She said

It isn't clear if the person in the photo is the suspect or a witness.

Which is a fact as the BTP appeal as written isn’t clear as to whether the person is a suspect or a witness.

Got it. So now the sign on the door is a deterrent unless the perv is clairvoyant.

Your arguments for forcing unconsenting women to accept men in their spaces are crap, by the way.

And who posted half a dozen links that didn't prove what they thought it did. Quite the opposite in fact.

Which is a fact as the BTP appeal as written isn’t clear as to whether the person is a suspect or a witness.

Only to disingenuous or stupid people. And here you are again defending their posting history.

No I didn’t. That post was answering the comment that it is rubbish to think that police ever issue images of witnesses. It had fuck all to do with Marg. Only with the speculation that when BTP wrote “person” they really meant “suspect”.

It can’t be lying because it’s a question I am asking that is directed at you, hence the ?? It’s not a statement of what you think, hence no full stop. Grammar is so important to understanding sentences isn’t it? (That’s a question too)

A rhetorical one. As was the first.

We see you.

If you go to page 5 and read my comment that you quoted with your multiple links, I specifically state that it was nonsense that that particular tweet about that particular crime of indecent exposure. Nothing in my post was about general police tweets about generally asking for witnesses. It was specific to Marg posting about witness in relation to that particular crime. You defended MargaritaPie’s post about “it’s not clear” by posting links where the police have been clear they were looking for a witness.

So are you 🤷‍♀️
I called you out on the “victim” bit. You retracted. Good on you.
We’ve both defended her “posting history” by correcting the “victim” thing you accidentally on purpose put out there about her.

We should be done here.

Instead you seem bound and determined to put some kind of spin on this. Why is that?

I must admit I didn't read the links and I skim read that posters comments - too turgid.

But the relentlessly stupid TRA arguments about women's loos don't change.

Women just don't want men in their toilets. It's a complete pain. You can't relax. It's a bloody nuisance.

And their arguments are risible jibber jabber.

It's just no.

How have I def

Glitchy.

How have I defended MargaritaPie’s posting history? I’ve pointed out that claiming that Berkshire police “weren’t clear” they were posting about a witness or a suspect is either disingenuous or stupid. Ergo I’m inclined to believe all of MargaritaPie’s posts are disingenuous or stupid. And you yourself are still claiming it’s possible Berkshire police could be claiming such. You seem to be doing so to defend MargaritaPie’s post of the same, or to also claim the same possibility, which I believe is also disingenuous or stupid.

No one genuine or with any modicum of intelligence could possibly think Berkshire police were looking for anyone other than a suspect. So the questions are Discovereads do you:

a) believe they could have been looking for a witness?
b) defend MargaritaPie’s actions in claiming the same?

YOU were talking about Mary. I was talking generally based on what you said about Mary. The only sentence I wrote in the post you are referring to was

? The police release images of potential witnesses all the time. then links

Just me responding to your embedded statement that it’s complete nonsense to think that police release images of witnesses.

Every time a woman calls someone out and gets it wrong, it gives those who have are using the space when they shouldn't be, the ammunition to argue that we can't always tell

I do find it funny how the usual line on here is "it's not just about SA, if even one woman loses dignity or feels harassed by having a trans woman around, then that crosses the line"

But when it doesn't suit your argument then that goes out the window and it's all worth it if a person is denigrated and reduced to tears as long as they aren't a man.

Huge eyeroll.

Datun · Today 01:41
That's a single, enclosed space.

More to the point it's "gender neutral"

Ah Right. So a mixed sex, single occupancy
space resulting in a woman being raped was the argument used to force unconsenting women to accept men in their loos?

Even by TRA standards that's a blinder.

We've had useless signs on the door, train assault and masculine women - so you must let us in.

You might as well say it's because, you know, Wednesdays.

Just me responding to your embedded statement that it’s complete nonsense to think that police release images of witnesses.

But I didn’t say that, did I? I said it was nonsense that Marg claimed this instance of Berkshire police’s tweet about the indecent exposure could have been looking for a witness.

For clarity, this is what I posted:

Marg thought it possible that the police would have released images of a witness (not victim) to the indecent exposure, rather than the alleged perpetrator. Which as pointed out on the thread, is complete nonsense.

To which you decided to reply with general instances of where it has happened for other cases. To which many replied that those links specifically stated they were looking for a witness, whereas Berkshire police did not.

It just highlights that between the pair of you, reality really is subjective.

To be honest I don't see a problem here

A woman thought her boundaries were being violated by a man so she asked the female to identify herself under the guise she was a man, No one would care in any other circumstance.

If three people walked into a bar look like kids we would be demanding for them to ID themselves or we kick them out I don't see how this is any different

How have I defended MargaritaPie’s posting history?
Because the only reason you are claiming that I have “defended” her posting history is because I objected to your comment saying she had said the images could be of the victim. An objection you have agreed was valid and you have since corrected. Ergo, you’ve defended her posting history as much as I have.

I’ve pointed out that claiming that Berkshire police “weren’t clear” they were posting about a witness or a suspect is either disingenuous or stupid.
Its not stupid or disingenuous to interpret the English word “person” literally. As we’ve seen in links, the BTP are quite happy to specify if it’s a witness or suspect if that’s what they know when they issue these appeals. Usually “person” is short for “person of interest”. A suspect is someone whom police believe may actually have committed a crime being investigated. A person of interest is someone police want to talk to for information about the case. Sometimes a person of interest ends up becoming a suspect, but that is not always the case. A person of interest is not always suspected of having committed a crime.

Ergo I’m inclined to believe all of MargaritaPie’s posts are disingenuous or stupid.. Yes you’ve said that. Despite you being the only one not posting factual information and being unaware that police release images of witnesses.

And you yourself are still claiming it’s possible Berkshire police could be claiming such. I am saying that the BTP in using the word “person” meant “person” and not “suspect”. It’s not a claim, it’s just a statement of fact.

You seem to be doing so to defend MargaritaPie’s post of the same, or to also claim the same possibility, which I believe is also disingenuous or stupid. No, it’s not defending her post, it’s acknowledging that her statement
It isn't clear if the person in the photo is the suspect or a witness. is factual.

No one genuine or with any modicum of intelligence could possibly think Berkshire police were looking for anyone other than a suspect.
Thats a bit odd, police usually look for witnesses as well as suspect(s). It’s kind of odd that you’re casting aspersions on my intent and intelligence if I won’t agree with you that police only look for a suspect when a crime has occurred? Trials would be awfully short if there just victims and suspects and no witnesses in court, wouldn’t they?

So the questions are Discovereads do you: see above.

The links specifically stated witness because I put witness in my search engine, I also posted links for appeals for “persons” and I have posted the fact that “person” is short for “person of interest” which could be a witness or suspect or not involved but assisting in the investigation.

You’re one to talk about reality being subjective when you have been caught fabricating claims that you then have to retract.

Because the only reason you are claiming that I have “defended” her posting history is because I objected to your comment saying she had said the images could be of the victim.

No, you defended the idea that specifically in the Berkshire police tweet, they could have meant witness. Then you decided you didn’t do that and have only focussed on my mixing up of witness and victim, which I have demonstrated was not what you originally focussed on.

Its not stupid or disingenuous to interpret the English word “person” literally

It's stupid or disingenuous to claim anything else about that specific tweet by Berkshire police. Only people who want to divert attention away from the fact it was a male in women’s clothing or people with no sense could claim anything else.

Yes you’ve said that. Despite you being the only one not posting factual information and being unaware that police release images of witnesses

I am well aware that police release images of witnesses and I’m well aware that this isn’t that. Are you?

I am saying that the BTP in using the word “person” meant “person” and not “suspect”. It’s not a claim, it’s just a statement of fact.

So what you think in this specific instance? Is the male in the purple wig a suspect or is it not clear?

No, it’s not defending her post, it’s acknowledging that her statement It isn't clear if the person in the photo is the suspect or a witness. is factual.

It is not factual. Because to everyone else who viewed that tweet it is perfectly clear. I say everyone, I mean everyone who isn’t disingenuous, stupid or a TRA.

Thats a bit odd, police usually look for witnesses as well as suspect(s). It’s kind of odd that you’re casting aspersions on my intent and intelligence if I won’t agree with you that police only look for a suspect when a crime has occurred? Trials would be awfully short if there just victims and suspects and no witnesses in court, wouldn’t they?

So you DO think it’s possible that the person in the purple wig could be a witness and not the suspect? And you think that doesn’t cast aspersions on your genuineness or intelligence?

I am not casting aspersions on your intelligence.

I’m arguing the exact opposite, so that would be why you’re not seeing any arguments about “forcing women to accept men in their spaces” 🤣

Im pointing out the uncomfortable truth that a 🚺 on a door doesn’t generate a force field of ultimate protection from men. It doesn’t buy you safety.

You’re one to talk about reality being subjective when you have been caught fabricating claims that you then have to retract.

My claim was that MargaritaPie thinks it’s possible the person in the purple wig tweeted by Berkshire police could be someone other than the suspect. The fact I said victim other than witness is immaterial. It’s the claim they might not be the suspect that is clearly bonkers. And you’re making the same claim.

And you expect us to believe anything else you both say about anything?

Like for disingenuousness? I think most of us have that built in by now.