Men do not understand risks of gender reform, says UN expert

[ResisterRex]

In The Times:

Men do not understand risks of gender reform, says UN expert

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bc237744-7ff0-11ed-ab78-11b70ed96428?shareToken=024f2da887c000c8ad0be69747137010

[Alsalem] said some women had chosen to “self exclude” themselves from women’s spaces to avoid sharing them with trans women.

“I have been contacted personally by a number of women’s organisations in all their diversity, including trans women, that have said self-exclusion is a concern for them,” she said. “They say the understanding of the need for dignity is not present, that there doesn’t need to be contact-based sexual violence.

“You have somebody in your space that will look at you, that will flash you, that you fear being in their vicinity. This is also a form of violence. I’m afraid being male - a male identifying as a man - you [MacGregor] may not understand these issues.

“It also comes down to who you ask about these things and whose voices do we hear about these issues, because of course men do not go through these same experiences and therefore may not have a full understanding of the implications of something as simple as that and as essential as that.”"

I think a lot of men do know, but prefer not to speak out in order to team with other men in order to gain points on maleness, wokeness, political right on-ness or misogyny. The one that do get it must speak out more in public forums.

All he has to do is look at places where the toilets have become gender neutral. Ask the staff, ask the customers. They are universally hated. You don't have to go looking for somebody who has self excluded from a rape refuge.

Yes agree Datun. When you stand around and talk to men and women about the situation in mixed sex facilities, nobody ever thinks that they are a good idea. I have been known to ask management that if I identify as a cat, will they provide a litter tray.. often raises a smirk even among young wokies.

The truth is that the vast majority of crimes males commit against women don't get reported, let alone see justice

this is so true and completely gives the lie to

• it’s not been reported so it never happens
• if you are flashed / stared at / photographed in a state of undress, just report it and it will all be sorted out

I don't disagree in principle, but would argue for it not being 100% of men :)
I am a happily married hetrosexual man, and totally get it - I see it as one of the biggest issues out in society at present - there is no doubt in my mind that biological sex determines who you are and everything should be driven from that - I also can clearly see and understand that there is a (not very hidden) agenda here which is very anti-women. But then I have spent decades of professional and personal life supporting the rights for all to be judged on who they are not on biology / race / religion / etc.

While I do agree that a vast majority of men are not aware of the implications / impact, I think it is important to recognise that there are those who do, and I think a big part of the eventual journey to getting this sorted out is in educating men to actually think it through...

I don't agree with him. I think men choose to ignore the risks, and don't care about the effect on women.
Decades of asking men to step up and tackle male violence has achieved nothing. Expecting them to care or trying to educate them isn't the right approach.

Forget feelings and appeals to decency. This is a basic human rights issue. Women have the right to be treated as human, and as fully participating members of society. Individuals and laws that impede women's ability to go about their everyday business are anti democratic and anti human rights.

Yes. Appeals to decency don't work. These sexist men simply don't see women as the slightest bit relevant.

Force them to get the evidence. Force them to ask women. And then force them to go to court if necessary, to prove it is indirect discrimination.

This is where you run across the whole 'original sin of Eve' bull that lurks beneath all this mad progressiveness.

Women who will not serve male interests by using mixed sex spaces are openly viewed as deserving the punishment of losing services. It's used to deny accessibility and human rights.

And the fear, shame, humiliation, lack of dignity and privacy for women in using mixed sex spaces? No one is pretending for a moment that this doesn't exist, however it's seen as a fair punishment for women for their 'privilege' of being biologically female.

It's the 1st century back and this time Rome has a new bra on.

FFS

New sexist Scotland just like the old sexist Scotland

Madrigal-Borloz said: “My advice is [provide] evidence. Stigma is fuelled by lack of evidence and the hope that your voice is loud enough, or strong enough, or appears to be supported by a sufficient number of persons that that becomes the evidence in itself.

Taking this to a logical and fair conclusion, this advice must apply equally to women and girls.

Provide evidence. The evidence he talks about is clearly lived experience shared by increasing numbers of those negatively affected.

This is happening now. All VMB has to do is to listen to women giving this evidence and hear what they're saying. But it's not us he's interested in hearing.

So far what the evidence tells me is this connection [between self-identification and violence against women] is artificial.

An odd use of evidence here. What evidence? What is he referring to specifically? He doesn't say, although he does later mention he is relying in his belief that self-id laws are fine on the statement made by the (Scottish) government funded organisations.

It is perhaps notable how this statement changes in his retelling - in the original statement only Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS) claims that they've been trans-inclusive for 15 years and no single incident of an abuse of self-id has happened. RCS very carefully and very deliberately avoids any mention of the issue of self-exclusion, but VMB says this:

For example, I am guided by the statement that I have read and which I understand has been made by seven organisations that have been operating trans-inclusive services in Scotland for, as I understand it, 15 years and which have recorded no particular instances of abuse or patterns of self-exclusion.

I can only conclude that he believes absence of evidence equals evidence of absence.

I conclude that he is being bribed by someone with vested interests.... Pharmaceutical companies or such.

Surely he can't say a statement like 'no abuse has occured there is no evidence' .... If there is no evidence then how can any assumption be made? If there is no evidence then no-one knows and surely evidence should be collected before changes in law are made.

It is total and absolute bullshit.

Please sign and share the UKGov petition - ‘Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex’. Google ‘petition 623243’ to find it or look on the Sex Matters website.

Bump

www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2023/call-input-thematic-report-freedom-religion-or-belief-forb-and-sexual

Responses needed for this report by 15 Jan

The Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE SOGI), Mr. Victor Madrigal-Borloz, will dedicate his report to the 53rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council to an exploration of the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Taking as points of departure international human rights law, and a rights-based approach centered on indivisibility and interdependence, the IE SOGI will explore the legal, political, and ethical dynamics between the human rights of persons with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities and the human right to freedom of religion or belief, as well as the narratives surrounding the implementation of these sets of rights.

As pointed out by the mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom Religion or Belief (SR FoRB), the exercise of rights in this manner is antithetical to the very basis of the human rights system.2 These practices cannot be justified under the rubric of FoRB, or indeed any other human right, to circumvent and defeat the rights of marginalized populations.3

Furthermore, the notion that religion – and thereby freedom of religion or belief, including the right to manifest such beliefs – is fundamentally antithetical to LGBT+ and gender-diverse persons and their human rights rests on essentialist assumptions about the unified substance of religious traditions across space and time.

Wow other people having protected characteristics and reasons to refuse participation in compelled belief are really getting up noses aren't they?

Religious freedom. A great idea and everyone was all for it until it got in the way of a men's sexual rights lobby. Like safeguarding and women's rights.

And that's leaving wholly to one side that the TQ+ political lobby is the most overtly, hatefully homophobic belief system in my lifetime as a homosexual. (I'm not supposed to call myself that btw. Upsets men.)

Actually, I think it’s a really good thing if Madrigal-Borloz wants to pursue an anti-religion strategy for promoting gender ideology. Loudly and in a high profile way.

Tell the world that it’s not just women’s rights that don’t matter, but everyone’s (so men’s, because that’s what seems to motivate those in power) right to freedom of religious expression.

Take on the institutions of religion. Let‘a see how much support there is or gender ideology when it’s traded off against the interests of organised religions.

Yes, it's the 'absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence'. Plus, Reem Asalem explained exactly why there wouldn't be any evidence - if males are recorded by police/court as 'female' then no, there will be no evidence showing an issue.

That's probably worth it's own new thread, Imnobody4? I think there was one, ages back, will have a look to see if I can just bump it.

sixswans · 20/12/2022 09:24

My male colleague said he wasn't bothered about his daughters' school changing to unisex toilets, his daughters are 10 and 12!!!!

God. I wonder if it's even occurred to him to ask THEM?

Absolutely they don't and the fear this generates in women, many of us are familiar with this since young years.

Excellent definition of harm too and one I always say. It doesn't have to be physical to constitute harm. It's the threat we perceive, the watching, the listening.

And of course some men will be enjoying the fox in the hen house effect they are having on others, whether it's a 'fuck you I'm here bitch deal with it' attitude or a grubby getting off on it.