More Canadian madness

[TwistedWonder]

https://reduxx.info/exclusive-canadian-mother-was-told-to-be-more-inclusive-after-complaining-about-a-male-wearing-a-childs-bikini-while-showering-with-young-girls-at-her-local-pool

The really have lost the plot - how can anyone justify prioritising men with a fetish over the safeguarding of children?

It is about ThePublic, run by the exact same person. They're sister sites. You can presume a lack of integrity from one infects the other, it's all from the same house.

Is there any evidence for this? It really doesn't ring true to me at all - ThePublica is not remotely Slatz's style at all - it doesn't seem remotely credible.

The only place I can find that stated is on that "RationalWiki" site which is far less reliable than Reduxx itself. Not even Wikipedia can bring themselves to say that.

It would be dreadfully ironic if people were just making stuff up to discredit for Reduxx "making up" something that actually happened.

Salacious?

Journalism school? Lawyer?

Really?

I'm so tempted to produce a 'TRA's on Mumsnet' bingo card, and I swear, the centre tile will be 'I have LOADS of evidence but I'm not going to tell you, because you're mean'

Toddlers have better reasoning abilities.

Lots of these organisations and publications ( Sex Matters/Transgender Trend/Reduxx/Fair Play for Women )etc were creating by interested/concerned women from many and various backgrounds...so whilst they may not be professional journalists, they are very dedicated ,and motivated, to uncovering the facts. Reduxx is doing a fantastic job at uncovering the sordid truth of the abuses that abound.

If professional journalists had been doing their job, some of the burden of investigation would be lifted.

To have a valid criticism you'd have to have done some investigation yourself.

Being gay, an immigrant or a woman doesn't absolve a person from responsibility for their actions, behaviours or abuses; nor does it preclude investigation into any of the above.

What sort of proof would you require?

Strawman.

I can see several people have tried to engage with you in a civilised and respectful manner.......but even when people address you in such a way, ask you to further elaborate your claims and assertions....you get stroppy.
How can there be a meaningful discussion when one party refuses to engage fully?

I stated a boundary. It was direct and clear regarding the manner I would not accept being spoken to.

Why is that a problem for you?

So, you do understand that permitting male people into female changing areas or other spaces that are predicated on the nature of female body or function is a safeguarding risk?

This is why we have single sex spaces in the first place...so to eliminate that particular element of risk. A man doesn't even have to be overtly violent or pervy for a woman to feel uncomfortable or to have her privacy violated. Just the presence of a man in a space which exists for the dignity and privacy of women and girls is enough.

I've just logged on and have been reading back over the exchanges that have occured since yesterday. I'm offering you my observation.

You are doing the same thing now.....rather than seeking genuine, honest and open dialogue you are being confrontational and refusing to engage in thoughtful, meaningful or constructive dialogue. So it has just become overly personalised.

If youn engage with the content of the discussion, rather than focussing on persons it would be better all around.

Explain what you mean.....How am i supposed to understand the point you are making. This is not twitter......it is a discussion board.

Your observations, coloured by your own bias, are unasked for and I shall be disregarding them.

Because they feel unsafe and instinctively recognise that a boundary has been breached......yet they find themselves in a dystopian world where the authorities will suggest to them they are being hateful for feeling unsafe and compromised, maybe?

What other recourse does a woman or girl have if someone is violating their space?

Ditto!

You are wasting everyone's valuable time and energy. You have landed yourself in a situation in which you cannot function or engage in a meaningful or constructive way.

On this board we are biased. We are biased in favour of women and girls. Hope that helps or explains the situation you find yourself in.

I was waiting for the link to the article that was in question but it seems that we are now saying [happy to be corrected] that Reddux is not valid because one of their journalists is somehow linked to 'The Publica' which when you put into google as a website address goes to 'The Quartering'.

But we have no evidence of this link in any way? Is the link that she once wrote one article or is running it behind the scenes? What is this link?

Is this going to be another 'peer review style' link where one poster states it, another quotes it, this then gets quoted elsewhere and then this is 'evidence' of the link?

Is this 'known' because the poster making this 'link' is a paid up member of 'The Quartering', an Anti-woke website by the looks of it, and is trying to Doxx the journalist on here? That's pretty 'boundary stepping' if so.

If you are going to make these accusations, at least show your workings.

If she is researching and writing half of Reduxx's articles, running the The Publica and The Quartering on the side, then hats off love. That's dedication.

I would hate to think I diverted anyone's time and attention away from directly harassing trans women.

How awful.

Is this going to be another 'peer review style' link where one poster states it, another quotes it, this then gets quoted elsewhere and then this is 'evidence' of the link?

Give it a day or two, and someone will update that RationalWiki page to have a statement that Reduxx isn’t reliable with a link to PinkChesnut’s post as proof, which links to RationalWiki as proof, and so on, thus completing the circular referencing TRAs are so fond of.

I would laugh if that happened, but it would be incorrect.

Publica, a site she also runs, is the one in this specific instance.

Do i doubt she lies on reduxx? No. Do i have energy or time to fact check her rn? Also no.

Again, who is “she”?

Where is the proof “she” has lied on Reduxx?

You’ve had a long time to fact check your claim. You’re talking on another thread about libel, and here you are saying a named individual lies on a website. Hypocrite much?

I haven't engaged with this conversation since it seems to be on a hiding to nowhere, but this is very unfair.

You have no evidence at all that anyone here would directly harass trans women. I certainly wouldn't and I doubt anyone else would. Discussing a story on a relevant forum is not harassment.

I would be delighted were she to sue me for libel. :)

Discovery on those suits turns up the BEST stuff.