Three-day ban on Reddit for “hate”

[ConversingWithStrangers]

The only thing I can think of is posting on a UK sub about male violence. A man said that it’s not just men who have a problem with being violent because he’d been assaulted by a trans woman. I replied, “how did you know your assailant was trans?”.

They literally have subs for men to masturbate to videos of women who have a look of being “dead behind the eyes” they’ve been abused so much.

(It’s either that or somebody doesn’t like my crochet advice).

Because I’ve been debating with you all for 38 pages and I knew what that poster meant by her proposal?

The third space would be for people who are happier, or happy, to use mixed sex facilities...leaving the single sex toilets or other facilities for the vast majority who prefer to use the ones allocated for their sex.

Have you ever seen the queues at the single sex facilities when additional gender neutral ones have been installed?

Some new buildings are now creating a third 'gender neutral' facility alongside the usual male and female. The gender neutral facility is usually solo, or with fewer stalls to represent the fact that few people prefer or want this. A new performance space in my city has done just this...and it seems to be the perfect solution.

The fact is that most women on FWR don't single out "trans women" from the rest of the male sex @Lostcat so the poster meant exactly what she said about males invading the space. It wasn't just "trans women", but all males.

The third space would be for people who are happier, or happy, to use mixed sex facilities.leaving the single sex toilets or other facilities for the vast majority who prefer to use the ones allocated for their sex.*

thats not the proposal. Trans people and non-trans people who are not gender critical do not want this (for reasons explained - oppressive etc). . You don’t get to dictate it. You are entitled to your personal boundary- that’s it.

If the male person also didn’t leave if a person complained or was asked to leave, I think it could be certainly said that the male person was not there by any accident.

But you and your merry band of ideologues are the minority everywhere except in your echo chamber

We can allocate the toilets proportional to actual data on the proportion of gender critical people (and others who share their ideologies about sex and gender which I presume would include the very right wing / some religious groups) in the population, how about that?

People can have all sorts of experiences, but certain things are arranged on the basis of sex..regardless of what is going on in an individual's mind. It would be disturbing and crazy to base everything on how a person feels about themself.

It really is not all about the individual: the idea that we can be whatever we want to be or feel. Sex categorisation is one of the basic categorisations of human beings and virtually every other species. It is natural to discriminate and categorise. Without boundaries nobody/nothing has any protection or defence.
All healthy functioning organisms require boundaries.

I don't think that Gender Critical means what you think it means.

Or anyone who has or had a penis could just stay out of the women's toilets.

Job done.

Sure. Once you've convinced the population of the UK that this is a great plan

We can allocate the toilets proportional to actual data on the proportion of gender critical people (and others who share their ideologies about sex and gender) in the population, how about that?

But it's not just women who actively call themselves gender critical who want male free spaces. So you'd lose.

You only need to look at the recent US election to see that most people reject gender ideology. Most people, including Democrats, want to protect the female category in sports and in other facilities. Beacuse they think women and girls matter.

It would be weird to provide toilets just for gender critical feminists when most women and girls would want to use them.

Lostcat said 'You are entitled to your personal boundary- that’s it.'

I wonder @Lostcat if single-sex intimate care comes under a 'personal boundary' in your opinion?

Oooh post edited to include the right wing and religious peeps. Surely you need to keep them on board if you are going to win this vote @Lostcat

Lostcat doesn't seem to get that 99 per cent of women have the same boundary, and deserve to hold it on a societal level.

Flowchart

I doubt that this question will get answered.

Because to answer it either exposes the complete lack of empathy and /or disregard the answerer has for the needs of female people.

Or it blows apart the argument that it is only for the medical reasons for the person, the person with the transgender identity that sex is important.

Boundary pushing always needs to be done with consent; otherwise it is an abuse of power or privilege of some sort.

There has been a recent global trend for erasing boundaries and borders - with an emphasis on openness, fluidity, globalisation...However this has gone too far and when something goes too far you end up with push-back. We are witnessing this on every level at present - from the personal to the political and national.

Yes, you are probably correct for the reasons that you state. Although, I would love it if Lostcat was brave enough to answer.

lost

what do you mean by gender critical

i know what i mean but i can’t really answer without your definition

thank you in advance

YouGov 2022 (can't imagine the stats for @Lostcat 's ideas have improved since 2022):

Subsequently asking the same questions about toilets and changing rooms – but this time specifying trans people who had not undergone gender reassignment surgery – sees permissiveness decline. In the case of allowing such trans women to use women’s toilets, willingness falls from 38% in the generic question to 29%, and in the case of changing rooms, from 34% to 25%.

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1

The toilet conversation is weird! Everyone likes single-sex toilets, without exception: trans people just think they - and they alone - should be exempt from the rules. Which is logically impossible, given that it turns everything into a mixed-sex space.

One of the big ironies, or certainly cognitive dissonances is in gender ideologues talking about fluidity and dissolving boundaries, when it suits their political goals; and yet still erecting other boundaries and still making category definitions in other ways. The idea that there are men and women for a start ( which includes anyone who 'identifies as' one or the other)

One of the goals of queer theory was to erase and dissolve boundaries by re-categorising things; by re-naming things. The idea that everything was socially constructed. and if you just changed your thinking you could totally revolutionise human society.

The reason why the rule would need to be enforced is because every time third spaces are discussed, trans women such as India Willoughby make it clear that they would continue to use the female only spaces.

Admittedly that is in the context of the trans inclusive space being labelled the third space, rather than the single sex space being labelled the third space. But the reality is that it doesn't matter whether your third space is for trans women or TERFs, because most women will choose to use the space that trans women are not allowed in, and so the space that trans women are allowed in will become the third space by default, whatever you call it.

And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, people like India Willoughby have expressly stated that if a third space existed, they would use the space which is supposed to be for female people anyway.

So I would like to know what consequences you think there should be for people who knowingly do that.