Is it safety or separation?

[OneFlakyMaker]

When opposing transgender people in women's spaces, are you looking for safe spaces or separate spaces?

They may overlap but are not the same thing, and while a lot of the discussion is focused on safety, the tone and some arguments hint that addressing safety won't be enough for many people to feel comfortable. Instead, a place without males is sought.

I read one woman described it "At the club we used the women's bathroom to get a break from interacting with men".

We will never change this persons mind- it’s not open , it lacks empathy and common sense , it lacks any method to perform rational thinking and logic

ediy to add

and demonstrates exactly why women want space without them

To be honest, I’m questioning if he even has a mind.

“trans person's inclination is the same as a CIS person's.”

So. A trans identifying male has the same inclinations as a man.

Finally.

I did think when I read that that we had a moment of crystalline clarity with that sentence. The lack of precision was an own goal.

I suspect our friend will be back.

Why?

Because he gets off on seeing any of us upset and the point is, if he doesn't get his own way, to make us suffer or to punish us.

He gives no fucks as to how his actions affect others, so why are we expecting it.

Keep this in mind.

Its a shame that Aston student had such a silly angle of research. There could be a lot learned from how males intervene on online spaces set aside for women, if someone cared to analyse it.

Keating didn’t say it was a personality trait. Keating said it was a feeling, “he feels like a woman”.

You seem to be muddled up between ‘personality traits’ and ‘feelings’.

They aren’t the same thing.

God be with days when the worst we had to fear was Myers-Briggs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator

or amateur Astrology

Don't JADE - Justify, Argue, Defend, or Explain.

This may be useful for some folk who haven't come across it before - I first learned about it here on FWR.

Good idea, that looks very helpful - I haven't seen that before

I’ve not seen it either. Thank you.

Indeed a devolvement of a TRA poster becomes much more evident after they get laughed at for calling WSSS transphobic etc

When a poster themselves prove that a UK court agrees that males of all types pose a risk to women the argument for the ladybrain ends up being the fallback position.

And full melt down happens when they fail because women just say no and the UK law agrees that no means no.

Having spent a number of years working in a male dominated industry, my experience is that this is rational learned behaviour on the part of women.

Briefly, people have more confidence in men. If a man skips a question he doesn't want to answer it doesn't really hurt him. In fact it helps him because he stays on message and gets his point accross without confusing his audience with sidetracks.

But if a woman skips a question people notice. They think she doesn't know her stuff. So she has to deal with it. Even if it's trite and the man asking it should know the answer if he'd been paying attention or gave it a little thought. But it's a no win situation for her because by answering she's broken her own momentum and her message is not as clear.

Not helped by the fact that too many men don't challenge men but see women as soft targets to make themselves look good.

As you can no doubt tell it really pisses me off and IMO is a big factor in the glass ceiling still persisting after all these years.

Exactly. This is merely the 2020s updated version of 'you're beautiful when you're angry darling' and the kind of inadequate who would enjoy shouting at women in the street with his bum crack out, hoping to get a reaction.

Smile Love.

When the creep knows it makes you feel really uncomfortable.

That's fascinating. I'd never thought of it before, but my goodness does it make sense and ring true to me.

Yes I’ve seen it irl in a panel interview by women. The man in the panel was bemused at the fawning behaviour of the women.

I’d love to understand what deep rooted instinct creates that. Self protection to appease a clearly disordered man?

The whole ‘personality’ direction is just bonkers.

How the fuck do we work out personalities to allow into a single sex provision? Do we have lots of spaces just for groups of personality types?

How the fuck do we also work out what some man’s ’inclination’ is when he enters a space that is for female people?

(I mean, apart from the fact that any male person accessing a female single sex provision is doing so knowing their presence may harm female people- thereby they absolutely are the ones to keep out)

The concept of segregating using the suggested basis is absurd. This thread jumped the shark.

But you see it’s his inclination that matters. It doesn’t matter if he physically raped and strangled you even though you said no. It’s his inclination that is important here. You, the victim, me, collateral damage.

More accurately described as his posts considering that Hows is a man.

Dean is talking about RTB’s posts though.

Legislation for personalities would be interesting to watch go through parliament...

Men valuable. Women not.

Male supremacism.

That line of discussion really is just fuckwittery. It highlights just how far into fuckwittery someone will go to validate their identity when an identity is not based on material reality.

The need to create a material real linkage pushes someone to confidently present total bollocks as being scientific reasoning. And they simply cannot keep their concept coherent.

Of course, as it loses coherence, so does the poster.

Indeed, the whinger was getting hissy about @RedToothBrush using the word 'we'. I knew another bloke in another place who always challenged the use of 'we' in discussion - it's obviously one of the things the basement-dwellers learn, and I was delighted to be able to point out that MN functionality means that Red can see that she is part of a collective 'we' with many shared views.