Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

[impossibletoday]

Giggle v Tickle
Friday 15th May
2pm AEST
Live streamed

https://x.com/i/status/2053669311504642197

We understand that you don't understand consent or safeguarding.

No offence but maybe go look at the pictures these men take whilst in the female toilets. If you really think they are doing it for 'comfort' then I cannot stress how utterly naive you are being.

Hi, on this forum Cis is a slur.

When you use Cis you are saying that women are a subset of humans that includes men who say they are women.

We are not. We are just women.

Objecting & rebelling against injustice however illegal is hardly 'predatory'. If it were protesters who illegally cause a public nuisance would be considered as predatory too & they just aren't.

Your’e only using the word 'predatory' to invoke emotions of women's abuse but interestingly, a trans man using the men's for the same reasons wouldn't be considered as 'predatory'.

The bad faith framing is breathtaking.

By all means report me for 'wrong think'.

That's not what I asked. Can you answer the question please - I'm sure you are capable of doing that.

No offence, but but cherry picking instances of a stereotype doesn't do your 'supposed' anti stereotype stance any credibility.

'Man' is a broad category where differences in categorisations apply when it comes to threat levels. So you will need to be more specific.

Like no man consented to my pregnant peeing in the men's & therefore I was guilty of being predatory?

If male people think that it is merely protesting when they enter a female single sex provision that they are excluded from, then I suggest that they inform themselves of what the law supports which is safeguarding. Safeguarding is also based on consent.

When a male person enters a female single sex provision when they know that they are excluded, it violates consent and safeguarding principles.

There is no excuse or philosophising that can frame that conscious and deliberate violation of consent and safeguarding principles as anything other than a predatory act.

In terms of trans identities using the ladies I imagine some will continue to do so because they sufficiently pass

If men are going to continue using women's toilets because they think they "sufficiently pass", that will be a lot of them, as they are deluded. Many seem to think that if they have never been challenged it's because they pass. It's really not.

And you 'know' this because you have met every trans person on earth?

Deluded alright.

"A lot" does not equal "every".

"Many" does not equal "every".

HTH.

I'm asking you to name the behaviours exhibited by men as a sex category. Can you do that or do you need help?

Mate, if a female chose to negate the consent of those male people who needed that male space to be male that is your burden to come to terms with.

The predatory nature comes from male people being considered a safeguarding risk in general to female people for the purposes where female people need female single sex provisions due to female people being in states of vulnerability.

A female person using a male single sex provision without consent and without authority of the providers of that provision is indeed showing behaviour of not understanding safeguarding or consent.

I'm surprised that your 9-month pregnant self wasn't ushered to the front of the ladies' queue. I hope you weren't using the single cubicle that's often all there is in the gents for the use of those of us with IBS, but apart from that inconvenience, I think very few men would be that put out by an obviously pregnant woman avoiding the queue. Men don't generally have much reason to fear women, though there are exceptions.

Edited to add: If my IBS was at its worst, I would be very angry to see even a pregnant woman exiting the cubicle I had been desperately waiting outside.

Mate, if a female chose to negate the consent of those male people who needed that male space to be male that is your burden to come to terms with.

Sorry, a typo

Mate, if a female chose to negate the consent of those male people who needed that male space to be male that is their burden to come to terms with.

But the point you are missing is that its contestable that trans women are a safety risk. It wouldn't be the first time a law was unjust because of erroneous public pressure panic campaigns. Of course you can defer to law but that doesn't make its premise true. Civil rights resistance was built on unjust laws.

In any case, this thread is about Australian not UK culture & law with no such broad resistance regarding safeguarding & consent concerns. So enough of the 'colonising'. You don't hold any cards here.

It’s always fun to see the predatory pregnant woman argument being deployed.

Nor do women have to fear men……unless they are alone with them.

Permission structures don't tend to hold much power over abusers.

I never report anyone, only spammers.

I prefer to ask and see what the response is.

You went straight to 'report me' rather than 'oh I see, yes classing women as a subset of humans that includes women and men who say they are women is completely mad/deranged/unhinged, it makes me look ridiculous, I won't do that again'.

Perverts are now a sterotype of men who say they are women? That's very transphobic.

What like in a prison cell?

Typical behaviours vary in the sex category between sub groups. So no, can't answer the question. But if you're attempting to lead this horse to a 'violent behaviour' narrative my counter to you would be that permission structures don't change that. I would also say the overwhelming amount of abuse of women occurs from men known to women in their or the women's home.

Your permission structure would allow those same men into any womens facility that they wanted to get into to escape those men. Top work!