Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

The essay is basically just the author complaining that when he wants to argue with others on social media, they don't argue in the narrow way he wants them to and instead express their own thoughts and feelings on the issue, denying him the chance to prove them wrong.

Exactly this, and the pp has decided to prove that exact point live on this thread.

That post shows that you have absolutely no idea what the issues under discussion on this subject, on this board, for the last several years, have been. Or that you are being patronising to an acknowledged expert.

tl:dr; you are embarrassing yourself.

still tl:dr: maybe stop being so silly.

I found this comment really quite revealing. And yes @BernardBlacksMolluscs i concur.

How many men who call themselves 'transwomen' do you think have their cock off?

Estimates are around 15%.

So 15% of the men clamouring for access to women's spaces will have reduced their risk of rape.

That says nothing, at all, about the effect a male has when he enters a women-only space.

How do you think women feel?

“Women have feelings?”

I hope whoever it is that wrote that blogpost is watching. How do you think your flying monkey is doing, mate? 😂

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

I have tried to engage in good faith, I have tried to play the game of providing evidence and backing it up with the sources, as if blokes ever listen to that. I have been as temperate as possible...

But WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? Now we're being patronised and patted on the head for actuarial tables. As if any bit of it matters in the slightest.

We are women. Whole, complex, nuanced and multifaceted humans who happen to have one thing in common - our female sex.

We don't ask a lot, in comparison to men. We'd just like our own spaces, categories, sports, and all the rest.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say we'd just like all the male people to respect that. However they identify and whatever the risk they might present.

We have creepy men, inadequate men, pompous men, sad men, boring men, mad men, violent men, gay men and vulnerable men.

They all need to stay out of women's spaces.

Women say so.

The Supreme Court says so.

The government says so.

They can whang on eternally (I'm sure they will) but it won't change biological reality.

I can imagine, and you're right, your explanation makes it clear enforcing a certification is practically absurd.
I do have to note, my comment is simply about how actuarial assesment is done.

Yep.

Well quite 😂

We don't care if he has a certificate, or if he is very sad. We don't care if he thinks he knows better than us. We don't care if he really wants to, or his friends says it's okay.

Men stay out of women's spaces.

We are trying to keep them out of our spaces, not flog them life insurance.

Ohh, I've had two good girl pats on the head from @MedicalConsensus now. Do I get a gold star if I get three?

I want them to need life insurance if they don't keep out of our spaces.

(On account of the LOTs of big strong hairy men who are aware of women as human beings not support animals, and who would be angry about having to waste their time teaching perverts to perve off.)

(I am old enough to remember the days when a woman screaming "help" in a public lavatory would very likely bring a big etc man in to throw out the person who had no business in her private space, with prejudice and possibly accidental broken arms. And as he did it he'd apologise to her for being in there.)

I apologize if it came across as patronizing.
I conceded the point because I agreed with your critique, and I pointed out the actuarial assessment because it was engaging with the data the way I think the essay discussed, which was refreshing and came in contrast to how others have approached it.
I'm discussing and sharing my opinion.

Your last sentence clarifies the thread well.
You state you want these spaces restricted strictly based on female sex, which is a perfectly clear, absolute categorical boundary.
I believe it's what the essay suggests - that for many people in this discussion, this isn't actually a debate about safety statistics, risk profiles. It is strictly about fundamental definitions.
If the risk level doesn't matter to the outcome, then debating the safety data is just a proxy for the real disagreement.

Ahhhggggggghhhhhhhhh.

Please make it stop. I never want to read the word actuarial ever again.

The actuary I knew well IRL was crashing bore too.

If a door hides a woman from a voyeur, it also perfectly hides an attacker and traps the victim if the attacker forces their way inside.

Yes, which is why

read my lips

Men
Should
Not
Be
In
Women's
Single
Sex
Spaces.

I've just RTFT. I am convinced that you are all arguing with AI. It is a bit mansplainy, but AI is going to be isn't it? Nothing wrong with thrashing out an argument with AI, but I really wouldn't waste emotional energy on it.

It is about the blog, but not in the way you seem to think.

He's a middle aged bloke who abandoned his wife and children to go off and cosplay being a woman.

I don't care what blokes like him think about debates about this topic. There isn't even a debate any more, since the Supreme Court judgment last year.

People can't change sex. Sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, not falsified sex via a GRC or self-ID on a passport.

Men shouldn't be in women's spaces.

the end.

I'd actually be quite relieved if it is AI. I was picturing a sweaty bloke in his mum's basement typing one-handed.

I know exactly what you mean!