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

Do you reckon he’s fed the “essay” in and asked it to argue based on its premises?

I think he is the guy that cornered me at a party in Leeds in 1997. Fortunately my dear (male) friend didn't leave me trapped with him for long after I gave him our prearranged rescue me sign.

.

Probably. Obviously there is a human behind it somewhere and it would make sense for it to be Mr Bennett.

Naughty step now @ArabellaScott

True, I don't.
Someone asked me a question, I explained I don't actually believe trans women should be in women's spaces, and that they should ask someone who advocates for that, then they responded in a way that made it look like I was dodging a question, so I answered with what I do know some arguments are.

Yes. If it’s AI I am fine with that. It’s ‘learning’ that inclusive design is not safe nor healthy. The terms ‘restroom’ suggest American origin so it terms of door gaps the U.K. and America are different. In the UK it’s usually up to 15cm from floor to door. In America this gap can be up to 30cm and on occasion even higher. Personally I think American toilet door gaps are too big.

Now from my research, the attackers are men. The victims can be women, girls, boys and occasionally other men. What I have researched and have evidence for, is that misuse is prevented when there is a door gap. Unsurprisingly perpetrators don’t like witnesses.

However, there is a need for private toilet rooms. There are accessible mixed sex spaces (used to be called ‘disabled’). This is useful for non ambulant people with opposite sex carers, ambulant people who have hidden disabilities and need the extra privacy (bowel conditions and paruresis are examples). Mixed sex accessible toilets need to be the most monitored and best looked after. They need to have a working alarm with a pull cord that is down to the floor (not tied up for cleaning). They need to open on to a primary circulation space.

None of my reasoning is new. If you google ‘why do restrooms have door gaps’ you will come up with my arguments from many different sources. But I have researched and got many real-life evidence, mainly from what’s been going on in school designs then around the UK in different toilet designs.

What has changed is that people are equating privacy with safety. All regulated mixed sex toilets are private. The Good Law Project and transactivists will always argue for completely private toilet cubicles leading onto an open mixed sex washbasin area or individual mixed sex toilet rooms. They do not understand or do not care that these designs are less safe in a non-domestic setting.

And to add to this, when it is ambiguous whether the toilet cubicles are truly single sex, then the toilet design tends to become floor to ceiling in privacy. So toilets built to be ‘gender-neutral’ will most likely be built like this. This has caused issues with single sex design and even planning documents.

The FWS judgement meant that single sex toilets in a single sex environment truly meant that, and so the safer and healthier design can stay as it is, a design which can be live-saving.

@MedicalConsensus You’ve agreed with my last post so can you tell me what it’s going to be used for? Are you writing an essay on this? If you are, I can give you some American refs for the counter argument (which doesn’t stack up) if you are American.

🤣

It would indeed.

If you have a link with all that information, then you can share it. Not important to go through the trouble though, I learn as I debate and know how to find what I need, after all.
I don't think I can bring a meaningful contribution with an essay, since other people already did it and probably better than I could, but I'll be able to tell others about this fact when needed

Why do I feel like I am in an episode of Black Mirror?

Ok

Tried the blog author's site. It found my concern to be coherent, but stopped at the fact I didn't provide evidence. I'll try later. I wonder if anybody here can beat it

Couldn't agree more. It feels like everything you read is suspicious. Just one simple example: when you put a general knowledge-type question into Google, you used to be able to trust the first response. These days, as often as not, it's a load of rubbish.

I tried it too. Unsurprisingly, it found my concern coherent, but it lacked evidence, and it wasn't answering the right question.

Question: what evidence exactly is supposed to be provided that men are males? Just that; men are males. One would think that would be the evidence in any argument, but no, apparently I'm supposed to provide evidence for it. Right.

In other words: what a surprise, an app created by a dishonest person is programmed to act dishonestly. Who would have thought. yawn

Also, Stevie shows his ignorance of actual GC arguments in the list of "statements to disagree with" he provides:

• "Trans women should be allowed to use women's bathrooms": okay, this one is accurately something GC people disagree with, and it's the only one I could use.
• "Trans women are not an unusual safeguarding risk in bathrooms": GC people agree with that one. TW are men, thus their safeguarding risk is that of men, which is not unusual at all.
• "Being born male does not automatically settle every social, legal and policy question": again, agreed.
• "Blanket exclusion is not proportionate without evidence of actual risk": obviously, I agree with that too.
• "The harm caused by exclusing trans people has to be counted too": no problem with that either.
• "A policy should explain how it will work in real life": well, yes!
• "If there is a real risk, a narrower rule should be considered before excluding all trans people": I don't understand what this one is saying, so I can't comment on it.
• "A post-operative, middle-aged trans woman who has lived peacefully for years is not a fantasy threat image": like duh!?
• "Repeating "adulte human female" does not answer a policy question": that's obviously true!? It answers the question, "What is a woman?" which is not a policy question.
• "If evidence cannot change your mind, this is not an evidence argument": by definition, yes.
• "Sport policy should be based on category-specific evidence, not blanket panic": and indeed it is, so I can't do anything but once again agree.

So what "game" exactly are we supposed to play, when all but one of the initial statements are not things GC people typically disagree with?

You know, Stevie, I actually like your driving analogy.

Think about how we drive. Two cars approach each other on an ordinary road at sixty miles an hour, a combined hundred and twenty, with nothing between them but a painted line and a shared agreement not to cross it. Any driver could swerve across and kill everyone. We know this. We accept it. We don’t ban driving, because we weigh the real risk against the real cost and make our peace with the painted line. That’s what grown-up risk reasoning looks like. It’s never “could harm ever occur?” It’s always “how much, how likely, against what cost?”

Question: how do drivers know on which lane they are supposed to drive?

Answer: we've defined categories (you like that word, Stevie): on ordinary roads, you drive on the left. It doesn't matter who you are or where you go, just drive on the left.

Note: we don't let drivers identify into "having a right to drive on the right". Nobody can argue that because of where they are going, or what car they drive, or what speed they are going, or whatever, they can choose to randomly drive on the right.

Exceptions: exceptions are provided for specific cases when driving on the right is allowed: when passing a slower vehicle, in case of works on the road, things like that. Those are clearly defined in the law.

Danger: anyone who breaks the rules and randomly decides to drive on the right is rightfully recognised to be a danger to others. Note that this is the case even if there's nobody coming on the right. Just driving on the right is considered dangerous.

So now:

Question: how do people know which single-sex spaces they are supposed to use?

Answer: we've defined categories based on sex: male and female.

Note: people cannot identify into the other sex. Sex is biological and immutable.

Exceptions: exceptions are provided for specific cases, such as allowing little boys into female toilets.

Danger: anyone who breaks the rules and decides to randomly enter single-sex spaces of their opposite sex is rightfully recognised to be a danger to others. Note that this is the case even if there is nobody in that space at the moment. Just entering a single-sex space of your opposite sex is considered to be dangerous.

So, congratulations, Stevie, you've brillantly demonstrated why transwomen cannot go into fenale single-sex spaces.

You're a man. There's a white line on the road telling you to stay on your side. So stay there.

Chef's kiss Seethlaw.

I don't think men/ai realise that single sex spaces in the EqA have to be justified as proportional, therefore have been through an 'actuarial' process.

Yes! Very very clever, Seethlaw, I like the way you did that - pointing out the role of conventions in making societies run as smoothly as possible, without the need to for either a full-scale debate involving assessment of actu -you-know-what-risk every time you use the road, or a police officer on every carriageway.

The only thing that bothered me was your repetition of the name
You like that word, don't you Steve? Congratulations, Steve. I like your analogy, Steve....
It sounds like the onboard computer in 2001 A Space Odyssey:
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that'.. etc😁

I hope you don't start singing 'Daisy' very slowly...😧
😄

• "If there is a real risk, a narrower rule should be considered before excluding all trans people": I don't understand what this one is saying, so I can't comment on it.

@Seethlaw I think this one means me, me, me, me, me what about meeeeeee. Just let me in even if you keep the others out I should be the exception because I'm me and I'm spechul. I want to do it and I don't like you saying no. Let me in go on, please, pretty please.

😂Sorry, for freaking you out 😁!

For what it's worth, I only repeated the name because I wanted to make it clear that I meant this particular post as a direct answer to Stevie's blog post, since we've been told he reads this thread. But now I can see how that could look weird, yeah.

Based on the way that I managed to crack Stevie’s website, I don’t think it is the most sophisticated.

Pffft 😂!

I must admit, it does sound like that indeed: "a narrower rule should be considered to allow ME - and just me - into female spaces". Way to throw other transwomen under the bus...