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

Men can harass women whether there is an audience or not.

Taking oestrogen doesn't shrink men. Don't be ridiculous.

And a small man isn't a woman.

Women's spaces are for women. Not for men. Not even for small men or men who think they are women. Not even for some special undefined (and fictional) group of transwomen who have shrunk to minuscule size by taking oestrogen.

A woman washing menstrual blood off her hands might feel harassed by having to do that in front of (or beside) a man who has no understanding or experience of what she is going through. And she'd be right. Men have no business in women's washrooms.

God I wish oestrogen did shrink you could do with my extra stone vanishing due to hrt!

True, I made an observation about a specific criteria.

Then you haven’t listened to any of the information I have given you.
A typical public toilet cost £15k each year to maintain and service in the U.K.
You think a specific private toilet just for transwomen is going to be wanted, used ‘correctly’ only by the people you want to use it and function safely?

Where does this toilet get located? Next you’ll tell me it’s somewhere discrete.

If you really cared about safety, you need to think this through better.

Testosterone suppression reduces muscle mass and overall physical power. I'm not talking about people "shrinking to a minuscule size"
And once again, the question I got asked doesn't go over moving trans women to women's bathrooms.

@MedicalConsensus, why are you actually arguing about this stuff? I don't mean this with snark and I'm not being rhetorical.

You aren't a woman. You have no idea whatsoever what it's like to navigate the world in a female body (neither does Stevie, incidentally). You haven't a clue what we experience, as is evidenced by your posts here.

We say No. No to post op Stevie, No to Eddie, No to a stressed and confused young lad with homophobic parents, No to any natal male who thinks he should be a woman.

We say No for a myriad of reasons and safety is only one of them.

Some women might say Yes, but consent is not transferable. As long as one woman says No, that's enough.

Why isn't our No enough for you?

Think about it logically. There has to be sightlines to the person in danger for you to know they are not safe.

Weak men aren't women either.

It’s actually extremely disrespectful to push push push when others have said no. It’s also an extremely male trait. Most women if told no would be mortified and would not ask again. If you want to be womanly do that.

Also the vast majority of woman would genuinely not want to be where they are not wanted.

@MedicalConsensus seems to see this as a fun exercise to see if he can convince the terfy witches that we're wrong by trying to find holes in our arguments. It's all abstract to him. It doesn't affect him so he can just have fun with his stupid ideas.

He may be doing this using AI, which would explain some of his more bizarre posts and his sometimes self-contradictory arguments.

Edited to add: I'm not sure if the ungrammatical (and sometimes incomprehensible) posts are indicative of using or not using AI. Does AI always use correct grammar?

Thank you. This ‘AI bot’ is slow to learn.

@MedicalConsensus I want to keep everyone safe with the best designs. It’s really tricky to collate data by design as no one but me does this.

Take, for example station toilets in Britain. British Transport Police data shows over the last 10 years there has been no homicides in toilets. Which is obviously reassuring. However, a person dies in their toilets at a rate of roughly once every six months.

But it doesn’t tell me what design - I can narrow it down sometimes to accessible or single sex. This is where it gets tricky. Single sex used to have more of a standard design but more recently there have been all sorts of deviations from this model. This is the biggest challenge. That’s why I spend a lot of time looking at the individual incidents. It shows there is a window of time where some people would have had a better outcome had they been noticed in time. The tragedy is you can have the busiest of places just in front of those doors.

Yes it reads like this.

This human has spent several years looking at what happens in real life and trying to work out every permutation to keep everyone safe. On absolute health and safety grounds, I ‘win’ this argument. The only way I ‘lose’ is if absolute privacy is regarded as a higher need.

off to work now.

Some men see 'no' as an irresistible challenge, or a personal affront, Im afraid.

Okay. Either you genuinely cant see how outrageously fucking offensive it is to come on here and lecture women on feminism, or you can.

Either way I'm done.

Exactly. I guess he doesnt hear women. Interestingly if you listen to the article it's read in a light woman's voice. I also find it really improbable that he spent years resolutely in the closet and then came roaring out with endless posts on twitter all designed to underline thar he is just as much of a woman as his mum - just a different kind. But it does also illustrate the fact that we really have an unbridgeable gap. The GI ists have no way of acknowledging that TiMs dont become women. So we cant have any prior building blocks for a consensus.

I was discussing the blog, people asked questions outside of it, so I'm answering them

In female spaces, a woman's No has veto power, but only over men.
It cannot override another's woman's Yes, which is why I brought up the digital art community and the female-only organisations in it.
A simple "No" gives you the absolute right to control your own body and to decide which private spaces you choose to enter.
Organisations can impose their own rules if it follows the law.
If a female-led organization recognise trans women as one of them, then that's their collective consensus being Yes.

FFS no. Away and read the Supreme Court judgment.

@MedicalConsensus

In female spaces, a woman's No has veto power, but only over men.
It cannot override another's woman's Yes,

Depends on what kind of veto it is. If it an absolute veto (think UN Security Council), then a single No can override all other Yes.

Its bollocks on every level, let alone in law.

If a female-led organization recognise trans women as one of them, then that's their collective consensus being Yes.

You posit this as an organisation for females?

How can it be 'female' and include males? As soon as it does it is mixed sex.

Again, do go and read the SC judgment. The EA forbids discrimination except for the SS exceptions.

It is not possible to have an organisation that excludes males 'apart from some special males'. It is either single sex or it's mixed sex - the latter is the norm.

@MedicalConsensus last post.

so this is the set up you want for your American digital arts organisation.

1. Toilet stalls for the women
2. Toilet stalls for the men
3. Individual toilet rooms for the young transwomen who you say prefer this option

You haven’t mentioned where the transmen or disabled staff go.

What risks there are for using that facility is for the people paying for it and the people using it to figure out on themselves.
People can continue using bathrooms the way they always did, this would simply be an extra alternative for those who want more options.

It would be placed in the open, as any porta-potty.
Generally, I don't think the issue of long lines will show up in most places. For instance, the ones in my country's capital are usually empty.
If that issue appears, you know those stairs colored in the pride flag which people filmed themselves avoiding?
Making a porta-potty private is stupid, but you don't actually need to use the law to exclude people from using it.
Just coloring it in pride colors and saying it was funded by an lgbt organisation will remove a significant amount of people from using it.
And because people who are just supportive will continue to use it, I don't think there will be an issue with trans women becoming an easy target, since you wouldn't be able to figure out who's just supportive and who's trans.

The one thing that is shining through, despite the copious amounts of AI word salad and nimble-footed galloping goalposts, is the Enormous Male Sense of Entitlement that women are just his Service Bipeds.