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

Yeah, I started thinking about it recently and how a perfect design would be

Why oh why do I open this thread just before eating?

Should mention again the technology I bring up is not exclusive to mixed bathrooms, and can be included into single-sex spaces to improve safety.

Completely pointless as the statistical risk INCLUDES social self-identification. Men who just wear the clothes and talk the talk but do nothing else are part of the same cohort as men who take the hormones and have the surgery.

All call themselves "trans women" and all of them want the same access to women's single sex spaces.

And they are all men. So even if we did decide that "fully transitioned" transwomen are safer than those who aren't, we'd STILL have to let them all in - or none.

The answer is no!

Of course... I am referring to a national campaign to make male toilets safer for ALL male people regardless of their identity beliefs about themselves.

Then you carry on.
Female SSS are perfectly adequate the way they are. (Notwithstanding usual improvements for general health and safety)

No need for any designing or adjustments ☺️

And I'm sure all of us here would help to campaign for those 4th spaces with you. Its in our interests too!

So let's get started! We've agreed the female SSS are OK the way they are. Could be better, but then so could the majority of our public services.

Let's get some spaces secured for people who don't like using the SSS for their natal sex.
You could spearhead it @MedicalConsensus! You seem to know a lot about the tech that is available.

Let us know how you get on raising that with the standard TRA outlook 👍
Even if they're dickheads, we'll still help!

I'm pretty sure I suggested earlier in the thread that men should be kinder to trans-identifying men. I don't know how this can be achieved, but inclusivity campaigns sound like a good idea.

This would help everyone, as men would have no reason to invade women's spaces if theirs were safer for them. We could then be sure that any man in the ladies' was there for nefarious reasons. Just like it used to be.

TRAs need to stop complaining about women not wanting men in their spaces, and start complaining about men being violent to TIMs. Solve the actual problem instead of inventing a nonexistent one and dragging women into a fight which is actually nothing to do with us.

"So let's get started! We've agreed the female SSS are OK the way they are. Could be better, but then so could the majority of our public services."

yep. No need to make any changes in design because there are reasons to keep the current style with communal single sex spaces.

Might not be perfect, as you say, but the fact that those spaces have only female people in makes it bearable when issues arise that mean a lack of privacy.

I don’t know if this has been covered but other things men have designed:

1. toilets that are set in the cubicle before the sanitary bin is put in so the bin squashes up against someone’s leg
2. toilet cubicles whose dimensions are based on a man standing up to wee
3. toilet cubicles made very small to physically stop two people ‘misusing’ it together. This has to be very small as women have been raped in portaloos.
4. alarms that stop the door closing if the body weight measured by the floor is deemed too much for one person. Fat shaming and see also shopping and pushchairs.
5. alarms that stop the door closing if it senses two people’s body heat. No good for parent and child.
6. Glass walls and doors that are transparent and go opaque when the handle is locked. Mechanism is temperature dependent and men have turned the mechanism off to target at lone women whilst the men are on the toilet
7. The various contraptions men use to hide cameras thinking they will get away with it - particularly teachers and doctors.
8. Automatic toilet doors. They are a nightmare.
9. Toilets (mixed sex) with a one-way mirror in the door at seated level so you can see the men, women and children around you while you do your business. This one, I hope, has never been implemented.
10. ’gender-neutral’ toilets where everyone is in enclosed floor-to-ceiling cubicles which have doors openable from the outside, leading to a mixed sex area where there is no privacy from the opposite sex. Typical in upto 25% of secondary schools.
11. Portaloos painted in the colours representing a group who state they are vulnerable to attack in toilets, especially for use by those people in public. This one may not be used now.
12. Humanitarian aid toilets in refugee camps that don’t cater for women. Women will defecate in the safety of their tent rather than go near men hanging around toilets.

I really should make a proper list of these - this is just off the top of my head.

This whole load of whang amounts to

"There is a system which has worked for decades and decades but I DON'T LIKE IT.

"I will therefore proceed to suggest stupider and stupider, wilder and wilder, more and more expensive, untested other systems.

"When the people who actually use the existing (working) system say they don't particularly want my all-singing, all-dancing solution to a problem that did not exist, I will use this as evidence that they are completely unreasonable and impossible to have a sensible discussion with."

The operative word is actually "argue". The writer of the article does not want to discuss anything: he wants to lay down the law and call it argument. As we have seen in this thread, so do his acolytes and apologists.

OldCrone.

The campaign is a great start and needed by a wide range of groups of male people in society. As you, I and many of us have discussed here for years.

No male people should be using female single sex provisions over the age of about 8 years old regardless of their identities. And female people should not be fucking in a position of having to fight to reinstate shared female single sex provisions because some ignorant person dismissed the need for that shared communal space needed by female people.

It really is ignorant to tell female people that a specific toilet design is the answer while female people are pointing out how it doesn't suit their needs in any practical way. It is like those men who come onto FWR threads and tell us that all toilets are for is for pee and poohing so what they think is the answer is perfect.

It is misogynistic to suggest that we totally reconfigure public single sex provisions in a way that reduces the usability of the facility for female people. Misogynist and ignorant.

Can I just ask, do you have nothing else to do in your life? You and your AI have been at this for days. And days. I could almost admire it if it weren't so altogether dull.

(I'm really not trying to be snarky, just, honestly, have you even had a meal in the last few days?)

There can always be improvements to health and safety in public facilities. Always. And we will (hopefully) keep making those improvements as a society for the good of men and women and children.

But the ladies facilities are generally fine! You don't need to worry about all your sensors and stuff with us right now 😊
Our main threat is men coming into them. That's what puts us most at risk. We're told regularly that men will come in and commit crimes anyway.

Absolutely some high tech sensors would be great to minimise medical emergencies in the ladies etc, who wouldn't want that? More safety for EVERYONE 👍
Its expensive, but the added protection would be great!

But there's a free and straightforward solution available to help keep distress and crimes committed minimised in the meantime.
Just men accepting being told no.
Then half the population can enjoy the benefits of standard toilet cubicle doors with communal sinks, and we only have to worry about medical emergencies. Phew!

If some men can't handle "No", then let's get this super duper AI tech installed at the entrance of every facility. With a turnstile.

All of this so that men who want to be women don't have to live with the fact that they shouldn't be going through the door marked 'woman'.

Its expected that we either let them in, or remove all the 'women' signs.

And if that means having technology measuring everyones blood pressure, and a bank of security guards poised, so be it.

Actually, I think this may be what counts as "fun" for Consensus. Oddly.

Talking with people who hold different views from mine is one of my hobbies. (And how I learn about the world!)
People can take consistent breaks from their hobby, so I'm fine, thanks

Dave, sorry mate you couldn't manage to be still enough but if you and Stevo go into the same cubicle together that will set of the alarm because it will think you are dealing or shagging.

Yeah no worries mate grab a rum for Stevo.

Shedmistress
We've also semi looked after little girls going in, after their dads stopped at the door and asked us to just keep an eye on them, making sure they got in ok, waited til they finished, kept an eye on them whilst they washed their hands and escorted them back outside.-

Oh bloody hell! I have just remembered that Neil Gaiman had the couth to ask me to do that so he didn't have to barge into a women's lavatory at a comics convention. Stun a stoat. Sideways. He had better manners and sense than any of these crothounds seem to.... and he's known as a sexual predator these days. What does that make them?

@MedicalConsensus here’s a good example of trying to do things well from Network Rail. Of course it does fall down on the unisex toilet/ gender neutral designs - can you spot the problem they identify but can’t solve?

2.5.1 Access Control
Accessible and unisex sanitary
accommodation is often subject to
misuse by the general public due to
the self-contained nature of these
facilities. For this reason, accessible
facilities should be fitted with controlled
access through use of a RADAR
(Royal Association for Disability and
Rehabilitation) approved lock.
Unisex sanitary accommodation that is
not designed for use by PRMs, such as
a dedicated gender-neutral WC, should
not have controlled access to safeguard
the availability of the facility for all those
who require it.

PRM is People with Restricted Mobility

okey doke, just checking!

@MedicalConsensus whats the Reddit consensensus?

That why they think we are all their mum and need to solve their problems for them. 😉

MedCon carries on doing sterling work in demonstrating how men like him see female humans merely as partially-sentient support bipeds, not real proper people. Won't take no for an answer, believes he's entitled to our spaces and time, gets off on (imagining he's) putting us in our place with his coruscating intellect (of AI-generated word salad), will say literally any old goalpost-moving shit if he thinks it'll temporarily 'win'.

This, right here, on this thread, is why women need spaces where men are kept out.

Keeptoiletssafe
Perhaps very quickly shutting automated lids are the answer for you? The problem is you need the gap between the lid and toilet bowl to be closed too. Else the pressure shoots pathogens out the sides and front. There’s some displays of that too if you research.

Sorry, this is not really to the point and probably the thread will fill before you have a chance to answer it, but the bogs they have on ferries: they won't flush until the lid is closed, and then they sort of suck (going by the noise) rather than being worked by the pressure of the water from above. And I met such a toilet in a motorway services recently, can't remember which.

Might those be the answer to the fecal plume problem?

I know, I really shouldn't, It's just I keep dipping in and out of the thread, and he's still typing. I'm also not at all convinced that he's a real person, so that makes my comments even more inexplicable! 😄

At least the thread is almost done.