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

So all these years, as we've slogged through the courts, the media, the court of public opinion, patiently sharing evidence and data and making the arguments over and fucking over again, we were doing it wrong? Who knew! Brilliant you are here to help.

What first attracted you to the job?

Exactly. Zero patience with it.

Your claim mate. You gave a spurious figure, not me.

If your boundary is strictly about categorical privacy (meaning biology is the only metric that matters, regardless of statistical safety)

Again, that doesn't make sense: the category is directly based on the statistical safety, so you can't separate the two. The former is literally the legal application of the consequences of the latter: we separate men and women because men are statistically dangerous to women:

It is one of several issues. He’s arguing in bad faith, it’s a straw man framing and as pp said he also does a pretty shocking “switcheroo” himself. I’m afraid I’m quite familiar with how TRAs argue, no matter how convincing it might be to random mansplainers.

Also I can’t take anyone seriously who is using she/her for male misogynists.

IKR 🙄

I think pp is just trying to make out that “they” are watching you.

Is someone seriously suggesting that if I see a trans-identifying man in a female only space I have to ask to see his risk assessment or conduct a psychological evaluation with him before I may be able to tell him to leave. Or will these 'safe' girly blokes have some kind of mark, like eggs, to show they're of the highest quality. Perhaps it'll be the ones who don't quite clear the woman bar that'll be marked? A red flag!?

.

That’s what the system is based on though. You seem unable to integrate the information that it is a self ID system. We are just talking about men who at some point have declared that they are women. How do you square that little circle?

👏 🤣 🎯

Why do you call that person pp?

Makes sense though. Vague threats don't scare me, but definitely do a lot to prove what their movement is really about. Fear and control.

Past poster

Thank you,

I thought you were saying that person is a man and calling him peepee

@Seethlaw
"So the risk assessment must be conducted on transwomen in general. It's not our decision: it's the law and ethics both."

I think there is a crucial distinction between how a scientific risk assessment is calculated and how a legal policy is implemented.

Even if a legal or ethical framework dictates that a government cannot discriminate based on medical status when applying a policy, that does not change the laws of physics, biology, or statistics.
A statistician calculating literal physical risk must separate the cohorts based on the variables that actually cause the risk (like testosterone levels).
If a researcher artificially lumps them together because of a legal policy, the resulting data is scientifically meaningless for determining the actual risk profile of the medically transitioned group.

If the law forces policymakers to lump everyone into one group, then the resulting policy is being built strictly on legal compliance and ethical categories, not on the actual, isolated physical risk of the transitioned cohort.
Which shows the essay's point:
The author was asking a statistical question about physical harm reduction.
By answering that we are legally forced to ignore the specific statistical variables in favor of a broad legal category, you are confirming that the boundary being drawn isn't actually about the actuarial risk data, but about a categorical rule.

I do think the person is a man, but I was trying to be neutral.

And on and on like Ariston, or the Duracell bunny. Utterly unencumbered by any understanding of the issue.

@MedicalConsensus

The data we have on specific risk to women of this specific group of men is limited, so that’s why people are giving you information you find inadequate. However, to believe a group of men are less risk to women because they claim to be women is an extraordinary claim, and the onus is on you to back it up adequately, not the people who just cite the known risk of men as a sex class to women.

That picture is right on the money. It could form the basis of an exhibition

’men who gave not two hoots about the feelings of the women they were talking to throughout history’

@Seethlaw
"'If we're talking the cost to transwomen...' I don't see this cost being mentioned or explored at all in the blog post. How come?"

It is right there: "what is the actual risk... weighed against the actual cost of excluding them."
"Them" refers directly to trans women.
The author is explicitly asking the reader to calculate the real-world harm that exclusion inflicts upon that specific group (for example, the physical danger of forcing a medically transitioned, testosterone-suppressed individual into a men's facility).

"The logical cost here would be to women... And in that case, the answer is: zero."

By deciding that the only "logical cost" to measure is the cost to women, you are essentially stating that the harm to the excluded group doesn't belong on the ledger at all.
This is a perfectly valid, protective boundary to set for a space!
But it fundamentally changes the math. A true statistical cost-benefit analysis requires weighing the impact on all stakeholders.
By zeroing out the other side of the scale before the math begins, you show your stance is based on a categorical boundary, not a universal risk assessment. Which illustrates the essay's core observation.

It would explain the threat he gave me.

Men are not “stakeholders” in women’s spaces. See the Supreme Court judgment of April 2025. There doesn’t need to be a cost/benefit case made.

I've not read all the thread, so sorry if this has been covered, but it looks like MC is the essay writer himself.

Women are not human shields, enriching activities for men or props in their lives. We are people in our own right and we have spaces just for us, regardless of male entitlement and boundary violation.