Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

So you agree having males in women's spaces whether TiMs or men is not a great idea for safety.

This is why women almost always will choose female only facilities

So you want to talk about safety concerns. That's great! Now show the evidence that trans women with a GRC having been harming cis women in service or employment placed women's toilets.

Come on, if it's happening the media would be reporting loads of cases, and the prisons would be overrun with trans women.

Evidence Randy, put up or shut up.

 

[CXRAndy]

So you want to talk about safety concerns. That's great! Now show the evidence that trans women with a GRC having been harming cis women in service or employment placed women's toilets.

Come on, if it's happening the media would be reporting loads of cases, and the prisons would be overrun with trans women.

Evidence Randy, put up or shut up.

Here we go again

TiM+C (trans identifying male with certificate)

Has the same or higher offending rates as the general male. So barring males from female facilities virtually eliminates issues women feel concerned about on a daily basis

You see, common sense👍

 

[monkers]

It's for women's safety. Surprise surprise, men all over the world cause safety issues for women.

It must be dawning on you now, why barring men from all women's facilities, is such common sense, even an intellect like you can see it

The indisputable evidence is in. The best way for women to be safe from men is not to live with them or travel with them. A good job then that Angela Raynor is planning to build millions more homes so that vulnerable women can have somewhere to go when they ultimately leave an abusive partner.

Service provider toilets are not a problem. The reason the parks and seafronts close public toilets early is because of men, either straight men up to no good in the women's or other men in the men's. They have to be closed because of risk assessment. After dark these places become more dangerous. The policy doesn't help improve safety, it just protects sloping shoulders of men at the Town Hall.

 

[monkers]

Here we go again

TiM+C (trans identifying male with certificate)

Has the same or higher offending rates as the general male. So barring males from female facilities virtually eliminates issues women feel concerned about on a daily basis

You see, common sense👍

Nope. The evidence does not support that trans women with a GRC have a higher rate of offending against women than men. If it was the case there would be hundreds of trans women locked up for it - there isn't. It's invention. If you continue to believe it you are a gullible tool.

I've posted the real evidence enough times.

In fact I'm going to go back to the beginning of the thread at post 4 and agree with Aurora.

Let's reduce the need for women only spaces by tackling male violence and misogyny first.

Then lets's remember your misogyny towards me today along with your misogyny that women can go use the men's because they are butch or ugly. Yes hilarious wasn't it.

 

[CXRAndy]

Again you use broad brush all men must be bad

There is a proportion of males who have issues.

Well behaved males know the rules are happy to accept females need their safe spaces because of the small but non the less significant poorly behaving males.

Common sense

 

[CXRAndy]

In fact I'm going to go back to the beginning of the thread at post 4 and agree with Aurora

That's her opinion, maybe taken out of context from a wider reply.

Personally barring all males is a much better solution. Then any male in the wrong place can be confronted and asked/told/physically removed from the facility

 

[monkers]

Again you use broad brush all men must be bad

There is a proportion of males who have issues.

Well behaved males know the rules are happy to accept females need their safe spaces because of the small but non the less significant poorly behaving males.

Common sense

What percentage of violent and sexual assault of women happens in the home?

And just to make sure that you are up to this level of critical thinking, that doesn't mean most men are offenders, it means most offenders are men. Got it?

 

[classic33]

Women's single sex spaces do a pretty good job of 'filtering out the perverts'. Unisex spaces are more dangerous. Fortunately, having unisex spaces and single sex ones means those women who are happy to share can do so if they want. They aren't obliged to use women's facilities.

It's a sensible compromise but it's unacceptable to these men because there's no validation for trans identifying men in being in a unisex space.* Only being in the Women's gives that.

And in your world, only men can be classed as perverts. Women teachers, coach sports and possibly the women over the road could never be a "pervert".

*There's only yourself pushing that particular idea. Care to explain how you, a woman, knows what men think on the subject?
You've maintained, throughout, that men can't possibly know what women want, so keep your previous answers in mind when answering.

 

[monkers]

That's her opinion, maybe taken out of context from a wider reply.

Then go and look, you've been told where to find it.

 

[CXRAndy]

What percentage of violent and sexual assault of women happens in the home?

And just to make sure that you are up to this level of critical thinking, that doesn't mean most men are offenders, it means most offenders are men. Got it?

I don't know you tell me, I would expect pretty high given there is generally one male per household

Spot on most offenders are men so whether in the home or out in public women's spaces need protection

 

[monkers]

I don't know you tell me, I would expect pretty high given there is generally one male per household

Spot on most offenders are men so whether in the home or out in public women's spaces need protection

I can agree with that. Saying that most offenders are men but not that most men are offenders is an important way to frame the discussion, and I think you've just agreed that. I've put the data on here previously.

What is important following that is analysis, who harms women, where, and why.

To get serious about protecting women requires serious people with serious lines of enquiry and minimising risks. There is no means of eliminating risk other than culling men.

In other words, risk assessment is key, with control measures (that risk assessment speak for actions) that direct most effort to where the most harm occurs, and targeting those who are perpetrators.

This approach is not being adequately taken, mostly because the number of men offending is too many for the system to cope with - this is the single most cause of vulnerability. Those causing the most harm are not put in places (ie prison or young offender centres) where they can not carry out further attacks on women. As a matter of opinion, I think that men should be as protected from women from serious assault. There's no need for a division of the sexes on this point. The population needs protecting from those who cause harm.

Another problem is that the public do not like measures that make the country safer. The 20mph speed limit in Wales for example - very unpopular even though the evidence showed that people were made safer.

Jenny Jones of the Green Party came under criticism for saying that men need to be put on an evening curfew to make women safer. There was outrage from men. She was making a serious point without being completely serious about the imposition of a curfew it was intended as a wake up call to men, who frankly too often make excuses for other men, or at least might look the other way.

So my big question is, what is causing these spikes in male aggressive and violent behaviour? We know it's there because we see endless rage videos.

It seems everybody is becoming increasingly angry. And there are reasons. One reason is that political people and political parties use the distraction technique of convincing people to vote in the interests of the already rich by persuading them that they must vote for them in order to be protected from the minority groups who allege cause the most harm. So asylum seekers, overstayers, and of course trans women.

Viewing the sum of your output, you are complicit. You are Trump loving and Farage loving, because you love being rich, and you'll help keep or put them in power by being complicit with their lies.

I know this, because you've been on this thread reinforcing the lie that trans women with a GRC harm women. When asked for evidence you can't bring it, precisely because the evidence is not out there.

In short you are much less interested in protecting women and girls and much more interested in protecting assets.

Now please read this woman's experience from beginning to end, and do try to have an informed opinion, because our safety matters.

https://metro.co.uk/2025/05/27/a-stranger-questioned-gender-im-a-biological-woman-23258488/

 

[CXRAndy]

Viewing the sum of your output, you are complicit

Yet, I'm advocating for women's safe spaces, don't enter those facilities when out and about and respect the females privacy in my own home.


The fragmentation of the family unit, erosion of societal norms is the bigger cause rather than right wing opinion

If believing in man woman, marriage, children, home, is right wing, I'm all for it.

 

[CXRAndy]

Nope. The evidence does not support that trans women with a GRC have a higher rate of offending against women than men. If it was the case there would be hundreds of trans women locked up for it - there isn't. It's invention. If you continue to believe it you are a gullible tool.

I've posted the real evidence enough times.

In fact I'm going to go back to the beginning of the thread at post 4 and agree with Aurora.



Then lets's remember your misogyny towards me today along with your misogyny that women can go use the men's because they are butch or ugly. Yes hilarious wasn't it.

If you can't take the heat, don't dish it out. You don't see me complaining when you call me and others( they can deal with it how they see fit) 'names'

I'm immune to insults, I'm known to be blunt speaking and if it offends anyone, tough. I'm the same with my family and kids, say it as I see it.

This world isn't an easy place and I want my kids to be tough in mind to cope with day to day issues.

My wife is different, she nurtures the children, but firmly which is fine too. There are needs for both when in a stable loving relationship.

 

[monkers]

Yet, I'm advocating for women's safe spaces, don't enter those facilities when out and about and respect the females privacy in my own home.


The fragmentation of the family unit, erosion of societal norms is the bigger cause rather than right wing opinion

If believing in man woman, marriage, children, home, is right wing, I'm all for it.

That isn't advocacy. What you've been saying on here is not advocacy for women and girls. What you've been doing is aggressively encouraging the challenging of women and girls to prove who they are.

If believing in man woman, marriage, children, home, is right wing, I'm all for it.

No that isn't right wing, or left wing - it's a mistake to think so. What it is though is the narrative put out by the economically right wing to convince people that they are the people to protect them from these harms. It's politically motivated ambition to get into power to give greater protection to the rich. That's it, that's how it works.

The Tories had 14 years of austerity because wealth needed protecting rather being spent on the needs of people. They cut local authority budgets, youth centres and facilities, mental health centres, school budgets, social work budgets, police budgets, CPS budgets, court budgets, prison budgets, probation service budgets. Each of these service then was criticised for inefficiency - they had no money.

Meanwhile we saw friends of the government become wealthier, fast track contracts etc.

This is where the harm lies. People voted Labour because they thought there was an instant fix, there isn't. That didn't work so they'll vote for Reform - it's desperation. Farage does not represent the interests of British people, he obviously and blatantly works for American corporate interests.

These people harm all of us. Trans women are not harming women and girls except in very rare circumstances. In any cohort of people they'll always be outliers, and nothing can stop that.

Addendum: from your own words then is that you are seeking to impose what sound like your Christian moral values on others, and believe that you gives you the moral superiority to judge them. In other words you a claiming some right to prejudice.

 

[monkers]

If you can't take the heat, don't dish it out. You don't see me complaining when you call me and others( they can deal with it how they see fit) 'names'

I'm immune to insults, I'm known to be blunt speaking and if it offends anyone, tough. I'm the same with my family and kids, say it as I see it.

This world isn't an easy place and I want my kids to be tough in mind to cope with day to day issues.

My wife is different, she nurtures the children, but firmly which is fine too. There are needs for both when in a stable loving relationship.

I don't call you a moron as an insult. I call you a moron because you refuse to think critically. It's an example of blunt speaking, which on my part is actually part wake up call, but mostly a plea to reason.

But this is a plea to victimhood, because the pennies are dropping. Women and girls are not made safer. Wrong target identification.

If you really care about people, then I beg you to think critically.