Gender again. Sorry!

[Deleted member 28]

Are you enforcing a no dungarees rule?

My 21yr old Daughter wears Dungaree's I'll have you know.

 

[Bromptonaut]

My 21yr old Daughter wears Dungaree's I'll have you know.

What, belonging to Dungaree, is she wearing?

 

[winjim]

I mention other things because you seem unable to look at the wider picture and consider the unintended consequences of saying 'A man can be a woman'. And you can happily chat bollocks because you're a bloke and these issues are mainly theoretical to you. But there will come a time when they aren't and you might think differently.

It comes across as you simply not reading or trying to understand what other people are writing. And when it's pointed out you go 'yeah but you're a bloke'.

If you really want to look at unintended consequences then maybe have a think about the point I'm illustrating with the toilet story which is that some women have taken the sex segregation line of thinking to such and extreme that they think that daughters should not be cared for by their own fathers. I honestly just posted it as a daft little anecdote, to point out how silly some people were, but you could see it as the end point of an unintended consequences line of thinking. Does it affect me? Probably not because anybody telling me I couldn't be trusted to take my own daughter to the toilet would get short shrift, but just imagine if that view became more prevalent.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Would you only ask traditionally feminine looking women for such help?

No, of course not. Why would the level at which a woman performs femininity be relevant to safeguarding? A woman who is not stereotypically feminine is still a woman. And a man who performs femininity is still a man, whether he performs those stereotypes very badly or impeccably.

Do you think women with short hair, tattoos, and jeans on are statistically the same danger to children that men (however they dress) are?

 

[Deleted member 28]

What, belonging to Dungaree, is she wearing?

I love a pedant!

I would just like to ask why others on this forum aren't subject to your scrutiny?

There's a certain person on here who wouldn't know which there, their or they're to use and yet you seem to have the inner strength to let that go whereas little old me drops the odd apostrophe in the wrong place and your on it like a tramp on chips?

Am I to believe you have a little 'touch on' for me there Trumptonaut?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Does it affect me? Probably not because anybody telling me I couldn't be trusted to take my own daughter to the toilet would get short shrift, but just imagine if that view became more prevalent.

But it's not a prevalent view among women whereas men who identify as women having access to women's single sex spaces and services is a core demand of trans activism. And being able to give someone 'short shrift' is a luxury you have because you are a man and don't have to worry about the response.

 

[newfhouse]

No, of course not. Why would the level at which a woman performs femininity be relevant to safeguarding? A woman who is not stereotypically feminine is still a woman. And a man who performs femininity is still a man, whether he performs those stereotypes very badly or impeccably.

Do you think women with short hair, tattoos, and jeans on are statistically the same danger to children that men (however they dress) are?

Do you think in the situation suggested by @icowden you could reliably determine biologically male from female?

 

[newfhouse]

They should be the only ones in there though, that's the issue.

Where should less traditionally feminine looking women be?

 

[winjim]

So the joke about how it always comes back to toilets has become a self fulfilling prophesy. Sorry guys, all I wanted to do was lighten the mood a bit by laughing at the sillies and now we're all in a right pickle, aren't we?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Where should less traditionally feminine looking women be?

Wherever they want, you started the 'traditional feminine looking' bollock$.

It's the ones that were born with a pair of balls that shouldn't be in there.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Do you think in the situation suggested by @icowden you could reliably determine biologically male from female?

In toilets? In real life, not in a heavily filtered static image? The vast majority of the time yes. Women who identify as men often pass as male more easily, but that's a question for you men as to whether you are happy with them using male facilities.

I have no objection to non stereotypical looking women using or providing single sex services. Why would I? They're women.

 

[Mr Celine]

If you're in a darkened cinema and someone has to sit next to an adult male, it will be you guys or your wife. You don't let your 8 year old son or daughter sit there. Same on planes. You might do the same for women but I bet it's much less of a worry. Where possible, your kids don't sit next to adult males, you do.

Nah, you've lost me there. If we're going to the cinema we want to see the film. The kids would sit where they had the best view, ie not behind a tall person, whilst I, being 6' and considerate, would try to avoid sitting in front of other children.
I never gave a moments thought to the sex, gender or whatever of any person they were sitting beside.

 

[theclaud]

Oh OK ..
Interesting (sort of)

Isn't he also the chap with a bunny rabbit, who likes riding his bike at night ??

Or was that some other odd cove??

So many odd coves , so little time, she opined wistfully.

Thanks for the new word btw Claude 'ludic' not come across that one before 👌🏼

He is. And he will ride a bicycle at any time of the day or night. My point is that if you are going to have cycling forums, they really ought to include members who have interesting or singular perspectives on, well... cycling and forums. On these eligibility criteria he knocks it out of the park, and yet he (and other valuable contributors) are excluded (often by technocrats who rarely have anything interesting to say about anything) and often impugned or misrepresented by people who don't know what they're talking about. It's to the detriment of the forum. I take a very different position to Sam on the subject under discussion, but posting things on CC has long been one of the ways I work out what I think about things. If you don't create a meaningful community where complex subjects can be ranged over, unpicked, skimmed, plumbed, or allowed to ping off in other directions, it's hardly surprising if what you get is entrenchment, amongst the community and at the margins of it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

He is. And he will ride a bicycle at any time of the day or night. My point is that if you are going to have cycling forums, they really ought to include members who have interesting or singular perspectives on, well... cycling and forums. On these eligibility criteria he knocks it out of the park, and yet he (and other valuable contributors) are excluded (often by technocrats who rarely have anything interesting to say about anything) and often impugned or misrepresented by people who don't know what they're talking about. It's to the detriment of the forum. I take a very different position to Sam on the subject under discussion, but posting things on CC has long been one of the ways I work out what I think about things. If you don't create a meaningful community where complex subjects can be ranged over, unpicked, skimmed, plumbed, or allowed to ping off in other directions, it's hardly surprising if what you get is entrenchment, amongst the community and at the margins of it.

He at least stopped it from becoming a circle jerk set in an echo chamber.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Mr C, I'm talking about next to not in front of/behind. I honestly find it hard to believe that you don't make the instantaneous milli-second-long safeguarding assessments that we all make when we are out with our kids all the time. Perhaps your partner was doing it.

We all know it's men that are the risk. Not all men but enough of them for it to be a problem.