Gender again. Sorry!

[winjim]

And to be fair to AS men are far far far more likely to be the perps of abuse of women and children rather than vice versa..

And yes I know that women can be abusers too, I am aware of that , but the risk from men is disproportionate.

As women , even if brought up by progressive mother's who are fully on board with the principals of equality, we are taught from a young age, to be more cautious, more watchful take precautions.
Especially around men.

That's not for no good reason.

It can't just be dismissed with the relative value of gametes or physical workload childbearing, or even the (sometimes) greater investment of mothers in childcare.

It goes far deeper than that.

Does it go deeper than that? We're animals, the product of evolution and subject to reproductive and evolutionary pressures. Everything comes from that and I don't think there is anything deeper. More complex maybe, but that's what's at the heart of it all.

 

[mudsticks]

Does it go deeper than that? We're animals, the product of evolution and subject to reproductive and evolutionary pressures. Everything comes from that and I don't think there is anything deeper. More complex maybe, but that's what's at the heart of it all.

Yup it does.

As well as this basic evolutionary pressure there is individual desire for autonomy, fulfilment, purpose outside of ourselves, freedom of movement and expression and having our chance to lead our lives as we wish

It's all those things that differentiate us from being 'mere' animals, whose main purpose is passing on genes (we assume)

Many people have no particular wish to pass on their genes.

Human existence, and motivations are far more complex than just reproduction.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So you’d make a visual assessment, but through an abundance of caution you may end up considering a (biological) woman dangerous simply because of how she looks. Is that right?

(Edited for clarity.)

For the five seconds or so it took to realise they were female I might. A bit like when you see a stranger in your garden, then realise it's Brian from next door. You know babies can tell the difference between male and female faces, don't you?

Occasionally non-feminine women in single sex spaces are challenged by other women, but once they've said they are female it's rarely an issue. In fact non-feminine women in women's spaces were actually never much of an issue until men started using those spaces because it would be taken for granted that they were female regardless of appearance.

I find the equation that feminity = Woman on this thread a bit disheartening.

Does it go deeper than that? We're animals, the product of evolution and subject to reproductive and evolutionary pressures. Everything comes from that and I don't think there is anything deeper. More complex maybe, but that's what's at the heart of it all.

Do you think male treatment of women is hard-wired then? I don't think very much of it is, although you could argue testosterone plays a role on impulse control and levels of aggression, which might be why young men often grow out of criminal behaviour.

If it is hard-wired, all the more reason for women to need single sex spaces and services then.

 

[Mr Celine]

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.

Unless it was a film we both wanted to see it was usually me that took them. And thinking about it more, I usually sat between them if I could to avoid them squabbling.
And yes, I would always subconsciously risk assess activities. For a cinema trip the possibility of there being a paedophile in the audience, the likelihood that we would sit beside them and the chances that they would do anything with me at most two seats away is vanishingly small compared with the chances of us being incinerated in a fiery car crash on the way there.

 

[Mr Celine]

* Funny thing how one's profession intrudes in such circumstances; I found myself thinking that's what a slam-dunk for 12 points in PIP Descriptor for Moving Around looks like...

​

<welf tangent>

I filled in my first ADP form for a client this morning (ADP is the Scottish Government's version of PIP). This is one of the questions on the form for the moving around activity -

They could have worded that a bit better. I mean how is anyone with no feet going to skip anywhere?

Fortunately my client has no problems with walking, as I had to explain what I was laughing at.
/<welf tangent>

 

[AuroraSaab]

True, but perfectly possible to risk assess both things. You don't abandon safeguarding because the risks are smaller than other risks. Chances of being in any car accident are small. You still put your seatbelt on every time though.

Looks like statistically, around 26k people are seriously injured in UK car crashes per year, both men and women obviously. So say that's 13k women a year, though I suspect it's not 50/50, probably more men injured. There were 63k rapes recorded by police last year, mostly women. Sounds like, statistically anyway, your daughters are overall more likely to be the victim of a serious sexual assault than seriously injured in a car crash.

 

[winjim]

Yup it does.

As well as this basic evolutionary pressure there is individual desire for autonomy, fulfilment, purpose outside of ourselves, freedom of movement and expression and having our chance to lead our lives as we wish

It's all those things that differentiate us from being 'mere' animals, whose main purpose is passing on genes (we assume)

Many people have no particular wish to pass on their genes.

Human existence, and motivations are far more complex than just reproduction.

See I would argue that all those things are a result of, and not separate from, evolutionary processes.

Do you think male treatment of women is hard-wired then? I don't think very much of it is, although you could argue testosterone plays a role on impulse control and levels of aggression, which might be why young men often grow out of criminal behaviour.

I think it's a bit more complicated than simply being hard wired. We've evolved societies and communities, and this includes heirarchies and power structures, governments, religions, the whole lot. And it all feeds back to itself and the systems surrounding it, influencing our behaviour including things like patriarchy and control. It's complex but ultimately we're part of a biological system subject to evolutionary pressures.

 

[Mr Celine]

True, but perfectly possible to risk assess both things. You don't abandon safeguarding because the risks are smaller than other risks. Chances of being in any car accident are small. You still put your seatbelt on every time though.

Looks like statistically, around 26k people are seriously injured in UK car crashes per year, both men and women obviously. So say that's 13k women a year, though I suspect it's not 50/50, probably more men injured. There were 63k rapes recorded by police last year, mostly women. Sounds like, statistically anyway, your daughters are overall more likely to be the victim of a serious sexual assault than seriously injured in a car crash.

Err how many of those sexual assaults occurred in cinemas?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Err how many of those sexual assaults occurred in cinemas?

100% more than would occur if cinemas were single sex spaces just for women and girls.

Which is the whole point. In certain circumstances, women and girls need single sex spaces and services. Noone's suggesting single sex cinemas, just adequate safeguarding for women and girls safety, dignity etc.

Also, even if something is rare there's no sense in making it easier.

 

[mudsticks]

See I would argue that all those things are a result of, and not separate from, evolutionary processes.

Well i shall have to respectfully agree to disagree with you on that

There are many people deeply motivated towards not reproducing their genes, nor towards doing parenting.

Their motivations are elsewhere in the field of human experiences, whether politically, creatively, spiritually or whatever else.

They're not just 'not really bothered' either way, but they really really don't want to have any part in it at all .

 

[Ian H]

<welf tangent>

I filled in my first ADP form for a client this morning (ADP is the Scottish Government's version of PIP). This is one of the questions on the form for the moving around activity -

View attachment 2791

They could have worded that a bit better. I mean how is anyone with no feet going to skip anywhere?

Apart from anything else it said 'select one'. You ignored that and selected 'two'.

 

[Mr Celine]

Apart from anything else it said 'select one'. You ignored that and selected 'two'.

Yes, I'd noticed that too. I've had clients with aspergers / autism who wouldn't be able to get past that question.

 

[C R]

100% more than would occur if cinemas were single sex spaces just for women and girls.

Which is the whole point. In certain circumstances, women and girls need single sex spaces and services. Noone's suggesting single sex cinemas, just adequate safeguarding for women and girls safety, dignity etc.

Also, even if something is rare there's no sense in making it easier.

You do realise that is the argument used by the mullahs in Iran to justify segregation?

 

[qigong chimp]

Makes you long for the old certainties. When, for example, it was common knowledge that the gays were all paedophiles looking to corrupt our youth. A proper moral panic we could all participate in without risk of being cancelled.

 

[Ian H]

Makes you long for the old certainties. When, for example, it was common knowledge that the gays were all paedophiles looking to corrupt our youth. A proper moral panic we could all participate in without risk of being cancelled.

And it turned out to be Uncle Ernie all along.