.
It's really hard to have a discussion with you when your one tactic is to move the goalposts when whatever untrue crap you posted upthread is proven to be untrue crap. You do it over and over again.
The latest example:
MT: There is no evidence that there is an increase in offending rates in countries with SelfID
AS: That's because in selfID countries trans women crimes are now attributable to women. There is no distinction, so any selfIDing TW crimes are hidden. But it has increased because I say so. *My hatred of trans women is so strong that they must have offended.
MT: But look at this data from Argentina. Clearly, they are logging selfIDing crimes separately from cis women, so what you said about crime figures cannot be true.
AS: ITS NOT JUST ABOUT CRIMES AS I KEEP TELLING YOU AND YOU ARE A MAN WHO HATES WOMEN!!!
Your debating skills are sub sixth form level. You generalise, lie, deflect, and put up endless straw men. I would define your arguments as specious, but that would imply they are superficially plausible.
It's no wonder that everyone else has given up.
(AS: ITS BECAUSE IM RIGHT!)
And now, I'm giving up with you too.
You throw around accusations such as 'your debating skills are sub 6th form'
When that's very much the sort of barb that poor debaters routinely use. To try to undermine and belittle their 'opponent'
There are legitimate concerns over self IDing transwomen accessing the safe spaces of already vulnerable women.
Prisons and refuges being the two most problematic that I can see.
It's very easy for priveleged women such as myself and the majority of men to dismiss these concerns as 'just a big old fuss over nothing' as it makes us look big and progressive.
Whatever the risk, however little it may be 'statistically' it's still there, and women already fearful, already having suffered harm's at the hands of male bodied persons aren't going to be reassured by 'statistics'.
You talk of the 'lack of empathy' coming from the person in the film who may well be going all out reactionary (they're an outlier themselves even?).
But I don't see much empathy from yourself on legitimate concerns, over protecting already vulnerable women.
If vulnerable women - including vulnerable transwomen weren't so much at risk from male harassment and violence then the 'debate' wouldn't need to be had nearly so much.
I see a lot of people very strong (understandably so) on sticking up for transpeople.
Who at the same time seem rather unconcerned and passive over genuinely tackling VAWAG..
As if that's a 'seperate' issue - it very much isn't
It's the root cause of much of this debate in the first place.
* And this is a massively unfair accusation, in other threads (even in this one) AS has defended transpeople and their right to exist.
She doesn't hate transwomen at all.
Maybe first look to your own debating style, before you try to take down someone else's.
