monkers
Legendary Member
So you'd concede that your 'women do more violence than men' assertion was incorrect.
As we already knew ofc
How does baselessly slandering womankind like this, when they have overwhelmingly been the victims, not the perpetrators of violence, particularly sexual violence, fit into your ideas of supposedly being a 'feminist' .??
If you want to reduce the violence done to women (including that done to transwomen) then telling untruths about the quantity of violence they do (and suggesting that any violence they do is somehow overlooked or minimised) is a weird way of going about it.
In reality there is far more "Shock horror, how could she??" When a woman is the perpetrator.
But then again if she doesn't use physicality, to say resist being raped, then that's often a point against her being seen as a 'legitimate' victim.
"Why didn't she fight back??"
What was exposed was what I intended to expose. That Aurora does have the capacity to do numbers when it suits her, and that when she uses false presentation of numbers to try to make a point, she lies. She knows what she is doing is wrong, she is trying hard to mislead people with misdirection. Aurora is to feminism what Joe Lycett is to Thatcherism.
The one stretch I was not prepared to make and did not, was that women are much more vulnerable to violence.
To anyone, including you, who couldn't see the process wasn't really paying attention.
The London figures, and the account of them was correct. She tried to ignore, and then tried to rubbish it, pretending the figures were not correct, pretending that London figures were not typical of other cities in this country.
What the London figures showed clearly enough, is that violence is more closely related to age than to sex. Young women are actively engaged in violence.
It's a very important point. Much earlier in the thread, I gave an account of the one time I experienced street violence, I was robbed by three young women as I was leaving a women's toilet. I'm not going to repeat the story here.
If there is a logical case for making women's toilets safer, then it is to keep young women out of them, since there is clear evidence that they cause problems and not trans women.
This is not arguing for the exclusion of young people; this is me showing just how bonkers her arguments are, and the lies that she is prepared to generate to press her points.
That you couldn't see the point being pressed by me, and then came on the attack showed that either you didn't understand the numbers, or you maybe not quite so free of that cultural bias as you think you are.
Bottom line, that there is no evidence that trans women are a danger to women in the women's toilets.
It ought to be clearer to everybody yet, from Aurora's assertion that she even wants women such as Caster Semenya banned from using women's toilets.
This whole argument is aligned with the same purity arguments as 1930s Germany. It is a form of fascism that is rising in this country, and people are sleepwalking into it. Remember the 'final solution' didn't come at the beginning of WW2. The UK did not declare war on Germany at the time of the genocide of it's own people, that came later.
As much as I despise this Tory government, it doesn't mean that I think they plan genocide through violence. But just as their unspeakable treatment of asylum seeker people by falsely declaring them as 'illegal migrants', they are capable of the thought processes which will make being trans 'illegal', which amounts to a kind of genocide of these people. It's telling that her support is coming from people like Andy.
I know that people have the right to their opinions, and I'm content with that right. I'm content that opinions are allowed to vary. I can not be content that people are denied their human rights on the basis of uneducated opinion and the denial of law.
I'll never sit down and let that happen.
Last edited: