Gender again. Sorry!

[Rusty Nails]

After 10,000+ posts has this thread actually persuaded any one to change their very entrenched views?

Very entrenched views are unlikely to be changed as a result of an internet forum discussion.

It will be a success if it makes people with less entrenched views accept there may be a different angle to the topic.

 

[AndyRM]

After 10,000+ posts has this thread actually persuaded any one to change their very entrenched views?

Yep.

 

[classic33]

There's no evidence that transwomen offend at a lower rate than other men.

You could apply your argument to other groups of men. Blind men, gay men, men in wheelchairs. Should they be given the access to women's single sex spaces that transactivists demand for transwomen? If not, why not?

Nobody thinks 11 year old boys are likely to be sex offenders. Do you think all 11 year old boys and girls should change together for PE and swimming? Why not? It's not just about safety is it?

The onus is on you to show why some men are special, not for women to have to endlessly explain why there are no special groups of men.

What about trans men. Are their offending rates any different to other women.*

Are blind women*, women in wheelchairs any different? Should they be given free and unfettered entrance to male only areas. Despite the fact that disabled areas tend to be unisex.
Most living with a disability aren't making demands for extra access to able bodied areas. We're just after equal access. The same is just as likely to apply to any trans woman or trans man. The right to live their life, without having others pointing out that "they shouldn't be allowed in here".

Why are you happy with the fact that a trans man should have unrestricted access to men's areas/groups, and that men, or boys, should have no problems with that. But not willing to even contemplate a trans woman in a women's area/group?

Worth reminding you that Britain's youngest double murderer is female, not male.

Unless there's been drastic changes in recent months, changing areas aren't designed and specified by age. That'd be an extra cost, that would be passed onto the end users.

I would say that the onus is clearly on yourself to prove that there are "special groups of men" in the first place. And does this mean that there are "special groups of women" making similar "demands" as well?


*I'm using this wording simply because you refuse to accept people for what they are. And what the law says.

 

[classic33]

The harms are already proven. Men are statistically dangerous to girls and women in a way that other women are not. Women feel uncomfortable with men present in certain situations and services (and vice versa of course).

You need to prove why some men are to be exempt from exclusion when others aren't. Otherwise you're really just arguing for everything - sports, prisons, refuges, changing rooms - to be mixed sex. I mean, you could argue for that if you wish but we all know the common sense reasons why that would be a non starter. Why are some men special but others aren't? 'Because they say so' isn't a good enough answer.

You've really managed to take a big step backwards with this. Almost back to Victorian times with your attitude.
My opinion only, you won't see it anyway.

Commonsense departed this topic very early on in your case.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What about trans men. Are their offending rates any different to other women.*

Why don't you do the research? Certain groups of women offend at higher rates than others. They are still women though.

Are blind women*, women in wheelchairs any different? Should they be given free and unfettered entrance to male only areas.

No, why should they? Men need privacy too.

Despite the fact that disabled areas tend to be unisex.

They aren't mixed. They are single facilities used by anybody, one person at a time.

Most living with a disability aren't making demands for extra access to able bodied areas. We're just after equal access. The same is just as likely to apply to any trans woman or trans man. The right to live their life, without having others pointing out that "they shouldn't be allowed in here".

I support equal access to mixed facilities for disabled people. The claim that this is the same as men seeking access to women's same sex services etc is a false equivalency.

Why are you happy with the fact that a trans man should have unrestricted access to men's areas/groups, and that men, or boys, should have no problems with that. But not willing to even contemplate a trans woman in a women's area/group?

I have repeatedly said it is up to men if they wish to admit transmen to their single sex spaces and services.

Worth reminding you that Britain's youngest double murderer is female, not male.

One of a relatively small number of women convicted of murder each year then. Most murderers are men.

I would say that the onus is clearly on yourself to prove that there are "special groups of men" in the first place.

There are no special subsets of men, correct.

 

[classic33]

Why don't you do the research? Certain groups of women offend at higher rates than others. They are still women though.

I do that and I get a sarcastic response, from yourself, along the lines of "Very good Classic, you've managed to find another of a tiny minority". You provide the proof there's no difference.

No, why should they? Men need privacy too.

That's the first time you've admitted that. Your response in the past has been that "men should have no problems with allowing them".

They aren't mixed. They are single facilities used by anybody, one person at a time.

You're back to toilets again. Never used any single space changing rooms in years. At best it's been curtain dividing the area.

I support equal access to mixed facilities for disabled people. The claim that this is the same as men seeking access to women's same sex services etc is a false equivalency.

I'll just remind you, I was quoting your post, in which you raised the matter you now say is "a false equivalency". Which raises the questions of why did you choose to use it, and why wasn't it "a false equivalency" when you use it as an example? This isn't the first time you used this "example" either.

I have repeatedly said it is up to men if they wish to admit transmen to their single sex spaces and services.

You have repeatedly said that we, "men, should have no problems with allowing them access". Usually in a sarcastic response/reply.

One of a relatively small number of women convicted of murder each year then. Most murderers are men.

She remains Britain's youngest double murderer though. Women tend to be multiple murderers, and pick on the most vulnerable in society. Beverley Allitt and Lucy Letby being but two such cases.

There are no special subsets of men, correct.

Twist what was said and avoid answering the question asked.
Normal behaviour for you when there's a question you can't answer/want to avoid answering.
Why do you continue to use the phrase though?

 

[Deleted member 159]

The way niece of monkers posts in a similar way, one could easily believe they're one and the same.

Personality disorder?

 

[Deleted member 159]

You have repeatedly said that we, "men, should have no problems with allowing them access

Women are the weaker sex, generally no threat to men, especially a group of men.

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

N here ~ monkers is sleeping.

I've been considering your contributions to the thread. I observe the following: -

With regard to your bringing 'Nazis' to my attention I can only think the trigger for this relates to Minsull in Australia. I have seen other on-line argument concerning correlation and causation. Minsull has seemed keen to distance herself from the attending Nazis. To establish correlation one has to determine the likelihood of coincidence. To establish causation one has to establish a relevant link.

The likelihood of pure coincidence that Minsull and the neo Nazi movement happening to be in attendance simultaneously is not necessarily incalculable, but difficult. The level of coincidence seems low.

The media has been running headline stories concerning trans people correlating as paedophiles.

‘Trans’ paedophiles are laughing at Britain​

Bindel in the Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/31/trans-paedophiles-are-laughing-at-britain/

The neo-Nazis attended with this - the strength of the link is high.

Therefore causation is proven.

Please kindly note that I had not called any poster here a 'Nazi', 'Neo-Nazi', 'Fascist' or other such term of endearment.


The 'lefty lawyer' reference was not an allegation that I was referred here as such. This should have been obvious to you.

The UK government 'lefty lawyer' accusation is worthy of a short comment.

I have a suspicion that you do not read the thread but tend to use it as a platform for your views.

 

[monkers]

The way niece of monkers posts in a similar way, one could easily believe they're one and the same.

Personality disorder?

Given our relationship, I'm surprised that you find us to have similarities so extraordinary. Perhaps you missed where I gave a summary of my childhood?

As a growing child I had a love of writing. My aunt and I would sit for hours and write alternate lines to a story. I guess you could say this was formative.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I do that and I get a sarcastic response, from yourself, along the lines of "Very good Classic, you've managed to find another of a tiny minority". You provide the proof there's no difference.

I haven't claimed there's a difference. You asked; I suggested you research it if you want to know.

That's the first time you've admitted that. Your response in the past has been that "men should have no problems with allowing them".

I've said it a dozen times. It's up to men who they admit to their single sex spaces and services. Some will be ok with it, some won't. If you are happy to accommodate non conforming women in your single sex spaces, why aren't you happy to accommodate non conforming men?

I've also said that transmen are unlikely to be a safety risk to men in situations like prisons and sports - that's just common sense - so the issues are not quite the same.

She remains Britain's youngest double murderer though. Women tend to be multiple murderers, and pick on the most vulnerable in society. Beverley Allitt and Lucy Letby being but two such cases.

Do they now? Your analysis of crime data never ceases to amaze me.

 

[monkers]

Women are the weaker sex, generally no threat to men, especially a group of men.

I sense that you don't like strong women. Or do you?

 

[monkers]

There are no special subsets of men, correct.

Cis women, trans women, non-binary women, cis men, trans men, non-binary men are all subsets of the universal set.

One can create subsets of a universal set with regard to any physical attribute or personal characteristic, but this does not provide the case for erasing one subset.

 

[AuroraSaab]

@AuroraSaab

No point using the @. I don't get notifications from Cyclechat.

The likelihood of pure coincidence that Minsull and the neo Nazi movement happening to be in attendance simultaneously is not necessarily incalculable, but difficult. The level of coincidence seems low.

It wasn't a coincidence. The Nazis turned up to goad the transactivists. Not sure Nazis are big fans of feminism, women's rights, and support for lesbians.

Funnily enough, when Nazis actually march on the streets in Australia the transactivists are nowhere to be seen. They only turn out to shout at women it seems.

 

[classic33]

I haven't claimed there's a difference. You asked; I suggested you research it if you want to know.

Suggestion, read your response given when it, my own research, is presented.

I've said it a dozen times. It's up to men who they admit to their single sex spaces and services. Some will be ok with it, some won't. If you are happy to accommodate non conforming women in your single sex spaces, why aren't you happy to accommodate non conforming men?

No, you have repeatedly said we, men, should have no issues with allowing them access. Something you are unwilling to do yourself.
There you go again, making assumptions that are more than a little wide of the mark.

I've also said that transmen are unlikely to be a safety risk to men in situations like prisons and sports - that's just common sense - so the issues are not quite the same.

Explain why an adult woman can't be a threat to boys of the age of 11(Your go to age for examples)?

Do they now? Your analysis of crime data never ceases to amaze me.

Or annoy you, when something is brought up that challenges your view