Gender again. Sorry!

[mickle]

She doesn't need to because the data that persuaded you that is necessary was entirely false. You are still taken in by the propaganda that you posted.

Otherwise to follow you argument, it is more wrong for a man to attack a woman in the women's toilet than for him to drag her into the men's toilet to attack her - this is exactly what Russell Brand is alleged to have done.

The very idea that a man will not attack a woman in a space designated as a woman's space is for the birds. Men with that motive will always find an opportunity to attack women. Signs on doors are not a deterrent.

She doesn't need to? For real? Are you seriously suggesting that women pose the same threat of danger to women as men?

 

[CXRAndy]

Monkers is still in the angry denial period after the supreme court announcement.

The acceptance may come too late, better to stay angry 😁

 

[monkers]

She doesn't need to? For real? Are you seriously suggesting that women pose the same threat of danger to women as men?

Women have the same potential for violence, they just don't have the same propensity for it.

If you make women's spaces super safe by monitoring, employing an attendant, whatever, what you get is crime displacement.

The effect is rather like CCTV. Studies show that it has the effect of displacing crime to other areas in the case of minor crimes. However it has little if any effect on violent crime.

Sadly the control measures you are advocating will have zero effect. In fact as a cohort trans women are not a threat to women, the data proves it.

The problem is that the rates of sexual assault against women (and children) are increasing. Do you think that crossdressing men with a poor taste in wigs and clothes taking pictures of themselves in their bedrooms are responsible group?

The argument looks like men pushing back against the allegation that they are increasingly dangerous as a group. ''It's not us, it's these men who stay at home alone crossdressing''. The argument is less convincing than you think. The bottom line is there is a pressing need is for men to stop attacking women. What are you going to do about it?

 

[icowden]

She doesn't need to? For real? Are you seriously suggesting that women pose the same threat of danger to women as men?

No, I think @monkers is suggesting that your statistics are missing something. Whilst this might be true, this isn't how you establish your risk of being assaulted.

e knows that men account for 95%+ of all violent and sexual assaults, that women account for 88% of the victims of those assaults and that the rates don't change when a man 'transitions' to 'become a woman'.

To do that, you need to look at all the daily encounters between men and women and work out what proportion of those end in assault. There is a pretty high chance that the most likely outcome of encountering any of those people in the ladies is mutual embarrassment and a bit of feeling uncomfortable. That might increase a bit in a high alcohol area, but I'm sure a well placed high heel and some screaming will soon draw attention. The person will then still be prosecuted. It doesn't matter *where* the male person is (or formerly male).

 

[monkers]

Monkers is still in the angry denial period after the supreme court announcement.

The acceptance may come too late, better to stay angry 😁

My opinion on this topic has not changed since the 16th April - it's exactly the same. Yes women are angry that men always make them less safe, and no more so than in their own homes. Why wouldn't we be angry? But that doesn't mean we need stop being rational.

But here you are you moron, trying to say that you care about women's safety, but complaining that I'm angry about the violence of men.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If you make women's spaces super safe by monitoring, employing an attendant, whatever, what you get is crime displacement.

That's simply not true. Women are at more risk in mixed sex spaces than in women only spaces. You don't need an attendant, you just need to exclude men.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...g-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

In fact as a cohort trans women are not a threat to women, the data proves it.

No, it doesn't. They are the same risk as any other man. Why wouldn't they be? Nothing magical happens when a man declares himself a woman or when he gets a GRC certificate.

 

[monkers]

That's simply not true. Women are at more risk in mixed sex spaces than in women only spaces. You don't need an attendant, you just need to exclude men.

View attachment 8197
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...g-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html



No, it doesn't. They are the same risk as any other man. Why wouldn't they be? Nothing magical happens when a man declares himself a woman or when he gets a GRC certificate.

So you keep saying it, but the evidence is to the contrary.

Bring the evidence, or for the last time shut up about it.

You can't just bring data that includes all attacks anywhere by anyone.

You need to bring the specific evidence that women with a GRC are attacking women and/or girls in women's toilets. That is the accusation being made. Scraping the internet for one single outlier case of some incident somewhere in the world with some dubious report that the person is ''transgender'' is not enough. You need to present relevant data from a reliable source. Otherwise you are just presenting propaganda with a negative opinion. That's not good enough.

 

[mickle]

Women have the same potential for violence, they just don't have the same propensity for it.

If you make women's spaces super safe by monitoring, employing an attendant, whatever, what you get is crime displacement.

The effect is rather like CCTV. Studies show that it has the effect of displacing crime to other areas in the case of minor crimes. However it has little if any effect on violent crime.

Sadly the control measures you are advocating will have zero effect. In fact as a cohort trans women are not a threat to women, the data proves it.

The problem is that the rates of sexual assault against women (and children) are increasing. Do you think that crossdressing men with a poor taste in wigs and clothes taking pictures of themselves in their bedrooms are responsible group?

The argument looks like men pushing back against the allegation that they are increasingly dangerous as a group. ''It's not us, it's these men who stay at home alone crossdressing''. The argument is less convincing than you think. The bottom line is there is a pressing need is for men to stop attacking women. What are you going to do about it?

Yeahbut how does a woman, lets say; late at night and alone in a public toilet, differentiate, between:

another woman
a bloke
a bloke dressed up as a woman
a bloke dressed up as a 'transwoman'
a transexual
an autogynephile crossdressing pervy bloke
a GRC equipped 'transwoman' and
a self-ID'd 'transwoman'
a non-binarian
a rapist
?

 

[AuroraSaab]

You need to bring the specific evidence that women with a GRC are attacking women and/or girls in women's toilets. That is the accusation being made.

No, I do not. You need to prove how having a certificate magically removes a man from the risk-to-women group into the harmless-can-go-anywhere group.

There is no discernible difference between a man with a certificate and one without. Given that it is impractical to ask for a certificate to be presented before someone enters a women's single sex spaces, whether the man has one or not is irrelevant anyway.

Once again though you are setting the bar for women's discomfort at them being raped, as if anything less, like privacy and dignity, doesn't count for much.

 

[CXRAndy]

If you make women's spaces super safe by monitoring, employing an attendant, whatever, what you get is crime displacement

What is wrong with that, women have safe spaces to go to.

If you mean crime is committed more in the open, that must mean people can intervene if they see it. I say people because the police are not worth a jot

 

[AuroraSaab]

'If men can't rape a woman in the toilets, they'll just rape a different woman somewhere else'.

That's a great argument for letting men into women's spaces, isn't it?

 

[Ian H]

Yeahbut how does a woman, lets say; late at night and alone in a public toilet, differentiate, between:

another woman
a bloke
a bloke dressed up as a woman
a bloke dressed up as a 'transwoman'
a transexual
an autogynephile crossdressing pervy bloke
a GRC equipped 'transwoman' and
a self-ID'd 'transwoman'
a non-binarian
a rapist
?

It looks v complicated. She obviously need a printed checklist and a pen. Is she allowed to ask questions?

 

[classic33]

No, I do not. You need to prove how having a certificate magically removes a man from the risk-to-women group into the harmless-can-go-anywhere group.

There is no discernible difference between a man with a certificate and one without. Given that it is impractical to ask for a certificate to be presented before someone enters a women's single sex spaces, whether the man has one or not is irrelevant anyway.

Once again though you are setting the bar for women's discomfort at them being raped, as if anything less, like privacy and dignity, doesn't count for much.

Where was that said?

 

[AuroraSaab]

It was implied by the emphasis on sex/violent offending and crime stats. The perfectly valid requirement of women for privacy and to simply be away from men in certain situations is barely given any credence by men in this discussion.

 

[monkers]

No, I do not. You need to prove how having a certificate magically removes a man from the risk-to-women group into the harmless-can-go-anywhere group.

There is no discernible difference between a man with a certificate and one without. Given that it is impractical to ask for a certificate to be presented before someone enters a women's single sex spaces, whether the man has one or not is irrelevant anyway.

Once again though you are setting the bar for women's discomfort at them being raped, as if anything less, like privacy and dignity, doesn't count for much.

Yes you do. You are making an adverse claim. Debating etiquette means that you produce the evidence or you retract the claim.

That's how it works.

It's clear you don't have the evidence.

It's clear you don't have evidence because it is an entirely false and damaging and serious allegation being made.

If you wish to have any credibility left, you must retract the claim.

We can discuss ''discomfort'' separately, but ''discomfort'' can never the justification for falsely alleging serious crime against people.

Privacy and dignity are convention rights that pertain to all of us. ''Discomfort'' is not a protected convention right that pertains to any of us.