Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

McConell was born female.

In Aurora land he has to use female facilities with the same consequence as a female identifying male using them so as natal females are concerned.

In Bromptonaut land any man can have access to women's single sex spaces by saying the magic words 'I'm a woman' or even just adopting feminine stereotypes. The risk of harm is asymmetrical though. McConnell is statistically low risk to women. Women are low risk to McConnell. Any man, however he identifies, is a much larger risk to women in their single sex spaces.

Bromptonaut pretends to care about women like McConnell but he's really just interested in getting men into women's spaces. If he was genuinely concerned he would advocate for 3rd mixed sex spaces - toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards - where those who are happy to be with the opposite sex are free to opt to use.
He doesn't though. He just advocates for men to go where they want.

Oh and once again you guys have to make it all about toilets because men in women's jails and rape crisis centres is a much harder sell, isn't it?

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1952707900763152529?t=2k2FZJJvs3ODDHUib4GCrA&s=19


Yep, go woke......

 

[Bromptonaut]

In Bromptonaut land any man can have access to women's single sex spaces by saying the magic words 'I'm a woman' or even just adopting feminine stereotypes. The risk of harm is asymmetrical though. McConnell is statistically low risk to women. Women are low risk to McConnell. Any man, however he identifies, is a much larger risk to women in their single sex spaces.

Bromptonaut pretends to care about women like McConnell but he's really just interested in getting men into women's spaces. If he was genuinely concerned he would advocate for 3rd mixed sex spaces - toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards - where those who are happy to be with the opposite sex are free to opt to use.
He doesn't though. He just advocates for men to go where they want.

Oh and once again you guys have to make it all about toilets because men in women's jails and rape crisis centres is a much harder sell, isn't it?

God you talk some rubbish.

I resent the assumption that I don't care about women. I do however think trans people can be accomodated rather than going full on GCF as the seems to be the interpretation places on the Supreme Court's decision.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You've never once suggested an 'accommodation' that addresses women's need for single sex spaces. You've only ever posted in support of trans identifying men.

In fact, whenever concerns are raised you've often said 'There are laws to deal with it', suggesting both that preventative safeguarding isn't important and that it only matters if a criminal law is broken. That's the bar you set for women's feelings on the matter; it's only a big deal if it ends in a crime.

Why don't you and your fellow men make the accommodations and welcome your non conforming brethren into male spaces?

 

[monkers]

You've never once suggested an 'accommodation' that addresses women's need for single sex spaces. You've only ever posted in support of trans identifying men.

In fact, whenever concerns are raised you've often said 'There are laws to deal with it', suggesting both that preventative safeguarding isn't important and that it only matters if a criminal law is broken. That's the bar you set for women's feelings on the matter; it's only a big deal if it ends in a crime.

Why don't you and your fellow men make the accommodations and welcome your non conforming brethren into male spaces?

Please forgive the interruption of your conversation @Bromptonaut.

Safeguarding is a formal process of minimising risk. It isn't the formal process of exclusion.

When formal risk assessment is carried out on the presence of trans women (that is those with a GRC) risk assessment invariably shows that there is no additional risk to control.

I wait for one of your usual pivots.

 

[classic33]

In Bromptonaut land any man can have access to women's single sex spaces by saying the magic words 'I'm a woman' or even just adopting feminine stereotypes. The risk of harm is asymmetrical though. McConnell is statistically low risk to women. Women are low risk to McConnell. Any man, however he identifies, is a much larger risk to women in their single sex spaces.

Bromptonaut pretends to care about women like McConnell but he's really just interested in getting men into women's spaces. If he was genuinely concerned he would advocate for 3rd mixed sex spaces - toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards - where those who are happy to be with the opposite sex are free to opt to use.
He doesn't though. He just advocates for men to go where they want.

Oh and once again you guys have to make it all about toilets because men in women's jails and rape crisis centres is a much harder sell, isn't it?

But it's yourself that keeps on dragging them back into the "argument", not us. Maybe it gives a truer indication of your problem. As well as showing the level you're working at.

 

[CXRAndy]

It isn't the formal process of exclusion.

There is no exclusion. They can use the facilities aligned with their biological sex

 

[AuroraSaab]

When formal risk assessment is carried out on the presence of trans women (that is those with a GRC) risk assessment invariably shows that there is no additional risk to control.

I wait for one of your usual pivots.

Back to 'You're only genuine if you have a grc' - a certificate anybody can get, but which nobody is allowed to ask for, and which nobody has a clue if you have one or don't in a situation like changing rooms.

A man with a certificate is a man with a certificate. It means nothing in regards to safeguarding, privacy or dignity for women. They're still men.

It's you who's done a pivot. It used to be 'You are who you say you are', now it's 'Only genuine with a grc'.

 

[monkers]

Back to 'You're only genuine if you have a grc' - a certificate anybody can get, but which nobody is allowed to ask for, and which nobody has a clue if you have one or don't in a situation like changing rooms.

A man with a certificate is a man with a certificate. It means nothing in regards to safeguarding, privacy or dignity for women. They're still men.

It's you who's done a pivot. It used to be 'You are who you say you are', now it's 'Only genuine with a grc'.

You were talking about ''risk of harm''. Now that is debunked as nonsense, you have made the predicted pivots and talking more nonsense. ''Risk of harm'' has now pivoted instead to ''safeguarding''. This doesn't change anything. Cis women and trans women have equal rights for dignity and privacy.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The wider issues are not just about risk of harm. Funny how the benchmark for what women should tolerate is set at violent and sexual offending though.

 

[monkers]

The wider issues are not just about risk of harm. Funny how the benchmark for what women should tolerate is set at violent and sexual offending though.

I replied to the points that were raised. Where is the evidence of violent and sexual offending of trans women with a GRC against women? If the level of evidence is at zero, then the level of any tolerance is also at zero. The pretence is that this is a zero sum game - it isn't.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1952939136349798421?t=JUZ3g2qOp67xhBPXMlHwkg&s=19


Well, maybe Monkers believe he's a woman

 

[AuroraSaab]

I replied to the points that were raised. Where is the evidence of violent and sexual offending of trans women with a GRC against women? If the level of evidence is at zero, then the level of any tolerance is also at zero. The pretence is that this is a zero sum game - it isn't.

You know that men with a GRC are counted in the female stats and that most trans identifying men don't bother getting a GRC. This is your pivot get out clause: they're only trans now if they have a GRC.

A certificate can't work as a safeguarding protocol when nobody is allowed to ask for that certificate, which you can't in most day to day practical situations. A GRC proves nothing in relation to safeguarding. It's not a CRB check.

The Roxy Tickle case is ridiculous. The court was told that Sall Grover should have known Tickle was a 'woman' because the picture he submitted had long hair and a low cut blouse.
Woman = costume in Australian law.

 

[Bromptonaut]

You know that men with a GRC are counted in the female stats and that most trans identifying men don't bother getting a GRC. This is your pivot get out clause: they're only trans now if they have a GRC.

Getting a GRC is anything but straightforward. It's certainly not a certificate anybody can get. It needs evidence sufficient to convince a judicially chaired panel that a certificate should issue. Where it is issued the result is a new birth certificate in the adopted gender. If evidence is needed that's sufficient.

I know, or know of, at least three people who've gone through the process. It's like wading through treacle.

The whole reason for the Scottish act, over ruled from Whitehall, was to improve a procedure widely recognised as bureaucratic and over medicalised. London agreed with that until Johnson and the Tories jumped on the GCF bandwagon.

 

[classic33]

A GRC proves nothing in relation to safeguarding. It's not a CRB check.

So everyone has to have a CRB check each and every time they want to do something?

Woman = costume in Australian law.

So to draw it out, to a "natural" conclusion that suits/supports your argument, all women wear costumes.