Current Affairs Gender Nonsence

[b-rad]

Most people take isolated cases seriously. If you heard an isolated case of a strange man hanging around your kids school, or following a local woman home, or perhaps that there had been a local burglary, would your senses not be heightened? It's the exception that tests the rule. The outlier gives you pause. Of course you're not going to be afraid of something that can never/will never happen. But the fact that it can, gives the opportunity in the 1st place.

In addition, this needs clearing up, because people keep stating it as though this is the crux of the argument, and its not. Nobody is saying that it's genuine Trans people, who are often vulnerable themselves, committing crimes. The argument is that the rule change weakens the safeguarding issue and gives cover to those who feel emboldened to use the exemption to their benefit.

If a man decides to enter a female bathroom, and I'm not even just talking about actual physical assault here, but perhaps he goes in to take photographs, and he knows that by law, he can freely enter, without question, knowing all he has to do is say he identifies as a female and he has the right to be there. Can you honestly not see how this is a problem?

Like i say, this is not anti trans, it's just common sense.

The problem here is real, and happens, but I'm not sure that not allowing such a person, by law, into the area will solve anything.

Taking indecent images of someone, without consent, is morally wrong. Allowing them access by law to that location isn't the deciding factor IMO.

If a male, dressed as a female, plans to enter a female bathroom to take indecent images or to assault someone, then simply saying "you are biologically male, so you can't go in" doesn't feel like it's going to stop them. I accept it removes opportunity a little (but let's be honest, if they're willing to perform such acts once through the door, then they will have no problem with trying to sneak past even if they're not "allowed"), but it feels like an attempt to reduce something by 5%, that is already a rare occurrence (say 1% of biological males using the female bathroom would do such a thing) is negatively affecting the 99% who pose no threat for such a small benefit.

The argument isn't that nothing needs to be done, but that a different approach might be better - though I'll admit that I don't know what that better solution might be.
It's a sorry world where a "safe space" is necessary for anyone.

 

[d34noj]

Most people take isolated cases seriously. If you heard an isolated case of a strange man hanging around your kids school, or following a local woman home, or perhaps that there had been a local burglary, would your senses not be heightened? It's the exception that tests the rule. The outlier gives you pause. Of course you're not going to be afraid of something that can never/will never happen. But the fact that it can, gives the opportunity in the 1st place.

In addition, this needs clearing up, because people keep stating it as though this is the crux of the argument, and its not. Nobody is saying that it's genuine Trans people, who are often vulnerable themselves, committing crimes. The argument is that the rule change weakens the safeguarding issue and gives cover to those who feel emboldened to use the exemption to their benefit.

If a man decides to enter a female bathroom, and I'm not even just talking about actual physical assault here, but perhaps he goes in to take photographs, and he knows that by law, he can freely enter, without question, knowing all he has to do is say he identifies as a female and he has the right to be there. Can you honestly not see how this is a problem?

Like i say, this is not anti trans, it's just common sense.

This is the bit that everybody isn't listening to, adding 2 + 2 = transphobia. It's not, a critical voice doesn't automatically assume phobia.

I have various disagreements with the trans community, all of which revolve around the use of biology & terminology but how you live your life - who cares.

 

[varnish]

When the fuq did Glinner become a toffee?

 

[wandyr79]

Most people take isolated cases seriously. If you heard an isolated case of a strange man hanging around your kids school, or following a local woman home, or perhaps that there had been a local burglary, would your senses not be heightened? It's the exception that tests the rule. The outlier gives you pause. Of course you're not going to be afraid of something that can never/will never happen. But the fact that it can, gives the opportunity in the 1st place.

In addition, this needs clearing up, because people keep stating it as though this is the crux of the argument, and its not. Nobody is saying that it's genuine Trans people, who are often vulnerable themselves, committing crimes. The argument is that the rule change weakens the safeguarding issue and gives cover to those who feel emboldened to use the exemption to their benefit.

If a man decides to enter a female bathroom, and I'm not even just talking about actual physical assault here, but perhaps he goes in to take photographs, and he knows that by law, he can freely enter, without question, knowing all he has to do is say he identifies as a female and he has the right to be there. Can you honestly not see how this is a problem?

Like i say, this is not anti trans, it's just common sense.

I think you might have misread my point about isolated cases. I was referring to comments like 'awash with sexual deviancy' and then having isolated cases to prove that this was the case. I was also referring to isolated cases of something happening and then applying that to disparage the whole community.

Of course, when you refer to an individual case that individual case heightens awareness that it can happen and measures might already be put in place to stop it from escalating. A strange man hanging around a school can be scary in its own right, but by the logic that is being applied to this is that one man hanging around a school means that no man can be around any school, in any capacity. I mean, if one man can hang around and be a danger to kids then can't all men (i.e. maybe they are pretending to be a parent, or pretending to live nearby/visiting somebody) so we should stop them all from being near schools?

I am against saying that the majority of a community are sexual deviants because of a few isolated incidents.

That is the anti trans element. Not the fact we are all advocates of safe spaces for women but don't think that trans is the relevant issue in providing that.

 

[Kever10]

I think you might have misread my point about isolated cases. I was referring to comments like 'awash with sexual deviancy' and then having isolated cases to prove that this was the case. I was also referring to isolated cases of something happening and then applying that to disparage the whole community.

Of course, when you refer to an individual case that individual case heightens awareness that it can happen and measures might already be put in place to stop it from escalating. A strange man hanging around a school can be scary in its own right, but by the logic that is being applied to this is that one man hanging around a school means that no man can be around any school, in any capacity. I mean, if one man can hang around and be a danger to kids then can't all men (i.e. maybe they are pretending to be a parent, or pretending to live nearby/visiting somebody) so we should stop them all from being near schools?

I am against saying that the majority of a community are sexual deviants because of a few isolated incidents.

That is the anti trans element. Not the fact we are all advocates of safe spaces for women but don't think that trans is the relevant issue in providing that.

Yes, and that is the safeguarding issue. They can and would be rightly questioned about why they are there. You would not even be allowed to do that if a man entered a female bathroom without being labelled a phobe or a bigot.

And i will reiterate. Nobody is saying that the entire community are sexual deviants. But safety precautions are there for the minority of occasions. 99% of the time, you could leave your door unlocked. But on that 1% occasion that someone takes advantage is the only 1 that matters after the fact.

And the majority thing goes across the board too. There will be a small percentage of men that are criminals and a small percentage that are trans. To suggest that a) there would definitely be no crossover, and b) there would be no non-trans people that would would use the rules to their advantage is either naive or ignorant.

We are in the build up now to Christmas, party season etc. Just watch as the number of stories and reports of general assaults, spikings, dodgy taxi drivers, etc, as well as break ins/burglaries, pick pocketing start to rise. Just because it isnt happening to you doesn't mean it isnt happening.

Again, common sense, not trans phobia.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

This is the bit that everybody isn't listening to, adding 2 + 2 = transphobia. It's not, a critical voice doesn't automatically assume phobia.

I have various disagreements with the trans community, all of which revolve around the use of biology & terminology but how you live your life - who cares.

You do?!?!

 

[d34noj]

You do?!?!

Yes mate, regarding biology and terminology.


That's it. Again.

 

[wandyr79]

Yes, and that is the safeguarding issue. They can and would be rightly questioned about why they are there. You would not even be allowed to do that if a man entered a female bathroom without being labelled a phobe or a bigot.

And i will reiterate. Nobody is saying that the entire community are sexual deviants. But safety precautions are there for the minority of occasions. 99% of the time, you could leave your door unlocked. But on that 1% occasion that someone takes advantage is the only 1 that matters after the fact.

And the majority thing goes across the board too. There will be a small percentage of men that are criminals and a small percentage that are trans. To suggest that a) there would definitely be no crossover, and b) there would be no non-trans people that would would use the rules to their advantage is either naive or ignorant.

We are in the build up now to Christmas, party season etc. Just watch as the number of stories and reports of general assaults, spikings, dodgy taxi drivers, etc, as well as break ins/burglaries, pick pocketing start to rise. Just because it isnt happening to you doesn't mean it isnt happening.

Again, common sense, not trans phobia.

Point to me saying it never happens.

Why bang on about this part, when it just doesn't exist.

We have the same end game, for a safe and secure society, just different ways to get there. A solid policing/protecting of an area, while balancing fairness and equality to all, or your side which is ban everybody and to hell with the innocent bystanders.

Maybe that makes me naïve in the current climate.

 

[davek]

Transgender people have right to be recognised in legally acquired gender, court hears

For Women Scotland is challenging ruling extending definition of ‘woman’ to transgender women with GRC

www.theguardian.com

Cant wait to hear what the hobgoblin woman says about this ruling in her own backyard.

As predicted - hobgoblin woman not happy about the Scottish ruling.

 

[Kever10]

Point to me saying it never happens.

Why bang on about this part, when it just doesn't exist.

We have the same end game, for a safe and secure society, just different ways to get there. A solid policing/protecting of an area, while balancing fairness and equality to all, or your side which is ban everybody and to hell with the innocent bystanders.

Maybe that makes me naïve in the current climate.

To the contrary, im not suggesting banning everyone, just people who are not women, biologically or via surgery/transition.

Should people be banned who just decide to change their pronouns?

Absolutely.

As predicted - hobgoblin woman not happy about the Scottish ruling.

What has she said that is a) wrong and/or b) offensive?

 

[davek]

What has she said that is a) wrong and/or b) offensive?

Her position on transgender men especially is appalling.

You'd think she could find something better to spend her time and money on than persecuting powerless minorities.

A rancid harpy who really should just focus on knocking out stories about wizards and hobgoblins...if she really must.

 

[Kever10]

Her position on transgender men especially is appalling.

You'd think she could find something better to spend her time and money on than persecuting powerless minorities.

A rancid harpy who really should just focus on knocking out stories about wizards and hobgoblins...if she really must.

Whwt has she said about Transgender men?

 

[d34noj]

To the contrary, im not suggesting banning everyone, just people who are not women, biologically or via surgery/transition.

Should people be banned who just decide to change their pronouns?

Absolutely.


What has she said that is a) wrong and/or b) offensive?

I don't think Dave likes women having rights mate.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Yes mate, regarding biology and terminology.


That's it. Again.

No, mate. You pretend that is the issue but, when your mask slips, as it has a number of times, it becomes clear you have major issues.

 

[d34noj]

No, mate. You pretend that is the issue but, when your mask slips, as it has a number of times, it becomes clear you have major issues.

I've stated right from the off what my issue is. Whatever you think doesn't really interest me much to be honest mate.