you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

If the moral argument is based on safety then overall safety should be the aim not just safety of one subset.

Overall safety pits single occupancy as idea but failing that trans women in women’s spaces because men pose an extreme Danger to them especially in concentration and isolation.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Overall safety is considered. You want the specific safety of a small group of males to overpower the safety measures in place for all people overall.

Females are not a subset of their own sex. You just said overall safety should be the aim not just safety of one subset...

Transwomen are the subset (of males, not females/women). This is a blaring contradiction.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Overall safety is maximized by making sure trans women aren’t near men when a comparatively low risk is applied elsewhere. If everyone counts that’s the logical solution.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That’s not what you said lmao. I’ll just leave it alone and let everyone else see how you once again contradicted yourself.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hey I just want to say that I think you've put forth some good responses to these questions, and that some people are ignoring the implications of your argument to just focus on the aspects of the situation that matters more to them.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.