Both: In light of recent events. In what context is Voyeurism and Indecent Exposure acceptable? Is there a rational justification for making an exception for males who claim to be women?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (27 children)

There’s enough men who want to hurt us. And there isn’t a better or more convenient opportunity than a men’s room. We can’t escape noone will help. It’s an ideal situation for a predator to hurt us.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

As I said- I think you’re intentionally missing my point.

You had to have used the men’s room hundreds of times. You got attacked once.

Im not disagreeing that an attack could happen- I’m saying you haven’t proven that it’s all but guaranteed, or even highly likely. But you keep claiming that it is. That’s disingenuous. Again- I understand not wanting to take the risk, but you’re making it sound like the risk is 1/10 when it could very well be 1/1000000. Either way it shouldn’t happen, to be clear. But your version of things doesn’t make sense because if that many men want to harm TW, they would find a way. Bathrooms may be optimal- they aren’t the only option. And since TW are using women’s facilities, yet still get killed and attacked (often, according to you), my point remains that if most men were likely to want to harm TW for existing, you’d all be dead.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (25 children)

What’s the threshold that is okay for you rate wise for it to be acceptable for us to have to risk getting beaten or killed for it to be okay.

So I used a public bathroom let’s say twice a week. That attack happened maybe 18 months into transition so that’s 1:144. That fair odds to you to ignore.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Again- I get why TW don’t want to take the risk. My points are

  1. Has nothing to do with women so leave us and our spaces out of it

And

  • 2. You used public male spaces for 18 months and got attacked once, which shouldn’t have happened, but shows that every other time, nobody harmed you. Which means that more men didn’t want to do you harm than did. That’s all I’ve been saying this whole time. Not saying there’s no risk- saying you’re implying that most men are a risk and that’s just false. Even according to your own story,the overwhelming majority of the men who saw you in the men’s room didn’t harm you. Again, I understand not taking the risk at all.

But also- if you only use public bathrooms an average of twice a week I don’t really see how not having access to female spaces inhibits your ability to participate in society.

Eta- for clarity, I’m not saying there an acceptable ratio, my sole point has just been that the majority of men won’t harm TW, Im not denying that some will and have

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (23 children)

At that point we had single occupancy toilets at work. That’s not a universal

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Whatever toilets you had access to, it’s still true that most men won’t and didn’t harm you. That’s literally what we’ve been going back and forth about

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (21 children)

Enough do.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

If “enough” did, there’d be no TW walking around regardless of what public spaces you occupy. If that many men get that aggressive, upset and violent just over your presence, they’d kill each and every one of you, or at least infinitely more attacks and murders would occur. The fact is, the vast majority of men dgaf, they may make ignorant even hurtful comments about TW or not be open to dating you, but they don’t want to actively cause you harm.

And no amount of you basically saying “yeah huh they do! It’s impossible to prove and data shows otherwise but yeah huh they totally do” is going to make what I just said false. You can’t just claim it, you have to prove it. You haven’t done that.

If enough men wanted to hurt TW, they would. They don’t need you to be in the same bathroom as them to do so. Women have their own spaces, women get killed, beaten, raped and otherwise attacked by men much more often than TW.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (19 children)

Predators thrive on opportunity to hurt people. Bathrooms and lockers rooms are ideally suited to let them hurt us easily and with the least possible consequence.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

And yet here you are telling a vulnerable group (women) that we should let men (transwomen) into our bathrooms.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

And yet women still get murdered by men much more frequently than TW do. Which means somehow, someway, men who want to hurt women have always been able to find a way. So again- if they wanted to harm TW, bathrooms aren’t the be all and end all. They’d find a way.