you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Right. Why let facts and reality get in the way of what you "believe"? If you believe the Earth is flat, and the moon is made of cheese, then don't let anyone tell u otherwise, boo 😘

I believe all public facilities should be unisex. You believe all public facilities should be segregated by birth sex.

Yup, when women get raped or assaulted, they should just call a time-out with their attacker until they call the police or sue them. And as we all know, justice rarely fails women in this area, and the biggest problem those privileged women face is being so overburdened by non-stop police reports that they can't function in day-to-day life normally, in which case, they should stop being such hysterical over-reacting misandrists. Now, sure, women will be traumatised to the point of fearing being in public even more than they already are, but at least they can rest assured that they can complain to the manager afterwards and leave a one-star rating.

In that case we should be focusing our activism on reforming the criminal justice system, not self-ID or OnlyFans.

If a space excludes them for safety reasons, then those strangers have no business being there in the first place. Does a person who breaks into your home need to kill you or rape you before you can do anything about it?

If a space is open to the general public, it has no business excluding any demographic.

Uuuh, no, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be lying through your teeth, sweeping the issue under the rug, parroting misogynistic myths and trying to remove protections and rights of vulnerable groups. Saying "I'm not sexist, but..." is not the fool-proof disclaimer you seem to think it is.

I agree with you that women should not be perved on and stalked by creepy men. I don't agree that public facilities should be segregated by birth sex.

I love how you say "people", like a well-trained parrot. Nothing whatsoever suspicious about the fact that sexual assault is committed almost exclusively by men to the point of most women's lives being controlled and endangered by this fact. Nah, it's just "evil people", because that lets us lie and gaslight everyone about a pandemic of male sexual violence and pretend it's everyone's problem.

As a cis woman who has been harassed and assaulted by both cis women and cis men, I purposefully say "people" to include everyone.

By removing women's protections and only allowing them to confront their attackers after they've already been raped, because they're being such exclusionary misandrists towards the men consistently ruining their lives.

Victim-blaming women and shaming them for what misandrists they are because they're victimized and have their lives ruined by men is very feminist. After all, you only need to "feel" and "believe" that way, and that's it.

Just because you are a victim of a crime doesn't mean you get to harass random people in public.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But you being the victim of a crime means you get to argue to take away all protection and privacy measures that prevent crime.

How many rapists do you think will take a time out while you go get the manager or security? Or are you saying women should just lie there and rehearse their statement for the police while the rapist does his thing? What made you hate other women so much that this is an acceptable thing to you to argue for?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not taking away privacy. Restrooms' are already separated by stalls, so you already have privacy. I even advocate to add stalls to locker rooms, so I'm advocating for increased privacy. You and I have different ideas of privacy.

Most rapes don't happen in public restrooms, and most victims know their rapist. So the chance of a random stranger raping you in a public restroom is extremely rare.

How many rapists do you think will take a time out while you go get the manager or security?

The reality is, being out in public has risks. I take walks at nights every Friday. There is a chance someone will attack me or rape me, but that is unlikely to happen. But if someone does attack me or rape me, I will go to the police, and I hope that person will be fully prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It's unfortunate if it will have to come to that. But that's what you do when you're the victim of a crime. I still get up, take the subway and go to work, go see friends, even with the risk that something might happen. And if something does happen, I will call the police.

What made you hate other women so much that this is an acceptable thing to you to argue for?

Being against sex-segregated spaces ≠ hating other women.

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most rapes don't happen in public restrooms, and most victims know their rapist.

Oh my friggin god, the reason for this is not because strange men are all lovely proper gentlemen who'd never prey on women! Countless women experience strange men creeping on them all the fucking time, so these men are absolutely not some figment of their hysterical imagination! Of course that when women are so extremely weary of strange men all their lives (for a damn good reason) that they're going to be victimised by the men who they know and let their guard down around, and no shit that assaults rarely happen in female-only spaces where the mere presence of men is forbidden and alarming! jfc it kills me that people will literally use the limited measures that women use to protect themselves from ever-present male violence as evidence that male violence isn't a thing and that women are just making their victimisation up.

being out in public has risks.

Being in private also has risks. So, guess you don't need a door and a lock on your house, right? After all, you're being very exclusionary and bigoted towards others with that, treating them all as criminals. Are you advocating for the removal of those protections? I mean criminals can break into your house anyways, so what's the issue?

Also funny how just being in public is overwhelmingly risky specifically for women due to specifically male violence, and this has been the case throughout history and still is in many places, to the point of women being punished severely both by their male relatives and male strangers if they dare leave the house on their own. But I'm sure that's just the feminazi being hysterical and conspiring to rewrite history again. Women have done the same to men, after all, right? I mean, I'm sure they did...at some point...uh...Well, it's just people being assholes, right? And the identities and rights of the victims and their aggressors just happen to consistently go the same way out of a really funny and weird coincidence, hahaha!

But that's what you do when you're the victim of a crime.

OR you can actually advocate and receive certain protections so you lower your chances of being a victim of a crime. Like how you can put doors with a lock on your house and other security measures. But tell us again if you're keeping your doors open and letting strangers freely into your house. I'm dying to know. After all, you can just call the police afterwards.

Being against sex-segregated spaces ≠ hating other women.

Advocating for the removal of women's protections against the ever-present violence ruining their lives is misogynistic, and no amount of you just claiming it's not can change that. If your priority is endangering and blaming the victims of male violence even more instead of actually preventing male violence from happening in the first place, you are a part of the problem. "I'm not sexist, but..." is not the fool-proof disclaimer you think it is.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh my friggin god, the reason for this is not because strange men are all lovely proper gentlemen who'd never prey on women! Countless women experience strange men creeping on them all the fucking time, so these men are absolutely not some figment of their hysterical imagination! Of course that when women are so extremely weary of strange men all their lives (for a damn good reason) that they're going to be victimised by the men who they know and let their guard down around, and no shit that assaults rarely happen in female-only spaces where the mere presence of men is alarming! jfc it kills me that people will literally use the limited measures that women use to protect themselves from ever-present male violence as evidence that male violence isn't a thing and that women are just making their victimisation up.

I personally experienced sexual harassment multiple times while out on the streets. For instance, men telling me I'm sexy and asking me to go to their home for sex. I've never been attacked or raped yet.

Being in private also has risks. So, guess you don't need a door and a lock on your house, right? After all, you're being very exclusionary and bigoted towards others with that, treating them all as criminals. Are you advocating for the removal of those protections? I mean criminals can break into your house anyways, so what's the issue?

Your home is your own private property so you should lock the doors to to prevent break-ins. Businesses and other places open to the general public have no business excluding anyone based on race, sex, disability, etc.

OR you can actually advocate and receive certain protections so you lower your chances of being a victim of a crime. Like how you can put doors with a lock on your house and other security measures. But tell us again if you're keeping your doors open and letting strangers freely into your house. I'm dying to know. After all, you can just call the police afterwards.

I don't agree sex-segregated spaces necessarily lower your chances of being a victim of a crime. I advocate for other crime prevention measures, like police taking intimate partner violence seriously or more funding funding for CPS because children are often not removed from abusive homes.

Advocating for the removal of women's protections against the ever-present violence ruining their lives is misogynistic, and no amount of you just claiming it's not can change that. If your priority is endangering and blaming the victims of male violence even more instead of actually preventing male violence from happening in the first place, you are a part of the problem. "I'm not sexist, but..." is not the fool-proof disclaimer you think it is.

That is your opinion. We can agree to disagree. Anyway, according to a PPRI study, 51% of men support requiring transgender individuals to use bathrooms corresponding to their assigned sex at birth, compared to 40% of women. Are these 60% of women misogynistic? Most women don't mind sharing a restroom with people AMAB, in fact 10% more than men don't mind sharing a restroom with people AFAB.