Who Would Have Thought Conservatives would be the ones to defend female rights?

Thorin wrote:It is endemic globally the violence of males. It does not matter to female victims of sexual abuse. In regards to your perception of how many violent males will use said facilities. Its the very thought and fact that they will. The link on unisex changing facilities proves that

Its not based on the chances of a violent male being in the toilet at the same time. Single sex facilities are based on a total ban of the opposite sex and for good reason. As we do not know the good from the bad men, just by looking at them. We know a number are dangerous though. |Hence the view is to provide a safeguard based on sex.

You still cannot grasp what triggers the trauma in females and why many will now avoid using toilets in public. 

Hence overhauling the toilet system is not an over reaction, when two vulnerable groups are at odds with each other over this. The two groups are trans women and bio women. 

Thus create safe universal systems for people. That eradicate the issue they both are at odds with each other on. Your view to enforce people to except something they are uncomfortable with. Fails dramatically in regards to again attempting to place yourself in the shoes of females

Every reply by you is centred on either gender ideology or assumptions in regard to me. In every single instance wrong by you

How is it an over reaction, when two vulnerable groups cannot agree and my system would allow for agreement?

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:It is endemic globally the violence of males. It does not matter to female victims of sexual abuse. In regards to your perception of how many violent males will use said facilities. Its the very thought and fact that they will. The link on unisex changing facilities proves that

Its not based on the chances of a violent male being in the toilet at the same time. Single sex facilities are based on a total ban of the opposite sex and for good reason. As we do not know the good from the bad men, just by looking at them. We know a number are dangerous though. |Hence the view is to provide a safeguard based on sex.

You still cannot grasp what triggers the trauma in females and why many will now avoid using toilets in public. 

Hence overhauling the toilet system is not an over reaction, when two vulnerable groups are at odds with each other over this. The two groups are trans women and bio women. 

Thus create safe universal systems for people. That eradicate the issue they both are at odds with each other on. Your view to enforce people to except something they are uncomfortable with. Fails dramatically in regards to again attempting to place yourself in the shoes of females

Every reply by you is centred on either gender ideology or assumptions in regard to me. In every single instance wrong by you

How is it an over reaction, when two vulnerable groups cannot agree and my system would allow for agreement?

This problem is very new. Trans people still make up way short of 1% of the population.

Now I am the last person to think we should make laws based on what has always been or based on the proportion of the population; most women don't seem to be terrified of using women's toilets, so just them carry on. If some places want to have single space facilities then good for them, but it shouldn't be expected imo.

Again, I think unisex toilets should just be scrapped entirely, as either they are unneeded (if the other 2 already exist) or they could be both inconvenient for men and uncomfortable for women if there is no other option.

Eilzel wrote:Now who's making assertions as to what the other is saying?

Ultimately my argument here boils down to there being no way of pleasing everybody, and what we had was working fine generally.

I've nothing to add tbh.

JulesV wrote:@ title:
This is a case of change being RESISTED.
They want to conserve things as they are -- so isn't this just the conservatives being conservative?

The fact that their stance benefitted women on this occasion ..... is just a happy coincidence.

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Now who's making assertions as to what the other is saying?

Ultimately my argument here boils down to there being no way of pleasing everybody, and what we had was working fine generally.

I've nothing to add tbh.

That was apparent from the very start

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That was apparent from the very start

Rude.

Thorin wrote:Stay in character?
The title is based on the left perpetually claiming progression, defending human rights is only down to the left.

I thought that was obvious

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:Stay in character?
The title is based on the left perpetually claiming progression, defending human rights is only down to the left.

I thought that was obvious

Except that this is not progression. It's the opposite. It's conserving things the way they already are.

Look, the average conservative-minded lady does not want to share a communal loo area with men. She'd be mortified.  
Their stance here is them defending their own space and human rights.
They are looking after number one.
Obviously their stance helps other women - but that's by the by.

Thorin wrote:The title is based on the left perpetually claiming progression, defending human rights is only down to the left.

JulesV wrote:Except that this is not 'progression'. It's the opposite. It's conserving things the way they already are.  

Thorin wrote: Incorrect, as females are far from having equality. To deny them a protected characteristic. Is not progression, but regression.  

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:The title is based on the left perpetually claiming progression, defending human rights is only down to the left.

JulesV wrote:Except that this is not 'progression'. It's the opposite. It's conserving things the way they already are.  

 

Thorin wrote: Incorrect, as females are far from having equality. To deny them a protected characteristic. Is not progression, but regression.  

Thorin, I was referring to the conservatives in my post there /\ /\, not the left.
Hence why I wrote "It's conserving things the way they already are."

JulesV wrote:Had my say. Cheerio.