where they are safest
Classic of indifference to women and their safety and wellbeing.
He means the decision to ban men from the spaces where women are safest, but of course he can’t say it that way.
He’s a women-hating weasel, Thomas Willett is.
Tip Jar
Oh, fuck off, Thomas. If the only grounds for allowing “trans people” — MEN — into women’s spaces is that they’re “unsafe” in men’s bathrooms, then what happens when men’s bathrooms are no longer unsafe? What happens when we take away the safety factor? Then they’ve got no fucking excuse whatsoever to not use the men’s. And then suddenly we can see that “safety” was never their motive in the first place. For example:
What if we post guards at the door? Do a thorough sweep of the washroom first? Will they use the fucking men’s then? No, they’ll make up a new excuse, immediately, for why they simply MUST use the women’s instead.
What of, say, a small open-plan office where everyone can see everyone else in the building, and it’s clear there’s no one in the men’s room and there IS a woman in the women’s room? In such a scenario, it’s literally impossible to concoct a “risk” attached to a “trans woman” using the men’s. There’s NO POSSIBLE FUCKING RISK, even in theory.
Suddenly it becomes clear that all this talk of “risk” and “safety” is a bald-faced lie. They don’t need the women’s washroom — they want it.
They will go to extreme lengths to fabricate their own unsafety just to get what they want.
Women’s washrooms are only “safer” inasmuch as there aren’t any men in them. Allowing men into women’s washrooms is self-defeating.
(Anyways, how does Willett know which spaces are “safest”? Anecdote, perhaps?)
Ah, but we’ve been down this path before, and now the thieves are whining that they can’t keep what they stole. See if this sounds familiar:
And in the zoo, the decision to exclude lions from the zebra pen was based solely on anecdote, devoid of evidence and without and leonine voices at the table.