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.
where they are safest
Comments
10 responses to “where they are safest”
-
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:
A reminder: the decision to include men in women’s spaces was based solely on anecdote, devoid of evidence and without any female voices at the table.
-
And in the zoo, the decision to exclude lions from the zebra pen was based solely on anecdote, devoid of evidence and without any leonine voices at the table.
-
Reminders:
The decision to allow “trans people” in the opposite sex’s spaces was based solely on a hypothetical and non-falsifiable hypothesis called “gender identity” (which was itself based on…anecdote.)
The assertion that trans-identified males are “safer” in women’s spaces is based solely on anecdote, devoid of evidence, and made without regard for women’s voices — or for our safety.
P.S. Re “trans people” — once again, the subject isn’t really “trans people”. It’s trans-identified MEN. Trans-identified women who are sentenced to prison time are hardly clamoring to be housed with men.
-
If it was really about safety – or even just ‘let them pee’ – then they would accept the other option on offer – special designated restrooms for trans, or the single-stool single person restrooms anyone can use. They refuse this offer every time.
-
A reminder: the decision to exclude trans people from the spaces where they are safest was based solely on anecdote, devoid of evidence and without any trans voices at the table.
At this point I’ve had it up to here [gestures in the general direction of the Andromeda galaxy] with the trans lobby’s faux naivety about politics and the law. Trans voices are everywhere (you’d need trans-cancelling headphones to block them out) and that’s fine because that’s the way things work in a democracy. They made their case and, realising it wasn’t actually a good case, they tried to prevent us making our case. And now that’s proved to be a losing bet they are trying to make out that they have somehow being denied procedural fairness. [The sound of irony meters exploding in the distance.] It’s Jolyon Maugham writ large. No doubt they think that doubling down on the same corrupt strategy must work because dammit, they’re the “good guys”. And you know, maybe they’re right. The Jolyons of this world will come out of it fine – they made a motza from their cosy relationships with the bureaucracy and on their deathbeds they will let lose a little smile knowing how they bravely fought to the end, giving the bigots no quarter, until they were cruelly cut down, like Nelson on the quarterdeck of the Victory. In reality they will slink away for some new grift, because they always do. Jolyon can probably go back to helping the wealthy slither out of paying their fair share of tax. (I don’t buy his self-generated image as a crusader against tax unfairness – you don’t get to buy a windmill by tilting at them.)
The broken bodies, and the broken minds, that were the inevitable consequence of their reality-denying hubris will have been long forgotten by them and, they hope, the public at large. I just hope somewhere there will be a book that details their crimes. Fortunately there is a long list of
peoplewomen, who are in a good position to write it.[/rant]
-
trans-cancelling headphones
This could be how you make your first million. Sign me up for two, please. (If my cats are as sick of hearing the trans as I and my husband, I might make that four.)
-
Well ranted.
-
Last year I attended a couple of meetings held at a local community college. I went in search of the Ladies’ Room only to find that it didn’t exist as such. Instead, I found the unisex bathroom, an enormous room without a door. Evidently, the doors and the dividing wall between the Gents and the Ladies had been removed. There was a proscenium around the entrance. All around the perimeter of the room were stalls with floor -to-ceiling doors. There were no urinals, but there was a bank of sinks running down the center of the room. Men and women looked at each other sheepishly as we washed our hands, but no one commented.
Trans women (men) can’t complain that they are oppressed if we all use the same facility. It is relatively safer for women because it is open to the hallway. I suppose some men are inconvenienced by the loss of access to urinals and nursing mothers might want a space for privacy.
Leave a Reply