Do you also believe that all doors should be required to be left open, and any stranger allowed to wander through people's houses, and action should only be taken AFTER a stranger takes something that isn't theirs?
See, you're pretending that the transexuals you're so afraid of must be like you, unable to conceive of non-authoritarian solutions to social problems. No, no one has required that doors be left open, only that a court should have to prove that a theft has occurred before someone goes to prison for theft.
So we're allowed to exclude males from female-only intimate spaces as a preliminary safeguarding approach then?
What you're advocating for is the equivalent of arresting someone of a certain class the second they enter a well-to-do neighborhood, on suspicion of the theft they might commit, or because seeing them makes the rich people who live there feel afraid.
No, what I'm advocating for is that if someone enters my house without permission, I can evict them, and if needed I can press charges for trespassing regardless of whether they steal anything or not.
In short, you are pretending to be attacked. But you aren't. You are attacking other people, using the police as your weapons.
This is dumb. I mean, just a completely asinine argument.
Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting voyeurism as a crime committed against them?
Do you believe that women should have the right to boundaries that consider non-consenting exhibition as a crime committed against us?
This coming from the only admitted voyeur on the forum! You were bragging just
last week about how you look at other women's crotches in private spaces to see if they were "adjusting their bulge", as you put it, and speculate in writing, on a public forum, about what you imagine their genitals looked like. Casting odds, no less. But you want me to believe that your victims are somehow more guilty of voyeurism than you? Or is voyeurism not a crime when
you do it? Oh, of course not! Why, you weren't looking for sexual gratification, only ammunition for your anti-civil rights campaigning. So innocent! I sure none of those women would feel "uncomfortable" if they knew you were only out to hurt them personally as opposed to pleasing yourself! No, Emily, your victims certainly did not consent to be violated by you, let alone outed, misgendered, disrespected, and used as tools for your ideological agenda.
You make other women less safe. They don't.
