Most females want some spaces to be free from males. All males. The polling evidence is clear on this.
Ah. So the opinions of all women do not matter, just "most females".
The opinions of "male women" don't fucking matter when it comes to female-specific intimate spaces and services.
Even those “male women” who might risk injury or assault in male-specific intimate spaces?
The premise of your statement here is that males represent a risk of injury or assault when in intimate spaces. I happen to agree with you on this. Where I disagree is what comes after that. Let's think about this, and I mean
really think about this.
You have a situation where some males are at risk of injury and assault
from other males. Throughout recorded history, across the entire planet, females are at a materially higher risk of injury and assault from males. So your solution to the risk of male-on-male violence is... to let males into female intimate spaces.
I assume you're only looking at this from the perspective of males - you're only considering that some males are at risk
from other males, and your objective is to move those at-risk males to a place where they're not longer at risk
from males. But in so doing, you're shifting risk onto females, and you're using women as human shields behind which some special males can hide. This is made even worse by the fact that nobody can tell which of the males are special males, and which of the males are bog-standard males, and which of the males are bog-standard-but-pretending-to-be-special males seeking easy access to females.
Some foxes don't act as vulpinely as other foxes expect. Those vulpine-non-conforming foxes are at risk of injury from vulpine-conforming foxes. You propose that in order to protect vulpine-non-conforming foxes from injury, vulpine-non-conforming foxes should have
right of access to henhouses. Of course, vulpine-non-conforming foxes look just like vulpine-conforming foxes, and hens can't tell the difference. And nobody is allowed to challenge the foxes entering the henhouses, so pretty much all you've done is throw open the doors of the henhouse and hang out a sign saying "foxes welcome, please eat some hens".
For like the fifteenth time, Toni, read what I actually write.
I’m just going to distill what I think is a central disagreement t between us: You seem to see male and female as being determined entirely by whether they have XX or XY chromosomes.
No, and I've clarified this repeatedly with considerable patience.
Male and female are classes of reproductive systems within anisogamous species. Within each anisogamous species, there has evolved two distinct reproductive systems. The system that evolved in tandem with large gametes is what we call the female reproductive system; individuals that possess this system are referred to as females. The system that evolved in tandem with small gametes is what we call the male reproductive system; individuals that possess this system are referred to as males.
The mechanism for which sex develops varies across anisogamous species. Within mammals, the mechanism for sex differentiation is chromosome pairing, with females contributing a single X chromosome to the offspring, and males contributing either an X or a Y chromosome to the offspring in the vast majority of cases. The actual trigger for differentiation is the SRY gene that normally occurs on the Y chromosome. Other karyotype combinations can very, very, very rarely occur, but they do not produce different sexes. At heart, if the SRY gene is present and functional, regardless of which chromosome it's located on, then the fetus will follow a wolffian pathway of development and differentiate to a male. If that SRY gene is not present and functional, the fetus will follow a mullerian pathway and differentiate to a female. Extremely rare disorders can interrupt the differentiation process, and in even rarer instances, can produce ambiguous development of the external genitals at the time of birth.
I disagree. An unknown number of individuals in fact have other than XX or XY chromosomes and some who do have the most common compliment in fact have other biologically determined differences that renders them to perceive themselves as belonging to the opposite sex than the one they were assumed to be at birth. I fully accept that trans women are women and trans men are men and that some individuals do not fit well into either male/female boxes.
This is an article of faith, Toni. The notion that some people have biological factors that make them PERCEIVE themselves as the opposite sex is not factual. And even if it were somehow observably true that some people's brains were lying to them about the sex of their body, that would not result in them actually BEING the opposite sex.
Seriously - why exactly do you think that transwomen are women? What specifically do they have in common with female human beings that they do NOT have in common with male human beings? What exactly makes them "women" in your book?
Don't accept dogmatic slogans just because a lot of people say them really loudly.
At the same time, I do have concerns about the small but extant minority of individuals with bad intentions being allowed to easily have access to their preferred victims. And I am concerned about girls and women, particularly those who have been victims of sexual assault, being traumatized by an apparent t make body in a female only space. It’s difficult to strike a fair balance. Unfortunately there are many many times more victims of sexual assault than there are trans women. But trans women absolutely deserve to be safe and secure.
All men deserve to be safe and secure.
On the other hand, women are not human shields.
OTOH, Loren seems to be concerned only with what bothers him, personally and just prefers that other people deal with what he doesn’t want to be bothered with.
Well, no argument on that point.
