OMG! Someone made a sign. Someone with a POV has a radical POV... (maybe, if they aren't there trolling) therefore all trans are just like that!
It's more the fact that two well known Scottish MPs - ones who have been instrumental in demolishing women's rights in Scotland in their effort to protect the vulnerable transwoman - are standing directly in front of those signs and seem quite happy to be high-profile politicians who support threats against women.
You mean the signs behind them? Now, while I'm not 100% in the know in the abilities of women... I was pretty certain seeing behind them wasn't an ability. One of the signs was off center in a previous photo and that person photobombed their pic. And we don't even know if that person actually believes it or not.
The one on the right looks like a photobomb, but in any case, ought one live their lives and political philosophy based on anecdotes of the extreme tail of humanity? Or develop their general political and social policies on such extreme anecdotes? It's easy for people like TSwizzle to be trapped inside a conservolibertarian bubble when he is fed extreme anecdotes through conservative media and Daily Mail and it becomes confirmation bias. And such people listening only to anecdotes of extremists can also be on "the left."
Right now, the thread has devolved into personal accusations and ridiculous anecdotes and has veered away from both its original intent and sensible discussion of policy. I had asked about statistics earlier because statistics may inform our decisions regarding policy and this was answered with at least some statistics, but only in regard to UK and coed locker rooms there. It would be interesting to also see the Netherlands and Japan for this. That said, while coed locker rooms is a somewhat different question than trans mtf in female locker rooms I do expect that that there are some people out there who would want to take advantage of it. How many and getting back to anecdotal basis for policy, there are some unknown, but I think it's reasonable that we would expect crime statistics to go up because locker rooms present crimes of opportunity and persons being left alone, possibly vulnerable.
The next post I had made was in regard to coed dorms, but it was skipped over. I provided a link to an article that itself linked a study or two and statistics. It turns out that coed dorms are also a risk. I think it is reasonable to think coed EVERYTHING presents risks. Yet here we are in society choosing freedom and accepting risks, quite often--to include the vast majority of college-attending females wanting to live in coed dorms. Since we are presenting slippery slope arguments, do we want society completely segregated, like say, the radical Muslim world that conservatives scream about? Some of those conservatives are parallel to the radical Muslims and so might agree that there needs to be more segregation everywhere so they can control things--next stop, arranged marriage by Christians.
There are a couple of additional nuanced differences there. One, college-attending young ladies are generally making a choice to live in coed dorm or all-female dorm (except when they can't). This parallels Emily Lake's post that she was willing to compromise to allow trans persons post-op in the locker room but with too much negativity and emotional caveats thrown in. Wow, that got scary quickly, but could have been better. Secondly, there is discussion of also the risk to trans persons if they are not permitted to be in the opposing locker room.
So, this ought to be a cost-benefit discussion of both the policy and the absence of the policy for all groups of affected persons and how we want to operate as a society without appeal to anecdotes and photobombs.
