J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

volchitsa

Gruffalux wrote: »

I just quickly googled personality disorder and the first page of results all say a mental disorder or a mental illness.

I don't want to go too far down along the path of attempting to excuse people's behaviour based on their childhood, as that has led to terrible injustices being perpetrated upon victims of crime, and can be a patronising form of hand-wringing given that by far the most of people who have a sh1t time as children are good people. But in this particular case there does seem to have been such grave neglect as a child that the person cannot have developed properly as a socialised human being. And can thus be said to be fundamentally unwell or disordered.

Or it might be inherited from his father?

Gruffalux

volchitsa wrote: »

Or it might be inherited from his father?

I suppose it is possible. Honestly I don't know enough about this. In the case report it said the father forced the boy as a small child to participate in cruelty and violence towards the mother. That is nurture not nature. But there could be both.

Sittingpretty

Gruffalux wrote: »

I know this person has done terrible things, and hopefully can be stopped from doing terrible things again. But I don't think it is fair to comment very meanly on their appearance. They are obviously quite unwell in many different ways. Their life has been a nightmare. Just my opinion.

Sorry not sorry in the case of someone who has threatened murder and rape and most likely given the chance will absolutely go there.

excludedbin

jaxxx wrote: »

Funny though how often these so-called "experts" are actually wrong.

Except they're not. Don't confuse 'sometimes wrong, like anyone can be' with 'often wrong, don't bother listening to anything they say'.

Cos even a blind person could see that this person is as unhinged as is humanly possible.

Common sense is usually neither, dear. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is, as usual, writ large across the entirety of this thread.

You can have all the qualifications in the world, but unless you've any sort of logical or reasonable thinking to back it up, then it's all worthless.

I'll just let the irony of that last bit of your statement sink in. Care to expound on your medical qualifications and/or knowledge that allows you to diagnose this person despite never meeting them?

suicide_circus

We welcome the wokescolds to the thread.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

excludedbin wrote: »

Except they're not. Don't confuse 'sometimes wrong, like anyone can be' with 'often wrong, don't bother listening to anything they say'.


Common sense is usually neither, dear. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is, as usual, writ large across the entirety of this thread.


I'll just let the irony of that last bit of your statement sink in. Care to expound on your medical qualifications and/or knowledge that allows you to diagnose this person despite never meeting them?

You referred to the medical experts on this case. The Tavistock Clinic seemed unconvinced that this individual is transgender.

jaxxx

excludedbin wrote: »

Except they're not. Don't confuse 'sometimes wrong, like anyone can be' with 'often wrong, don't bother listening to anything they say'.


Common sense is usually neither, dear. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is, as usual, writ large across the entirety of this thread.


I'll just let the irony of that last bit of your statement sink in. Care to expound on your medical qualifications and/or knowledge that allows you to diagnose this person despite never meeting them?

Jesus. Another one who reads only what they want to read. F*ck me.. .. Care to specify where exactly I was diagnosing anyone? Jesus f*cking christ.. .. .. You don't need a medical qualification to tell when someone is clearly unstable! Or is threatening to kill/rape people normal in your eyes??

Gatling

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You referred to the medical experts on this case. The Tavistock Clinic seemed unconvinced that this individual is transgender.

Considering they are at the forefront of pushing the transgender agenda in kids it's must something to say they are not convinced by the story .

I'm sure 99.99% of supposed trans teens don't want to fly to LA to become porn stars and sex workers

TheBlackPill

Gatling wrote: »

Considering they are at the forefront of pushing the transgender agenda in kids it's must something to say they are not convinced by the story .

I'm sure 99.99% of supposed trans teens don't want to fly to LA to become porn stars and sex workers

The porn industry is always looking for novelty. Could actually see him get work there but get exploited and used up unmercifully

HiGlo

ingalway wrote: »

Imagine that 'woman' being in a female toilet or female changing rooms with your undressed wife, sister, friends or daughters. Which Barbie is perfectly entitled to do as Barbie is legally a woman in exactly the same way your wife, sister, friends and daughters are because Barbie has signed a form to say she is one. That is all it takes to become a woman. No therapy, no hormones, no surgery, just paperwork - 2 pages. Any woman who dares question this or asserts their single sex rights are labelled a transphobic bigot and a TERF. I think more people are starting to understand the problems with this.

This! Totally 100%....
This is what makes me hesitant to jump on the “trans rights are human rights” bandwagon - therefore resulting in me being identified as a TERF. 🙄
It’s such a massively complex area that is almost impossible to close off loopholes to prevent identifying as trans being totally abused for nefarious purposes....
It’ll be a very long road I reckon....

Slowyourrole

ingalway wrote: »

Imagine that 'woman' being in a female toilet or female changing rooms with your undressed wife, sister, friends or daughters. Which Barbie is perfectly entitled to do as Barbie is legally a woman in exactly the same way your wife, sister, friends and daughters are because Barbie has signed a form to say she is one. That is all it takes to become a woman.

The problem with your dilemma is that there is nothing stopping a non-trans person dressing as a woman and entering these areas either. You aren't asked for ID to prove your biological sex or gender when entering a changing room. The trans aspect makes no difference in your scenario.

volchitsa

HiGlo wrote: »

This! Totally 100%....
This is what makes me hesitant to jump on the “trans rights are human rights” bandwagon - therefore resulting in me being identified as a TERF. ��
It’s such a massively complex area that is almost impossible to close off loopholes to prevent identifying as trans being totally abused for nefarious purposes....
It’ll be a very long road I reckon....

I think it's worse than that - I think a few extremists, the kind who threaten Gina Carano with death for posting a jokey response to the insistent instruction that she had to post her preferred pronouns on twitter, are causing massive harm to the cause of most trans people who probably want nothing more than to be left alone.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Slowyourrole wrote: »

The problem with your dilemma is that there is nothing stopping a non-trans person dressing as a woman and entering these areas either. You aren't asked for ID to prove your biological sex or gender when entering a changing room. The trans aspect makes no difference in your scenario.

Yes, that’s one of the main reasons why people object to self-ID. Because there is no way to distinguish between a transgender person and somebody who is pretending.

The argument then becomes “But predators could just access those spaces anyway!”. The difference now is that women may be reluctant to speak up if they think there is a predator in their midst. That person can claim to be self-IDing. Maybe later it would translate they don’t have a GRC but by then something bad could have happened. I don’t see why we should have to leave things to chance like that.

One eyed Jack

Bonniedog wrote: »

Apparently the court and whatever medical people examined him/her did not find any reason to decide they are clinically mad as a box of hats, which you would be inclined to imagine they might be.

I have no idea whether this has anything to do with "gender dysphoria" and the delicacies possibly surrounding that being cited as evidence of psychological dysfunction. You would imagine that constantly expressing the desire to murder your mother and others as well as attacking other people while in custody would be evidence enough.

Clinicians would have a different understanding of what does or doesn’t constitute symptoms of mental illness than the average person would, is why they would possibly form a different conclusion to the average person.

One of the experts involved in the case, Prof Harry Kennedy is the Executive Director of the Central Mental Hospital, and he was of the opinion that the individual in question at the time needed further specialist care, just not in a hospital setting. This is consistent with his views on patient care and mental illness and what does or doesn’t qualify as a mental illness. In an article in the Irish Times published around the same time as this appeal against their detention was being heard, the prof had this to say about psychopathy -


Psychopathy, the disorder the public most commonly associated with murder, is not a mental illness under the Act, as psychopaths know what they are doing is wrong and can stop themselves if they want to.

In fact, Kennedy has his doubts about whether it’s a real condition at all. “Psychopathy is a sort of historical artefact. It’s essentially a list of pejorative adjectives for describing people while not using moral terms like ‘bad person’. It’s an academic debate that goes on and on.”


Not guilty by reason of insanity: Inside the Central Mental Hospital


The Act being referred to is this one -


Mental Health Act, 2001


Better explanation of a person’s rights here -


What is a mental disorder?

You can only be admitted to hospital against your will if you have a mental disorder. For the first time in Ireland, the law defines mental disorder, as follows:

You have a mental illness, severe dementia or significant intellectual disability and there is a serious risk that you may cause immediate and serious harm to yourself or others.

or

You have a mental illness, severe dementia or significant intellectual disability and your judgement is so impaired that your condition could get worse if you were not admitted to hospital for treatment that could only be given to you in hospital and going into hospital would be likely to improve your mental health significantly.

The following cannot be used as the only reason for stating that you have a mental disorder.

You have a personality disorder.

You are socially deviant.

You are addicted to drugs or toxic substances, for example alcohol.


Your guide to the Mental Health Act 2001


In this particular instance it was easier to argue that the individual being under 18 could be lawfully detained involuntarily, but once they aged out of the system they could no longer be lawfully detained against their will. I just can’t see a custodial sentence being imposed in this particular case as the point has been made on a number of occasions that prison facilities are unsuitable, and attempts to find a suitable facility either here in Ireland or the UK were unsuccessful. What this particular case does highlight are the numerous shortcomings in mental health services in Ireland, but this has already been highlighted on a number of occasions already, as far back as 2008 -


The ‘defacto detained’: How voluntary patients can be held without review

Hospital or Prison? What Future for the Central Mental Hospital?


It’s expected that the new facility in Portrane will alleviate some of the current problems with the lack of spaces for people who need treatment -


New Central Mental Hospital fast-tracked to deal with Covid-19

ingalway

Slowyourrole wrote: »

The problem with your dilemma is that there is nothing stopping a non-trans person dressing as a woman and entering these areas either. You aren't asked for ID to prove your biological sex or gender when entering a changing room. The trans aspect makes no difference in your scenario.

So women either put up and shut up so as not to hurt the feelings of trans identifying males, or those pretending to be trans who want to gain access to female spaces. OR women can say that biological sex, not someone's gender identity, is what makes them male or female and those are the spaces they should access. If that is not acceptable to trans people then a third space for trans identifying people should be made available.

It should not be up to women and girls to give up their single sex spaces to accommodate a range of biological males that can go from genuine transsexual males who have gender dysphoria and make many meaningful attempts to deal with that by getting therapy, taking hormones to reduce testosterone, having reassignment surgery, along a scale that includes men who are in no way dysphoric but have fetishes or are predators.


Unfortunately for the genuine trans people the others have made it dangerous for women to accept at face value who is who and we should not have to constantly be hyper vigilant in what should be relatively safe single sex spaces. Even more dangerous for girls.

Gervais08

Slowyourrole wrote: »

The problem with your dilemma is that there is nothing stopping a non-trans person dressing as a woman and entering these areas either. You aren't asked for ID to prove your biological sex or gender when entering a changing room. The trans aspect makes no difference in your scenario.

Look what happened in the U.K. with Marks and Sparks - a fairly butch looking woman, not trans, was asked not to use the female changing room. Fairly simple mistake but it was like they’d threatened violence!

At the moment your young daughter could go into a changing room and there’s a grown assed man with danglers out and all he has to do is say “I identify as female” and you’re the bad one.

So so wrong.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

Look what happened in the U.K. with Marks and Sparks - a fairly butch looking woman, not trans, was asked not to use the female changing room. Fairly simple mistake but it was like they’d threatened violence!

Ahh to be fair I don’t think it’s an unreasonable reaction that any woman would be offended by the suggestion she looks like a man, let alone being denied access to the female designated facilities on the basis she looks like a man. It might seem trivial to you and that’s fair enough, every individual is different, but you must surely be able to understand why a woman would be put out by the confrontation? It’s not something I personally would encourage anyone to do because apart from it being seen as particularly strange behaviour and the asker being viewed as a weirdo, it’s just bad manners in it’s most benign form, and malicious in it’s most obvious form.

In any case, any chance of a link to that particular story? I can find plenty of more obvious examples, but none where the woman wasn’t transgender and was refused entry to the facilities -


Women in changing room makes M&S man nervous

Mark’s and Spencer apologises to transgender shopper after refusing to let them enter the menswear changing rooms

Couple's shock over treatment in Glasgow M&S store changing room

Gervais08 wrote: »

At the moment your young daughter could go into a changing room and there’s a grown assed man with danglers out and all he has to do is say “I identify as female” and you’re the bad one.

So so wrong.

In that hypothetical scenario I think they’d be far more likely to point and laugh at his micro-mickey tbh. I wouldn’t think I was the bad one, I’d still think a fella with his dangly bits out in the dressing room was an oddball, same as I’d think a woman with her dangly bits out in the dressing room was an oddball, but the most oddball of all in that scenario would be the person who would be looking out for that sort of thing. I don’t think anyone would be out of order in suggesting the intrepid observer should mind their own business. It would be an appropriate reaction to a peeping Tom/Tomasina to point out their behaviour was unwelcome and was making the person uncomfortable and the person in question would have every right to make a complaint in those circumstances.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In that hypothetical scenario I think they’d be far more likely to point and laugh at his micro-mickey tbh. I wouldn’t think I was the bad one, I’d still think a fella with his dangly bits out in the dressing room was an oddball, same as I’d think a woman with her dangly bits out in the dressing room was an oddball, but the most oddball of all in that scenario would be the person who would be looking out for that sort of thing. I don’t think anyone would be out of order in suggesting the intrepid observer should mind their own business. It would be an appropriate reaction to a peeping Tom/Tomasina to point out their behaviour was unwelcome and was making the person uncomfortable and the person in question would have every right to make a complaint in those circumstances.

A dressing room is a different scenario to a changing room in a gym or swimming pool where people are naked getting changed. I don't go into changing rooms looking out to see other people's 'dangly bits' but as a female I would be hugely concerned to see a male's dangly bits anywhere near me because it is a single sex female changing area and they should not be there.

No woman or child should have to laugh it off. I don't care if it's a female changing area, dressing room, toilets, hospital ward, dormitory, prison - they are single sex spaces for a reason and women had to fight hard to get them. Most men are decent humans but those that are not will exploit any way to access women and children to commit violent acts - assault, rape, murder. Allowing biological males free and easy access to single sex spaces because we are not supposed to question them as it is seen as being unkind or transphobic, or more likely because a woman/child would be scared to do so, is not an acceptable solution. Female sports the same; no biological male should ever be allowed to compete against biological females.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

A dressing room is a different scenario to a changing room in a gym or swimming pool where people are naked getting changed. I don't go into changing rooms looking out to see other people's 'dangly bits' but as a female I would be hugely concerned to see a male's dangly bits anywhere near me because it is a single sex female changing area and they should not be there.

This is only my own personal opinion as I wouldn’t claim to speak for anyone else, but I’d be equally concerned as you would be by anyone’s dangly bits being in such close proximity, whether they’re a man or a woman, dressing rooms, changing rooms or any other public spaces regardless. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in your hypothetical scenario that the man had to be going commando in order for his dangly bits to be exposed as I’ve always preferred to protect my modesty in public facilities, but I am aware of a few people who don’t share my values on appropriate behaviour in public. I can only remember once having to confront a guy who was shaving his nutsac at the sink in the public swimming pool, that was just unhygienic In any case.

It’s definitely an individual thing that doesn’t simply come down to either male or female discomfort or in some cases delight (exhibitionists of any description are a pain in the hole).

ingalway wrote: »

No woman or child should have to laugh it off. I don't care if it's a female changing area, dressing room, toilets, hospital ward, dormitory, prison - they are single sex spaces for a reason and women had to fight hard to get them. Most men are decent humans but those that are not will exploit any way to access women and children to commit violent acts - assault, rape, murder. Allowing biological males free and easy access to single sex spaces because we are not supposed to question them as it is seen as being unkind or transphobic, or more likely because a woman/child would be scared to do so, is not an acceptable solution. Female sports the same; no biological male should ever be allowed to compete against biological females.

I’ve never argued that anyone should have to laugh it off, nor would I suggest that anyone being approached by a complete stranger and being asked are they either a man or a woman should have to laugh it off either. That’s why I made the point that I didn’t think it was unreasonable for a woman to be offended by being asked are they a man, or being denied access to the female facilities because a person determines they look like a man. Sure, it’s not the end of the world or anything, but it’s still inappropriate behaviour IMO and in those circumstances I wouldn’t be surprised if a person weren’t as polite as I would be in suggesting that the person asking should mind their own business. I wouldn’t be surprised if the situation turned violent depending upon how determined the asker was tbh.

Of course any man who is determined to will find a way to create an opportunity for themselves to have access to people whom they can abuse, but that really doesn’t have anything to do with whether the individual is transgender or otherwise. There’s no association between the two different concepts, only one that some people choose to make themselves. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that abuse of other people is committed by far more people who would never claim to be transgender, than those that would ever claim to be transgender, because they’re fully aware that drawing attention to themselves by claiming to be transgender is probably not the best idea when they’re trying not to draw attention to themselves in order to commit abuse!

Dante7

Slowyourrole wrote: »

The problem with your dilemma is that there is nothing stopping a non-trans person dressing as a woman and entering these areas either. You aren't asked for ID to prove your biological sex or gender when entering a changing room. The trans aspect makes no difference in your scenario.

Ah yes, this old chestnut of an argument, which basically boils down to - predatory men will attack women anyway, so let's make it easier for them.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is only my own personal opinion as I wouldn’t claim to speak for anyone else, but I’d be equally concerned as you would be by anyone’s dangly bits being in such close proximity, whether they’re a man or a woman, dressing rooms, changing rooms or any other public spaces regardless. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in your hypothetical scenario that the man had to be going commando in order for his dangly bits to be exposed as I’ve always preferred to protect my modesty in public facilities, but I am aware of a few people who don’t share my values on appropriate behaviour in public. I can only remember once having to confront a guy who was shaving his nutsac at the sink in the public swimming pool, that was just unhygienic In any case.

It’s definitely an individual thing that doesn’t simply come down to either male or female discomfort or in some cases delight (exhibitionists of any description are a pain in the hole).





I’ve never argued that anyone should have to laugh it off, nor would I suggest that anyone being approached by a complete stranger and being asked are they either a man or a woman should have to laugh it off either. That’s why I made the point that I didn’t think it was unreasonable for a woman to be offended by being asked are they a man, or being denied access to the female facilities because a person determines they look like a man. Sure, it’s not the end of the world or anything, but it’s still inappropriate behaviour IMO and in those circumstances I wouldn’t be surprised if a person weren’t as polite as I would be in suggesting that the person asking should mind their own business. I wouldn’t be surprised if the situation turned violent depending upon how determined the asker was tbh.

Of course any man who is determined to will find a way to create an opportunity for themselves to have access to people whom they can abuse, but that really doesn’t have anything to do with whether the individual is transgender or otherwise. There’s no association between the two different concepts, only one that some people choose to make themselves. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that abuse of other people is committed by far more people who would never claim to be transgender, than those that would ever claim to be transgender, because they’re fully aware that drawing attention to themselves by claiming to be transgender is probably not the best idea when they’re trying not to draw attention to themselves in order to commit abuse!

Violent and sexual crimes against women and children are committed almost exclusively by men. Dangerous men will always find a way to access women and children to commit those crimes. Women have single sex spaces for privacy and protection. No biological male should want to be or should be allowed to be in that private and protected space, no matter how they dress or 'identify'.
To add insult to injury, trans women who do commit crimes have those crimes recorded as female crimes!

Gatling

ingalway wrote: »

Violent and sexual crimes against women and children are committed almost exclusively by men.

Actually not true women also (not trans) commit sexual assaults on children on a regular basis there has been numerous cases of women in preschool settings abusing kids , women can also attack women sexually .

Not all abuse is done by men .

Gervais08

Gatling wrote: »

Actually not true women also (not trans) commit sexual assaults on children on a regular basis there has been numerous cases of women in preschool settings abusing kids , women can also attack women sexually .

Not all abuse is done by men .

I’d say that’s where “almost” comes in.

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

Violent and sexual crimes against women and children are committed almost exclusively by men. Dangerous men will always find a way to access women and children to commit those crimes.

You’ll get no argument from me on that score, I’ve already acknowledged it as a statistical fact numerous times already. The existence of the gender recognition act in Irish law doesn’t make any difference to that particular reality.

ingalway wrote: »

Women have single sex spaces for privacy and protection. No biological male should want to be or should be allowed to be in that private and protected space, no matter how they dress or 'identify'.

Well that’s idealistic at best. There are exceptions made in Irish law which protect organisations and entities where discrimination for specific reasons is considered lawful provided the discrimination has a legitimate aim. It depends on the circumstances in each individual case whether it can be argued the reasons for discrimination are in order to further a legitimate aim or whether the reasons for the discrimination are a genuine occupational requirement in terms of lawful discrimination in Irish employment law.

ingalway wrote: »

To add insult to injury, trans women who do commit crimes have those crimes recorded as female crimes!

That’s neither insulting, nor is it injurious, it’s just daft, frankly. I wouldn’t take it personally or consider it an insult or injury when another man commits a criminal offence. It’s not like I would be considered guilty by association. Irish law just doesn’t work like that. You’re not going to be punished for crimes committed by a man, and there is no insult intended to you personally as a woman in any context as to how crimes are recorded for statistical purposes.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gatling wrote: »

Actually not true women also (not trans) commit sexual assaults on children on a regular basis there has been numerous cases of women in preschool settings abusing kids , women can also attack women sexually .

Not all abuse is done by men .

That poster said almost all, which is true.

Airyfairy12

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s neither insulting, nor is it injurious, it’s just daft, frankly. I wouldn’t take it personally or consider it an insult or injury when another man commits a criminal offence. It’s not like I would be considered guilty by association. Irish law just doesn’t work like that. You’re not going to be punished for crimes committed by a man, and there is no insult intended to you personally as a woman in any context as to how crimes are recorded for statistical purposes.

When women bring up violence or sexual abuse and how the perpetrators are almost exclusively men, women are silenced with whataboutery and comments such as 'women can rape and be violent too'. Theyre also assumed to be either exaggerating, not really talking much sense and overall seen as man haters who are winging about equal rights.
Skewed facts and statistics add fuel to this discourse which leaves women at a massive disadvantage.
Women already have a very hard time speaking up about, being believed and coming forward when they are victims of sexual or physical abuse. Why make it harder for them by lying about the statistics and making up 'facts'?
It really feels like we're being silenced and our safety undermined.

One eyed Jack

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

When women bring up violence or sexual abuse and how the perpetrators are almost exclusively men, women are silenced with whataboutery and comments such as 'women can rape and be violent too'. Theyre also assumed to be either exaggerating, not really talking much sense and overall seen as man haters who are winging about equal rights.

That’s because when people do bring up those things, they generally are exaggerating, not really talking much sense, or are indeed man haters whinging about equal rights. It’s got nothing to do with the sex of the person attempting to make the point, and everything to do with the point they’re trying to make. Just as one example, it wasn’t a man who coined the term “TERF” relation to feminists who were opposed to equal rights for people who are transgender -


Terf meaning explained and what you need to know about 'trans exclusionary radical feminists'

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Skewed facts and statistics add fuel to this discourse which leaves women at a massive disadvantage.
Women already have a very hard time speaking up about, being believed and coming forward when they are victims of sexual or physical abuse. Why make it harder for them by lying about the statistics and making up 'facts'?
It really feels like we're being silenced and our safety undermined.

I dunno about that to be honest. For example when the National Women’s Council of Ireland, who are fully embracing of people who are transgender in their organisation, presented the statistic that 1 in 4 homeless people are women, I’d suggest that fudging the statistics in such a fashion to present an albeit true statement, gives the organisation a considerable advantage over other organisations in terms of the amount of funding they receive from Government to tackle the issue of women who are homeless... just not Margaret Cash. They remained unusually silent by choice on that score - nobody was preventing them from speaking up, they chose not to, as Margaret Cash didn’t fit the profile. Women’s Aid? Not a peep.

But when Ruth Coppinger seeks to undermine the judiciary by waving her knickers about in the Dail? They’re all over that shìt, conveniently overlooking the fact that the barrister for the defence has a duty to the Courts to represent her client’s interests to the best of their ability, as that didn’t fit the narrative. I can’t say I blame any woman for feeling like they’re being silenced and their safety is being undermined when the people who claim to represent them are quite possibly the worst representation of women in my experience. Fortunately I don’t imagine these people actually do represent all women, nor are they representative of all women, they are but a tiny minority of people who tend to generally exaggerate, not really talking much sense, or are indeed man haters whinging about equal rights.

In circumstances like that, I would always encourage women like Margaret Cash or the seven sisters who suffered horrific sexual abuse by their own father to speak up for themselves in order to see their abuser punished by the Courts.

AbusesToilets

Gervais08 wrote: »

I’d say that’s where “almost” comes in.

It's a lot closer ratio, 60/40 male to female or thereabouts. The level of abuse in lesbian relationships for example is significant.

ingalway

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's a lot closer ratio, 60/40 male to female or thereabouts. The level of abuse in lesbian relationships for example is significant.

According to CSO stats 81% of victims of sexual assault crimes are female, 98%, THAT IS 98%, of those crimes were committed by men. I think that is covered by my 'almost all'
Where did you get you info re lesbian violence, Pink News?!
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rcvo/recordedcrimevictims2019andsuspectedoffenders2018/#:~:text=Majority%20of%20homicide%20(82%25),crimes%20(81%25)%20were%20female&text=There%20were%2040%20male%20victims,recorded%20by%20An%20Garda%20S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na.

Slowyourrole

Dante7 wrote: »

Ah yes, this old chestnut of an argument, which basically boils down to - predatory men will attack women anyway, so let's make it easier for them.

But it's not easier for them, it's exactly the same. Your gender isn't tested or challenged when entering these places. Whether you have a GRC or not is irrelevant because you will never be asked to produce it.