Barbie Kardashian is in a women's prison. Taoiseach's response to questions on this are here..

You accused me of violating human rights, now you are accusing me of being politically correct.

🤷‍♀️

One difference is that men's prisons would most likely be staffed with a majority of male prison officers, with vast experience of dealing with violent men.

As this case shows, it takes more than a piece of paper to change reality.

Think about the pub bit for a bit, it will occur to you.

As to the question - that is not really a yes or no proposition, now is it?

In so far as everyone's opinion should be listened to, absolutely.

But if you mean should only a particular subset of women be allowed to determine what we do in the end because they object? Not neccesarily. They are not the only stakeholder and their interests are not the only ones.

I thought about the pub and like everyone else I reached a conclusion immediately. It wasn't particularly insightful.

It's odd that somebody who has a preoccupation with people glancing at their genitalia at a urinal feels they're qualified to make decisions that directly impact women.

In the end a barbie Kardashian type in a women's changing room could be extremely dangerous. That's an outlier without a doubt but that's how systems are designed, to deal with the exceptional cases. You build something like say a drainage system to be able to deal with a once in a century type rain event because if you don't when it happens the area in question gets severely flooded.

Ultimately women are weaker and more vulnerable than men and by extension trans women. Eventually these type of questions will need to be addressed and taking offence and crying about transphobia won't get the baby washed.

But a subset of men should be allowed to determine they have the right to enter women's toilets or play on the womens sports team?

Are you suggesting that listening to women's opinions on their own safety is akin to extremism?

I'm interested to read what evidence you have to support that idea.

Bahahaha Nullzero, why do you hate freedom?

That is your game mate, not mine.

Read what I wrote. I object to your flawed logic which proposed we let outliers decide how we frame equality laws. Have a look for yourself and apply that logic to some other examples and see where it leads.

I am doing no such thing as suggesting causing offence is a worse outcome than the safety of women being in jeopardy - you seem to be projecting now.

And no we do not - that is some stuff you just made up. Designing for outlier extremes is most certainly not a moral principle by which we determine what is just and what is not. And a good thing too! That would be terrible.

You are 100% sure of that based on... no evidence I can see, no experience you have mentioned, no competence in any sort of relevant field I can look at.

In fact you even go so far as to say: do not inform yourself! Do not read studies if they tell you anything else! Just go by this gut feeling of mine, and ignore anything else!

Like I said - you should examine your epistemology. If you actually recommend confirmation bias as a way of determining what is true, then it needs a bit of work.

Do you believe the current situation relating to gender identity allows for unintended and potentially unwanted and negative outcomes?

Namely that any man can identity as female and therefore can access female only spaces.

I'm assuming you can fill in the blanks as to how this could end up having negative consequences, my interest lies with how such situations could and should be mitigated against without necessarily causing a great deal of hardship for our trans friends.

You don't think it's relevant to a thread about a person who has violently assaulted women on multiple occasions and detailed how they wanted to rape torture and slowly murder their own mother to ask if the current system which allows people like the subject of this thread to self identify as a different gender and therefore gain access to female only spaces is perhaps not fit for purpose?

You go on to draw a comparison between this situation as mixed gender schools. Talk about a false equivalence.

What you're really saying is that the question isn't easy enough to answer within the parameters of gender identity ideology.

But in this thread we have a case where one of these people has been locked up for five years but after that will be free to do as they please.

Nobody is looking for trans people to have their rights revoked, it is just evident that there are no protections against outliers like Barbie Kardashian doing whatever they please.

As things stand any of us could choose to fill in a form and state we're now a different gender which seems a bit daft.

When people assess risk, they give far greater weight to risks that they have a strong emotional reaction to. The fact people really consider this such a threat speaks volumes, I think.

I posed a question that was directly relevant to this thread and you told me you didn't think it was particularly relevant.

You made some poorly thought out attempt at comparing the use of female only changing rooms with mixed gender schools which is a complete and utter nonsense and a false equivalence of epic proportions and then attempted to condescend to me about what a false equivalence actually is.

Not content with that you went on the accuse me of avoiding engaging with your arguments.

It should be obvious that you saw my previous question as problematic inasmuch as you could not answer it honestly without contradicting yourself therefore you set out to duck, dive, deny and obfuscate whilst engaging in mud slinging in an attempt to avoid it.

You're not engaging in good faith.

You still haven't answered the question (you're not duty bound to do so, your reluctance to answer speaks volumes) yet you're accusing me of avoiding the argument.