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

No, you were the one saying that we design laws based on outliers: if we can imagine something going wrong, we should legislate against it. It is like building a dam against the highest possible water level, you said.

I am pointing out that no, we do not, that is a silly thing that you made up.

We do not use that as a principle for determining what is just, and it is a good thing too as it would lead to absurdities and even atrocities.

And if I can imagine being uncomfortable being in the same building, then yes for sure I can imagine anyone - including women - feeling the same way. I am not sure why you need that specifically spelled out, but I am happy to do so if it helps.

Perhaps now we can finally agree that no, being able to imagine negative consequences is not a good reason to make rules against something? It is the level of risk that is important, how bad we think the thing that is risked is, the impact our risk-mitigation has on other stakeholders, and a whole range of other considerations?

It is not a on or off sort of question. At all.

What? what kind of argument is this?

Go back and read your original question, this is just bizarre whataboutery.

ETA - do you understand the difference between gender and sexuality? Seriously?

In this instance we're talking about rethinking existing laws in light of this unforeseen circumstance. Essentially anyone can currently change their gender and access female only spaces which can obviously have negative consequences.

Stating that this could be improved does not equal undue hardship for trans people. It isn't based in intolerance, it's merely an attempt to mitigate against dangerous people like Barbie Kardashian.

Think about things in your own life that have been affected by some asshole ruining things for everyone else. I've seen policies enacted in workplaces on foot of the actions of some pricks actions and they remain in place after they've left. These are reactive changes and they're commonplace.

Ireland has a pretty lousy record with relation to dealing with violent offenders, here we have a situation where within a couple of years we're going to have a dangerous convicted criminal who is obviously gaming the system, released from prison and then free to wander into any female only space in Ireland unimpeded. They pose a threat to women and the majority of normal trans women in those spaces, everyone in those spaces needs to be protected from this person.

Here we have a person who was identified as dangerous and violent towards women BEFORE they changed their gender. They should have been subject to some sort of analysis before they were allowed to access female only spaces.

Did I? When was this?

Must be all that misogyny making me forgetful :P

You are still missing the point.

She can also walk into a library full of children and elderly people, both of which would be very vulnerable.

So do we ban trans people from joining libraries?

I think you people are a bit confused here, or at least over-sensitive, if you consider this an accusation of homophobia.

Trans people feel the way they feel. You can throw biology at that all day long and it won't make a difference: they will still feel that way. You can say that you think they re just confused or mentally ill if you like. I don't think that is very nice, but some people disagree.

The thing is that same sort of argument was made against same-sex attraction: it was considered a mental illness, or a perversion. They were attracted to the wrong gender, because they were confused or mentally ill. Again you can argue about if it is natural or not until the cows come home, and gay people will still fancy people of the same sex.

Now in order for that argument to work in my favor, it is in fact essential that you are not a homophobe. It is the opposite of calling you a homophobe. It *relies* on us *agreeing* that homophobia is *bloody stupid*.

If you are a homophobe, then you would go: "Yeah, and both are correct, so you are barking up the wrong tree, stupid!" or something along those lines.

Sheesh.

You'd be wrong. And I think your question here is not going to help you as much as you seem to think it will.

I do not know what the answer to that question is. Do you mean on average? Or do you mean if they would feel more vulnerable?

I think that would be easier to answer with any degree of certainty: I think a lot of people feel more vulnerable in changing rooms.

I mean... I think a changing room is not a great place for a rape or an assault. There is always someone nearby to make sure you do not steal the clothes. You are not actually that isolated. I would imagine a rapist would seek out some place where they can make sure their victim is isolated and controllable for longer: in a changing room there would be very little time and far too many witnesses. But then again I am not aware of any sort of numbers or reports on this: this is purely me speculating out loud.

Again, you do not seem to get the point.

So do we ban trans people from women only spaces, and not from libraries?

Why?

Are libraries women-only spaces where one could expect women in various states of undress with no others present on occasion?

Oh and lest we forget: all this started when southwesterly said that there are 2 genders, biologically.

So trans people are confused, or mentally ill: they are wrong about what they feel, or what they feel is some sort of disturbed mental process.

If it's your opinion that there should be no women-only spaces at all, including changing rooms, toilets, sports, shelters, etc. then just say that.

oh and before i forget:

"If someone says "I'm gay" and they're lying, there are no consequences."

That is not how a lot homophobes feel. At all. In fact, they feel that this is exactly what is going on: that people are being indoctrinated into being homosexual. And that this upsets, erodes ad threatens society. Same as with trans people really.