Stuart Campbell/Wings Over Scotland

[welshbairn]

27 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:

Yeah, sorry edited while you were replying to highlight the bit where the direct quote is 'The additional rapes and sexual assaults which will inescapably follow are Nicola Sturgeon's responsibility.'
 
So if we're taking it that rapists and sexual assaulters aren't perverts, then you're right, he's entirely in the clear. 

Self ID means that effectively anyone can declare themselves a woman and enter women-only spaces not just trans women.

There's no law forbidding men from women's toilets at the moment, or other women-only spaces afaik. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by welshbairn

[Baxter Parp]

But you can't discriminate against folks because other folks are wilfully being arseholes. 

Yeah but those arseholes may sexually assault or rape women. It's a bit more than a cracked egg/omelette scenario.

[Baxter Parp]

There's no law forbidding men from women's toilets at the moment, or other women-only spaces afaik. 

It's a social convention and if you change the social convention so that people feel unable to challenge the presence of an intruder you're going to have problems.

[carpetmonster]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

30 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

But you can't discriminate against folks because other folks are wilfully being arseholes. 

Yeah but those arseholes may sexually assault or rape women. It's a bit more than a cracked egg/omelette scenario.

And the law can then deal with such arseholes. 

 

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

20 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

There's no law forbidding men from women's toilets at the moment, or other women-only spaces afaik. 

It's a social convention and if you change the social convention so that people feel unable to challenge the presence of an intruder you're going to have problems.

Arseholes are gojnna arsehole. I don't know the figures of assaults in women-exclusively places as compared to the general sphere, whether they're any higher or any lower, and I'm far from convinced from saying 'ok, you can go into this room that you previously couldn't' is liable to increase the prevalence of arseholes being arseholes. Meanwhile, that proposition is being used to further attack very marginalised people, which is pretty off. 

[Baxter Parp]

*Looks in crystal ball for when self ID happens*
 
Vast, vast majority of men don't change their sex and don't go into ladies changing rooms.
 
 

Just a minority of 31 million then. Phew.

[Baxter Parp]

Arseholes are gojnna arsehole. I don't know the figures of assaults in women-exclusively places as compared to the general sphere, whether they're any higher or any lower, and I'm far from convinced from saying 'ok, you can go into this room that you previously couldn't' is liable to increase the prevalence of arseholes being arseholes. Meanwhile, that proposition is being used to further attack very marginalised people, which is pretty off. 

Why do you keep calling sex offenders and rapists "arseholes"?

[carpetmonster]

36 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

1 hour ago, carpetmonster said:

Arseholes are gojnna arsehole. I don't know the figures of assaults in women-exclusively places as compared to the general sphere, whether they're any higher or any lower, and I'm far from convinced from saying 'ok, you can go into this room that you previously couldn't' is liable to increase the prevalence of arseholes being arseholes. Meanwhile, that proposition is being used to further attack very marginalised people, which is pretty off. 

Why do you keep calling sex offenders and rapists "arseholes"?

Spoiler

 

Because it's a better term than fine upstanding individuals? I was also referring to folks not identifying as being eligible to go into a space going into said space. Like folks with 20 items going into the express checkout, but for egotistical or nefarious reasons as opposed to being pushed for time or shite at counting.  Self-identifying as something you don't believe you are is, at best, teenage edgelord behaviour. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by carpetmonster

[Baxter Parp]

Spoiler

 

Because it's a better term than fine upstanding individuals? I was also referring to folks not identifying as being eligible to go into a space going into said space. Like folks with 20 items going into the express checkout, but for egotistical or nefarious reasons as opposed to being pushed for time or shite at counting.  Self-identifying as something you don't believe you are is, at best, teenage edgelord behaviour. 

I'm perplexed, we're talking about sexual assault and rape, aren't we? Arseholes and edgelords aren't in it.

[gannonball]

Kuro coming across as a bigger roaster than the Wings over Scotland guy. I would say he is him but Kuro is waaaaay too thick.

[carpetmonster]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

37 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Spoiler

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Because it's a better term than fine upstanding individuals? I was also referring to folks not identifying as being eligible to go into a space going into said space. Like folks with 20 items going into the express checkout, but for egotistical or nefarious reasons as opposed to being pushed for time or shite at counting.  Self-identifying as something you don't believe you are is, at best, teenage edgelord behaviour. 

I'm perplexed, we're talking about sexual assault and rape, aren't we? Arseholes and edgelords aren't in it.

I'm saying folks with predilections to commit the former aren't going to be either dissuaded or encouraged by the fact that they can or cannot use a certain bathroom. And then you've got the folks who'll go "i identify as a toaster' because they're inane. Neither should be used as a cover to bully trans people. 

[DA Baracus]

2 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

There's no law forbidding men from women's toilets at the moment, or other women-only spaces afaik. 

It's a social convention and if you change the social convention so that people feel unable to challenge the presence of an intruder you're going to have problems.

It's also a social convention not to rape and/or molest others.

[Baxter Parp]

It's also a social convention not to rape and/or molest others.

Mmm. There are actual laws about rape n' stuff, sport.

[Baxter Parp]

I'm saying folks with predilections to commit the former aren't going to be either dissuaded or encouraged by the fact that they can or cannot use a certain bathroom. And then you've got the folks who'll go "i identify as a toaster' because they're inane. Neither should be used as a cover to bully trans people. 

Except there are already incidents that show some are indeed encouraged and actively do take advantage of the ability to invade women's safe spaces.

[Boo Khaki]

A few isolated incidents perpetrated by a few individuals, while the remainder of the thousands of trans folk are perfectly well behaved.

Really, really rocky road to go down if you want to start ascribing behaviours to entire groups, and legislating specifically for them, based on the outliers of the actions of a tiny, tiny minority.

Are we banning husbands from using the same loo at home as their wives and daughters because a few husbands can't be trusted not to rape or abuse their own relatives?

[DA Baracus]

2 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

2 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

It's also a social convention not to rape and/or molest others.

Mmm. There are actual laws about rape n' stuff, sport.

Mmm, still doesn't stop some folk sport.

[Baxter Parp]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

Mmm, still doesn't stop some folk sport.

So let's not give them a free pass into rapey utopia, right?

[Baxter Parp]

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

A few isolated incidents perpetrated by a few individuals, while the remainder of the thousands of trans folk are perfectly well behaved.

Self ID isn't close to universal yet and the problem isn't with trans folk at all.  Other than that you have a clear and precise grasp of the issue.

[DA Baracus]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

So let's not give them a free pass into rapey utopia, right?

You're talking utter shite here.

No one is getting a free pass here. Should someone want to put on women's clothing and go in to a woman's toilet to rape or molest someone then nothing is stopping them doing so now. You could argue the law, but that same law will still still punish people for the same crime.

It's a garbage argument that hints at underlying bigotry, a totally hypothetical pile of hysterical hateful pish.

Were you raging at Section 28 as well? As has been pointed out, this is the same sort of garbage argument to hide bigoted shite.

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, DA Baracus said:

You're talking utter shite here.

No one is getting a free pass here. Should someone want to put on women's clothing and go in to a woman's toilet to rape or molest someone then nothing is stopping them doing so now. You could argue the law, but that same law will still still punish people for the same crime.

So, it's your contention that if some guy pulled on a dress and a wig and forcefully entered a women's space no one would raise the alarm or call security or in some way challenge that man?

[DA Baracus]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

So, it's your contention that if some guy pulled on a dress and a wig and forcefully entered a women's space no one would raise the alarm or call security or in some way challenge that man?

They would, just as would happen in the future, because a trans person doesn't just decide to 'pull on a dress and a wig' one day.

You might not be bigoted but you sure are using phrasing and arguments that suggest otherwise.