The hilarious meltdown of men who hate women

[accelafine]

Get the fuck off my thread Satyr. You are on ignore.

[Pistolero]

As expected.

[Maia]

Unfortunately businesses could simply get rid of all separation of the sexes and just have unisex everything. Ironically these fetishistic predators won't like that. It's the being in exclusively female spaces that they get off on. They know how intimidating it is to women and that's all part of the thrill.

I think they would lose a lot of custom, if they tried that. Certainly from women, anyway. Presumably that's one of the reasons why they haven't done it yet at the leisure centre.

You might like to listen to Trevor Phillips from 12:12 on this video. He's fantastically clear and reassuring about what the law IS and what it is NOT. I feel quite a bit more hopeful that your Govt. won't be able to pull any dirty tricks on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtmvE8GD2eQ&t=1832s

It does indeed sound like it would need an Act of Parliament to overturn this decision, and I doubt that the government has the energy to try anything like that, considering how much criticism it's getting for pretty much everything else. Let's hope that this really is some sort of turning point in the direction of common sense.

[Alexiev]

H


Well, again, that's your opinion, and you can argue for it, if you like. The problems arise when those arguing for it are in positions of power, driven by an agenda, and they impose their opinions on everyone else.

Except that someone has to decide how public bathrooms and changing rooms operate. Who should that be? The separation of men and women is fueled by "an agenda" just as the push for unisex changing rooms is. Because segregation is traditional, it's easy to see it as "natural", but it isn't. One bathroom or changing room is more efficient and hence more "natural" than two.

[Maia]

H


Well, again, that's your opinion, and you can argue for it, if you like. The problems arise when those arguing for it are in positions of power, driven by an agenda, and they impose their opinions on everyone else.

Except that someone has to decide how public bathrooms and changing rooms operate. Who should that be? The separation of men and women is fueled by "an agenda" just as the push for unisex changing rooms is. Because segregation is traditional, it's easy to see it as "natural", but it isn't. One bathroom or changing room is more efficient and hence more "natural" than two.

Or how about not having any changing rooms at all, and people can just get changed wherever they like? In the corridor, for example, or by the side of the pool. That's even more efficient, surely, if privacy isn't an issue.

The point is that privacy is, indeed, an issue.

[Alexiev]

H


Well, again, that's your opinion, and you can argue for it, if you like. The problems arise when those arguing for it are in positions of power, driven by an agenda, and they impose their opinions on everyone else.

Except that someone has to decide how public bathrooms and changing rooms operate. Who should that be? The separation of men and women is fueled by "an agenda" just as the push for unisex changing rooms is. Because segregation is traditional, it's easy to see it as "natural", but it isn't. One bathroom or changing room is more efficient and hence more "natural" than two.

Or how about not having any changing rooms at all, and people can just get changed wherever they like? In the corridor, for example, or by the side of the pool. That's even more efficient, surely, if privacy isn't an issue.

The point is that privacy is, indeed, an issue.

That's fine. As I wrote earlier, I think the issue is politicized out if proportion to its importance. I don't care whether we have unisex changing rooms or segregated changing rooms. I don't care if trans women use the Men's room or the Ladies' room. The publicity and furor surrounding this issue is disproportionate to its importance and (I think) reflects nervousness about changing sex roles and notions of propriety.

Don't people in France change in public, covered by a beach towel? That would be OK with me, too.

[Maia]

Except that someone has to decide how public bathrooms and changing rooms operate. Who should that be? The separation of men and women is fueled by "an agenda" just as the push for unisex changing rooms is. Because segregation is traditional, it's easy to see it as "natural", but it isn't. One bathroom or changing room is more efficient and hence more "natural" than two.

Or how about not having any changing rooms at all, and people can just get changed wherever they like? In the corridor, for example, or by the side of the pool. That's even more efficient, surely, if privacy isn't an issue.

The point is that privacy is, indeed, an issue.

That's fine. As I wrote earlier, I think the issue is politicized out if proportion to its importance. I don't care whether we have unisex changing rooms or segregated changing rooms. I don't care if trans women use the Men's room or the Ladies' room. The publicity and furor surrounding this issue is disproportionate to its importance and (I think) reflects nervousness about changing sex roles and notions of propriety.

Don't people in France change in public, covered by a beach towel? That would be OK with me, too.

Well, the French also eat snails' legs, or something, which is presumably why they haven't got any...

You might not care, and that's obviously up to you, but a lot of other people do, probably the vast majority.

If there's a lot of publicity around the trans issue, it's because the trans lobby have created it, leading to an inevitable reaction.

[iambiguous]

Both on ignore. Aaah, the peace

Just out of curiosity, is there a way for accelafine to put herself on ignore?

[Alexiev]

Or how about not having any changing rooms at all, and people can just get changed wherever they like? In the corridor, for example, or by the side of the pool. That's even more efficient, surely, if privacy isn't an issue.

The point is that privacy is, indeed, an issue.

That's fine. As I wrote earlier, I think the issue is politicized out if proportion to its importance. I don't care whether we have unisex changing rooms or segregated changing rooms. I don't care if trans women use the Men's room or the Ladies' room. The publicity and furor surrounding this issue is disproportionate to its importance and (I think) reflects nervousness about changing sex roles and notions of propriety.

Don't people in France change in public, covered by a beach towel? That would be OK with me, too.

Well, the French also eat snails' legs, or something, which is presumably why they haven't got any...

You might not care, and that's obviously up to you, but a lot of other people do, probably the vast majority.

If there's a lot of publicity around the trans issue, it's because the trans lobby have created it, leading to an inevitable reaction.

You are probably right. Bot that brings us back to my original point: I think it's silly for anyone to vote for a politician who promises unisex changing rooms if you disagree with.him.or her about environmental protection, freedom of speech and religion, health care, foreign policy, etc. That's what I mean by "trivial". Support unisex bathrooms if you please, but please don't let that issue distract you from more important issues.

[Maia]

That's fine. As I wrote earlier, I think the issue is politicized out if proportion to its importance. I don't care whether we have unisex changing rooms or segregated changing rooms. I don't care if trans women use the Men's room or the Ladies' room. The publicity and furor surrounding this issue is disproportionate to its importance and (I think) reflects nervousness about changing sex roles and notions of propriety.

Don't people in France change in public, covered by a beach towel? That would be OK with me, too.

Well, the French also eat snails' legs, or something, which is presumably why they haven't got any...

You might not care, and that's obviously up to you, but a lot of other people do, probably the vast majority.

If there's a lot of publicity around the trans issue, it's because the trans lobby have created it, leading to an inevitable reaction.

You are probably right. Bot that brings us back to my original point: I think it's silly for anyone to vote for a politician who promises unisex changing rooms if you disagree with.him.or her about environmental protection, freedom of speech and religion, health care, foreign policy, etc. That's what I mean by "trivial". Support unisex bathrooms if you please, but please don't let that issue distract you from more important issues.

It's usually the same people, though. Those politicians who are happy to trample all over women's rights when it comes to bathrooms and sports, are the same ones who are trying to cover up the rape gang scandal, or to suppress freedom of speech about it, and so on.

[Alexiev]

[
It's usually the same people, though. Those politicians who are happy to trample all over women's rights when it comes to bathrooms and sports, are the same ones who are trying to cover up the rape gang scandal, or to suppress freedom of speech about it, and so on.

Here in the U.S. it's the opposite. The politicians who oppose unisex bathrooms refuse to protect the environment, oppose freedom of speech in Universities, snd think women haven't the right to control their own bodies.

[accelafine]

Everything to Americans is about whether you are 'Republican' or 'Democrat'. Common sense and scientific facts are irrelevant. Fuck the lot of them. American idiocrats have ruined everything.
Just the fact that they can't bring themselves to use the 'naughty' word 'toilet' tells you everything you need to know about them.
And what in the flying fucking fuck does unisex toilets have to do with being Democrat of Republican? Are you suggesting that wokies will promote unisex toilets and changing rooms out of spite and misogyny? I've already made that point.
Fuck off Alexhiev. Your gaslighting shit doesn't work around here.

[Alexiev]

. American idiocrats have ruined everything.

Clearly something has ruined you. I'm not sure you can blame Amercans, though.

[Walker]

Just the fact that they can't bring themselves to use the 'naughty' word 'toilet' ...

Toilet water has a different meaning these days.

[accelafine]

Public toilets generally don't have baths in them either.