I see Jonathan Willhoupervy is saying my 12yr old daughter is being abused and indoctrinated for simply stating that she doesn't want males in her female only spaces.
He is unhinged and clearly triggered by little girls saying no.
On a positive note, my daughter got over 200 signatures from the women and men today, and was embraced, welcomed and treated with the utmost respect by all those who attended. I can't thank you all enough for the welcoming group we have all created. Thank you @ThePosieParker
I understand it must be scary for trans identifying males to enter some male only spaces. There are aggressive, violent males who dislike effeminate men.
So, knowing that feeling of fear, why would you place that same fear on my 12yr old daughter by invading her spaces?
Quite a few suggesting none of these men fear it. I can't agree with that. My own brother's (not effeminate) said it can be intimidating for any man.
But that's not the point of my post. My point is, if they do fear it, why would they knowingly put that fear onto girls!
I suspect most of it is narcissism, validation, fetish, predatory tendencies and entitlement.
I just posed the question to see their logic, not necessarily debate about if we actually think some are scared. That's another debate, which is irrelevant to my point anyway.
What sickened me about the MOTD @GaryLineker situation is that multi-millionnaires walked out of their privileged jobs to show support for another multi-millionnaire who broke the rules.
Then poor people, with genuine concerns, were dismissed as racist and bigots.
People falling over themselves to support a man and his pals who all got paid for going to Qatar; a country with one of the worst human rights records.
But poor people, women and girls, who have raised concerns about being sexually assaulted, are called bigots, gammons, Nazis.
Men with no background checks, false ages and false names coming from safe countries are treated as the victims whilst 15yr old girls are called bigots for saying NO.
Rich people sat in their rich houses, in the rich suburbs telling poor people to shut up and accept the risk.
SHAKING. Staff were discussing a counselling student who is GC. One said we will bring her in to discuss her views. I said, 'Be careful. Her beliefs are protected after the @MForstater case.
She looked up Maya's case and said, 'How sad'. I said, 'Whys it sad to state fact?' 1/
We had a huge debate and I said, 'The impact is huge for women in terms of a man being able to say he's a woman and use female spaces e.g. rapists in women's prisons. Stating biological fact is essential. It also impacts on LGB who are told to accept straight people as LGB'
/2
A older colleague, who wasn't in the debate, turned around and said, 'What's the evidence for that because I'm a lesbian?'
I said, 'I speak to LGB people every day and it happens. I wont have my niece be told she must accept males in her lesbian only groups to please othes.' /3
People really do need to stop misinterpreting the law. Being a protected characteristic (PC), as listed in the EA2010, does not mean you have free reign to do anything you want. Sexual orientation is also a PC, but it does not mean gay men can use female only spaces either. 1/6
NO legislation gives males a legal right to enter female only spaces. In fact, the EA2010 states that female spaces can exclude males, even those with the legal fiction we call a GRC, for proportionate and legitimate reasons. Women and girls having safer spaces that provide..2/6
privacy and dignity is legitimate. In fact, more than legitimate and proportionate. Single sex spaces significantly reduce sexual assault. This should be reason enough for ALL MALES to respect these boundaries.
The EA2010 is there to safeguard against illegitimate reasons.3/6