Politicsnerd So Madgran77, your opinion is that when it comes to the safety and comfort of women, the intentions behind someone's actions are not important. You seem to be arguing that regardless of what a person means to convey, their behaviour should be condemned as inappropriate. So perception trumps intention. You also seem to believe that not disputeding actions makes proof of those actions unnecessary.
I am quite clearly not generalizing across all cases/situations/events. In the context of the example I gave where Rose:
*walked round the womens changing rooms in boxer shorts
* admitted they were still having penetrative sex with their girlfriend
* consequently and unsurprisingly when surrounded by various women in various stages of undress, had a normal male reaction to that
* continuously asked female nurses when they were getting changed
*stared at women's breasts in the changing room
then yes, whatever Rose's intentions might be, that behaviour is inappropriate.
Just as it would be inappropriate for women identifying as men with no treatment, still having penetrative sex with a man/or maybe pregnant to be wandering around a male changing room staring at their penis's
Equally it would be inappropriate of me as a woman from birth, to walk around a women's changing room staring at other peoples breasts or asking them when they are getting changed.
There is little point carrying on this discussion so I will leave it there. We arent going to agree and having to endlessly explain the points made is distracting from the main points of the thread.
Iran war - so uptake of solar panels rise.
Backseat Driver, Former PM Tony Blair Reckons The Triple-Lock...

