Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could be wrong, but I think it's a play on the whole "people listen to men but ignore women" thing.

Not terribly funny, but relevant to the whole "men make better women than women" theme we've been seeing.

I guess I'm just not seeing any difference between Rolfe and Sphenic's posts. There's like two words different, otherwise they're the same? I feel like I've really missed something, or my eyeballs have stopped functioning properly.
 
When I posted it, it was a wry commentary on the observation that transwomen obviously aren't women because if they were they'd be talked over and ignored and told what was good for them and to be kind, just like happens to women.

We know they can tell who are the women and who aren't in this way.

I understood your post... I don't understand sphenic's response to it. I mean, it's the same thing, right? I'm so confused right now.
 
Stonewall and the TRAs in general are having a meltdown.

Apparently there was a post from some of the staff at NHS saying that people should ignore the EHRC guidance too. Then it was followed by a collection of transwomen saying that if they're not allowed in the female spaces, they will pee/poop/strip in public in protest.

It's been a very strange twitter morning. Even stranger than normal.
 
I guess I'm just not seeing any difference between Rolfe and Sphenic's posts. There's like two words different, otherwise they're the same? I feel like I've really missed something, or my eyeballs have stopped functioning properly.


It's possible that the joke was that Sphensic was parodying "talking over and ignoring" me. Now I've spotted that I think it's quite funny. (I was distracted to start with because her post corrected a small typo I had made - "ignore" for "ignored".)
 
Apparently there was a post from some of the staff at NHS saying that people should ignore the EHRC guidance too. Then it was followed by a collection of transwomen saying that if they're not allowed in the female spaces, they will pee/poop/strip in public in protest.

It's been a very strange twitter morning. Even stranger than normal.


I just read an entire twitter thread of screenshots of NHS managers or other staff declaring that they will ignore the new guidelines. The genderwoo goes very deep there.

I also saw a screengrab of India Willoughby saying that if anyone objected to him being in the Ladies' he would pull down his pants and poo right there in public. Several people remarked that then perhaps he would show them the cervix he claimed to have and had offered to display.
 
From the same individual, nothing says "woman" like standing up in a TV interview, advancing on the other interviewee (a man who had advanced a point he considered "transphobic") and threatening physical violence at a distance of about two inches.

ETA: Oh for crying out loud, here's the actual tweet.

[imgw=500]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPgGb_3XMAQ3ICW?format=jpg&name=small[/imgw]
 
Last edited:
I just saw this link, which is relevant to what was being discussed earlier, about the legal definitions of "man" and "woman" in Britain.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

“man” means a male of any age;
“woman” means a female of any age.


This is what was confirmed as being the definitions the Scottish parliament had to adhere to, because the Equality Act is reserved. So maybe we can quit with the sophistry about "man" and "woman" somehow meaning something different from "male" and "female" in the context of human beings.
 

Very clear and sensible, but it is a lot of words to say, "be respectful to everyone" . Should help those that provide services to the public balance the competing rights of individuals.

(One area it didn't seem to cover would be religious exemptions/reasons - for instance a trans man not being allowed to worship with biological males, or not being allowed to be a priest. But I know there are already exemptions for religions in legislation, so it is probably covered in that legislation.)
 
I just saw this link, which is relevant to what was being discussed earlier, about the legal definitions of "man" and "woman" in Britain.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

“man” means a male of any age;
“woman” means a female of any age.

This is what was confirmed as being the definitions the Scottish parliament had to adhere to, because the Equality Act is reserved. So maybe we can quit with the sophistry about "man" and "woman" somehow meaning something different from "male" and "female" in the context of human beings.

I don't intend to be pedantic, but under this definition, would a male cat count as a "man" and a female cat as a "woman"?
 
I don't intend to be pedantic, but under this definition, would a male cat count as a "man" and a female cat as a "woman"?

No but I get your point. :)

But words aren't used with only one definition that is given in a particular piece of legislation, we all use words differently depending on the context, and man and woman are no different to other words.

The new advice acknowledges how everyday use may not tie into how words are defined and used in legislation, in its preamble:

...We have used plain English to help explain legal terms. This does not change the meaning of the law.

The Act uses the term ‘transsexual’ for individuals who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. We recognise that some people consider this term outdated, so in this guidance we use the term ‘trans’ to refer to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

We use the term ‘biological sex’ because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate....
 
I don't intend to be pedantic, but under this definition, would a male cat count as a "man" and a female cat as a "woman"?


That's why I added "in the context of human beings" to my post, as it's kind of obvious that that is the context in the definition.
 
Very clear and sensible, but it is a lot of words to say, "be respectful to everyone" . Should help those that provide services to the public balance the competing rights of individuals.

(One area it didn't seem to cover would be religious exemptions/reasons - for instance a trans man not being allowed to worship with biological males, or not being allowed to be a priest. But I know there are already exemptions for religions in legislation, so it is probably covered in that legislation.)


Try telling "be respectful to everyone" to India Willoughby and his fetishistic mates who demand their "validation" by strutting around in women-only spaces with their male egos hanging out.

"Be kind", "be respectful", when directed at women who are socialised that way anyway, is how we've got ourselves into this situation, where everything is interpreted in terms of what is kind to the men demanding to be treated as if they were women, and nobody gives a damn what the women think about this.

No, I've officially given up being kind to men who demand access to women's spaces to masturbate to the sound of women peeing, to fish around in bins for used tampons, to peer into adjacent cubicles, and to plant hidden cameras and later upload the images to PornHub. Women's single-sex spaces do not exist as a support mechanism for males with either fetishes or identity issues or both.
 
Try telling "be respectful to everyone" to India Willoughby ....snip....


Believe it or not there are many people who aren't respectful of individuals' rights, which doesn't mean I won't be, and I will still encourage others to be respectful of individuals' rights.

Perhaps not define yourself by what people who appear to be those you consider to be wrong or against you?
 
Believe it or not there are many people who aren't respectful of individuals' rights, which doesn't mean I won't be, and I will still encourage others to be respectful of individuals' rights.

Perhaps not define yourself by what people who appear to be those you consider to be wrong or against you?

Completely ignoring the very valid point. Why should any female be respectful of India Willoughby?
 
Completely missing the point, indeed.

No doubt there are transwomen who behave very discreetly in ladies' toilets and their presence goes unremarked. However, until someone can find a fool-proof way of ensuring that OMLY these particular transwomen enter ladies' toilets, then I am on the side of my own sex. I have some degree of sympathy for inoffensive men who may be inconvenienced by a blanket ban, but enough is enough. It's an all or nothing situation, with "all" becoming more conprehensively inclusive by the day what with men who look and sound and dress in a masculine manner simply declaring themselves trans (or indeed non-binary) and demanding access to female-only spaces on the same basis as the discreet, inoffensive transwomen were tolerated to "be kind".

So it has to be nothing. Sorry. Find another solution to keep men with identity issues happy, women's spaces are not provided for their therapy.
 
Believe it or not there are many people who aren't respectful of individuals' rights, which doesn't mean I won't be, and I will still encourage others to be respectful of individuals' rights.

Perhaps not define yourself by what people who appear to be those you consider to be wrong or against you?


I wasn't defining myself at all. I was attempting to highlight the point that male rights activists (like yourself, indeed) always aim the "be respectful, be kind" scolding at women, when it's the male interlopers who are being anything but kind or respectful towards women.

India Willoughby has just posted a stunning example of his lack of respect for women, and I was trying to see if you might understand that it's him you should maybe be directing your scolding at.

Fat chance.
 
It's grimly amusing watching these "moderate" trans panic mongers act in horror as these red states throw all queer people, not just the hated trans people, under the bus. They never wanted all gay people to be accused of "groomers" after all, they just wanted to whip up a little bit of narrowly focused moral panic about trans people. Who could have foreseen such an outcome?

After a brief flurry of outrage, both Herzog and Sullivan have seemed to settled on the "it's trans people's fault for making reactionaries hit them" line of victim blaming.

herzog said:
Katelyn Burns is apparently blaming me for the spate of ******* crazy bills out of red states. Here's another theory: Trans activists pushing way beyond basic civil rights and onto vastly unpopular positions like trans women in sports and pediatric transition are to blame.

I mean, cynical republican politicians trying to win votes are actually to blame but I'm not sure why her theory is any more logical than mine is.

Moderation is the key to winning hearts and minds and establishing good, sensible policy. Extremism is not.

https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1511081167927185409?cxt=HHwWgsCokZ6UuPgpAAAA

Anyway, nothing will be learned and both will resume adding fuel to the "Wokeness is a dire threat" bonfire that surely will never have any collateral damage.
 

This, combined with the Tory government failing to outlaw trans conversion therapy as promised, has lead to broad withdrawal of all but the TERF groups from an upcoming conference.

LGBTQ charity Stonewall and 80 other organisations have pulled out of a UK government conference over its transgender conversion therapy U-turn.

The LGBT+ Consortium, an umbrella body for charities working in the UK, said the government’s plans to scrap planned legislation to outlaw conversion practices was “abhorrent”.

The group added that it backed Stonewall’s decision to withdraw support for the government’s “Safe To Be Me: Global Equality Conference”, which was set to take place later this summer in London.

It shared a statement from Stonewall, which said: “Due to the Prime Minister’s broken promise on protecting trans people from the harms of Conversion Therapy, we regret that we are withdrawing Stonewall’s support for the UK Government’s Safe To Be Me conference.

“We will only be able to participate if the Prime Minister reverts to his promise for a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stonewall-trans-conversion-lgbtq-protest-b2050586.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom