Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

You didn't even spot that I was echoing your own excuse of "hyperbole" which, predictably, seems to be OK when you do it but not OK when someone else does it.

You weren't echoing anything. You've been caught, in black and white. Stop trying to lie your way out of it. You called me a liar for saying you used the phrase, and said you never used the phrase, here or elsewhere. Receipts were presented.

I did not use the phrase "freaks in a boob tube", ever. For the simple reason that the word "boob-tube" is not in my vocabulary. I am also not in the habit of using the word "freak". So basically, stop lying about me.

Laughing and cheering the use is not the defense against endorsing it you are trying to reframe it as.

There is a wider point here though. If I use disparaging language, it is because I think poorly of the object of that language. You may have possibly guessed, I am not a fan of men who LARP their pornified fantasy of what a woman is and demand that they get to do that in women's single-sex spaces. If I say it, I mean it.

It's just incredible. It's like you can't stop yourself, or you don't hear it. I've never seen anything like this on the forum.

You used disparaging language against this.

View attachment 60954

This is the meeting that was in progress when that vile man set off the fire alarm. You defended this as being understandable because this was "a nazi meeting, run by nazis" (I don't even correct your capitalisation for fear of you disowning the quote",

Oh that's so big of you to not lower yourself to the most petty of pedantics. I suppose you are new to the English language and are unfamiliar with 'nazi' having a meaning beyond that of 'member of a former national socialist party in germany'? OMG, I didn't capitalize 'Germany". Perhaps you'll treat us to another show of your gregarious generosity in not correcting it?

and "a vocally anti-trans group, meeting for whatever specific purpose." You took sneering exception to the statement that "People registered male at birth (regardless of gender identity), are excluded from our organising committee, our Salons and some of our events," despite paying lip service to the principle of freedom of association and declaring that you do not oppose women having the right to hold meetings without men being present.

Your posts drip with contempt and hatred for this group, who were doing nothing but running an NHS-sponsored "women's health hub". My conclusion is that your opinion of this group is on the same level as my opnion of the "cross-dressing pervs" who want to gate-crash it.

Because I called the Sisters 'Sistas', in the same way that I call guys "bro' or 'the hommes'. You are really sinking far below the interesting debate level here.

For the record: no, I don't have anything against this group. No, the activist was not justified in pulling the alarm, and should have been charged with that offense regardless of the protesting claim. Yes, I was unclear on that and I see that I worded poorly while I was making a point about the activist's perspective.

And seriously, I need some eye bleach.

 

[lionking]

You weren't echoing anything. You've been caught, in black and white. Stop trying to lie your way out of it. You called me a liar for saying you used the phrase, and said you never used the phrase, here or elsewhere. Receipts were presented.

Laughing and cheering the use is not the defense against endorsing it you are trying to reframe it as.

It's just incredible. It's like you can't stop yourself, or you don't hear it. I've never seen anything like this on the forum.

Oh that's so big of you to not lower yourself to the most petty of pedantry. I suppose you are new to the English language and are unfamiliar with 'nazi' having a meaning beyond that of 'member of a former national socialist party in germany'? OMG, I didn't capitalize 'Germany". Perhaps you'll treat us to another show of your gregarious generosity in not correcting it?

Because I called the Sisters 'Sistas', in the same way that I call guys "bro' or 'the hommes'. You are really sinking far below the interesting debate level here.

For the record: no, I don't have anything against this group. No, the activist was not justified in pulling the alarm, and should have been charged with that offense regardless of the protesting claim. Yes, I was unclear on that and I see that I worded poorly while I was making a point about the activist's perspective.

And seriously, I need some eye bleach.

Brave Sir Robin…..

 

[Thermal]

Brave Sir Robin…..

Ya I should just stay here and keep arguing with bigots. It's a stellar use of time.

Like I said earlier, I like my masochism with a happy ending.

 

[Rolfe]

You weren't echoing anything. You've been caught, in black and white. Stop trying to lie your way out of it. You called me a liar for saying you used the phrase, and said you never used the phrase, here or elsewhere. Receipts were presented.

Laughing and cheering the use is not the defense against endorsing it you are trying to reframe it as.

It's just incredible. It's like you can't stop yourself, or you don't hear it. I've never seen anything like this on the forum.

Oh that's so big of you to not lower yourself to the most petty of pedantics. I suppose you are new to the English language and are unfamiliar with 'nazi' having a meaning beyond that of 'member of a former national socialist party in germany'? OMG, I didn't capitalize 'Germany". Perhaps you'll treat us to another show of your gregarious generosity in not correcting it?

Because I called the Sisters 'Sistas', in the same way that I call guys "bro' or 'the hommes'. You are really sinking far below the interesting debate level here.

For the record: no, I don't have anything against this group. No, the activist was not justified in pulling the alarm, and should have been charged with that offense regardless of the protesting claim. Yes, I was unclear on that and I see that I worded poorly while I was making a point about the activist's perspective.

And seriously, I need some eye bleach.

You did what you did. You characterised a group running a women's health hub as "Nazis" and "vocally anti-trans", apparently regardless of the purpose of the meeting, merely because they were exercising the right you apparently think they have, and should have, to meet without being compelled to allow men into their meeting.

You leaped instantly to the defence of that vile man, who runs Brighton Pride, without even finding out any details, on the assumption that the trans-activist must be in the right and the women must be in the wrong if they take a stand against men who insist on gatecrashing their events.

It's nothing to you that these vile men won't leave women alone to get on with women's stuff without insisting on being included, and perscuting them if they refuse. That's their modus operandi, and you seem to approve entirely. To the point of defending that creep for disrupting not just the Health Hub but the entire library. Because "something went off in his head".

I think your attitude is despicable.

 

[Thermal]

You did what you did. You characterised a group running a women's health hub as "Nazis"

Stop lying. I compared the activist's justification (from his own perspective) to protesting Nazis. And I clarified, and conceded it was poorly worded. That you won't accept that speaks volumes.

and "vocally anti-trans", apparently regardless of the purpose of the meeting, merely because they were exercising the right you apparently think they have, and should have, to meet without being compelled to allow men into their meeting.

I agree they have that right. I also agree that they better damn right well expect to take the brunt of trans activists in the community that they have been locking horns with if they do so. Being in the right doesn't grant you immunity from conflict with an adversary. It's going to happen. I wonder if this occurred to Sisters Salon? No? It didn't occur to any of them that a public meeting of a women's group, boldly proclaiming in it's own ad 'Women Only', where transwomen are vocally excluded, during a freaking trans demonstration, might incite a reaction from their opposite number?

You leaped instantly to the defence of that vile man, who runs Brighton Pride, without even finding out any details, on the assumption that the trans-activist must be in the right and the women must be in the wrong if they take a stand against men who insist on gatecrashing their events.

No, I've said it was a jerk thing to do, and have clarified my poorly worded characterization. That you won't let go of that says all I need to know about you.

I think your attitude is despicable.

I know yours is, beyond any shadow of doubt now.

 

[Aber]

Don't know, don't care.

Your state seems as "out there" as California, even if you don't want to admit it, or that you live in a bubble.

 

[Thermal]

Your state seems as "out there" as California, even if you don't want to admit it, or that you live in a bubble.

Probably is. See ya on the next one.

 

[Agatha]

Stop lying. I compared the activist's justification (from his own perspective) to protesting Nazis. And I clarified, and conceded it was poorly worded. That you won't accept that speaks volumes.

I agree they have that right. I also agree that they better damn right well expect to take the brunt of trans activists in the community that they have been locking horns with if they do so. Being in the right doesn't grant you immunity from conflict with an adversary.

An adversary? Women's groups talking about women's health should expect men to be "adversaries"? Your posts often reek of misogyny as do those of some other men on this thread, but suggesting that men are adversaries of women is an interesting take.

It's going to happen. I wonder if this occurred to Sisters Salon? No? It didn't occur to any of them that a public meeting of a women's group, where transwomen are vocally excluded, during a freaking trans demonstration, might incite a reaction from their opposite number?

The meeting was arranged in advance, the trans demo turned up in response to it, to protest against the men being excluded from a discussion of women's health. You've framed it as if the demo came first and the meeting was organised afterwards.

Are you suggesting that this NHS-supported meeting should not have gone ahead because some men think women shouldn't be allowed to meet and talk together about things that directly affect women but do not directly affect men?

 

[Thermal]

An adversary? Women's groups talking about women's health should expect men to be "adversaries"? Your posts often reek of misogyny as do those of some other men on this thread, but suggesting that men are adversaries of women is an interesting take.



The meeting was arranged in advance, the trans demo turned up in response to it, to protest against the men being excluded from a discussion of women's health. You've framed it as if the demo came first and the meeting was organised afterwards.

Are you suggesting that this NHS-supported meeting should not have gone ahead because some men think women shouldn't be allowed to meet and talk together about things that directly affect women but do not directly affect men?

No. C ya.

 

[sinnikal]

I have lost count of the times you have said you're done with this thread. Unfortunately the 'search' means I can't put the number.
You do know that you don't have to announce what you're doing, just stop posting in this thread. People will notice your absence.

 

[Agatha]

That was both rude and unclear; there was more than one question in my post. If you would prefer not to answer that is obviously your right, but if you choose to take the time to answer the least you could do is make it clear to which question your answer is no, and preferably justify your answer.

 

[Rolfe]

An adversary? Women's groups talking about women's health should expect men to be "adversaries"? Your posts often reek of misogyny as do those of some other men on this thread, but suggesting that men are adversaries of women is an interesting take.

The meeting was arranged in advance, the trans demo turned up in response to it, to protest against the men being excluded from a discussion of women's health. You've framed it as if the demo came first and the meeting was organised afterwards.

Are you suggesting that this NHS-supported meeting should not have gone ahead because some men think women shouldn't be allowed to meet and talk together about things that directly affect women but do not directly affect men?

It wasn't even like that. If you listen to what that horrible man says in the video he posted, he was walking home from some other event and happened to be passing by the library. He knew that the women's health hub was meeting there at that time, and "something went off in his head".

On the impulse of the moment he decided to enter the library. He found the room where the meeting was being held and set off the nearest fire alarm, leading to the evacuation of the entire library (including, incidentally, the creche that had been provided to take care of the children of the women attending). It was only him. He acted entirely alone, and he made it perfectly clear that the reason was that he couldn't bear the thought of a meeting taking place, about anything, that excluded men.

Only when he was arrested did he put forward the claim that he was mounting a protest. A claim the pro-trans police accepted without question and let him go. There was no "trans demo". Just one nasty man with no impulse control.

 

[Thermal]

That was both rude and unclear; there was more than one question in my post. If you would prefer not to answer that is obviously your right, but if you choose to take the time to answer the least you could do is make it clear to which question your answer is no, and preferably justify your answer.

I assume this is directed towards me? If so;

You're right, that was an unnecessarily short response. My apologies. I'm trying to leave this discussion for mental health reasons, and being asked further questions, challenges, and insults is counterproductive to that end (yes, saying my posts "reek of misogyny" is insulting).

 

[Agatha]

I assume this is directed towards me? If so;

You're right, that was an unnecessarily short response. My apologies. I'm trying to leave this discussion for mental health reasons, and being asked further questions, challenges, and insults is counterproductive to that end (yes, saying my posts "reek of misogyny" is insulting).

It's an assessment of your posts, not you. I have not insulted you and would not do so.

If you take offence to such an assessment, perhaps consider posting less anti-women rhetoric or refrain from calling people bigots because they understand the reality that men are not women?

 

[Rolfe]

Stop lying. I compared the activist's justification (from his own perspective) to protesting Nazis. And I clarified, and conceded it was poorly worded. That you won't accept that speaks volumes.

I agree they have that right. I also agree that they better damn right well expect to take the brunt of trans activists in the community that they have been locking horns with if they do so. Being in the right doesn't grant you immunity from conflict with an adversary. It's going to happen. I wonder if this occurred to Sisters Salon? No? It didn't occur to any of them that a public meeting of a women's group, boldly proclaiming in it's own ad 'Women Only', where transwomen are vocally excluded, during a freaking trans demonstration, might incite a reaction from their opposite number?

No, I've said it was a jerk thing to do, and have clarified my poorly worded characterization. That you won't let go of that says all I need to know about you.

I know yours is, beyond any shadow of doubt now.

You didn't "clarify". You tried to pretend you hadn't said what you quite obviously did say, when you realised your knee-jerk reaction might have been a bit over the top.

Sisters Salon are only trying to run women-only meetings in relation to health and other matters. As is their right, a right you have repeatedly said you support. That's it. "Boldly proclaiming" that the meeting is for women only, as you characterise it! How would you like them to advertise it?

The aggressors here are the trans activists, and specifically Brighton Pride, who simply can't leave this group alone to run their meetings in peace. Thus Sisters Salon are put in the position where they have to be explicit about their house rules, and defend them against attack.

Now you want to characterise an arranged meeting about women's health, in a library, as some sort of provocation, because a man with no impulse control decided on the spur of the moment, when walking past, that he wanted to disrupt the meeting, and when arrested, claimed that he was a protest demonstration!

Is there any way at all that Sisters Salon could organise, advertise and run their events that would meet with your approval? Do tell.

 

[Thermal]

Agatha, addressing your questions more fully:

An adversary?

Yes. The trans group and Sisters Salon appear to have an ongoing adversarial relationship.

Women's groups talking about women's health should expect men to be "adversaries"?

No. A women's group that posts "WOMEN ONLY" on their flier should expect to be adversarial with trans groups, who consider themselves women, yet are vocally and specifically excluded.

Your posts often reek of misogyny as do those of some other men on this thread, but suggesting that men are adversaries of women is an interesting take.

Insult and strawman noted.

The meeting was arranged in advance, the trans demo turned up in response to it, to protest against the men being excluded from a discussion of women's health. You've framed it as if the demo came first and the meeting was organised afterwards.

It is my understanding that a trans demonstration was already taking place nearby. Who registered first does not strike me as interesting. If you can expect a conflict, and do not want it, you do what you have to to avoid it, no matter who is right or wrong.

Are you suggesting that this NHS-supported meeting should not have gone ahead because some men think women shouldn't be allowed to meet and talk together about things that directly affect women but do not directly affect men?

No, I do not. As I said... repeatedly... I think Sisters Salon has every right to do what they were doing. Why they would exclude men in the audience is a little baffling. I mean, what of a husband or dad who wants to understand women's concerns more in depth? But whatever, it's their right to be exclusive.

 

[smartcooky]

It has been repeatedly acknowledged that prisons are a different story, and the volume of suddenly 'transwoman' inmates requesting to be in the women's prison increased exponentially, which seems to indicate imposters gaining access to new victims. Not exactly the gotcha you think it is.

ETA: i mean jesus christ dude, your own citation says that upon adoption of the policy, transfer requests suddenly went from 15 to 250. You think all those prisoners abruptly 'discovered who they really were' spontaneously overnight?

And no, I didn't say "as a result of allowing selfID for gender". You are rewording to make your half assed gotcha work. Join Rolfe and the cooky in the low integrity corner if you are going to argue like that.

Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin!

 

[Rolfe]

I assume this is directed towards me? If so;

You're right, that was an unnecessarily short response. My apologies. I'm trying to leave this discussion for mental health reasons, and being asked further questions, challenges, and insults is counterproductive to that end (yes, saying my posts "reek of misogyny" is insulting).

You are being owned, repeatedly, for your blatantly misogynist posts. You are responding inappropriately to scenarios being presented to you, and becoming defensive and even aggressive when you're called out on it.

If you think this is affecting your mental health then you definitely ought to leave the discussion. However, that's entirely up to you to accomplish. Other posters are under no obligation to stop responding to you. If you want to leave, all you have to do is to stop looking at the thread.

 

[Thermal]

It's an assessment of your posts, not you. I have not insulted you and would not do so.

We are our posts on a forum.

If you take offence to such an assessment,

I don't take offense. I acknowledge the intent. What a poster thinks is what they are. Your opinion of posts, on a forum, is an assessment of the poster.

perhaps consider posting less anti-women rhetoric or refrain from calling people bigots because they understand the reality that men are not women?

That has not been my oft-repeated-into-infinity position. I came into this discussion trying to talk about a way that transwomen could be respected, while protecting women's feelings. It's a tough needle to thread. I was met with blatant tranny bashing, which has put me on the defensive line that I never intended to be on.

And it should be appallingly obvious by now that the entrenched posters here will not budge, so there is no real point in continuing any debate.

 

[smartcooky]

I have lost count of the times you have said you're done with this thread. Unfortunately the 'search' means I can't put the number.
You do know that you don't have to announce what you're doing, just stop posting in this thread.
People will notice your absence.

Less misogyny for starters!