..To be mortified at the treatment of rape victims at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre?

The reason that those spaces are inhabited by women at their most vulnerable.

Anyone with any sense would be able to accept that, especially if they’re self-identifying within that group.

Personally I see no issue with having men’s toilets, women’s toilets, and a “general” one. Space and logistics doesn’t always work like that, but that’s how those spaces should work IMO.

Then nobody has to be in a situation they’re uncomfortable with.

In what world? This one. Where men (and a lot of women unfortunately) want others to accept them as something they are not, and by default into spaces where they shouldn’t be. It’s a shared idea, motive and attitude. Women don’t have to accept it.

I appreciate this has apparently been used as an “excuse” before, but it really isn’t “all” anyone. Is it.

In what world do all of one certain group of people have exactly the same ideas, motives and attitudes.

Why would you think anyone here owes you an apology? Now that's weird.

It's completely eye-opening that on this thread, which cohort The Righteous are most concerned about reminding the Naughty People not to be discourteous, unkind or impolite to.

You agree that single sex spaces should be protected so what reason would you give to the transwomen (who I would call men) as to why they should not use those spaces?

I don't really care what motives individual men have to use female single sex spaces I just want to keep them out of female single sex spaces.

No, I'm not interested in what you think when you haven't read the thread. Hope that helps.

Nobody’s really interested in a view that you don’t share? Weird.

Regardless of whether she’s right, or wrong - that exact way of phrasing it would be a problem. Surely.

My point remains, we could try speaking to each other like human beings instead of whatever this is.

I’m not saying anyone is bigoted, like I said earlier - each to their own, other people have views.

I just think there’s a difference between having an opinion, and speaking to people like shit.

Also, just so you know, @SleeplessInWherever this case revolves around the callousness and unreasonable self absorption of a "non binary" person.

To me "healthy debate" includes being able to say "there is no such thing as "non binary", all humans can be described as such because none of us are binary". And to point out the regressive sexism of it.

Don't you see @murasaki we've pivoted from this indefensible situation to shift the focus to random colleagues of the poster and their "non binary child" who isn't even there but must of course be humoured with non sex based pronouns, statements of support for their kid's "identity" etc.

If someone else’s reality is that they identify as a man, woman, anything else - what has that got to do with me, and why would it change my status as a woman.

The whole point of this thread shows how someone else's pseudo reality affects others, in the most disastrous ways. It's quite embarrassing at this stage in the thread to come on here with the faux 'but not all trans', or disingenuous bullshit if I want to be 'outwardly unkind'.

Do you think that a man not thinking he's a man changes reality? It doesn't. He's still a man.

And as for the motives for being in women's single sex spaces, there are so, so many examples that again, I'd think you'd have to be trying quite hard not to notice them. Here is a small selection to be going on with

One of the women on my team has a non binary child, which to be clear she is accepting of. Whenever conversation around that comes up in the office, healthy debate is fine, but I absolutely wouldn’t accept anyone being rude to her about it.

so if you were all sitting around at tea break and the debacle in Edinburgh came up, and the mother of the non-binary child said "yes that member of staff was perfectly right to insist that they, despite posession of a vagina, refused to be identified as a woman to a traumatised rape victim" and i told her to pull her head out of her ass and try some empathy - you'd think i was being a nasty bigot and she would be right?

where are the lines here, just so we know.

Fuck kind. Who was kind to the rape survivors?

Itd be one thing for there to be concerned raised privately that no one else knew about.

This is a fucking letter dated from several years ago in the Scottish government archives!

The amount of times genderists parrot that no rape survivor has ever had a problem with it. This is a self evident lie from what we know about ERCC, and even if the Scottish government didn't have this information their gaslighting is unforgivable considering they had received this submission.

There’s a difference between not adhering, and being outwardly unkind.

i reserve the right to be "outwardly unkind" to any man (however he sees himself) telling victims of the most egregious male crime to "reframe their trauma" so they aren't being bigots.

Loudly and repeatedly. Again, your last posts are disingenuous twaddle. You may not frequent FWR but plenty of us do. We have seen all the excuses before. Now someone, finally, is being held accountable. And yet we must still #BeKind.

Fuck. That. Shit.

If 'woman' is an identity, anyone who says they're a woman is one. And so can be in the rape crisis centre with all the other women. And that's what happened at ERCS, and that's how we got this thread. You'd have to be trying quite hard not to see the problem to not get that, I'd have thought.

Indeed.

You didn’t exactly answer the question though.

How are you defining ‘outwardly unkind’?

I believe ‘non-binary’ is a nonsensical concept, (not to mention that declaring yourself non-binary surely then makes you binary, as you’re now one or the other but that’s for a different discussion). Am I unkind for believing that?

If someone else’s reality is that they identify as a man, woman, anything else - what has that got to do with me, and why would it change my status as a woman. That I was born and remain a woman isn’t threatened by someone else’s life choices.

This thread is an example of exactly how it changes all women's status as a woman, when we change 'woman' from a biologically based factual category to a feeling. If 'woman' changes from a description for an adult human female to a description of an unknowable unquantifiable feeling, of course it changes your status as a woman! 'Woman' is then a descriptor for the group of people who have 'woman feeling', instead of the group of people with female bodies.

I'm not a woman because I feel like a woman, what does feeling like a women feel like? How would I or anyone know if I'm doing it ?I don't have a woman gender identity, what is gender other than a load of stereotypes about what males and females 'should' wear or like? It's a literal fact that I am a woman as I am an adult human female.

If 'woman' is an identity, anyone who says they're a woman is one. And so can be in the rape crisis centre with all the other women. And that's what happened at ERCS, and that's how we got this thread. You'd have to be trying quite hard not to see the problem to not get that, I'd have thought.

ffs are you #NotAllTrans / #NotAllMen here?

pack it in

Firstly, they don’t see themselves as men - so they’re not fighting for men to be anywhere. Not outwardly anyway.

I don't care how they see themselves. They are literally fighting for men.

And again, pronouns and "courtesy" are not what this thread is about. It's specifically about Mridul Wadhwa and the other enablers of cruelty to women and dereliction of their duty of care to rape survivors.

I wasn’t looking for an apology, or really an explanation.

For some reason you wish to make this thread all about you and your personal musings though. It isn't about you and no one is really interested in whether you think men are women. It's about a clear example of what gender identity ideology does to women's rights.