Why are 'trans' males out of bounds for feminists?

It was the inference about monopolising and derailing, I know we often get with people who pitch up out of the blue but with Jaycee being a regular poster for some time now it felt a bit off.

By their own admission they can waffle on a bit but I've not generally found it to be derailing. Just my perception though, I appreciate not everyone will share it.

I can't see anyone saying Jaycee is not welcome to post on FWR?

It was JC who said they were not welcome when what they were actually told was that they were derailing, and then complaining when people did not like it.
Still, mission accomplished and JC has other threads to derail.

I appreciate that intervention, OvaHere, but I have said what I wanted to say, I think.

So I am happy to bow out and do not want to overdo things.

I don't think this is because I am a 'man' but really just because I am a writer. So I love to write.

But I imagine that will not be everyone's opinion. And that's fine.

I will keep reading the thread though. And thank you for the kind thought. But I am happy to observe and hopefully learn something.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the direction this thread has taken. Not because I disagree with the premise, I think the OP was a very pertinent question but it feels unfair to police how much Jaycee can post.

The FWR board seems to broadly agree that transwomen with gender critical views or who oppose self ID are welcome here so either Jaycee is or isn't welcome. I don't think we can pick and choose depending on the thread, even if we don't agree with some points raised.

On yet another thread that you have monopolized and derailed. People here like you so they let a lot of your inappropriate behavior slide.

Wow.
Picking on an easy target are we now?
I hope that's made you feel better.

And "transwoman" is your term, not a legally appointed one.

It's not my term. It's Stonewalls www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms
and the NHS's www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/#treatment-for-adults

And it's used here to distinguish between women who transitioned from male to female, and those women who did not.

This is untrue. I suggest you educate yourself on the legal meaning of discrimination and harassment and the people to whom those laws apply

Thanks I have educated myself. We covered this yesterday. It applies to all the protected characteristics.

(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

in deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

Well, that's fair enough, Ereshkigal, but it was not intended in the way you took it.

Anyhow, as I say, I know when it is time to leave you to it. Night all.

Sorry, I didn't perceive that comment as helpful.

Everything has to be seen as some kind of male takeover.

Sometimes in life I agree that it can feel that way. But really to psychoanalyse what are intended as helpful posts is a little sad.

But I will leave you to it.

I pointed out that elephants might have something useful to add to a discussion over the rights or wrongs of what we as humans do to them.

Exactly, it's loaded. Think about the way you have framed it. You are putting yourself as the elephant and women here with power to do things you don't want. That's not actually the power balance between us.

Why revive it after it was discussed pages ago?

Too often when anyone trans says something that you would just respond to by agreeing or disagreeing if the poster had not outed themselves on here as being trans there is a tendency of some to immediately perceive it in the worst possible light.

I do not care why you lied about the study again.
I care that you lie and in the same thread claim that you are being disagreed with because you are trans and not because you lied.
On yet another thread that you have monopolized and derailed.
People here like you so they let a lot of your inappropriate behavior slide. It is a real slap in the face to them when you make a claim like this.

Ereshkigal, for goodness sake.

You have made a leap from my elephant analogy.

I was being told to leave the thread as I was basically not wanted in here as it was a topic only for women and Feminists to talk over.

I pointed out that elephants might have something useful to add to a discussion over the rights or wrongs of what we as humans do to them.

And that means I am saying you are depriving me of my rights?

No, it means I felt I might have something to add to a discussion in which I do have experience and a different perspective.

Both of which usually help a debate.

thebewilderness that was discussed earlier and I explained what happened and my mistake. And called for further studies.

Why revive it after it was discussed pages ago?

If I am derailing the thread why are you just looking for negative things to say and not discussing how to get the EA act clarified by parliament in conjunction with the GRA as I suggested and was directly helpful to the discussion that only I seem to want to have?

I raised the problem of the EA and clarifying it as the nub of the question posed in the OP of this thread

clarifying something as the nub of another person's point is the sort of statement that women have to overcome years of socialisation to state (if they ever do), especially when the OP has said she does not think you have even gotten the point of the OP.

But a debate on shooting elephants in which the elephants are not welcome to comment because only humans get to do that.

Firstly it's not the same power balance. Women do not have societal power as can be clearly seen in this debate.

Secondly is that how you see women advocating for sex based protections? That we are depriving you of your rights? Well that's fair enough. I think it's better that this discussion is honest.

On topics such as the Swedish study above - which gets posted a lot on here I have noticed. But hardly ever that one of the authors subsequently discredited it and a later study contradicted it.

This is not true. You were provided with the correct information.Are you suggesting that no one would have corrected you if they didn't know you are trans, JC?

Ereshkigal, I appreciate that. And so was I. Pointing out that I raised the problem of the EA and clarifying it as the nub of the question posed in the OP of this thread. About 'men' in women's spaces.

The thing it seems I have somehow helped derail this thread from talking about by actually suggesting a way to help define and delineate that very problem.

Too often when anyone trans says something that you would just respond to by agreeing or disagreeing if the poster had not outed themselves on here as being trans there is a tendency of some to immediately perceive it in the worst possible light.

If you're talking to me about the EA Jaycee I was making a general point.

12th rule of misogyny: Women's ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.

Far as we know the definition of a woman has not been codified into law. This is why so many people are confused.

Regarding the OP. This thread derail is the how and why answer to your question. Why are we not allowed to talk about the problems women face from trans males (transwomen) "not all transwomen"?

'trans identified males' is your term, not a legally appointed one.

And "transwoman" is your term, not a legally appointed one.

For the vast majority of everyday 'purposes' if you treat a transwoman differently to any other female it would meet the definition of discrimination/ harassment.

This is untrue. I suggest you educate yourself on the legal meaning of discrimination and harassment and the people to whom those laws apply compared with your own definition of "transwoman".

You mean the very EA act that I suggested needed clarifying in conjunction with the GRA earlier?

Must have had a brain freeze not putting myself first and opening up that possibility.

Too often when anyone trans says something that you would just respond to by agreeing or disagreeing if the poster had not outed themselves on here as being trans there is a tendency of some to immediately perceive it in the worst possible light.

Sometimes that might be correct. Other times it really isn't.

Until we actually can talk to one another without assuming there is some kind of ulterior motive behind everything this will keep going round in circles.

No, they're not women's rights, they are the rights of trans identified males to be treated as women for some purposes.

'trans identified males' is your term, not a legally appointed one. For the vast majority of everyday 'purposes' if you treat a transwoman differently to any other female it would meet the definition of discrimination/ harassment.

The law would class JC as female and therefore her rights are female rights. Or Women's rights. She is protected by law as a woman. As a transsexual yes - but that protection establishes her right to women's rights.

Not if the EA exemptions were better applied. Our interests are not the same in all cases.

do you not include JC's rights as part of the set of women's rights?

No, they're not women's rights, they are the rights of trans identified males to be treated as women for some purposes.