Questions from a liberal feminist to the rad fems

Supermatch has gone after me multiple times. Because I'm a grownup with a spine I mostly just shrug it off, but from an objective perspective is it a bit abusive? Most definitely.

Absolutely. I'd say "abusive" is saying people must be drunk just because you don't like their posts. And that was a direct PA to Angry.

DARVO
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

I think as this is actually starting to turn quite abusive I'll leave it for now.

Remember when you literally described me as "bile"? Pot, kettle, etc.

After calling us alt right because we want to protect women's rights, and getting personally quite nasty with some of us, you have the nerve to pretend it is all a misunderstanding and you didn't know what was being done by Stonewall and other misogynist groups?

Are you effing kidding me.

Me too... and much as it may annoy some, I am going to continue repeating it, given that the women in prison can't.

That means she is in the showers at the same time as other inmates, which some have found quite awkard.

every time I read this I get the rage. How to minimise a form of sexual abuse.

I agree Elltoro. It completely goes against everything we do to keep ourselves safe, like the advice in the Gift of Fear. We shouldn't be expected to ignore our instincts.

Supermatch

Abusive to say you haven’t bothered to avail yourself of the facts in the debate you are engaged in?

Or to say you don’t understand and don’t appear to have read the Equality Act?

From an earlier article about trans woman Alex Stewart (mentioned previously)
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outrage-transgender-prisoner-living-woman-12022675

"The women inmates have had to accept that Stewart is being allowed to live as a woman, despite not having had surgery.

That means she is in the showers at the same time as other inmates, which some have found quite awkard.

She has the right to determine her own gender."

If Stonewall says cross dressing men with beards are transgender who then should be able to use the women’s changing rooms in swimming pools (due to Stonewall et al gaslighting...sorry I mean “educating” the establishment about the Equality Act) then women cannot identity whether the man in front of them is bravely expanding the bandwidth of womanhood or a threat to run away from.

We are weaker, slower and generally more likely to freeze than take flight. It’s important that we identify a threat early and/or completely avoid it (hence single sex provisions). Stonewall’s umbrella tactics disable our safety measures.

They are actively undermining our safety.

Indeed!

Women stating facts is "quite abusive".

I'm not an organisation. Those rules you quote are in regards to discrimination against trans people by employers or organisations. I am a private person.

I find TW=W grossly offensive and as a woman who has experienced a lot of crap including sexual, physical and verbal assault carried out by men also deeply upsetting. Men are not women. Transwomen do not magically lose their strength when they take hormones or shrink in size or shake off their muscles or lose lung volume and so on.

Plus and this is the absolute crucial point, the vast, overwhelming majority of transwomen in the UK are fully functioning, completely undadulterated males (non-op, non-med). They are in the literal sense of the word men in women's clothing. Telling me that I have to concede the word woman to them is an abusive misogynist attack on all women and girls.

I think as this is actually starting to turn quite abusive I'll leave it for now.

[12th rule of misogyny: women's ability to recognise...etc etc etc]

I don't think Parliament are gender radicals. I think they cynically thought this would win them easy identity politics cred. I hope they might have a rethink about that.

And all the pronouns crap - where in the Equality Act does it say that?

Which section? You don’t know what you’re talking about

Isn't it? Not avoiding the issue. It's what I mean by transitioning.

It doesn't matter what you mean by the word. It's no longer what it legally means. You're being disingenuous.

I wasn't aware that the broad umbrella described by Stonewall implies that they are saying there still shouldn't be sex based protections?

I'm pretty sure that Stonewall don't think there should be any genuinely sex based protections. And obviously their broad umbrella makes all sex protections meaningless.

How can you not know the facts? You have been engaged in debate for days without knowing this basic fact. Read the Equality Act

I don't think anyone is saying women are expected to use open changing rooms with someone with a penis, and that includes transitioned women.

There are actually plenty of people saying just that. There was one person who identifies as a trans woman who stated that doing so was "activism".

Btw, as you keep avoiding this issue, you know full well that's not what "transitioning" means any more.

Isn't it? Not avoiding the issue. It's what I mean by transitioning. As in distinct from a man who decides to put on a dress and gain access to female space. I wasn't aware that the broad umbrella described by Stonewall implies that they are saying there still shouldn't be sex based protections?

Supermatch

You are wrong. Men who say they want to transition are considered transgender under the Act. They are afforded the same rights as old school transsexuals. So up until very recently Swim England was proposing that men with penises could use the women’s changing rooms at swimming pools

Stonewall's definition may be wider than I agree with but it isn't hateful.

Yes it is. Extremely hateful.

You must think a lot of people are 'gender radicals' including all of parliament?
Keep telling us what we think in order to tell us how wrong we are to think it. There may be one or two women who do not yet recognize what they are seeing.

I do not share your beliefs and your attempts to badger and bully women here into submission and pretending to share your beliefs is despicable.