An inclusive way to be gender critical?

But not everything in my life revolves around what I'd lose, because I think about more than me.

Sometimes we have to stand up for what we believe in, and I haven't noticed you make a coherent case for why women and girls should lose their established rights in favour of trans ideology.

And I don't personally believe the word for what you believe is "feminism". Feminism is the rights movement for women and girls.

I agree

I disagree. Sex and the role of motherhood are inextricably linked, for one.

Your questions are literally the equivalent of transwomen standing in your toilets saying I don't care about you. Why should I leave

But effectively, that is the proposal isn't it? that no care or consideration needs to be given to women; because women should automatically "be kind and think of others" before themselves; their own needs for privacy and dignity; and for their own comfort.

But as we all know it doesn't stop with toilets; it extends into every area of women's life; into women's sporting categories; into women only short-lists and so on.......

But not everything in my life revolves around what I'd lose, because I think about more than me

Good for you! But you don't have the right to remove the existing safeguards and provisions that others have fought for and value.

Do you have daughters, I wonder? Because I'm sure if you do then you naturally are thinking beyond just yourself, and towards another generation of girls and young women.

Necessary to be so rude

I think it is exasperation, pure and simple!How many times do people need to say "no"; to draw their own boundaries?

Third spaces and provisions are the way forward. That way everyone gets their basic safeguarding needs met, without trampling over others.

But not everything in my life revolves around what I'd lose, because I think about more than me.

And no, I haven't got a problem, other than with 🙄 at your 4? At last count posts basically saying IM RIGHT NA NA NA.

Convince you? What do you think this is? You're in some authority and it's my job to plead to you?

you aren't going to convince me that you've got anything to say that women speaking about women's rights should stop to listen to.

I'll save you the effort. She hasn't.

Why do we always have to be so emotive?

There's no "we" here. I'm emotive because I'm angry. I think you have something of an empathy bypass.

She was refusing consent to males. That's literally what she was doing. And you called it arrogant. She was saying no. That's her red line. It's not about you.

But I'm afraid it IS about me, Rooty, & my arrogant opinions, & my rights, & my concern for my daughters, & my female students, & every other woman & girl & THEIR rights.

If your response to women speaking about women's rights is 'it's not about you', then you aren't going to convince me that you've got anything to say that women speaking about women's rights should stop to listen to.

Do you see the problem you have here?

Well said.

The point of safeguarding is to be exclusive. We exclude the under 18s from drinking, driving, getting a tattoo. Women’s rights are there to protect women by excluding men. The only criteria for being a woman- is being observed female at birth. We can present any way we wish and have different beliefs, faiths and sexual orientation but we are all women. I totally understand that trans people need safe spaces: then build trans prisons, refuges and grate trans sports teams. Women, as determined by our sex, have the human right to exclude men irrespective of their ‘gender’ identity.

The only context I would talk about non-trans women is when we are discussing transgender issues, in particular gender identity, otherwise "woman" would do just fine. I avoided the medically and psychologically recognised term "cis" because I thought it would hurt your sensibilities

I'm big enough not to report you; and my sense of self not so fragile as to feel wounded.

However, what you need to understand is that what you are doing is imposing your personal ad favoured set of beliefs and constructs onto a situation, as if they are an absolute reality. That is the crux.

There is the real world of sex; and then there are ideological constructions.

A trans woman being a woman takes nothing away from you being a woman at all

It takes away my gender identity. If being a woman isn’t linked to being female then I’m not one.

But I'm afraid it IS about me, Rooty, & my arrogant opinions, & my rights, & my concern for my daughters, & my female students, & every other woman & girl & THEIR rights.

If your response to women speaking about women's rights is 'it's not about you', then you aren't going to convince me that you've got anything to say that women speaking about women's rights should stop to listen to.

Do you see the problem you have here?

A trans woman being a woman takes nothing away from you being a woman at all, any more that marriage equality takes anything away from heterosexual marriage

But as you know not everyone accepts this construction as a reality.

One obvious difference in the example of marriage equality, is that it literally is just about equal provisions; not about one group colonising the actual spaces, services, sports, and even universally understood language of another group. Equality embraces differences, whilst offering equal opportunity. We all have equal civil rights in the U.k now. Anyone can get married; everyone can vote; everyone has employment protections; and so on.

Trans is the most accurate description for transpeople. . Women is the most accurate description for women.

@RootyT00t, who particularly do you have in mind? Because that looks like quite the disingenuous question.

[quote DadJoke]@Justhadathought

Why on you insisting on calling women ," non trans women"? As i mentioned earlier, all you need to doto honour everyone is to name women, women, and name transpeople, trans. These are both accurate descriptors.

A trans woman being a woman takes nothing away from you being a woman at all, any more that marriage equality takes anything away from heterosexual marriage.

The only context I would talk about non-trans women is when we are discussing transgender issues, in particular gender identity, otherwise "woman" would do just fine. I avoided the medically and psychologically recognised term "cis" because I thought it would hurt your sensibilities.[/quote]
Oh no it takes absolutely everything away from women. Absolutely everything, and they're already victims in every single part of life. Apparently.

Watch with your use of that word. It gains strike, it's considered offensive.

But as a woman, do you not care about other people?

I will re-state my question, Rooty.

What do women stand to gain from confusion about how we are defined? If we are not, simply, adult human females, but something more nebulous & arranged around subjective ideas of identity - what do we gain?

What would my teenage daughters gain?

Every feminist on this board can tell you what we'd lose.

So you need to pitch this idea: what's in it for us?

& until you do, & do so convincingly, I'll be holding the line for my daughters, my female students & all the women & girls I don't know.

That, to me, is feminism. It's about defending & promoting the rights of women & girls.

So far, you haven't convinced me that you've anything to offer us.

@Justhadathought

Why on you insisting on calling women ," non trans women"? As i mentioned earlier, all you need to doto honour everyone is to name women, women, and name transpeople, trans. These are both accurate descriptors.

A trans woman being a woman takes nothing away from you being a woman at all, any more that marriage equality takes anything away from heterosexual marriage.

The only context I would talk about non-trans women is when we are discussing transgender issues, in particular gender identity, otherwise "woman" would do just fine. I avoided the medically and psychologically recognised term "cis" because I thought it would hurt your sensibilities.

Do you need to be a woman to be a feminist? Do feminists only care about women?

I care about a myriad of things. As an environmentalist I care about the natural world. As a socialist I care about poverty and class. As a cook I care about provenance of the food I prepare.

But as a feminist I care about women.

[quote CorvusPurpureus]@RootyT00t

What's your proposed compromise, & how would it benefit women?

Because I think you're misunderstanding the word, 'compromise', massively.

What are you offering that would make women think 'oh ok, fair enough, we should probably stop advocating for our own rights because Rooty says we can trade them for .'

You can't buy us. You have nothing to offer in this scenario. [/quote]
I don't want to buy you.

Again, inflated sense of importance.

I just don't agree with these 'we as women say X so therefore that's that's.