Is it only white middle class women who are GC?

*Women's only hostEL

Sorry, other people speaking over me and telling me what working-class women should be interested in makes me forget to proofread.

As I have commented on other threads, I once had the choice choosing a mixed sex long-term homelessness hostel or a single-sex women's only host. I chose the single-sex one, and I want that choice to be available to young women today who are in the position I was once in.

Your move, buster.

But who we know is not really that relevent because it's so subjective. There is ample evidence which shows trans people face discrimination in employment, are more likely to face homelessness and are economically marginalised. The existence of a few middle class trans people doesn't negate that.

But I think what this thread really highlights is that regardless of their views on trans women this is not really a matter of huge concern to the working class. To that extent it is a somewhat privileged position to make this issue your political focus rather than something like universal credit, or the housing crisis or decimation of public services which is blighting so many working class lives. This isn't something that particularly affects the lives of working class women, who often have far more immediate and pressing concerns to worry about, so it is unsuprising that the gender critical movement's most ardent activists all apear to be somewhat economically privileged.

Has your friend considered that black women and working class women can find it harder to be heard in this world?

It is also a lie that the gender critical movement is white and middle class, but you will never accept that irrespective of what evidence is provided to you.

Sure barley. More deflection.

You tried to call me out as a liar and it backfired. I am merely pointing out a history of bizzarre takes. The one you made on this thread was just another one.

The idea that being gender critical is middle class is really strange to me. My working class family (including myself) are gender critical in that we don’t believe men can change sex into women. On the other hand every single person I know who is a trans rights activist or who has a trans identity is middle class.

The person’s surname is Sully. What would be the reason to choose the name Tetley?

There are all kinds of reasons a person might use a different name online. Or it could be her maiden name, she's married. She also has a large number of grandchildren and it is quite possibly them in her facebook header. It is not clear from her facebook profile pic she is in a bath. And even if other images are online which show her in a bath they are non explicit, a picture of someone's shoulders is hardly a safeguarding risk.

Anyway we've discussed this, perhaps it would be more fruitful to continue the discussion about why the gender critical movement is perceived by so many as white and middle class.

The person’s surname is Sully. What would be the reason to choose the name Tetley?

And nice attempt at deflection.

The point you tried to call me out on was completely disproved.

Tell us barley. Why so keen to dismiss the photo of very young girls on the very top of a profile so it cannot be missed with not only a picture of the person in the bath, but with numerous posts of a sexualised nature and featuring weapons of an uncontrolled nature.

Why on earth would you be trying to distract people from that?

I don’t feel my credibility is at stake here barley. At all.

And which is it…. Are we prudes and pearl clutchers for pointing out the issues of the images or do we have ‘lurid’ minds? You really cannot have it both ways when it comes to safeguarding women and children.

By your logic, understanding such insults made me a homophobic German teenager.

Barley, would I be right in thinking that you are not a gamer?

I'm sorry to disabuse you of your quaint notions, but these references are easily recognisable to those of us who grew up during the digital age or those of the generation above who pay attention to what their current teens do online.

Beyond the implications meant when teabags were referenced, I myself became acquainted with a range of homophobic expressions in German from playing multiplayer FPS games on German servers, that certainly weren't covered in the A-level German I was taking at the time.

At least Hellofabore has credibility to be impacted on, unlike you barleybadminton, however, her credibility has not been impacted in the slightest, everything she says is true, I saw exactly what she described, including the reference to the teabag sexual act.

I doubt Hellofabore cares what someone so blase about child safeguarding as you are thinks about her, and quite frankly neither do I.

But just for reference:

I don't believe you saw the original and it was different. All of the pics from her social media have been widely published by gender critical activists and are all over the internet. It's clearly a facebook profile pic, it is in no way explicit and it's impossible to tell whether she's in a bath.

Damn

MN is glitchy on my phone.

That should be

Pointing out the connection of posting images of yourself in BDSM gear declaring yourself a mistress, posting pics of your cleavage and asking posters if they want to see more, posting a profile image of you in a bath that is then superimposed over a line up with small girls with their faces shown and then seeing the name referring to teabags and is which then refers to the sexual act is not lying barley. And there is actually no evidence to the contrary that you can provide. Just a claim that it isn’t so.

MN site is not letting me scroll and select words or sentences properly this week.

No. I did not lie.

Posting images of yourself in BDSM gear declaring yourself a mistress, posting pics of your cleavage and asking posters if they want to see more, posting a profile image of you in a bath that is then superimposed over a line up with small girls with their faces shown and then seeing the name referring to teabags and is which then refers to the sexual act is not lying barley. And there is actually no evidence to the contrary that you can provide to the contrary. Just a claim that it isn’t so.

And you accused me of lying about the my claim of seeing the full profile shot. Which was then posted by another poster and was as I described. So, don’t try to twist it. You were absolutely wrong and you know it.

But then again, not so surprising. I mean, didn’t you accuse me of lying when I said that I saw the original GG leader who posts in a sexualised nature on SM of their ‘bath’ photo?

You did lie about the GG leader. You repeatedly said her name was a sexual reference without any evidence at all to back up whether it was true. So I'm afraid that impacted on how credible I think the things you claim are. Fool me once etc

Interesting isn't it that the woman who have put themselves on the line and endured the stress of court cases have been largely women of colour whilst their often rather privileged white compatriots cheer them on from the sidelines consequence free.

This is such a contorted and bizzarre take.

But then again, not so surprising. I mean, didn’t you accuse me of lying when I said that I saw the original GG leader who posts in a sexualised nature on SM of their ‘bath’ photo?

And you have a habit of never returning to threads where your behaviour is called out and your posts disproved.

Bizarre posts like this just add to your credibility value on MN. The readers pick these things up very quickly. But just in case they haven’t yet, I will encourage you to keep on posting.

I kind of wonder, isn't maybe a more basic question, what kinds of numbers would be ok?

You're approaching an irrational ideology with rationality.

Gender zealots like to throw these stupid statements around because they know many white people feel scared of the 'racist' label and are easily guilt tripped even when there's nothing to be concerned or ashamed about.

In a country like the UK, the predominant demographic for both the GC and gender zealots will be white, precisely because that's the majority.

Sensible people grasp this automatically. Gender zealots aren't known for making intelligent points. They just like to throw their faeces around and hope some of it sticks so it makes them feel like they have the moral high ground - which they very obviously don't.

I kind of wonder, isn't maybe a more basic question, what kinds of numbers would be ok?

The UK is a mainly white country, because its in norther Europe. That is not some immoral geographical situation. And for the last 60 or 70 years it's been increasingly middle class, like a lot of nations with modern economies.

So, chances are any group with broad appeal is going to include a lot of white middle class people.

I'm Indian. I find gender ideology the most disgusting and offensive ideology around - not to mention the sexism and racism that underpins its morally bankrupt foundations. There's nothing its most zealous believers won't shamelessly appropriate or endorse to justify the ideology.

I’m tired of middle class white men deciding what I am based on whatever it is they want to exclude me from