Found this in the New Forest!

It seems that a hierarchy of rights is baked into genderism. Which would make sense - sex stereotypes are deeply coded as females being subordinate to and lesser than males. And genderism cleaves to these stereotypes.

If the world truly was 'gender neutral' or all spaces were mixed sex, transgenderism would be meaningless. Nobody could 'transition' to, or from, anything.

Genderism only works as a system when underpinned by both the biological reality of sex and the concomitant assignment of value/hierarchy to the two sexes.

Thanks, Blueberry and NoSir for your useful explanations.

Frankly, I don't care if that sign upsets your friend, or any other trans person NoNotMeNoSiree

No I don't care that much either. Although I'm surprised that a transman would be so distraught and feel so unsafe about feminism and women's rights. Bearing in mind, underneath, they are female. And thus feminism and women's safety also covers them. Did you ask your friend what they thought, NoNotMeNoSiree before offering your opinion on their behalf and deciding these words would render them unsafe?

Anyway, offense is taken not given. A few words on a piece of slate in the new forest means nothing, particularly when stacked up against the sustained attack on the safety of women and girls.

There we have it, trans rights are anti-women and misogynistic. Women must always, always validate men, women are merely service and support humans and must be kind at all times irrespective of the detriment and harm this causes them. Thank you for clarifying that so clearly and unequivocally BlueberryCheezecake and NoNotMeNoSiree.

Frankly, I don't care if that sign upsets your friend, or any other trans person NoNotMeNoSiree, the harm and devastation to women and women's rights this gender ideology is doing to women goes way, way beyond upset and hurt feeling. Also, I care not one iota what you think that says about me your opinion of me is irrelevant to me.

Unless you also believe that no one should ever state in writing "TWAW" in a public place in case it upsets someone of other beliefs, this does not have a leg to stand on.

No one has an entitlement to require the rest of the world to protect them from encountering other beliefs, views and needs. No one has an entitlement to require that those trying to retain political rights under attack don't actually mention it for fear of upsetting those who want those rights removed. #notyourmum

If only all of these problems were so easy to solve. Well, they would be easy to deal with if it wasnt for the hardcore of males and their allies thinking that women's safeguards are so last year.

I think it's been long since established that being pro-female rights = automatically anti TA politics, which by logical extension does have to mean in turn that pro TA politics is automatically anti female rights. And the TA politics frame this as both cannot exist at one time, there must be a choice of one or the other.

This is not a view held by any female people I've yet met. They see it as perfectly possible for both to exist at the same time with sufficiently diverse range of provisions and mutual respect for beliefs and differences. However this position of compromise, tolerance, and coping with the existence of needed resources for females (even if all the TA political needs have been met and all needed trans accessible resources provided alongside) is 'hate'. In some unspecified way.

I suppose it's the same that there's a strong feeling that those believing in TA politics should not be exposed to the existence of other people with other needs and beliefs even in written message form in public places. But unfortunately other people cannot be obliterated, nor can reality, so that this political belief can exist uninterrupted. Other people exist too. And are equally human.

The answer is not to prevent anyone of any other beliefs ever being allowed to express or have anything that interrupts the political narrative - and lets face it, that is going to be an endless game of whackamole without ever ending or reaching a point of success while others being shut down get louder and angrier and more resistant. The answer is to learn to cope with the idea that different beliefs can exist alongside each other, and tolerate that resources can exist for both. And female sex based rights existing and being spoken about are not 'unsafe' things, because that is appallingly and unacceptably sexist and repressive of others.

I guess you could slip on a leaf, fall and scratch your arm on the slate, develop sepsis and die. Way way waaaay more dangerous than an intact male being locked in a cell with females. Obvs.

I’m just suddenly PMSL at the thought of an “unsafe” piece of slate.

that message definitely is anti trans even if you argue its for women's rights

All this insistence that women's rights are anti-trans? What happened to "rights aren't pie"? Is it now ok to say that trans-rights are anti-women?

OK. What would people who say that taking about women’s rights is anti-trans doing to help women? Or to stop various kinds of evidenced abuses against women?

I don't care what anyone says, that message definitely is anti trans even if you argue its for women's rights - going on about validating men's feelings is whether you like to think it isn't or not.

Read and learn, folks.

At a stroke, the entire business of arguing that female people's welfare matters more than men's feelings (aka feminism across the globe) has been cast as anti-trans.

I have to say I find the presence of a small slate in a forest far less offensive than female prisoners with trauma history find a male sex offender in their prison

Indeed I'm sure female prisoners would feel much safer to be locked up with a 'unsafe' piece of slate with a statement of fact on it, than locked up with a transwomen who has retained their penis. Particularly as around one in two transwomen in the female prison estate are sex offenders.

The first one seems quite mild. The second, downright dangerous.

Puts the principles of what it means to feel safe into perspective really.

I suppose men who think their feelings are more important than women’s safety will feel angry when they read such a message.

Many women are afraid of men’s anger. Some women deal with that fear by attacking the women who they perceive add to the danger by inciting men with statements of fact or pro safeguarding/female safety opinion. These women prefer the strategy of coercing all women into demure submission and obsequious flattery towards men in the hopes that men won’t hurt us.

Decent, confident, mentally healthy men are quite capable of setting aside their feelings, and more for the safety and protection of women and children. Nor do they require continuous external validation of any aspect of their identity from strangers.

The trans friend should realise it’s not all about him/her/them. This person sounds very self absorbed.

It's entirely possible that the friend might realise that if the cap doesn't fit, there's no reason to wear it, and not react as that PP imagines.

What you are saying is that any woman who make a a statement about validating men is 'anti trans'? I really would like to hear your reasoning here, NotMe. What is it in the sign that women should not say?

Walking through the woods and suddenly coming across something you feel is threatening, that makes you feel unsafe and perhaps frightened?
Welcome to the world from a female perspective.

that message definitely is anti trans even if you argue its for women's rights - going on about validating men's feelings is

Okay. So saying that women are not obliged to validate men's feelings is 'anti-trans' ? How so?

The trans friend should realise it’s not all about him/her/them. This person sounds very self absorbed.

It's not hateful to discuss women's safety.

It's not anti-trans to discuss women's safety.

It is hateful and misogynistic to think that men's validation is more important than women's safety.

I have to say I find the presence of a small slate in a forest far less offensive than female prisoners with trauma history find a male sex offender in their prison.

There's 'mildly offensive to my delicate sensibility of the pastoral' and there's cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Geneva convention.

Yes, but the act of writing on stones/slate as someone pointed out at the beginning of the thread could be seen as a kind of graffiti?

It's careful writing on a nice heart shaped slate, drilled for a piece of string to hang it from. Trying to characterise that as 'graffiti' is just silly.

Lovely, true message Boomboom thanks for sharing it.