Gender nonsense will be the Tories secret weapon

But the actual TRAs, as in named activts, people like Paris Lees, Christine Burns etc haven't behaved like that.

Didn't Christine Burns say that rapists have a better line in manners than women, because they treat their victims, without prejudice, as women? (It was part of a discussion about transwomen being turned away from rape crisis centres).

What media do you read @barleybadminton? Because maybe in your genderwoo land you think this is going your way because someone’s won a golden globe or Streeting felt the need to cover his pathetic arse by berating GC feminists when TRAs routinely send rape and death threats, doxx and harass women, set up websites mocking their appearance, their children. We have all the screen grabs, they are horrifying.

In fact why don’t you read this thread about the horrific racist abuse FGM survivor and campaigner Jana Cornell receives from TRAs simply for using the word female within the context of FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION:
panoramicgutterview.blogspot.com/2021/03/female-genital-mutilation-and-right.html?m=1

Or that Allison Bailey receives for standing up for women’s and lesbian’s rights. twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1480143656380252161

Wait until this stuff gets out into the mainstream press. Kind of fucks #bekind against a wall and I’m not sure how that plan to glom yourselves on to BLM will work, what do you think?

You’ve had this time because people didn’t know and people didn’t know because people were frightened to speak up, or if they weren’t their posts would be deleted, their accounts shut down, their voices silenced. The media ran scared for a while but now you have the BBC, Times, The Telegraph and the Mail all running stories on lesbians being harassed and raped by TW, TW invading women’s rape counselling groups, TW men raping women in prisons, TRAs threatening, abusing and doxxing women... and there will be more and more and more to come. You know most people didn’t even know that the majority of TW kept their penis - well that’s out now and people aren’t up for it. They aren’t up for lesbians being coerced to sleep with male-bodied people. They don’t think rape victims should have to call their rapist a woman. They understand now how this ideology is affecting their children, how vulnerable teens are being groomed, how organisations and individuals are grooming children. They know how Stonewall operates, they watch the government departments and universities pulling out of their schemes.

There is a WHOLE NEW SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNEL where GC campaigners can share and post this information without being mass reported and their accounts shut down simply for sharing their opinions, the truth about what’s happening, where they can post the receipts. It’s out there and it’s open and available to journalists. Next thing it’s in the newspapers, online, being shared. GC sites/publications like The Critic and Unherd are thriving. Meanwhile Twitter’s stock is taking a hammering.

The jig is up!

You've gotta love an advocate for male supremacism trying to paint women as the extremists.

I’ll never vote for the Tories (and don’t for a second believe they are about women anyway), but I will not vote for people who treat me like I’m a fucking idiot, who will lie straight to my face - so that’s Labour, Lib Dems and the greens out then. I used to sometimes vote Green simply because our local candidate was such a good guy, but that’s not enough given the recent behaviour of the party.

So, I’ll be voting for a decent single-issue local candidate, or I won’t be voting at all.

@barleybadminton

Don't confused GC with being anti trans inclusion. Like most others I think trans people should be included in society. They should not lose jobs, experience violence or be denied access to unisex facilities because they are trans and we need laws to enforce that. But female only spaced should remain just that. I think you need to be clearer with your definition of trans inclusion.

But it hasn’t been condemned has it. Not once do you see the likes of LOJ, Sarkar, burns, paddick, cashman, stonewall or mermaids call out the death threats, the rape threats, the targeting and harassment of academics like Kathleen stock or Rosa freedman. They stay silent every time. At best you get mealy mouthed both sideism (though strangely no one can find a GC account sending death threats or rape threats) or extensive amounts of whataboutery

Nancy Kelly for example could have said emphatically that while stonewall disagreed with JKR, they whole heartedly condemned death threats against her or anyone,

Instead they stay silent which makes one think they rather like the use of threats of violence against ppl who don’t agree with them that TWAW

Well clearly barleybadminton has our best interests at heart and we should listen to xer brilliant advice and insights...

or at least enjoy the IMAX projection. Please tell us more of your thoughts barley, I think it's useful to understand what you fear is happening to your contemptible excuse for a social justice movement. You've been 100% correct so far, once the appropriate TRA-projection filter is applied to your words.

I take your point to an extent, but do you not think that the opinions on Twitter may make their way to the polling stations? Or that the disgusting behaviour by TRAs on Twitter has alienated the decent trans people? Or that people who know that biology and sex based rights and language matter do not also have friends, colleagues with significant power?

Well I'm sure the few hundred people who drive gender critical twitter will vote against any party that supports trans inclusion but I'm not really seeing any evidence they are bringing people onto their side - quite the opposite in fact, they are completely alienating people left, right and centre and making scores of future adverseries in the process - not least amongst the police, a notoriously vindictive organisation.

I do agree the behaviour of trans supportive people has been very unhelpful at times, and at other times should be completely condemned. And it largely has been, things are not like they were, so it's starting to become yesterdays news in a lot of ways, it's increasingly GC abusive behaviour coming under the spotlight now.

And the difference is most of those accounts were anonymous and the kind of vile trolls that affect all politcal debate sadly at the moment. There's nothing unique in what happened to Rowling, just ask Dianne Abbot or Ash Sarkur. Misogyny in a major problem online, as is more generalised abuse. But the actual TRAs, as in named activts, people like Paris Lees, Christine Burns etc haven't behaved like that. There's been a bit of it on the fringe like Dr Harrop, and sanctions have been faced for that, but on the whole there is nothing like the same level of vitriol, and particularly the tendency to accuse everyone who disagrees of being a groomer, or opposing safeguarding, or worse that frequently happens during GC pile ons.

The Glinner's and Posies should have been nipped in the bud from the start. They've sacrificed credibility for fleeting popularity often amongst some very unpleasant people and it has caused untold harm to the GC movement. And people like Maya spending a week ranting at a volunteer special constable because she wore nail polish is not doing the movement any favours either. People are looking at it and increasingly shaking their heads I'm afraid. And now the infighting is escalating and both demands and tactics becoming more extreme that's a problem that's only going to get worse. That's why I think it's over, or at least the end is near, no-one is going to want to be associated with this in a couple of years.

More and more people, including Wes Streeting are now acknowledging the viciousness and bullying that comes from some parts of gender critical social media, and all these targets have friends, colleagues, often people with significant power.

You are deluded. Up until now, Labour have been fully TWAW and have said some unbelievably stupid shit to keep up with this (eg. Male rapists should go to a female prison if they want, men can grow a cervix, babies are born without a sex). They would be the first to jump on 'gender critical bullying' (see Alex Sobel and his 'I don't need your vote you bigot' tweets). There is no 'now' about it.

Wes Streeting is the first Labour MP to say anything which deviates from the creed and it was clear that the 'bullying' comments was 'both sides' lip service. The fact that he said what he said is a signal that GC opinions can no longer be ignored. It was actually very significant I thought.

There are some very deluded individuals on this thread. "A couple of thousand obsessives on social media"? 😂 The tide is turning. Among my (young, leftwing, largely working class background) friends there isn't a single one who believes in gender woo nonsense. My teenage nieces are similarly un-brainwashed. This isn't just an issue for a few middle-aged, middle-class dinosaurs hoarding rights.

Yes exactly!1 man is too many! Why the fuck should women who have had to fight for bloody centuries to get rights give up any of them to make men feel better? What is in it for women for example to allow men to identify their way into programmes designed to improve the representation of women in politics? Or to take prizes designed for women writers? To elbow their way into support groups for menopause ? And that’s before we even get to refuges, prisons and rape support services

Thete is no benefit at all for women to allow men into these spaces.

The thing is hypothetically this makes sense. If the lurid predictions were true of men pretending to be trans and entering women's spaces in huge numbers, or shortlists for women being dominated by men then of course this would be a concern.

It doesn't need to be 'huge numbers' of men doing this. Just one man either pretending to be trans or genuinely believing in his own cross-gender identity can affect dozens or hundreds of women.

The presence of Karen White or Barbie Kardashian in a women's prison can have an effect on all the women in that prison.

One Laurel Hubbard or Lia Thomas affects all the women who have to compete against them. It could potentially affect all the women in that sport if that male person starts breaking records with results which are impossible for a woman to acheive.

As a working class lifelong Labour voter and (now ex-) member I would like to be able to vote for them again. However, I am a woman and I have a daughter, so there's currently zero chance of me doing so.

Due to the outright misogyny of the lib dems, and the misogyny and safeguarding issues in the greens, my alternatives are SDP, communist party, or the tories. Neither the SDP nor the communist party field a candidate in my constituency, so that leaves the tories. So that's who I'll vote for until Labour stop their silly pretence at holding such abhorrent, bourgeois, luxury beliefs and remember who they're supposed to represent.

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think it does. I think if you asked the average New Yorker if women's rights no longer exist in the city, or even better if women no longer exist since trans inclusive laws were introduced over a decade ago they would laugh at you.

If the lurid predictions were true of men pretending to be trans and entering women's spaces in huge numbers, or shortlists for women being dominated by men then of course this would be a concern.

It doesn't matter if men are "pretending to be trans" or actually believe they can change sex, they are all male and should stay out of women's spaces and services. I do not differentiate between those 2 types of people - "genuine" or "pretending" is irrelevant, they are men. Just men.

How many women need to be impacted in order for this to be an issue? It seems like you are saying that as long as women are losing out in small numbers then it justifies allowing men to self-ID as women. If it is the case that either way, a small number of people will be negatively impacted by either the passing or rejection of self-ID, why can't that small number be the males who choose to identify as their idea of a woman?

Decisions have consequences. When a man makes the decision to present to the world as his idea of a woman, he should accept that one of the consequences of that decision may be he might not feel comfortable continuing to use men's single-sex services and facilities, but it does mean he has a right to women's facilities and services.

Remember, these men who feel entitled to use women's spaces and facilities have chosen the identity that they feel entitles them to that access. Women to not decide to be women, we are born women.

But nowhere where trans inclusion has been pursued has this happened

Please ask the women who are incarcerated with Barbie Kardashian in Ireland if women objecting to self-ID is scaremongering. Or the young women who missed out on their places in sporting competitions because of the likes of Lia Thomas and Laurel Hubbard. Can you put a number on what you feel is an acceptable amount of women who lose out or suffer as a consequence of male entitlement dressed up as a stereotype of what a woman is?

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a4451978-If-there-was-an-election-tomorrow-who-would-you-vote-for?msgid=114198646#114198646

This thread is interesting.

We in fact know that trans rights have led to there being no female only rape groups and centres in some areas, to biological males being given access to women to assualt in prison, to the removal of women's rights to call themselves women and to women being hurt in sport or exclude from some sports (because their places were taken by males). It's only laughable if you don't think these things matter. So it's helpful for you to nail your misogynistic flag to the mast. Those of us who actually care about women's rights know that portents of doom are accurate and that, as you demonstrate here, those who seek to belittle that do so because they don't consider the damage that this has done to women as worthy of concern.

It's not 'TRAs' fighting for their jobs because they've been so vile about trans people on social media.

So who has lost their job for being vile to trans people? And are they GC?

Ultimately, none of us here know for sure how any of this in going to pan out, but what I would say is that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

It's not 'TRAs' fighting for their jobs because they've been so vile about trans people on social media.

I think you’ll find that one of the reasons for that is because we don’t employ the same vicious tactics that TRA do. We don’t generally believe that those holding alternative opinions ought to be prevented from earning a living and providing for children etc. Hardly anything to boast about.

As one of the early responses said and has been repeated, there are no women's rights if men can be women.

The thing is hypothetically this makes sense. If the lurid predictions were true of men pretending to be trans and entering women's spaces in huge numbers, or shortlists for women being dominated by men then of course this would be a concern. But nowhere where trans inclusion has been pursued has this happened. It's just scare mongering, the same way people scare monger about all the devastating possible impacts if we admit refugees, or raise taxes on the rich or allthe other things people use worse case and unlikely scenarios to try and prevent progressive policies.

In practice - and we know what that looks like because some places have had strongly trans inclusive policies for years - trans rights have not impacted on women's rights. Women still have rights in Ireland, New York and Norway. It's demonstrably laughable to try and claim otherwise. Trans inclusive policies have been barely noticed by women and that's why it's not an election winner - no-one cares because in practice they know this won't really affect their lives no matter how many hypothetical portents of doom come from the gender critical movement.