Getting to yes.

Apologies, to tie all that to the OP, I think women are already arguing their position, which is to persuade the powers that be that women’s rights have already been compromised, and that the further travel that is being demanded, will only cause more harm.

Once that’s achieved, perhaps we need to consider where we go after that, but for now, I think women need to continue to assert themselves as presenting a reasonable position in the argument. It’s an uphill struggle, due to the traditional lack of power women have, but it’s getting noticeable that there are quite a lot of us.

Transactivists have worked behind the scenes for years, presumably because those who are smart enough to truly understand, know that what they’re asking for is deeply contentious. I don’t think they will ever manage to convince the wider public that treating some men as if they were women is ever going to work, especially as some of the men they are demanding should have that privilege have already demonstrated clearly why that isn’t safe.

So we cannot come to some kind of middle ground, because we were in the middle ground a few years ago, and now we’re way beyond it.

So we’re left with trying to persuade those in power of that fact, so that we can undo some of the damage.

I think, once we’ve managed some damage control (and there’s every sign that’s happening in the UK, if not elsewhere) then we will need to move onto a new stage of negotiation, where we suggest the logical alternative, which might perhaps involve some kind of legal status beyond M and F (perhaps an acknowledgment of a transition status in one direction or the other) alongside some kind of third spaces or services.

I don’t necessarily think it should be women who drive the latter stage, however I think it might shore up women’s position if an alternative model is presented that is so obviously reasonable that it removes the likelihood of a return to the current, damaging argument that people deserve to be treated as if they were literally the opposite sex.

sacred, I'm sorry, you can't use the c word on this board. We're not allowed to draw parallels.

There are the 'guidelines' at the top but there are also vague, unwritten rules, and not using the c word is one of them.

It is sometimes instructive to see what particular things draw reports from the people who monitor this board. There are certain things they don't want women to discuss.

I am really not sure why my post was deleted! I didnt break any rules. Its very frustrating taking the time to wrote out a long, calm and well thought out post with no hate & following guidelines for it to be just deleted.

I will re-post the bones of what I said:

It appears the activism within the trans movement is like a cult.

Stephen Hassan (cult expert) states:

''Cults often use behavior modification on followers, such as thought- stopping techniques and instilling an "us-versus-them" mindset, Hassan said. With thought-stopping techniques, members are taught to stop doubts from entering their consciousness about the cult, often with a key phrase they repeat.''

He has a great book called 'combating cult mind control'.

Some of this feels relevant with regards to the 'no debate'

Stephen Hassan. Thanks. Recording the name.

I think it starts by acknowledging that there are some conflicts in what different groups want and need.

For example a trans woman may feel unsafe in certain situations and want/need to protect themselves/group themselves with women to ensure their safety. Women can acknowledge open access to female spaces makes them afraid.

Trans people can acknowledge their desire to compete in sport. Women can acknowledge that trans women in sport puts them in danger physically or reduces the ability to compete fairly.

We need to start with the fact that there are some ‘good actors’ on both sides, build trust and negotiate solutions from a starting point that their IS conflict.

At the moment it’s considered transphobic just to acknowledge conflicting needs. That’s never going to end up in peaceable agreement/solutions or even peaceable disagreement. Women will experience it as gaslighting and trans people will experience any dissenting views as personal attacks on them.

I agree with Helen Joyce: we go around them, and that’s what many women’s groups do, they engage with the people who can make change.

Some politicians are beginning to see the truth; just as you can’t be ‘a little bit pregnant’, spaces, services, and sports can’t be a ‘little bit mixed sex’. Once they grasp that we will make progress.

Many are still at the stage of thinking there must be a middle ground if only people would negotiate. That’s the hurdle we need to get them over.

Well, we could say we aren't trying to discuss the issues with random TRAs on Twitter. I agree that's pointless. But we need to discuss the issues with lawmakers, MPs, legislators, etc.

And yes, there have been years in which women have been attacked, ignored, derided, mocked, threatened and coerced into NOT talking about it, so there is just a little tiny bit of rage and fury that has built up that may need to be heard.

I think there are layers. First we need to talk about the fact we need to talk about it. We need acknowledgement that women have rights. I think we're almost there ... this whole affair has illustrated in a rather harsh and unflattering way just how far women's rights extend (only as far as they please and don't threaten those of males).

... and then we can get onto discussing the issues like the GRA.

Agree - look at the TRA response to the Cass report or the recent EHRC statements on Twitter - they are not people that can be reasoned with or will respond to rational, evidence-based thinking... their whole existence and thinking is irrational after all... smile and nod and focus on getting shit sorted out, they are a waste of energy

I really just don't think that negotiation is possible with this group, I think HJ was right when she said that we have to speak around these people because we will get nowhere speaking to them. The majority of TRA's are not coming from a place of good faith, it's incredibly calculated and narcissistic when men force women into the position of their oppressor. People are still spewing crap about this 'most marginalised' group years down the line when the facts are out there to be found.

Any compromise is a loose, we just have to win.

That's an interesting post JustSpeculation
My take on this is there's got to be much more open discussion before we can move towards resolution discussions. As women are being repeatedly threatened, harassed and bullied out of our jobs for speaking, it will need a lot more democratic debate before we get to that stage.
Starmer's ridiculous contribution today is at least a start - even though it's incoherent and inaccurate but it's moved him on a fraction from his earlier directions that women must not discuss our cervixes.