So disgusted tonight

They are actively trying to equate GC feminists to fascists. And they also think fascists deserve to be physically attacked, or punched. And their theorists, like David Renton of the snitch variety, propagate the view that physically resisting 'fascists and white suprematists' is morally justified (I actually watched his interview on one of Allison's threads and was quite surprised it is not considered 'incitement to violence').

So, the logic is, punching GC people is justified, as they are fascists and white suprematists. So brave, much socialism. Punch women to destroy the patriarchy!

The "I disagree" was in response to "any expression of GC thought is considered genocidal"

But I realise now you might only mean to card- carrying "activists". Maybe true.

Thank you for posting that, idlemuse , it bears repeating.

What the trans ideologues appear oblivious to is that gender critical feminism, while centring women and girls, also prioritises safeguarding. Safeguarding for all vulnerable people.

By focusing on the prevention of harm to distressed people, Helen's statement emphasises compassion and safeguarding.

Tabby I disagree. Amongst my friendship group, we discuss women's sport, prisons etc and find recent developments extremely concerning. I suppose that's "GC thought." But I think Helen Joyce sounds like a bigot here who wants to eliminate trans people.

‘When a more high profile voice like OJ shares a clip like this? Sounds horrific and won't win anyone over who isn't already firmly GC. That's why I say she represents you poorly in this instance.’

Yes, it was clumsily worded. Not ‘horrific’ if you know the context, but some will misinterpret it. No matter. In the long run biological sex isn’t going anywhere.

It's not good at all.

A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots

LK1972 Not got a clue what you're LOJing on about.

"Come on. Joyce is the definition of thoughtful."

Perhaps she is, to seasoned GCers who are regularly reading up on this topic. But to outside ears? When a more high profile voice like OJ shares a clip like this? Sounds horrific and won't win anyone over who isn't already firmly GC.

That's why I say she represents you poorly in this instance.

Yes, any expression of GC thought is considered genocidal by these activists. You can be as ‘measured’ as you want but as soon as you say no, they lose their minds.

Since many seem to have not seen the video or aren't able to, here's the full excerpt of the segment:

"We can't win this by saying there's 60 million people in this country and we've got to persuade all of them or a great majority of them, we've got to get through to the decision makers. And in the meantime, while we're trying to get through to the decision makers, we have to try to limit the harm, and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition.

And that's for two reasons: one of them is that every one of those people is a person who's been damaged, but the second one is every one of those people is, basically - you know, a huge problem to the sane world, if you've got people, whether they're transitioned whether they're happily transitioned, whether they're unhappily transitioned, whether they're detransitioned, if you've got these people who've dissociated from their sex in some way, every one of those people is someone who needs special accommodation in a sane world where we re-acknowledge the truth of sex.

The people who've been damaged by it, the children have been put through this, those people deserve every accommodation we can possibly make, but every one of them is a difficulty. And I know that sounds heartless, I'm trying to say exactly the opposite of sounding heartless, I'm saying every one of those people for 50, 60, 70 years, is going to need things that the rest of us just don't need, because the rest of us are just our sex. So the fewer of those people there are, the better in the sane world that I hope we will reach."

Well, as far as I'm aware Kathleen Stock never misspoke, and is a most measured and considered GC speaker. Of course, that hasn't protected her from lies and accusations of transphobia from LOJ and co. LOJ is going to LOJ, your point?

‘She represents any measured, thoughtful GC person horribly here, so of course OJ is going to amplify and widely share her awful words.’

Come on. Joyce is the definition of thoughtful. She just isn’t measuring out her words to serve your preferences.

Also been thinking about that central tenet of gender ideology: that men and women are made. Which means, I suppose, that there is nothing essentially male or female about anyone’s psychology when they are born, but the manner in which one is treated by the world forms one into either a man or a woman.

To some extent that’s probably true (going back to what I said about ‘typical female socialisation’). If you are interrupted more often than listened to, if you are constantly expected to be kind and serve others, that will have some psychological effect.

But for that precise reason I don’t understand what is meant when an adult male says they have ‘always been a woman’. How can that be true, when they’ve always been treated like a man? If gender is constructed by external forces, how did they escape being ‘made’ into a man?

Nope, don't give a fuck about anyone's 'identity', until they try to impose their view of themselves on me.

But yes, there definitely should be no medical transition option for under 18s, in my current opinion, but let's see what the Cass report will recommend.

I don't consider myself GC - I want to protect women's spaces and sport, but I respect people's chosen pronouns and would never go out of my way to call a trans woman a "man" (so I haven't found a kinship on MN), but if I did count myself GC, I'd be livid with HJ for what I agree with OJ are "chilling" comments (I don't agree with OJ on everything).

She represents any measured, thoughtful GC person horribly here, so of course OJ is going to amplify and widely share her awful words.

It might be wise if you avoid telling women what they are "really" saying according to your interpretation.

[Misogyny Rule No 9]

What women are, in fact, saying to such men "No!". We do not want any men of any description in any of our female single sex spaces or services. We do not consent to this.

If such men don't want to be in men's spaces or services the solution is to create third and distinctly separate mixed sex spaces for all those who deny their natural sex.

‘Don't know tabby, I feel extreme rage on the regular basis, as do most women I should imagine. It's just that we don't lash out with physical violence as often, or are capable of inflicting comparable damage when we do.’

I can’t speak to what someone feels when they commit extreme violence because I’ve never felt that compulsion. I’ve obviously been angry.

Sorry, to be clearer (because always best to be clear) the external insignia of femininity can be shrugged on and shrugged off. I don’t think we fully understand how psychology interacts with external structures like gender, so to what extent a person born and socialised as a male will ever think/react situationally ‘like a woman’ (like a person with more typical female socialisation might) is contestable.

Don't know tabby, I feel extreme rage on the regular basis, as do most women I should imagine. It's just that we don't lash out with physical violence as often, or are capable of inflicting comparable damage when we do.

@AlisonDonut
You're "refuting" a strawman you've imagined in your own head.

And let's not pretend any of this is about "spaces", when it's pretty clear you're also intent on policing identities and taking away the ability to transition.

Anyway I have a feminine piece of TURF to femininely dig out and sunflowers and verbascums to plant with my femininely dirty hands and my orange ladylike trowel and my girlie green watering can.

<twirls>

Is that how we are supposed to do it?

And of course nobody ‘fails at femininity’ because they are male. Femininity can be shrugged on and shrugged off. It’s constructed. Sex isn’t.

"you're angry because you're male, and failing at femininity because of your male rage".

When males get angry when we say that 'performing your version of femininity doesn't make you a woman', that just proves why we don't want men in female spaces.

I don't even know what femininity even is? Wearing frilly dresses and painting nails pink? What is that all about?

good job I never said that then, eh.
you, on the other hand, compared saying men commit more violence to racism. So you’ve made it clear what you’re about.

And I'd like to suggest few other stereotypes we must combat:

Approximately half of UK population have below-average IQ.

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds have worse predicted life outcomes.

Go on Shiny, any other suggestions?