Waitrose delivery driver

It clearly seemed to be based on “men” wanting to piss in womens toilets as the delivery person so delightfully put it.

What are the TWAW and TWAM mantras about if not the basis of trans ideology that gender identity trumps sex and trans people must use the spaces and services aligned with their gender identity and not their sex?

Discovereads Can I ask why you even care so much? Is someone in your life trans?

I totally understand if you want to be supportive to them, but you can't just sacrifice logic, common sense, and women's rights on the back of it.

The person, if there is such a person, will always encounter people who simply don't believe there is such a thing as gender identity and an awful lot more people who won't accept that it's more important than biological sex.

I don’t have the energy to go into it with her

I appreciate and understand what you are saying

but youd go right off on one if someone said it to you…just ignore

KJK was being rude by deliberately misgendering a transwoman. It’s commonly accepted that that is a rude thing to do.

KJK was stating her opinion in a conversation and so fucking well what if you consider what she said rude, your statement below says you don't advocate for laws against being rude and, as has been pointed out repeatedly there is no such law or crime of misgendering:

As for the bit about laws against being rude, I’ve never advocated any such thing. So you can toss that strawman on the nearest bonfire.

High time you tossed all your strawmen on the nearest bonfire.

Gender identity is a made up term.

It's an amazing fix, isn't it, gender identity. You can claim you have one, but then suddenly all the rights required are those based on biological sex.

Spaces, etc, are segregated by biological sex. What is the point of segregating them by gender identity? What even is it? It's wanting to inhabit the stereotypes that society imposes on the opposite sex. What's the point of segregation by stereotype?

How was the delivery driver different to any other male?

What is the actual difference that means we need to segregate on the basis of it?

Datun in fine form, yet again 👏. You're the voice of reason on this board.

Trans ideology is not simply based on the belief that gender identity doesn’t always match your sex - it is based on the belief that someone's gender identity is more important that theirs, or someone else's, sex.

Oh Datun, nicely put.

That's what the ideology is based on.

No it’s not. Trans ideology is based on the fact that gender identity doesn’t always match your sex. That’s what it is based on. The question of which toilet you piss in is not a “basis” of “trans ideology”, it isn’t even a tenant of trans ideology. It is one of many contentious issues in the debate of how best to accommodate transpeople. To say “trans ideology” is based on “men” wanting to piss in womens toilets is to spectacularly confuse a bush with a tree and then proclaim that bush is not only a tree, it is the entire forest.

Well said Datun

Of course it does. Transgender ideology says there's no such thing as sex, or if there is, it's not necessary to segregate people on the basis of it.

Which means spaces are segregated by gender identity. According to the ideology, it makes women's spaces open to men if they say they're not men, irrespective of whether women disagree. That's boundary violation.

i'm sure there are quite a few trans people who disagree with it. but That's what the ideology is based on.

Not sure how you can deny it. Since even verbally acknowledging the male sex, if the male in question doesn't want you to, is wrong, as far as you're concerned.

Never mind about physical boundaries.

I think I should have a choice of using female-only changing rooms when I go swimming. And that the choice should not be that I either accept the presence of males or don't go swimming.

Trans women are biological men that’s just a fact. We used to think that being “kind” and going along with men who think they’re women was harmless

now we know it’s not

Waitrose are within their rights to no longer deliver to KJK - it is their company after all so their rules - but they’d be enormous misogynistic nobs to do so

Personally I think women should be rude, I'm tired of pussyfooting around daftness.

The thing about a public discussion forum is that anyone can insert themselves anywhere they like at any point. If you want a private chat then you need to organise that, @Discovereads. If you don't want to respond to someone's post, then don't. The power is entirely within your hands to respond or not, as your capacity allows.

Ah, now.

Maybe we are expected to pretend that Roses wasn't on earlier.

Rather like KJK seems to be expected to pretend that a man is not a man.

Or, that it isn't creepy for any man to announce they particularly like (and have the right whether the girls are uncomfortable or not) to insert themselves where woman and girls are undressing, or vulnerable.

I was going to do the Pravda style 'male body' etc. But what's the point. It would just be a sort of 'rose by another name' game. A rose is still a rose irrespective of what you call it, isn't it?

Because the point is the entire ideology advocates for the violation of women and girls boundaries

No it doesn’t. That’s the transphobic reaction to the mere existence of transpeople.

Never said I own the thread nor am I policing it.
I don’t owe anything to anyone on this thread.
it’s my choice what I want to answer or not answer.

KJK was being rude by deliberately misgendering a transwoman. It’s commonly accepted that that is a rude thing to do.

As for the bit about laws against being rude, I’ve never advocated any such thing. So you can toss that strawman on the nearest bonfire.

But she wasn’t in the conversation within the thread. I don’t have the energy to go into it with her.

Roses was on the thread before you were

At the risk of being told off, which I couldn't give a toss about, by the self appointed thread police person I shall interject myself into this long running conversation to point out to said thread police person that:

he said “well I’m not, I’m not a man” and I said “well I would probably say you were

The word probably is very important in that sentence, it is proof that KJK is giving voice to her opinion which she is entitled to do.

It’s in the transcript (above) that the delivery driver said they not a man and KJK then immediately calls them a man.

Delivery driver was very obviously a man, transwomen are men there is no escaping that fact they cannot be transwomen if they are not men.

There is no law of misgendering in the UK, there is no law against being impolite, rude or disrespectful, nor is forced thought or compelled speech legal which is exactly what you and your TRA buddies are advocating for.

Great post @Datun

@Discovereads The delivery driver says she is not a man and KJK retorts “No, you’re a man…”.

So, your problem with KJK is that she was honest and didn't lie as to what she saw in front of her. Didn't go along with the fashionable dissembling.

I must admit I quite liked the long hair on my OH during lockdown. Working from home with mostly no video on zoom meetings. Never thought it turned him into a woman. And, I have my eye on a pink linen shirt for him for fathers day. Amazingly, that won't turn him into a woman either. Even if he says 'I am a woman' it won't turn him into a woman. The only thing it would change is that I would see it as a change from being honest to being dishonest.

Absolutely and thank goodness for people like Harry Millar et al

www.peaktrans.org/police/