Women's rights general conversations

Strictly, she's referring to men who claim to be lesbians as perverted fetishists.

I think describing transwomen as 'perverted fetishists' might be the bit that qualifies as hate speech though.

Here you go, something which Sturgeon would like to see:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11545859/Gay-Norwegian-filmmaker-faces-three-years-prison.html

A gay Norwegian filmmaker faces three years in prison after she said male-to-female transgender women cannot be lesbians. Tonje Gjevjon spoke out against transgender activist Christine Jentoft, who transitioned from being a man and now identifies as a 'lesbian mother'.

'It is just as impossible for men to become lesbians as it is for men to become pregnant,' Gjevjon wrote on Facebook in October. 'Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes'.

How many of you predicted this? All of you, I believe.

Reminder if you want to complete the consultation looking at sex by deception law when it comes to "gender".

A rather confusing/concerning note about definitions has been appended, given that this law has been a TRA target for the last 8 years or so. The consultation closes at midnight this Sunday 18 December.

Sex by deception - consultation www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4696625-sex-by-deception-consultation

Here's the Mail version:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11545985/Porn-obsessed-lab-technician-30-strangled-work-colleague-death-jailed.html

A porn-obsessed lab technician who strangled his colleague girlfriend to death in his house he shared with his parents before cutting her throat and dumping her body in a country lane was today jailed for life with a minimum term of 23 years.

Giving evidence in his own defence, McCullam said he erupted 'like a volcano' and attacked Miss Newborough after she touched him intimately because it triggered memories of childhood sexual abuse.

The things they say, trying to blame their victims in these cases is fucking pathetic.

^After carrying out the slaying, McCullam viewed YouTube videos about infamous convict Charles Bronson, and repeatedly researched serial killer Levi Belfield, who murdered teenager Milly Dowler, Soham monster Ian Huntley, Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe and the Manchester Arena bombing.
He also searched for 'domination pornography', and watched 17 minutes of explicit videos the morning after the killing...^

So many of these murderous men watch this horrible, horrible type of porn. It may not be causing them to do what they do, but it's certainly not helping. Why on Earth is it still legally available? Even if it's not driving them, it's got to be developing their twisted ideas.

Willoughby's just a controversialist. They reckons that 7 years of oestrogen has given them XX chromosomes, so anything the barmy sod says can be safely ignored.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/16/ross-mccullam-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-megan-newborough

Ross McCullam has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 23 years for the murder of his colleague Megan Newborough.

The 30-year-old lab technician strangled Newborough, 23, and cut her throat at his parents’ house in Leicstershire before dumping her in nearby woodland. Later, he left a voicemail on her phone professing his love for her to try to cover his tracks.

Only 23 years? It seems very lenient to me, for such a disgusting crime. It just makes me despair.

I think much of it is just plain old misogyny. I was listening to India Willoughby respond to a question about women who worked at the Dorchester being made to shave their legs on an old episode of woman’s hour. Jenni Murray asked if he would have shaved his legs when he presented as a man. ‘Of course not, why would I do that?’ Yet he was in complete agreement with the Dorchester’s policy and used the word ‘dirty’ to describe female hair. He then went on to accuse Jenni of having a problem with trans people (although he said he isn’t a transwoman so not sure why he was bothered) even thought nothing she said was remotely antagonistic.

Sashohoho

Why do all these transwomen display all the same sense is entitlement and inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes...

I don't see why they can't. Unless it's because they're bullies, who enjoy gaslighting everyone into acquiescing to their mad declarations.

@Sashohoho , it's because there is a high level of narcissism and/or autism in the movement. Not much emotional empathy there.

"women might not wish to discuss those things in the presence of a man"

Particularly a man who has gone out of his way to listen to that discussion. I would assume questionable motives.

Why do all these transwomen display all the same sense is entitlement and inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes, (even when wearing kitten heels or stilletoes) as men?
The longer this goes on, the more convinced I am that it's a MRA movement. It also shows why patriarchy rules. They're good at it.

I can’t believe we’re having to justify these things. Things that have been in place for a very long time. As if it’s not completely fucking obvious. Wilful ignorance.

Also, it’s not just about being in x proximity of a penis. Talking about rape and sexual abuse can make you feel very vulnerable and it’s of course perfectly understandable (at least it should be, to any sort of decent human being) that women might not wish to discuss those things in the presence of a man, regardless of how they feel about men in other spaces.

A man with a beard replying there to say if a woman has a problem being in the same space as a penis she has a serious problem. Well, yes, she does, and she's probably very aware of that, and accessing therapy to try to help her live her life in a more bearable way, and REALLY DOES NOT NEED A PENIS TO BE IN THAT THERAPY SPACE.

I assume the beard has never thought of the women who genuinely do live their lives attempting to avoid men, who end up rarely leaving their house, outside relationships, traumatised to the point where they are desperate and their lives are in ruins? Because that would be 'ludicrous'.

I was thinking this morning of another way to illustrate to my friend why women might possibly be getting ansty about poking of boundaries, safeguarding and language, and I was thinking that marital rape was only successfully prosecuted in 1991 in the uk, and only properly made illegal in 2003. I think that’s correct. That’s wet flipping ink.

Blimey, there are some seriously thick and unpleasant people on that thread.

This one is particularly stupid:

Should there be a place for white people who don't want to interact with black people? Why can't they have their own space?

Completely oblivious to the women who self exclude from mixed sex services. ^^

well its worked well here in US and continues to

• this person has no fucking idea. There's a US poster who periodically appears on this board under variations of the name Detroit, who is a woman who needed single sex accommodation after leaving an abusive marriage. I'm not sure where she is now (last I heard she'd got some accommodation but not sure how secure it was) but for months, including in bitterly cold weather she was living outside, often in campgrounds because all the shelters had become mixed sex. For women like her the system was utterly broken.

I'm absolutely slack-jawed at the sheer lazy stupidity and lack of empathy on display here:

mobile.twitter.com/trippingjupiter/status/1603077973799755784

Basically, "Well I know somewhere that does things differently and it's just fine, so you are wrong." When did people get so THICK? When did it become acceptable to show absolutely zero critical thinking?

This takes me all the way back to student days, when the university women's campaign had to admit male students to our events because they made such an almighty fuss about being able to come, regardless of subject. Of course, once allowed, none of them ever bothered, as they weren't interested. But they derrailed efforts to Get Shit Done enough that we gave in.

On the other hand when women campaign to be allowed into male spaces, we are told it's very trivial, and there are more important battles to be fought, and why does it even matter?

Ah...that last twit links back to ”online radicalisation” www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4698398-online-radicalisation for more irony deficiency.

I've remembered a certain newsreader that James should question with the same dedication he questioned KJK.

So. A woman posted about how delighted she'd been to find that Manchester Airport had single-sex toilet provision as well as "all gender" toilets. That's in image 1. In image 2, we see that two adults of the male sex popped up in her replies to indicate that they had been unwilling to use the "all gender" facilities and had walked across the airport to find the specifically female-only provision. They "made a point of it".

Is it still going?

Eddie Izzard, before he went mad, used to talk about "total clothing rights", which made (& make) perfect sense to me.

Am loving paulfryorkshire getting his arse repeatedly handed to him. It must be getting motion sickness by now.

Oh ffs. Irony deficiency