Life without GC women

I'd love to see the stats on the horrific rate of suicides by trans people.

@inininsomnia can you please link to the actual numbers on this? I presume you've seen some actual confirmed statistics.

👏👏👏

Plenty of harm has happened to women in old fashioned single sex facilities - I remember at university knowing which campus blocks to avoid.

so who was harming the women in single sex facilities? Was it males? In which case why are you wanting to make all facilities mixed sex? Surely this would put women in danger? And if males with a trans identity are “unsafe” in male facilities, surely they would be just as unsafe in “mixed sex facilities as there would still be males there? Or are you suggesting the women in those facilities are used as human shields for the males with a trans identity? Not very feminist of you is it?

inininsomnia if you're a woman then why on earth is your priority men? Clealy if you're not a woman it's a bit more self-explanatory.

Plenty of harm has happened to women in old fashioned single sex facilities - I remember at university knowing which campus blocks to avoid.

The overwhelming majority of that from males. That's why, single sex spaces. Clever innit.

If it's ok to require women to self exclude from facilities they can't access, then it's ok to require men with TQ+ identities to self exclude from facilities too.

Otherwise your middle ground is actually just prioritising men over women, which is not really 'middle ground' is it?

The middle ground would be third spaces, gender neutral. Those happy to use mixed sex facilities or who do not feel ok in sex based spaces have their needs met, and those who can only access single sex spaces have their needs met, no exclusions. This would however require male people to respect that women need inclusion too, and not to insist on controlling and using female only spaces.

You know, like as happened in Hamstead Ponds, where a male who claims a TQ+ identity can take their best choice in the moment from all three ponds, male, mixed and female, where many women who used to love swimming now cannot go at all. Because of selfish, exclusionary males, for whom two accessible choices was not enough.

except a strong sense that much of this could be resolved with more open debate (more calmly on bothsides)

Both sides? Get to feck. Did you see what happened in NZ? The aggression and violence comes from one side only. That's yours. Own it.

Special thanks to Posie parker for highlighting it, without needing to say a single word.

"No Taxation without Representation" is a noble cry, and I've thought it often but it's hard to put into practice, most obviously since HMRC get hold of it before it enters our bank accounts.
But it can be done, at a cost. I have inherited an oak gate legged table and two carver chairs from a set which used to belong to Mrs Charlotte Despard, a suffragist. She refused to pay, the bailiffs came and took her furniture. Her friends bought it auction and gave it back. This happened several times until she tod her friends not to do it. Which led to my grandparents buying a few things. We've lost the rest before they came to me, but we have always been proud to have them. Given the value, and my family not being wealthy, I think the auction was rigged not to raise much money.
But anyone moved to withhold their tax, remember what you might lose.

Like fuck. What I don't do is buy into an ideology that demonises a whole sector of society and denies them basic rights Self-exclusion is exactly that, the middle ground isthere to be found

A very long time ago women were prepared to find a middle ground. For years patience and kind conversation took place about what compromise could be made.
But the trans ideologists said no. We want everything. We are you. But better than you. And we will have everything of yours and more.
Women got sad.
Then they organised and campaigned.
Now the whole world sees what's happening.
And the message back to you now is.... No. No compromise. It's over.

I hope you enjoy the poor fruits of your labour. You thought you had everything. But you don't.

Go on then @inininsomnia what is your suggestion to women keeping single sex spaces for their safety, privacy and dignity, and keeping males who wish to be seen as women happy? If you are ok with self exclusion for women, why not suggest those males who do not feel comfortable in male spaces self exclude? As a feminist, surely you should be supporting those women who for various reasons cannot use mixed sex spaces right? It’s so good you’ve confirmed you don’t buy into gender ideology though. We’ll make a feminist of you yet. 😉

How do you feel about third spaces...Male, Female, Gender neutral? I would help campaign for those.

Happily, there isn't a chance that you lot are the majority in society, but it's fucking hilarious that you think you're the ones keeping the rest of us in check with your 'societal rules' and whatever you conceive a sense of decency to be.

You are, a noisy minority. That it is. Now the curtain is pulled back it's very obvious.

GC aka common sense, is the majority view. That's why, as the majority have now picked up on this insanity, things are rolling back. Nicola did drive the final nail in the coffin for this one it's true. She must be a GC herself, the good she has finally done the GC movement in exposing the trans ideology for what it really is. Or alternatively she is a very stupid person who didn't think of the consequences when the mainstream saw what was going on. Much like many people who follow the ideology. They're not good at thinking things through to the final logical conclusion. 🤷‍♀️

We're no longer talking about old school transsexuals who respected women's spaces and boundaries. The delightful reality now is that we're talking about any cock-haver who decides to say that he's a woman. The fact that so many change nothing about themselves rather than their ID shows the utter contempt they have for women and their needs.

Single-sex toilets never - or rarely - needed supervising. Mixed-sexed toilets cannot be used by some women including at least three where I work due to their religion/culture.

Men identifying into women's prisons (your example) is PURELY a trans issue.

"I can't accept that a whole sector of society, known for high rates or poor mental health and suicide, should be dismissed as not fit to live in they way they find peace" is the usual hyperbolic BS. No-one is trying to stop trans people living how they want unless it impinges directly on women's existing rights.

"I believe in gender equality and and cooperation rather than women's rights above all other." The only co-operation apparently required is the total capitulation by women of their sex-based rights so that they no longer are "women's rights". There is no co-operation whatsoever on the other side and stop pretending that it's a small number of loudmouths: women can't actually meet and talk about their issues at an advertised meeting any more - even the police won't facilitate it.

If you'd asked me even 3 years ago, I'd have said 'so what?' to the idea of shared loos. Now I would say no bloody way. I could live with it if men are clearly men and women are clearly women (places like Costa have unisex loos and have had them for ages), but not when men are claiming to be women. I dare say I'll be deleted for saying this.

Oh no @DialSquare , actually @inininsomnia is an old school feminist who has never in all her born days put men first. Apparently old school feminism was the one where feminists fought to have gender stereotypes enshrined in society and believed men over women when it came to knowing what a woman was. I mean, I can see germaine Greer now, telling women to just submit to men as men knew best when it came to women and womens lives 😂😂

My workplace, for example, has new shared sex toilets that are much safer for everyone and easier to supervise than the old single sex spaces.

I'm curious about this.

(a) How are they safer?
(b) How are they "easier to supervise"? What does "supervise" mean here? Why do your toilets need "supervising"?

Second one has me baffled, but for the first I'm wondering if they've just fixed the uneven flooring or something...

Actually one thought the second one - is this a school? You're supervising children?

You've changed your tune. First of all you wouldn't miss GC Women, then you basically said you couldn't give a shit if anyone self excused from their own single sex spaces and now it's all calm debate and middle ground. I'm not buying it. Just accept that you support an ideology that is detrimental to the female sex and beneficial to the make sex.

What's your view on men wanting men's bathrooms to be single sex?

inininsomnia · Today 11:55

I don't support GC attempts to impose their will on others.

You have it arsy-versy, it's the trans side who are imposing, the GC side are just resisting those impositions.

As for trans suicide "statistics," I sympathise that you've lost someone to suicide. The figures bandied about, however, are a complete work of fiction, like the alleged huge number of assaults and murders.

They're just not happening, transw in the UK are far and away the demographic least in danger of violence.

Open debate - we've been here for years, pushing for that. There's been much screaming and rape and death threats as a result. A nice open calm debate takes two sides with the capacity for calm and reasonability. Women tried: we can't do it alone.

To make progress with a middle ground would require two sides capable of equal care for the other groups' needs, feelings and best interests, and willing to support those to be achieved. Again, #fail. We've tried. If you can find any activist or rep of the political lobby driving this with the faintest interest or care in the needs of the female side of the equation please do share, because I can't and I've been at this now for years.

Middle ground - well that was the GRA. A very small number, gatekept, fully transitioned or in the process of, in women's spaces. Women not consulted, asked, and no attempts made to consider or track impact incidentally. That middle ground has been abused to the nth degree. Middle ground now in effect means taking still more of women's rights to give to men.

It's lovely that you personally find mixed sex toilets accessible and satisfactory, that's great. But my concern is for the women who can't access these. Excluding women so men can have more freedom of choice isn't an answer that works for everyone and I'm not ok with that inequality that turns out to be sex based. No one incidentally is looking at suicide rates for women, particularly the vulnerable groups, or how the number of things like domestic violence deaths have been affected by some women in life threatening relationships not being willing to accept help from a refuge or women's services because those spaces are now 'inclusive' of men and so exclusionary of women with specific needs. Those women's spaces no longer do the job of being accessible and inclusive of all women.

So have you told the gender ideologists to have calm rational debate or is it just women you scold? Why should women have calm rational discussions with people who assault, threaten and bully them? Surely as a feminist you mean sex equality, as gender is the tool of oppression for women?

Has anyone else noticed the amazing number of “old school feminists” who embrace gender ideology these days and lambast women for not putting males first. These “old school feminists” don’t seem very concerned with the adverse effect gender ideology is having on women and girls. Has old school feminism become a code word for gender ideologists now?