KJK

I'm pretty sure the starting point should be trans people need to understand women.

What ‘trans rights’ are you fighting for, out of interest? This is to the ‘trans rights activist’ earlier

I’m sure nobody here means me harm, but I am concerned about what others might do given the difficult nature of this debate.

Im also conscious that I have been frank about my inner life and certain core beliefs that I hold. I did not do this to offend anyone but to help illustrate, as best I could, what it is like to suffer from severe gender dysphoria.

My aim here is to increase understanding of trans people as a starting point for building consensus around our relationship with feminists and wider society.

He would be like a dog that caught a car.

Looking forward to tuning in on Tuesday.

A timely and well articulated reminder, thank you @Girlontherailreplacementbusservice.

Really, this is a perfect shibboleth for this situation. Never has Alphaman given us a better indication of what he actually is than this quote:

"I do find it genuinely difficult to empathise with women who feel that, in Western societies at the current stage in history, women are oppressed and kept at a disadvantage by men."

I think if Alph wants a debate (or just to bring up a single issue, to discuss) he should definitely ring up KJK on a Tuesday. Yes, she is blunt but not rude generally and a conversation could be had.

He had better prepare himself to put forward a strong argument however.

That is the clincher. Can Alph offer a better position than Fred did with his talk of fucking men in clubs or whatever drunken mind wave he was surfing during the Joyce debate? I mean, it shouldn't be that hard considering.

But still. Women are adult human females, so there's that.

Nobody gives a shiny shit who you are.

‘Rings William Hill’
”Hi what odds will you give me on Alpha calling up KJK on Terf Talk Tuesday for a debate?”
William Hill - “Just checked and it’s the same odds as it snowing in Hell on Saturday August 17th, at 13.05”

Trans ideology can only be argued in theory. We have to imagine a man who is indistinguishable from a woman to be happy with that man in womans spaces.

As soon as we see eddie izzard in a queue for the womens toilets, we see the man. Just like when we see a man on a stage debating, or hear a man on a phone in.

TRA have to argue in print or on forums because thats the only place trans ideology can make sense. Everywhere else the truth is revealed.

I must remember my last post….

I would suggest there is a very rich fantasy life at stake here.

Yeah the excuses. It's a phone in. You can give a fake name or no name.

You wouldn't be at risk from us though. I wish you no harm at all despite how strongly I disagree with you. Its the TRA's who enjoy threatening us, not the other way around

Of course your anonymity could be preserved. Your voice, not so much.

Her answer is spectacular.

As is her comment just before, 'oh my God, don't be ridiculous'.

The undisguised and quite involuntary contempt is breathtaking.

And that's one of the many attributes of KJK. She doesn't have to pretend. It's all absolutely genuine.

Which makes her good on her feet, because she doesn't have to think about her answers, particularly. It comes straight from the heart.

That's why TRAs come off so badly with her. They are pretending on so many levels, they have no hope of sounding genuine.

Not only are they pretending to be the opposite sex, and all the ridiculous affectations that it involves, they pretend to be victims, they pretend they're oppressed, they pretend they're deserving, they pretend they're not threatening or a threat to women's rights.

They don't stand a chance with her.

And yes, of course, any TRA knows full well they can phone Posie up every week and speak directly to her. She's the opposite of inaccessible.

But they won't.

I’m not seeking fame or glory here. In fact, I could only debate if my anonymity was fully preserved - text chat etc. Given the volume of personal criticism I have had on this board over the past few days, the reasons for this should be obvious.

Oops I meant the Bunbury rules

Your post reminded me of this discussion of leg shaving.

Time to invoke the Bunnington rules

I think that is exactly what he is doing

Some men pay good money to get utterly humiliated by a strong confident woman. Mummy issues

The debate will be a farce. Because it will go like this:

Alpha: I am a woman because (list fluffy stereotypes) and I will only use female single sex spaces when I really have to!

Kellie Jay: You are male and nothing will ever change that. And female single sex spaces are for girls and women, which you aren’t. So stay out.

Debate over.

We have already had this fucking debate on numerous threads. The fact that this male poster thinks they can ‘debate’ is ludicrous. All they do is present emotionally manipulative arguments that most posters see through immediately.

But then as I write this, I keep remembering the humiliation and victimhood aspect at play here. The one that supposedly plays into those stereotypes and the denial that they are not just the same as those fetishists they mentioned.

And the motivation becomes clear again.

And “I’m not an astrophysicist but I know what space is”!