Women with alopecia harassed in woman's toilets at airport

Well yes, you're either 100% all in or you're a terf who deserves all she gets. You can never do enough for trans activists. Nothing but complete capitulation in every single sphere is acceptable.

On Friday night, McLaughlin used a choke hold to beat 32-year-old Celine Provost, a clearly more skilled fighter, who could simply not compete with the strength of a man. Women and men alike know full well that even very strong, athletic women can be taken down by regular men, never mind an ex-Special Forces soldier, which is why, for example, male and female inmates are housed separately, based on sex, not fitness.

www.feministcurrent.com/2021/09/12/alana-mclaughlin-is-a-cheat/

How utterly predictable.

Alana McLaughlin is a misogynistic male who beats up women in MMA fights.

Looks like the sympathy of the Be Kind people evaporated pretty quickly when it turns out the alopecia suffering woman doesn't agree with men in women's sports.

IF this happened at all it was a case of a gender nonconforming woman being harassed for being gender nonconforming.

We know this because A - Transwomen are never bald, unmadeup, casually and gender neutrally dressed. On the contrary, long hair, makeup and tight skirts are favoured. The idea is to look as "feminine" as possible.

And B - Transwomen are known to be men and are never challenged in the way this woman was. I mean, this is the problem right?

She was challenged and harrased by someone who KNEW she was a woman - and this is always the case in these incidents I feel sure. And it has been happening for decades. Long before the current Trans activism trend. Because it's homophobia that is behind this behaviour.
TL:DR
Men in dresses are not challenged in women's spaces because women are afraid to do so. But women who do not look"feminine enough" can be safely challenged and harrased.
Ergo no one thinks these women are actually men. If they did, they'd leave them alone.

Gender critical feminism has nothing to do with scrutinising people's appearance.

I mean, if this interpretation is correct, I would describe this opinion in the same way I would describe the opinion that a woman being in a robe in the wi spa reception complainging is more ‘egregious’ in her actions than the naked male with an aroused penis getting into a bath a metre away from a nine year old girl. And that description would be that the holder of that opinion has perhaps got priorities that are not centred on female people.

Receipts please.

Reduxx only ever report on "trans people" doing things they should not be doing. 99 times out of 100 the "trans people" they report on are male people abusing women in some way.

The idea that women who have spent all their lives being anti regressive sex stereotypes (such as "real women adhere to patriarchal ideas of 'femininity'") police other women on the basis of their adherence to... regressive sex stereotypes such as patriarchal ideas of 'femininity' , beggars belief.

That isn't what "gender critical" is. "Gender" = regressive sex stereotypes (like "women must be feminine" "ladybrain" "pink for girls", "women are naturally submissive/like cooking/are good at typing/bad drivers") that sort of rubbish. "Critical" = critical of that. Not supportive of that. Literally the ONLY criteria for being female is being actually, biologically female. It's nothing to do with such backwards ideas about "femininity". Males, regardless of outfit, hairstyle, likes, dislikes, personality can't be female, because they will always be biologically male. Human personalities are much freer and wide ranging than limiting "gender" boxes.

Meanwhile, the trans movement and its ideology is ENTIRELY built on the same regressive sex stereotypes that feminists critical of "gender" (which is a central tenet of feminism, or was back in the day) have been fighting for years and thought we'd got rid of in, oh, about the 1980s at the latest. But nope.

There appears to be some confusion. Some of it quite deliberate, I'd say.

1. given the established meanings of the words 'gender' and 'critical': do you think it is likely that someone who is genuinely 'critical of gender' scrutinises women's appearance?

This poster regards some male people as women, so it makes sense in that context.

Anyone saying GC women are a threat and police gender but TRAs don't.. words fail me. 🤔

Helle, that's true. Yes, voice does make it a lot easier. Ofc some women have deeper and vice versa, but it's a pretty good indicator. Skeletal proportions too. And ofc black and white photos are even harder.
Josette, that's interesting you'd think she's male. I picked this photo as I think it's the one where she passes best, esp w the military uniform, but she still looks female to me- I think poss because my lovely first Head of year at secondary school looked quite similar.

yes, I mean the only explanation I can come up with is that this poster does not know the correct meaning of one or both of the words 'gender' and 'critical', and is therefore sorely mistaken about the beliefs of people who categorise themselves as gender critical. hence this whole heeelarious misunderstanding

so reviewing your posts of page 1, I'm guessing this is your explanation of how the gender critical movement harms all women:

So called gender criticals with their policing and scrutinising women's appearances are far more of a concern to me than people who are trans.

1. given the established meanings of the words 'gender' and 'critical': do you think it is likely that someone who is genuinely 'critical of gender' scrutinises women's appearance?

2. not all women. I don't think the gender critical movement has harmed me. at all

3. you are more worried about people who you wrongly categorise as 'gender criticals' scrutinising women's appearance than (say) women being locked up with rapists. That's fine, you are entitled to your view. I would suggest it's unlikely to be representative though

I read it. I still don't see how that explains how women wanting to retain single sex spaces and sports, and not believing you can change sex harms all women. For the second time. That is what being gender critical is.

You just said something about scrutinising appearance
So you did read it really then.
It just doesn't fit your opinion so you pretend you can't see it.
Ok 👍

I mean, you literally didn’t. Your posts didn’t explain much at all of how not believing you change sex and wanting to retain single sex spaces and sports harms ALL women.

You just said something about scrutinising appearance…

Apparently scrutinising people's appearance causes so much more harm to women than supporting male people being in female single sex spaces, sports and taking opportunities meant to lift female people out of the negative impacts of sex discrimination as they have experience for millennia collectively.

Have I got that right?

I mean, I literally said on page one

Christ. I'll await the explanation with bated breath.

It's worse than that, Wes, apparently it harms all women. All of them. Every single one.