Is it too early for a post mortem?

Who the fuck knows what is going on in a PPs head? It might be reality adjacent or it could be completely Dagenham.

Yep. It is very clear that.

Yeah, but clearly this isn’t about access to a safe space is it - it’s about accessing the women in it

We were told that it was a solution to OUR needs not Butters needs. That that individual ‘needed’ female single sex space that allowed select male people in, ie. them but kept other males with trans identities out. Only a case by case scenario where butters got in and others stayed out.

(With a whole heap of other accusations and sparple, of course )

And not just "okay" either. Morally righteous, apparently, and an inalienable human right.

(for the "identifying as" a lesbian male - aka heterosexual man - rather than the actual lesbian female, naturally. But as we know, women's human rights aren't nearly as important as the apparently "lifesaving" human right that males have to be validated by women as women on demand, according to their wishes.)

Blimey, that thread took a turn…..

so Butterfly thinks it’s perfectly fine to agree to have sex with someone without disclosing your actual sex.

Hypothetically, a transwoman who regards themselves as a lesbian could therefore agree to have sex with a (female 🙄) lesbian. Obviously once it becomes clear that her partner is actually male, there may well be no way out. But that is absolutely fine? And remember peeps, most transwomen are still attached to their penis.

There aren’t enough emojis in the world to express my horror that anyone thinks this is ok.

Butterfly I’ve asked before, and I am really curious: why do you think you’re a woman? Why is it that, whatever feelings and identity you have, you believe you have that in common with women?

Nobody knows how other people feel, and the belief that a whole sex class can be encompassed in a ‘feeling’ or ‘identity’ seems completely ridiculous to me - all the women I know are different, all they have in common is their biology & the stuff that flows from that.

What on earth led you to label the feelings you have as ‘woman’? Wouldn’t a more reasonable choice have been ‘man who feels like xxx’?

ban them from basic human services and facilities is inhumane and while technically a solution to your problem with them, is not a solution to the <our> problem.

No one talks of banning TW from basic human services. If we’re talking about needs, then a solution to TWs problems is third spaces for toilets and changing rooms. Ditto rape centres and prisons (both exist). Even on the basis of TW having life experiences never possible to be fully understood by women and vice versa of course. No need to access female sports categories or rape relief centres or female prison estates. Accommodation is possible along those lines. Job done. Any quarrel with that solution?

I personally think we should take a sledgehammer to the term ‘life saving’ being dramatically misused for describing the treatment plans for identities currently being advocated for by people using this term.

The only possible way these treatments can be described as ‘life saving’ is because they have immorally weaponised falsely overamplified suicide narratives. This is hugely irresponsible and frankly considering it has been well documented to be false, it has crossed over to being immoral to continue to use this term.

Even the ACLU has had to admit the evidence doesn’t show what the use of this term would indicate. They have had to admit under oath that it is, in fact, rare for someone to commit suicide (thankfully) due to this issue. And we know from the evidence coming from reviews and experts that hormones and surgeries doesn’t show a decisive improvement for patients and the suicide rate doesn’t improve at all after treatment.

It is past time for that term to stop being used. It is not fact. And it is emotionally manipulative.

In response to the OP, it would appear that a PM is currently premature but it does need to be conducted within the next 12 months and reach the right conclusions. Otherwise the Dems are toast and the GOP can do what the fuck they like for the next 2 terms.

God. My blood pressure is off the charts just reading this. A big thank you to the patient debaters.

Helle posted:
'Cambridge says :
a formal statement or principle in mathematics, science, etc., from which other statements can be obtained'.

I think that the formal statement/principle is 'mammals cannot change sex'.

That's a simple foundational truth from which other statements can be obtained. For example, human beings are mammals, therefore, human beings cannot change sex.

I know, Alison.

This is what happens when facts meet theory.

However, I have noticed that the poster likes to reference maths and science in their definitions of the word woman. So I checked and what do you know, it is also a maths/science reference.

Cambridge says :
a formal statement or principle in mathematics, science, etc., from which other statements can be obtained.

You see, it is always important to use the terminology of a the physical science fields to prop up weak philosophical theory. I guess some people feel it lends credibility to their theories that they have built their life around.

And again, you snap straight back to wielding nuance-free axioms like a sledgehammer, claiming they solve the problem.

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments

There you go again Helleofabore, using things that are true as a starting point for discussion.

What a fucking liberty.

I am now looking forward to watching the recording of the United States v Skrmetti case. Apparently, Chase Strangio has admitted that transition does not impact suicide rates.

Doesn't that negate claims that medical treatment plans being advocated for are 'life saving'? Surely, if this is the case someone better inform the ACLU quickly. Or maybe, some people with transgender identities in positions of influence have to tell the truth under oath in a court case that is being broadcast to the world.

I didn't think it was possible for people like @ButterflyHatched to believe the world revolves around them any more than they already do.

The idea that Brexit was engineered purely so that we could withdraw from the ECHR (which does not technically have anything to do with the EU, and which we have not left) and go back to persecuting trans people with gay abandon is a whole different level of batshit.

god that EU/Brexit stuff is making me angry. My username is the clue...

Thanks for the link to the other thread @Helleofabore
This in particular blew my mind.

"There has been a consistent movement ever since, heavily centred on this board, to force the country to leave the EU in order to allow these basic human rights to be removed."

It wasn't Farage and the Brexit Party it was evil mumsnet Brexitnet all along!!!

Heavily centered on this board. I can't stop laughing :) :) :)

I’m glad you found it worth watching Helle. For me it showed that the arguments we’re being met with on this thread, and others, are not someone’s personal interpretation of gender identity ideology, they ARE mainstream gender identity ideology and they are inimical to the existence of women’s sex-based rights and legal protections.

Bloody hell. Another apposite link utopia. That is like a replay of the end of the thread...

Including the hyperbole, emotional manipulation, the catastrophising. It seems to be a feature for a particular sub group of male people.

Particularly the compassion, humanity and 'love' style buzzwords.

I don't believe that after all your posts on the other thread about sex by deception, that you can ever take any kind of moral stance again.

For those who wish to read the posts, here is the link.

CONTENT WARNING: non-consensual sex

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5221125-terfs-are-not-the-problem?page=7

All human beings, the world over, tend to have the same basic needs.....but a transwoman ( who is male by definiition) does not have the same needs and requirements as a woman. 'Woman' is a distinct human category based on biological sex and all that stems from that.

If you find people pointing this out to be cruel or heartless it can only speak to an unhealthy psychological fragility - which requires the subservience of others for its survival.

'Sex' is not an ideology - it is a blood and tissue factual reality that shapes the lives of people in various ways. What is an ideology is the idea that one is really the opposite sex to that which one is, or that sex itself is performative - and that the whole world needs to be ordered around this idea.

Sall Grover discussing this issue (and others raised on this thread) with Jack Jewell is worth a watch because they have a very honest discussion:

@ButterflyHatched

You believe "women" are not exclusively adult human females and girls are not exclusively juvenile human females.

I don't believe that, but that isn't the point of this post.

My question is, why do you even care whether human females have female specific needs, rights, opportunities, support and language, given the thing these female people have in common isn't anything to do with you or your womanhood?

It's like me who lives in Berwick getting all grumpy about what the people in Dudley are getting up to.

Given that all the "women-only" resources were set up using a definition of woman you don't even believe, why do you feel they have any relevance to "women" as you believe women to be? Why can't you just let the human females carry on with whatever they already had, and define something new for "women" that is open to everyone who feels they meet your definition?

Your ideology does not render irrelevant other people's real lived experiences.

Oh my goodness indeed. I am going to answer this and use the case of Karen White which you brought into this thread @ButterflyHatched

You stated KW was a woman by the terms of the ideology you believe in and promote, you are quite right and I was surprised you admitted it bearing in mind that practically everybody else who also believes in it and promotes it couldn't distance themselves fast enough from KW and the crimes committed by KW. To them KW was not true trans and seemed to occupy that strange space of rapist gender or at it gender.

By doing so the harms this ideology you believe in are wreaking on women are:

Absolving the facility which locked a vulnerable woman in a room alone with KW, where KW so severely raped that vulnerable woman that she will never be able to have children, of any responsibility for the ordeal suffered by KW's victim.

Telling the woman subject to that horrendous ordeal that the person who subjected her to that is a woman just like her and therefore that's just part and parcel of what women do.

You yourself have used the pronoun 'she' for KW, presumably you would expect her to call her rapist 'she' in Court. By doing so you are completely re-writing and denigrating the victim's lived experience, you are denying her lived reality of this horrific crime. The victim must re-frame her trauma and experience to suit the ideology you believe.

Further women were sexually assaulted (surprise, surprise) when KW was placed in the female prison estate, again the ideology you believe says this is fair enough and to be expected because KW is a woman and should therefore be in that facility.

None of this should have happened and it wouldn't have happened if not for the ideology that a man is a woman if he says he is and once he does he must be treated as if he is one in all circumstances.

Where is the consideration of the human rights for those women who suffered at the hands of KW not to be placed in a position where they would suffer that harm?

This is the price women are paying, this is women as collateral damage, this is the decimation of women's human rights.