Trump's plans for day one: ending child sexual mutilation and having just male and female genders

'Not believing that trans women belong in womens prisons doesn't make me gender critical.'

You're maybe seeing 'gc' as an identity rather than a belief.

Me, too.

Education doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Sometimes it just means you learn how to phrase bullshit more convincingly.

Classic demonisation.

I think you'll find the devil is in league with us.

Really, though, ad hom smears and attacks are nothing new. All they do is reveal a paucity of argument from the person/s making them. It can be uncomfortable being on the brunt of them but capitulating because of them isn't any way to live.

I don't object to that. You're all just imagining that I have because I haven't waved pitchfork and joined the mob.

There's that polite and respectful genderist discourse again. Women you and your privileged chums disagree with are "the mob".

I suspect that LadyGreyson thinks we can allow the nice male criminals into women's prisons. The ones who might well be rapists or violent towards women, but who have not actually been convicted and are therefore totally safe to be locked in a cell with.

I say no to that.
The female criminals have the right to privacy, dignity and safety. This means they should never be locked up with males, not even the nonviolent, non-rapey ones, not even the ones who are homosexual, not even the ones who have had GRS. No males, whatever their feelings or how much they want it.

No-one here is waving pitchforks. We believe that trans-identified people should have every single right that the rest of us enjoy. Why don't you explain to us exactly what it is that you do believe and how you think it varies from what we believe?
However, if you haven't come here to discuss that topic then please explain what you are here for. I honestly don't see what point you are trying to make

Welcome to TERFdom.

MarieDeGournay

It is a disconnect, isn’t it? People use threads to discuss opinions and information, to evaluate information to understand the opinions, decisions and events.

Yet we have yet to see some of the posters who claim to have qualifications in the topic being discussed supporting their points with links and long posts when surely it is them who should be able to present the persuasive points with evidence that would be of interest to the thread.

If the evidence presented is not robust enough to withstand scrutiny to support the opinion it has been said to support, then shouldn’t that raise doubts in the minds of those who rely on that evidence? If a group of people on a thread point out inconsistencies between the claim / opinion and the evidence, surely that makes people think there needs to be more research, thought, and discussion done to the strengthen the information used to support their opinions?

Not merely resorting to complaints that people didn’t accept the opinion. And not even if that opinion is bracketed in someway with an appeal to authority that it should be automatically given strong credibility because someone stated they have qualifications in a field related to the topic.

I have always wondered at this disconnect and where it stems from.

Trump is not wrong.

There are only two genders.

Male and Female.

Simple.

As generations age they don't suddenly acquire the views of the generations before them or no social progress would be made.

Yet you feel you can lump everyone over 35 into one box and pretending biological sex is meaningless even when it isn't isn't any kind of "progress". It's a flash in the pan. Support is dropping for gender identity ideology and will continue to do so. Younger Gen Zs are already not treating it with the hushed reverence the middle class members of your particular cohort do.

Ok so why do you think people who are gender critical are “vicious”, seeing as this is what people are pleased about?

If you think males shouldn’t be in women’s prisons, you’re also gender critical and in the eyes of trans activists “transphobic”, so why do you see yourself as different?

Haha ok. It is not ageist to simply acknowledge the demographic present. I have not said anything negative about older women, simply that they are the majority here.

But you're in your early thirties, so by your token old age is hurtling towards you fast. Maybe your views will change overnight and the middle class professionals who haven't yet reached that grand old age of 36 will be making pointed comments about your new opinions.

LadyGreyson
I posted in response to you at 1:41.
Do you have a response for me?

With a bonus question: And do most "normal women" in the UK really support this?

@LadyGreyson can you explain why you object to putting an end to the housing of violent male murderers, rapists and paedophiles in women’s prisons?

I find Mumsnet leans towards older women, mainly late thirties plus. There are lots of middle aged women, secondary school mums and grandmothers here.

And nice bit of ageism there. The fact you think women only in their 30s are 'older women' says a lot about you.

Other forums? I think you mean echo chambers.

Poll after poll after poll done including by YouGov shows that the majority of people support the retention of single sex spaces and fairness in sports. We, actually represent the majority, @LadyGreyson .

GiveMe: Colon tissue cannot become vaginal tissue. A female urethra cannot be stretched to the tip of a neophallus without fistula. Agreed and well done for saying so.