Review "Six Conversations we're Scared to have"

This is very hard to hear and I don’t recommend it if you are likely to be triggered in any way.

Here is a video of Karen’s testimony about how the NHS has treated her.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/1921484351964848258?s=46

For all those reading who need further confirmation as to why ‘social’ woman is not going to work, and that some people are quite ok to push for female single sex spaces to include male people if they fit some criteria such as ‘had a hard enough life so deserve consideration’ (ie most vulnerable and marginalised) or has chosen to undergo brutal surgery, what difference would those criteria make in this Darlington Nurses situation?

I cannot think of any difference at all.

No male inclusion in any female single sex provision. No male people have any concept of what it means to be born a female or to ever live as a female. The only lived experience that they have is living with their male body.

It is not just about safety, it is about privacy and dignity. And it is about boundaries. And female people should be supported to have them and to have others recognise those boundaries. Perhaps if you don’t understand that your own boundaries are either low or non existent, you cannot understand why people have their own boundaries that need to be respected.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14698557/I-begged-bosses-not-let-trans-nurse-invaded-changing-room-intimate-operation-refused-didnt-want-hurt-feelings.html

archive.is/HYlzX

by George Arabella, I think you have it

Ditum is spot on in her analysis that Frances-White must truly think that having difficult conversations is a metaphor for preaching the ‘Good Word’ to heathens

Bingo. I suppose DFW means she thinks these conversations will be difficult for others, not her.

Thanks for sharing @April1625 - pretty scathing stuff but spot on!

Just came across this review of the Triggernometry podcast with DFW by Ani O'Brien
https://aniobrien.substack.com/p/the-guilty-vichy-feminist-encounters?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Unless of course it is the BBC or ITV virtue signalling. Such as the inclusion of a female participant in the upcoming gay man show.

Absolutely agree that women should be excluded from those groups for men too, as you say it’s a lot less of an issue as women don’t do this as much.

I suspect its because TM were never in male spaces and organisations, they were already using appropriate toilets. And thats not what men with gender identities want, so the TM have to be quiet.

When we say that we want to exclude TW from female-only rape counselling groups, the same would apply in principle to a TM who tried to blag her way into a testicular cancer support group.

Though I've never heard of a TM doing that. Funny that. It's almost as if, in the trans community, the females are the support humans.

Its so obviously a mans rights movement too because media isnt talking about how this is affecting women with trans identities.

Nothing about sport, nothing about if mens organisations can still include TM.

I suspect its because TM were never in male spaces and organisations, they were already using appropriate toilets. And thats not what men with gender identities want, so the TM have to be quiet.

I hope the female people in the 'trans community' notice this.

100% and we’ve also moved disingenuously from “nothing to see here, absolutely no clash of rights and only these silly old women who no one cares about think there is” to a live demonstration of what the clash of rights means (if I were to call what they are demanding a “right” (being generous for the sake of argument).

Thinking more on this Eresh.

It actually becomes very clear when we have threads of posters who simply cannot interrogate their answers to then answer questions that highlight the incoherencies of their position.

It is all very well do declare that we should accept some male people's philosophical belief about themselves as no longer being male, but when you get down to exactly what the implications are for that, the answers disappear. It has all be sold in using emotional arguments that never withstand scrutiny.

And yet, even when shown the incoherency, people double down because they have been told it is righteous.

I mean, look at this latest move. The Supreme Court clarified that the EA2010 had been deliberately misinterpreted by extreme transgender activist groups. Then one of the immediate reactions was 'well, they didn't define biological sex'... well.. they didn't have to, it was done previously.

Then came the calls that organisations needed to 'wait for guidance'. No... the law is now very clear but these organisations are still attempting to impose their own misinterpretations on it.

Then came the declaration that they are taking it to the European Court, which of course, if they are able to they should. But what is it that they are seeking? For male people to be able to access female single sex provisions, even when it has been shown repeatedly with evidence that this is harmful to female people.

So, we have also moved dishonestly from 'those male people never said they were female' - yes they fucking did and it is on public record and not fucking hard to find if you actually just searched! To those male people need us to treat them as if they are woman, because they are 'vulnerable male people' and not 'men' anymore.

Really? How the fuck does that work? No one, and it is now many people saying it, explains they just keep repeating it. It is like one massive group think to calm any dissonance they might feel. The righteous people are saying it, therefore it must be right. It is defies the very premise of equality when you view it as it is without the emotional lens.

How is it that one group of male people qualify for such special treatment above all other male people who could be said to be just as vulnerable, if not more?

Anyone? Anyone want to explain it?

Or will it continue to be tumbleweed and crickets.

I suggest anyone reading this who don't understand where the phrase 'turtles all the way down' comes from, should perhaps look it up if you think that your position should be accepted but you cannot explain why beyond emotional pleas.

And Lavery. Lavery cancelled.

None of the trans or trans ally authors will do these interviews or debates.

She won’t, because “we’re scared” is forced teaming. No one on our side is scared to have those conversations. Just her.

Yes. Me too. But I believe that DFW will continue to ignore those women.

Can you imagine Helen Joyce sitting down with her? Or Julie Bindel?

But she won’t.

I would pay to see that. Or Helen Joyce, or Sharron Davies or Maya Forstater or KJK.

Sall Grover has offered to have a “scary conversation” with Deborah.

https://nitter.poast.org/salltweets/status/1918791505143337032#m

Do posters remember this interchange between Emile Ratenbrand and Fae?

Again it begs the question, why was one permitted and not the other?

Why has a group of people decided that people can move between sex categories because they present as the opposite sex? And why are identification documents allowed to change?

The premise that sex is complicated in a way that leverages people to change sex is based on nothing but falsity and philosophical theory. But again… this one belief has been granted special status.

'A small boy of my acquaintance identifies as T Rex (the dinosaur, not the glam rock band) but only on weekends'

That's just adorable 😁❤️

A small boy of my acquaintance identifies as T Rex (the dinosaur, not the glam rock band) but only on weekends. He's not silly enough to try that on at school.

With most characteristics, you'll be called out pretty quickly if you identify as something that's blatantly not true. If I identified as taller or thinner or younger I don't think anyone would take me at all seriously.

Things like religion or in some circumstances ethnicity are a bit fuzzier, but still have boundaries.

I can't think of any other identity claim where everyone is supposed to take a person at exactly their own estimation.

I agree others don't have to affirm what you say. But when it comes to self-declaration, you can say I'm an introvert, or I love music, or I'm a bit scatty. Others might disagree but my point is identifying things like this about yourself doesn't take away from or appropriate anyone else.

There's also a difference between "identifying" as something in good faith with evidence (eg your religion or sexuality), and identifying as something you know you're not (eg saying a lesbian when you're a man on the basis of an ideology).

Years ago I read a book about national identity by an academic and the gist of it was that it was a v complicated thing to define but self-identity was important. However he was talking about for example Scots or Kurds and how they feel about their national identity. Not people "identifying" as whatever they fancy with no basis in evidence IYSWIM.

She wouldnt have used the clown analogy if she understood the real difference of opinion. Because it simply doesnt add clarity.

There's the opinion that people really do have a gender identity different to their sex, and need it fixing so their outward appearance matches their identity. And as a civilised society we should support this.

There are more libertarian and liberal views, that people are free to do what they want with their bodies, the state should support that, and individuals must tolerate it up to the point it harms them. So that point is in question and could be men in womens spaces or not depending on the percieved harm.

Then theres the view that gender identity is hiding a lot of individual and society ills and power dynamics and needs reining in.

The clown on a bus is just gender unconformity or outlandish fashion isnt it? But thats not the issue for most who are opposed to DFW view in the UK. Some may take the piss, but everyone has seen enough fashion trends and GNC to be unfazed.

She's imagining a country that has had youth trends and fashion for decades, as being against youth trends and fashion. Its not, its that people dont get the leap from GNC to actually changing sex.

And no society has. Different societies have had different ways of dealing with GNC, gay people and to a far lesser extend DSD, but none have actual believe in a sex soul by just self id alone.

You don't get to self describe your personality.
You can hold beliefs about your personality that bare no relation to how others experience you.

You can self describe as funny, kind, compassionate or brave but other people may not see you this way at all and don't have to pretend they think you are funny or kind.

The key thing is you cannot force others to perceive you how you want to be perceived.

We've come to incorrectly view identity as a internal feeling when really it is socially constructed and agreed within relationship to others.
Eg I feel funny and you laughing at my jokes. Therfore we agree I am funny.

I think an individual gets to say how they feel or describe their personality, but there is no other situation where you can identify as something that is actually someone else’s reality, and means identifying out of a a category you are actually unchangeably in, AND have that taken seriously and be given a different group’s rights and be put in their category even when that’s clearly dangerous and unfair.

I know there are people who identify as a different ethnicity, age eg a baby, or as disabled. And self-ID is now going on quite a lot with autism and ADHD in some circles. But AFAIK you can’t use your self-ID to get access to a nursery or sports category, get benefits, prizes or medicine on the basis of self ID.

The exception to this might be in arts contexts where people do self-ID as disabled, ND etc and there are awards and grants for under-represented groups that will basically ask if you identify as disabled or neurodiverse. I don’t think they check and there are quite a lot of grifters in this field IME but generally it’s just as beneficial and box-ticking to identify as NB (sorry old cynic here).

NB is an interesting one as you’re not identifying into someone else’s protected category, but it’s also logically nonsensical as no one is non-binary in sex, but almost everyone is non-binary in gender expression so “gender non-binary” actually means just like most people. (I’m considerably more “gender non-binary” than plenty of self-declared NB people I’ve met…)

Her examples and analogies that I heard (didn’t listen past the first 35 mins) were flawed.

The fact she is woefully misinformed about the Australian Aborigines and how their own techniques changed the forests of Australia over time to be the fire loving selection there is now shows she doesn’t do any depth of research into what she then leverages for credibility. Yet people obviously listened and just nodded along.