Trump team to stop family-planning funding as it reviews whether it’s being used for DEI programs

I mean, let's face it. Women's reproductive rights have advantages for men too.

So left leaning men supported women's rights when there was something in it for them.

But the second they have to choose between women's rights and what the bros wanted, they stand with the bros.

Thanks a bunch lads 🙄

Wow this thread is incredible. No awareness at all of the harms that the left has done to women, both here and in the USA.

Women who believe that it is a feminist position that human being can't change sex and that there are times where that really matters to safeguard women and children are not responsible for Trump's policies.

We had this time and time again, as another poster pointed out, in the lead up to the last election here. Yet this current 'left wing' UK government is introducing policies that disproportionately harm women and we're still supposed to some how believe that left wing = amazing for women's rights.

I'm 50 this year. I've always voted Labour and supported the Democrats, I definitely do not support Trump or approve of many many things that the Tories represent but I'm not so fucking blinkered to think that the only way a feminist can do feminism properly is blindly follow the tune of the 'left'. I was brought up to think critically and that's what I do. I'm pissed off that at my age I would rather not vote because all of the options are horrific for women, yet here we are!

None of the TRAs on here have been prepared to say that the right to so-called 'trans health care' is the price to pay for women's reproductive rights which tells me everything I need to know about how feminist they are. Yet we are supposed to concede the very definition of womanhood in order to have the right to reproductive rights, hell no! And if those posters think that they are the feminists then they are very very misguided.

As has been pointed out the Democrats have only ever used reproductive rights as a carrot to dangle for the female vote. That they can't see that , and the left's insistence to promote the rights of males to encroach on women's boundaries, is directly responsible for the current status quo astounds me. Roe v Wade was overturned during a Democratic administration. There is none so blind as those who will not see.

If anyone thinks that incarcerating men with women is a great developmemt
for women, then god help us all. 🙄

Yep.

If you want to get the measure of a man
(however he identifies) just try saying "no" to him. It is very revealing.

Yep. Males think women saying NO to them is 'hate'. Many of these transwomen think calling them a male is 'hate' and saying no to them being in our spaces is 'hate', on one survey transwomen listed looking at them strangely is 'hate'.

So we can see that males are much more likely to feel entitled and cry 'hate' than females are. It doesn't mean they are more likely than females to be attacked or abused, it just means these males are more forthright and entitled and feel if they don't get what they want it's 'hate' when it isn't. There has never been one single report of a transwoman being attacked in a male toilet, and if there was, they would rub our faces in it and never let us forget it. Ever. Yet there are literally hundreds of reports of transwomen attacking females in toilets and female facilities.

Entitled males whingeing that a female called him a man = 'hate' = 'hate crime' and therefore we get links that say males receive more hate than females. Only an idiot can't see through it.

From the Williams Institute link:
"One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women."
I'd say we need an awful lot more consciousness raising for the liberation of the female state!!

Just on the 'transwomen are 4 times more at risk of sexual assault than ACTUAL women' it's a long-debunked lie with no valid studies and the williams 'institute' themselves admitted the stats weren't reliable. To say a big strapping built like a brick shithouse male is more at risk than actual women and girls, because he is wearing a dress, is batshit fucking ridiculous.

In deed and in fact, transwomen commit sexual offences 5 times greater than other males, and are more likely to murder than be murdered.

Actual facts and statistics show transwomen are far more dangerous than other males who identify as men.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime/context-and-characteristics-hostility-towards-sexual-orientation-and-transgender-identity

A lot of those statistics refer to homophobia. Something we know if rife amongst those who promote gender ideology.

But of the other figures, compare them to sexual harassment and sexual assault of women and girls. Girls in school do not even bother to report it as it is so normalised. And of course ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate incidents’ do not exist for crimes and incidents motivated based on sex - mostly because they are too commonplace that police forces would be rapidly overwhelmed.

The claim was trans identified people are at a vastly greater risk of being assaulted - this is not true.

You can add Ireland to that. I think when the gender recognition act was passed in Ireland that there was something like 15% of female representation in the Irish parliament. It was a bit more than Iran, though. So, Ireland is better for women than Iran I’d say. It’s moved a little, but doesn’t really get over 25%.

Oh, and men got to change their birth certs to say they were women even before women could get an abortion when their very life was in danger. It took Savita dying to make it an issue, and a constitutional referendum for that. No big public input for the lads to have access to spaces where women and possibly children were. Representation on the ‘citizens assembly’ seems to be a little skewed and even the meagre safeguarding measures that they recommended were not put in to the legislation. I mean it is not as if there were recent experiences of men being drawn to easy access to women and children in Ireland in the past or anything. No Magdalene laundries abuses or child sex abuse scandals and inquiries which recommended safeguarding measures which are being thrown aside.

The Symphysiotomy scandals in early to mid C20th where Irish women had their pelvic joints sawn by male obstetricians rather than do a Caesarian which every developed country was doing at the time. Procedures which left women in pain and incontinent. Scandals of obstetricians carrying out hysterectomies needlessly and without prior consent taking away women’s fertility.

And I wouldn’t buy the marketing of the progressive bros. They wouldn’t see women as being as fully human as men with corresponding civil rights. I remember Leo Varadkar gave an interview where he said he was against abortion in cases of rape and incest. He said it would lead to abortion on demand. Sure I suppose you couldn’t be up to what those sly women would claim, eh? These guys volte face is a case of thinking it looked good and ‘progressive’. It made them look good on the world stage. Of course under Varadkars leadership, women in Limerick prison were locked up with the man ‘Barbie Kardashian. This Alessandro Gentile (aka Barbie Kardashian) dude threatened and assaulted women before other women then were locked up with him. In court recently for threatening to rape one of the women in prison with an object. No consequences for him, I seem to remember. How progressive, and plus ca change!

There was a trade in the babies of women who gave birth out of wedlock (this could be abuse - rape or incest even). These babies had their Birth Certificates falsified and packed off to be adopted in the US in exchange for money. Now the laws over surrogacy is being altered. I think this was to advantage men in same sex relationships. So women and babies in another country will be exploited, traded as goods and their human rights abused this time.

The political system is just staid. Lots of parish pump and vested interests, and milking the system. Nobody ever seems to be held to account. Elections don’t seem to matter anymore. You don’t even get Tweedledum OR Tweedledee any more. It seems to be both of the main parties together in a coalition and they switch around the leader of the government half way through the term.

That all sounds cynical. It is a lovely country and ordinary people are fine. The tax subsidised proliferation of NGO lobby groups are expansive and they seem to have an influence over and above what they should have. I won’t go on.

And, of course, just because a man claims to be a woman (or whatever else rather than the reality of his sex) doesn’t mean he is less likely to commit male pattern violence than men who don’t claim to be anything other than their real sex.

Indeed, I read somewhere that men who claim to be women have a higher percentage of their convictions for sex crimes than other men. I don’t know if the numbers are statistically meaningful. Irrespective, how abhorrent to then lock up women (against their will) with those male sex offenders. All a male sex offender has to say is ‘I’m a woman’ and he gets loose on the very victims he has been convicted of assaulting. Some punishment, it’s more of a reward giving him potential new victims who are trapped and cannot get away. It’s a special cruelty towards women, in my view.

@PippistrelleBat overuse of some figures in the past doesn't mean that trans people aren't at high risk of violence and harassment - CPS figures here I believe most though not all violence against trans people originates in homophobia. It does nothing for being GC or for womens rights in my view to pretend that people presenting as gender nonconforming don't get beaten up and threatened in the UK.

And of course you will be aware that trans people are at vastly greater risk of being assaulted themselves, with some US studies indicating they are 4 times more likely to be assaulted than non trans people and UK studies indicating they are twice as likely.

Please link the studies you are referring to as none of the studies TRAs have shown so far show that to be true. And we know trans people are an order of magnitude less likely to be murdered than the rest of the population, even in areas with high murder rates like South America.

Transactivists never acknowledge anything that challenges their simplistic belief that men can magically become women. That's why they spend so much time on here lecturing and patronising women with irrelevant "studies" and data.

Gaslighting, coercive control and magical thinking all employed in an attempt to drown out the challenging issues that women have to confront about our own safety and the safety of children.

Well that is a big concession for this board..."the societal effect may be barely discernible", thank you for this acknowledgement.

It’s not an acknowledgement that no harm is caused, just that it’s not noticed, because people are not paying attention. And it’s not a justification for saying that it doesn’t matter.

The countries that are doing well for transpeople are the countries that are doing well for women. The countries that are doing well for women are the countries that are doing well for transpeople.

Apart, of course, for those women who are hurt or disadvantaged by the trans phenomenon, those who you clearly think don’t matter.

The countries that are doing well for transpeople are the countries that are doing well for women. The countries that are doing well for women are the countries that are doing well for transpeople.

New Zealand. Spain. Malta. Examples of countries with self-ID which are very problematic for women.

Well that is a big concession for this board..."the societal effect may be barely discernable", thank you for this acknowledgement.

This is an important point in the world we live in today, when for eg. we have many posters here declaring proudly that they are single issue voters, and they "will vote for whichever party knows what a woman is".

Invariably these parties who "know what a woman is" and their politicians, rank very poorly on all those areas you have correctly identified as being central to women's wellbeing; they tend to score poorly on commitment to women's reproductive rights, women in the workforce, women's maternity rights and childcare support, support for the evolving rights of women and minorities.

So I am glad you agree that voting in such a way is detrimental for women, as these are the areas that significantly impact on women's equality and wellbeing, and the issue of self-ID is negligible in comparison.

I disagree on some of your individual points and also note that you do not acknowledge the harms that occur through anti-trans policies.

So for eg. "Lesbians who are coerced into having sexual relations with men who say they are women" I mean you appear to be talking about sexual assault and rape there? I think you will find that the vast majority of trans people, like the vast majority of non trans folk, have no interest in sexual assault or rape. No need to repeat transphobic tropes.

And of course you will be aware that trans people are at vastly greater risk of being assaulted themselves, with some US studies indicating they are 4 times more likely to be assaulted than non trans people and UK studies indicating they are twice as likely. Countries that create a supportive culture for trans people reduce these harms to them. And they do this simultaneously to rising to the top of and staying at the the top of the international tables for women's equality with men.

The countries that are doing well for transpeople are the countries that are doing well for women. The countries that are doing well for women are the countries that are doing well for transpeople.

How do you know what women’s equality with men is in countries that have implemented Self-ID laws?

Once a country introduces Self ID it becomes impossible to say anything about sex equality as there will no longer BE any measures of women’s achievement or equality.

We have no idea how women are doing in New Zealand of Finland as there is now no record of this.

But that still doesn't answer the question I have posed ...can you explain why, if self-ID is so harmful to women, the countries that that have implemented it are rising to and staying at the top of the equality tables rather than dropping down?

Because all the other factors vastly outweigh the malign effects of genderism.

However, this does not mean that those malign effects do not impact on individuals or groups in many detrimental or harmful ways, for example:

• Young gender-confused women who are possibly autistic or suffering from MH problems, who are wrongly put on medicalised pathways to transition
• Girls in schools and other organisations, having to endure boys in spaces that should be private for them
• Women and girls in sports having to compete with (and possibly be injured by) males
• Lesbians who are coerced into having sexual relations with men who say they are women
• Women working in health care or the prison service who are obliged to treat men as women if they say they are, or forfeit their jobs
• Academics who are prevented from speaking the truth, again risking their livelihoods if they do

And so on. The societal effect may be barely discernible, but the effect on those individuals and small groups can be devastating.

Nominal equality measured by limited criteria does not = actual equality in the real world.

Surveys which leave out VAWG, maternal health, women's health, the pay and promotion gap between the sexes, costs, responsibility and career sacrifice in terms of child and elder care and care for the disabled, mean sweet FA.

Unlike your 'I have inferred no causal effect', but you wimmin still have to explain why there is one.

Even tho you 'don't need to demonstrate any causal effect', because it's only about 'the big picture evidence' and that 'having gender self ID laws does not appear to be detrimental for women'.

Denying you're trying to find a causal effect by talking about big picture and what things appear to be, and then demanding women refute it!

What's really desperate is trying to use unrelated and misrepresented stats from another country to undermine women here.

It's so pointless. But you're like a dog with a bone over it.

Because quite apart from anything else connected to your non-argument the women here say no.

In this country the answer is no, absolutely not, forget it, no way jose. Men have to stay out of women's spaces. The end.

Using irrelevant stats from somewhere else, really isn't going to change that.

Well, apart from repeating the seemingly enduring lie that I have said there is a causal relationship, I would tend to agree with much of what you have said here.

But that still doesn't answer the question I have posed ...can you explain why, if self-ID is so harmful to women, the countries that that have implemented it are rising to and staying at the top of the equality tables rather than dropping down?

Thanks for putting into words what my brain was struggling to organise!