Girl Guides and the SC judgement

Thanks Swirly, and Marie
Although we know it is overwhelmingly men who commit these offences (whether trans identified or not) there will be someone along in a minute to say ' but women.....'

And I have never been abused, threatened or harrassed by a lesbian or bisexual woman. Been hugged by quite a few though ☺️

Thank you for picking up on that slur against lesbians and bisexual women - I'm just catching up on this thread and thought that user08101988 had got away with it.

Sexual abuse of children is overwhelmingly done by men.
Sometimes because they are paedophiles, sometimes because children are just easier to get at than grown women.

There is a small number of women who sexually abuse children, but the subset who are also lesbian or bisexual must be very small indeed. The likelihood of a lesbian or bisexual woman taking up a role in the Guides to 'look at little girls that way' is statistically unlikely, whereas there is sadly a lot of evidence of men becoming sports coaches, teachers, clergymen, etc etc to get access to children.

The evidence is clear too. Trans women who have had investigative brain scans show that their brains are basically identical to that of a woman (with slight variation because we are all different).

So men who pretend to be women have exactly the same brains as women except for the bits that are different.

Out of interest, how do they know which peoples brains to scan for the "woman" baseline, to compare to men pretending to be women brains?

Opps autocorrect removed an i and I missed it😔

This thread has been incredibly useful, in that it has brought this magnificent video to my attention. Thank you for your service @SqueakyDinosaur 🦖

3rd also gives you the dative plural haggibus. So to or for the hagges on public transport.

It's a winner for me. i am definitely for hagges on public transport as i tend to bring mine back from M&S on the bus.

Subject. Os could be plural object 2nd declension, but I'm sticking with 3rd.

But is it subject or object? Might the plural be haggos?

Well I've decided haggis is actually from the 3rd declension, like civis.

So the plural is hagges.

Which sounds like the bunch of witches we are.

I think you'll find it's haggii...

<gavel>

Obtuse?

Same. I have never had to take a minute of my (perhaps equally long) life thinking about the potential risk that a woman - straight/lesbian/bisexual/any - poses to me sexually.

Men, on the other hand...

a) "Men who self identify as women" are also known as trans women or, even simpler, women. Since GG is for "all girls" (quote from their website) that includes ALL WOMEN.

"Men who self identify as women" are not known as women, except to a teeny-tiny minority. The rest of us known them as transwomen, trans-identified men, or more plainly, as men.

Incidentally, my friend calls her hens her "girls". Should GG accept hens as members, do you think?

b). It is also well documented that trans women do not pose a threat to cis women in women-only spaces.

Bollocks. It is well-known that they do pose a risk, and also that risk is not the only factor - we can have women-only spaces for privacy, for dignity, or just because we want to.

c) If you are going to say "What if they are men and just want to look at little girls in a sexual way?" then should we prohibit lesbians or bisexual women from volunteering

Never in my long life has a lesbian or a bisexual woman verbally abused me, sexually harassed me, or posed any other kind of threat to me.

I love how women everywhere here appear to have honed their arguments and just reached a conclusion. It's not just FWR.

There's far less of the - if they've had the surgery, or maybe toilets but not sport, and much more of the fuck off, you wankers. And if you really want to know why, here's all my reasons.

Logic, statistics, studies, but at the end of the day it's because we said so.

Courage calls, and all that. And it really bloody has.

Yeah. BB, there is so much misinformation in that it is remarkable.

but you know .... the way the posts are set out does seem that we have seen that very recently. The misinformation just plopped all in one post and never evidenced and it is the same points.

this feels like a repeat.

And I missed the other thread due to work...

He started on this one. Then started the other, then disappeared

It was derailed by the male op of that thread, who was advised to start another one.

Is this some weird duplicate thread of the "Trans women are women thread?" I'm getting confused.

I do, however, have the patience of an angle! 😁😇

And let's not forget the patience!

Not me, but some posters have the patience of a 😇

Totally, and who can parse it for those of us who are much more of a humanities bent, without being sneery. We all know more about SRY etc than we did, for example. It's very educational, in a good way.

My DH asks why I spend so much time on MN. My answer is that it is full to the rafters with some of the cleverest, most articulate, well-read women I have ever come across - all in one place. What is there not to love?!

That was one of the things that stood out to me when I first started reading this board a few years ago - that posters DID read the links and DID comb through the quoted papers and DID pick apart the statistics and information. With knowledge and expertise!

I love the way the evidence is examined. It was (and is) a rare thing on social media, where most people spend about 3 seconds reading a post, if that.

Or mum called him for lunch.

I do adore it when TRAs post scientific papers as some sort of gotcha without having read them. Or having misunderstood them completely. And then get ripped to shreds by people with actual science qualifications. Or the ability to read.

<Shudders>

Achieved satisfaction quickly perhaps🙄