Today it's Amnesty Internation on Woman's Hour to discuss the Supreme Court judgment

This doesn't even link in the most tenuous way, but I love it, so here it is!

Brilliant!

I love a good mashup.

This one has the word 'toxins' in it, so I reckon it counts. 😁

This is my favourite Britney mashup.
Enjoy!

It seems that this debate is being had with people who aren't capable of thinking in complex terms about anything.

Instead of understanding that true inclusivity actually depends on a degree of exclusivity (in order to be properly inclusive to women, we sometimes need to keep men out) - they think 'inclusivity' had to mean open to all comers.

Instead of looking at what's good for society at large they think they should 'be kind' to whoever is shouting the loudest or elicits the most social 'credit'.

I am, like Kathleen Stock, getting sick of how god damn thick (and shallow) many on the TRA side appear to be.

That is in-fucking-credible. Thank you - I will be watching that on repeat for the rest of the evening!

I listened to Savha this evening and I’m completely baffled. What document did he read? Why is he giving legal advice? I think I’ll email WH to say that they need to add a clarification to the episode that the SC judgement is 88 pages and maybe give a link to where to find it? It’s not as difficult to understand as Sacha made out to be- but clearly we were reading different documents….

Why did they intervene in the SC case then? If it’s not important to their work?

And when are they going to publish their contribution? And who wrote it for them? Were they the new Mermaids Trojan horse type move?

Tell us more please or a link?

They're the BeKind equivalent of the geniuses who breeze in to say "Cancel the cheque!" on Page 9 of Thread 12, apparently believing that they are the very first person to have thought of the absolutely blinding obvious despite the situation having gone on for a decade and so starry-eyed in their eagerness to share this nugget of wisdom with the world that they can't waste a moment reading the bloody thread.

Try this one. 😎

Yes we got a reply but as you'd expect the focus was on the men and how awful life was for them - woman's rights seem less important to AI, we don't see the trans debate as something AI should be involved in - there are so many other more pressing issues around the world - hence we have cancelled our membership.

Your username LOLOLOL

I'm late to this party, but just want to make it clear that this applies to absolutely no one.

Did you get a reply to your letter @Hotbathcoldknees ?
I feel that Amnesty have really lost their way.

I think one of the things that winds me up most is those posters who come on here to have a pop

they call everyone transphobic, witter on about how lovely they are wanting gender neutral spaces as well as female own spaces, completely failing to understand that thats what the vast majority of us want and have been saying for fucking years

why the fuck do some posters on here think they have invented the

We used to be AI supporters - we have donated for 30 years. We wrote to them to question why women's rights were not important to them and how this is their battle. When he was asked by Anita how his supporters viewed the SC's decision, I doubt we were alone in feeling infuriated by AI's involvement but ignored as usual.

I know right!

I'm positively fricking restrained

Sometimes I even have to take some swearing out. 😁

Holy fuck.

Why would you embarrass yourself like this? You are a grown woman, hitting those keys and coming out like a child in a high school playground. You don't agree with me - that's fine, but there is no need to spit venom, sarcasm and childishness out in response

Off to join you looking for some shiny things girl

you go first

Haha!!

That's the other thing that TRAs will never get. The solidarity on here. 😁

Sarcasm, granted. Venom - where? Childishness - not what I'd call it, but JazzyJelly's reponse to you was entirely deserved. May I suggest that you turn your superior intellect to re-reading your own posts critically?

The other day on here some poster told Datun to educate herself as she apparently knew nothing about this topic - I came over all Michael Corleone saying to Moe Green, "You straightened my brother out?". You told Datun to educate herself???

And this is why language is so important.
So to be clear for the 'be kind' people, if places, services, sports etc say they are 'women only', but define 'women' as meaning both 'women' and 'transwomen', women's rights then apply to both women and men.
Which makes a mockery of women's rights. The whole point of equality legislation is to help create a level playing field, not to give males extra rights. That doesn't mean that transwomen can be discriminated against because they have extra rights under the relevant part of the Equality Act relating to gender reassignment. But they can't also have women's rights.As they are male.

I’ve just listened.

What a load of word salad and nonsense.
Re the nurses, he seemed to think everyone is entitled to privacy but nobody should ever be excluded. I’d love to know how on earth he thinks that can be achieved.

If men want to attack, they will - and the kind that do this, from my experience, aren't going to go to the trouble (or humiliation) of wearing a dress.

Sex crimes frequently go hand in hand with paraphilias such as humiliation or dressing as the opposite sex. It is not uncommon for paraphilias to escalate as the perpetrator seeks out ever more extreme boundaries to transgress (as the old ones stop giving him thrills).

I knew someone like this, mostly indirectly, and he's now in prison for the abuse of a very young child. There was a pattern leading up to his arrest that started with him stealing the clothes of female family members, then wearing them, then various other more extreme paraphilias, and then finally CSA.