I'm confused what gender critical people want. Could someone clarify?

TRAs: make vile and genuine threats towards women in person , nothing happens
Terfs: make one joke that could be construed as mildly threatening i suppose, on twitter, gets arrested by 5 armed police officers

OP: why isn’t this going down well i’m so confuuuused

I think the word “confused” is doing some serious stretching here.

I am GC and generally agree with Graham Linehan but I think this particular tweet went too far.
Do I agree that he needed to be arrested by 5 armed police officers over it though- no absolutely not.
I would be saying that if it was someone on the “other side” too.
I think it’s laughable to say the police don’t have double standards when it comes to this debate too, loads of people questioned by police over stating biological fact and personal opinion, it’s frightening.

Hahah! That’s one’s the worse- so cringey.

I don’t believe you are genuinely confused. I think you believe you have found a “gotcha” moment.

But on the very slim chance you are genuinely confused, the answer is: for the same rules to apply to all. Either those suspected of inciting violence on both sides are arrested, or neither are.

You plainly lack critical thinking in any event. If (some) GC women are so awful for calling for arrests of TRAs who threaten them while wishing their own side not be arrested for what they say, surely the reverse applies too? Presumably you are just as confused by TRAs who called for GL to be arrested not asking the same of their own group who have said similar or worse things on Twitter etc? Not quite the same “gotcha” for some unexplained reason…

Your wish is my command

This. We are mean for never mentioning this and keeping poor OP in the dark!

If only there was some way to read the thousands of threads by GC people stating exactly what we want! I guess, like "what a woman is", there's just no way of knowing.

Quite. The wide-eyed disingenuity over and over and over again is incredibly fucking tedious.

"But WHYYYYY?"

Because men are not women and cannot become women, and therefore have no right to be in women-only spaces under any circumstances. It is as simple as that.

"if you see a TERF, punch 'em in the face!"

If i stood on the street with any of the following signs, I would be arrested and everyone would say I deserved it because it was totally unacceptable. I would be considered a lunatic.

"if you see a muslim, punch 'em in the face!"
"if you see a homesexual, punch 'em in the face!"

But TERF is okay?

To make it clear, no one should be at threat of being punched in the face.

The reason you don't know what we want is because you don't engage with a word we say.

You believe that sex is real and that it can matter as much as the next GC person, but you dishonestly pretend you don't.

for any potentially non-peaked lurkers.

For the record: I am not gender critical. I am sex realist. I think "gender" is a social construct to restrict people's lives and i want no part of that. I'm a second wave feminist. Gender (stereotypes) can get in the bin.

You aren't confused at all.

You have a firmly held opinion that you are expressing in a faux 'cutesy' way that you erroneously think will make those of us who are biological sex realists realise we are wrong.

I’m gender critical and all I want is for the nonsense to stop. Trans people can and should be able to live private lives in safety and express themselves safely in public within the bounds of the law. Sex matters though and women should be able to access single-sex provisions without worrying that male people will be using those provisions. Public services should not be captured by ideology but should follow the law around providing safe spaces for sex segregated provision, and where appropriate, for trans provision. No one (tra or terf) should be permitted to incite violence against another group - everyone should be permitted free speech around their beliefs and not subject to arrest or censure for them.

I don’t want men in women’s single sex spaces.

He has always admitted to being “trans woman” i.e. a man. Once upon a time he claimed to be a woman because of his womanly feelz. So many posters contradicted him that he seems to have given up the pretence.

LGB people are not the ones who are causing a problem for women but are actively disadvantaged and discriminated against along with all women, by the T, that's trans, btw. It is TiMs and their allies who are making the threats and demanding that reality be ignored and replaced by fantasy. The rest of us live in the real world.
And anyway you know the answer to your question because you are all over these boards with the same ones. Go look a the answers @Christinapple

Absolutely. Trans identified men see the world through men's eyes and through the prism of male experience precisely because they are men. We women have had experiences they have not.

The very fact that they cannot understand why women do not want to share spaces with men, even if those men call themselves female names, dress as they imagine women do and/or make efforts to change their appearance through hormones or surgery, is just proving their maleness.

He's confused as to what women want tbf

I agree, Catiette. This is an important point that the OP is missing - Linehan suggested, probably not entirely seriously, direct action against a man who was in a single sex space, who had been challenged about it and asked to leave, and who had refused to do so.

This means the man hasn't accidentally wandered in to the wrong toilet, he isn't there 'just to pee', he is in the women's toilet for some nefarious reason of his own, and his continued unwanted presence is causing a disturbance and a perceived threat to the comfort and safety of the women using the women's toilet.

At women's self-defence classes we are taught that the most effective way of defending ourselves against a threatening man is to target the most vulnerable area of his body. Linehan was probably referring to that advice.

He was not advocating randomly approaching any trans identifying man and punching him in the balls, unlike SJB who advocated approaching any GC woman and punching her in the face.

In short, the OP is not comparing like with like.

Have not RTFT. We want the TRAs to be quiet and get on with their lives without being all over everything all the time.

And we want them to stop using the wrong single sex spaces (to be clear: transwomen are men and should use the men's, transmen are women and should use the women's)

I want them to campaign for 3rd spaces where possible and for them to use them.

I want them to Let Women Speak without disrupting every time

I just want them to do what they say they want to do and get on, very very very quietly, with their lives.

Interesting you say that. I nearly said similar in my post. Defo thought it as I was typing.

I find him both amazing and problematic!

And that's part of the issue from the TRA side, they simply cannot understand that someone can do good things and still be flawed, and we don't cast them out into the wilderness for it. I don't agree with everything anyone says, doesn't mean a) I don't respect their right to have a different opinion or b) I feel the need to 'cancel' them to prove my own purity.

Off topic sorry but,

if tans women really are women they would understand how women feel, understand why we want single sex spaces and most of all no woman would threaten another woman with rape.

I dunno in this case. I think Chris raises a question others will be asking, and while many of us have a sufficiently strong enough sense of the difference between the two sets of posts given that the difference feels painfully self-evident, it can be quite useful to put into words why this is.

I found it helpful to kind of deconstruct - it really affirmed my instinctive reaction on this. Other posters have made the same and similar points.

It could be useful for fence-sitters and both-siders to have it laid out like this.

I want the law applied a) fairly and b) evenly. The law should also be proportionate so there is also an aspect that the current hate speech laws potentially need revisiting.

Either way, if it's not OK for Graham Linehan to tweet "A man who goes into a woman's changing room illegally should be punched in the balls" then it's not OK for Sarah Jane Baker (someone who has form for violence AND was on licence at the time) to shout in central London "If you see a TERF punch them in the fucking face".

Why are they treated differently?

A threat of violence is a threat of violence. We've all seen posters and placards at 'trans rights' rallies where there are threats of violence either to gender critical women in general ("Decapitate TERFs") or specifically, usually JK Rowling.

Why is nothing done about those?

I've run the gauntlet of protesters screaming obscenities, calling for death to women like me and holding pictures of guns.

The police stood by. Why is that?