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

Mine of that was the situation GL put forward so it's a straw man argument.

Equality.

If GC people are going to be visited at home for reeducation by the police or arrested for wrongthink, i want every single tran who has involved himself in threats of death, hanging, assault, and rape whether this be online or via placard to be treated in exactly the same way.

Interesting that your defence of his wording seems to be that it's reasonable to punch someone (as long as you have done two other things first).

here's the thing. I had a man force me into a train toilet - well, first blocked the door and wouldn'T let me out then pushed me in - i asked him to leave me alone, i screamed at him to leave me alone and screamed for help. Then i punched him in the throat because i couldn't get away (while the train staff stood around umming and ahhing about calling the police). And then when he moved so i could get out, they ASKED HIM IF THEY WANTED THEM TO CALL THE POLICE ON ME. At which point several other passengers pointed out the error of their ways and suggested they call the police for me.

Which didn't happen so the fucker got away.

So my advice to anyone in that position - note i took previous actions to stop someone pushing me into a space - is to punch them in the adam's apple.

You are going to say that i'm inciting violence?

So say a man enters the female toilets or changing rooms where I might be semi undressed, he won't leave when I ask him, or when I call the police. I cannot escape because he is between me and the door.

Say this hypothetical man comes towards me. I don't know if he is going to attack me, or maybe since we are doing a hypothetical scenario, lets say he does attack me. I scream he doesn't stop or leave. I use my phone to dial 999 and he doesn't stop or leave.

Lets say I am one of the few women for whom the instinctive response is not flight or fawn, but fight and I try to fight him off, possibly managing to land a punch to the balls... you wouldn't condone my violence?

What do you think I should do in that situation? Just let him do whatever he likes to me? Ok then...

Fucking hell!

I'm glad you were ok. Well you wouldn't have been ok, but I'm sure you know what I mean. They asked him if he wanted them to call the police on you?! Some people are fucking stupid!

I'm sorry that happened to you, that would have been terrifying and afterwards I'm sure you were furious and upset at everyone's reaction too, which only makes it worse!

Why do you keep referring to LGBT people? LGB people can be GC too. I'm not aware of Linehan having a problem with LGB people. The term you need is Trans.

They want any LGBT person or supporter who makes a threat of violence arrested? Correct? For an example there was Sarah Jane Barker who made a "if you see a TERF, punch 'em in the face!" comment. There was a Glasgow protest where someone held up a cardboard sign with a guillotine crudely drawn with a crayon and "decapacitate TERFs" or something scrawled. These happened years ago and to this day the GC community still talk about and refer to them and say they should have been arrested/charged/convicted.

For another example a trans person a while back jokingly posted something like "let's give KJK a NZ welcome" on twitter which then led to a lot of angry GC people from here making police reports and brigading them (someone posted a link on here and lots went over to be abusive directly to her).

And then Graham Linehan threatens to/incites others to punch trans people in their genitalia (not his first time btw, he has a long track record of threatening and inciting abuse and violence towards LGBT people and their supporters), and yet these same GC people flock to twitter to say that it's "free speech" and "people shouldn't be arrested for online communications".

So what is it to be? If you want LGBT people arrested and charged for threats then GL would need charged too.

If you want GL to have a "legal pass" to make threats then that means it should be the same for all including LGBT people and allies.

Whatever the law is it needs to apply to everyone equally. You can't have one rule for GCs and another rule for LGBT people and allies.

Shout fire - it’s more effective at getting a response

Interesting that your defence of his wording seems to be that it's reasonable to punch someone (as long as you have done two other things first).

here's the thing. I had a man force me into a train toilet - well, first blocked the door and wouldn'T let me out then pushed me in - i asked him to leave me alone, i screamed at him to leave me alone and screamed for help. Then i punched him in the throat because i couldn't get away (while the train staff stood around umming and ahhing about calling the police). And then when he moved so i could get out, they ASKED HIM IF THEY WANTED THEM TO CALL THE POLICE ON ME. At which point several other passengers pointed out the error of their ways and suggested they call the police for me.

Which didn't happen so the fucker got away.

So my advice to anyone in that position - note i took previous actions to stop someone pushing me into a space - is to punch them in the adam's apple.

You are going to say that i'm inciting violence?

I'm trying to figure out who "free speech" and laws on malicious/threatening communications should apply to. The entire population or only for certain people?

Which one is it?

If the tweet went too far, what should happen? There has to be consequences of going too far, otherwise its not too far, its just something you wouldnt have written.

We are forgetting what we knew 10 years ago. It isnt appropriate for men to be in womens toilets, its intimidating at the very least. It was very normal, in this situation, to advise women and girls to kick the man in the balls and run.

If the tweet went too far, what should happen? There has to be consequences of going too far, otherwise its not too far, its just something you wouldnt have written.

We are forgetting what we knew 10 years ago. It isnt appropriate for men to be in womens toilets, its intimidating at the very least. It was very normal, in this situation, to advise women and girls to kick the man in the balls and run.

I didn’t read it as a joke, but whatever my opinion is that the tweet went too far and I’m entitled to that.
I have also said that GL shouldn’t have been arrested for it.
There is a difference between punching someone in the balls if they are actually attacking you, as in the case of the Queen, and punching someone just for being in a toilet (as much as I don’t want any men in the ladies ever)

I don't think anyone should be punching anyone and I don't think anyone should be suggesting it even as a last resort.

And I said "suggestion of violence in his tweet" in his tweet, not "violence in his tweet".

Interesting that your defence of his wording seems to be that it's reasonable to punch someone (as long as you have done two other things first). His defence was that it was a joke based on the relative height of women v men. So, despite the fact that he actually wrote it, you seem to think he had a different motivation than he claims.

Obviously, as you would see if you read my post rather than just jumping down my throat, I also abhor the call to violence against "TERFS". As I said, I don't think anyone should incite (autocorrect error in my original) violence.

They - we - want the same rules about threats of violence to be applied to everyone. But a suggestion of violence as a last resort against a man insisting on entering a female-only space is not the same as advocating violence against anyone who holds an opinion with which you disagree.

We want trans people to obey the law, and not try to unilaterally change the meaning of the word "woman" while trying to prevent the matter even being discussed.

We want to be able to say what the vast majority of people in the world know, and have always known - that other than the tiny proportion of unfortunate people with DSDs humans come in two sexes and cannot change from one to the other - without being accused of being hateful bigots.

We want female-only spaces, sports, awards and opportunities, all of which were created for a good reason, to remain for females only.

We want recognition that gender ideology, with its insistence on old-fashioned gender stereotypes, is not progressive but regressive. A man who wants to present in ways traditionally associated with women should be able to do so without having to deny that he’s a man.

We want an end to the imbecilic idea that if the mantra "trans women are women" is repeated often enough it will suddenly become true. We want acknowledgement that transwomen are a sub-category of men.

But you knew all that.

And if you could put a smile on your face whilst he does it that would be grand.

So say a man enters the female toilets or changing rooms where I might be semi undressed, he won't leave when I ask him, or when I call the police. I cannot escape because he is between me and the door.

Say this hypothetical man comes towards me. I don't know if he is going to attack me, or maybe since we are doing a hypothetical scenario, lets say he does attack me. I scream he doesn't stop or leave. I use my phone to dial 999 and he doesn't stop or leave.

Lets say I am one of the few women for whom the instinctive response is not flight or fawn, but fight and I try to fight him off, possibly managing to land a punch to the balls... you wouldn't condone my violence?

What do you think I should do in that situation? Just let him do whatever he likes to me? Ok then...

They want any LGBT person or supporter who makes a threat of violence arrested? Correct? For an example there was Sarah Jane Barker who made a "if you see a TERF, punch 'em in the face!" comment. There was a Glasgow protest where someone held up a cardboard sign with a guillotine crudely drawn with a crayon and "decapacitate TERFs" or something scrawled. These happened years ago and to this day the GC community still talk about and refer to them and say they should have been arrested/charged/convicted.

For another example a trans person a while back jokingly posted something like "let's give KJK a NZ welcome" on twitter which then led to a lot of angry GC people from here making police reports and brigading them (someone posted a link on here and lots went over to be abusive directly to her).

And then Graham Linehan threatens to/incites others to punch trans people in their genitalia (not his first time btw, he has a long track record of threatening and inciting abuse and violence towards LGBT people and their supporters), and yet these same GC people flock to twitter to say that it's "free speech" and "people shouldn't be arrested for online communications".

So what is it to be? If you want LGBT people arrested and charged for threats then GL would need charged too.

If you want GL to have a "legal pass" to make threats then that means it should be the same for all including LGBT people and allies.

Whatever the law is it needs to apply to everyone equally. You can't have one rule for GCs and another rule for LGBT people and allies.

youve never heard of SING

solsr plexus
instep
nose
groin

its a technique used in self defence. I’d I’m cornered by a large man who is where he has no business to be and won’t leave when asked, of course I’ll feel threatened. What innocent reason can a male be in female facilities for if he’s not maintenance or a cleaner?

I don't think anyone should be punching anyone and I don't think anyone should be suggesting it even as a last resort.

And I said "suggestion of violence in his tweet" in his tweet, not "violence in his tweet".

Interesting that your defence of his wording seems to be that it's reasonable to punch someone (as long as you have done two other things first). His defence was that it was a joke based on the relative height of women v men. So, despite the fact that he actually wrote it, you seem to think he had a different motivation than he claims.

Obviously, as you would see if you read my post rather than just jumping down my throat, I also abhor the call to violence against "TERFS". As I said, I don't think anyone should incite (autocorrect error in my original) violence.

Indeed. And I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Glinner criticise the LGB. Just the actions of some of the T.