Well, hello Emma Watson

Surely as a democratic society we have elected representatives who have enacted laws based upon the will of the people. Things like the Equality Act that recognise the need for single sex spaces.

If you want to change the law of the land you are welcome to campaign and petition like everyone else. Maybe try honestly this time rather no debate or misconstruing the law.

Until then your opinions on what makes a woman carries no weight

Did you actually read what Watson and the others said at the time about JK and how rude they were? To them JK was wrong, there was no tolerance then for them for those with differing views to them, JK was wrong, end of story

Now she changes her mind?

I find EW annoying and incoherent, and think she should just hire a driver, given she's rich.

But I find the response to her harsh, given that she's endorsing a worldview that we'll all have to adopt en route to actual all-round sanity. Which is that TWAW and TWANW are two different belief systems whose adherents can nevertheless hold each other in esteem and affection.

TWANW people think that TWAW people (of whom EW is still one)have mistaken beliefs that harm just about everyone, and can get pretty frustrated, and criticise the beliefs as misogynistic, homophobic etc.

But TRAs think that TWANW belief is morally disgusting and an actual crime (see the recent Helen Joyce thread). That's a big difference and EW is moving away from that.

A future in which TW stick to their beliefs, and their lifestyle, but accept constraints necessitated, not just by their sex, but by other people's knowledge of their sex, is not just pie in the sky, but the only feasible outcome. And that means encouraging a pluralistic approach, not pinning our hopes on deprogramming all the believers.

TL;DR every little helps.

Just because you as an individual declares that something negatively affects you - it doesn't follow that society must therefore automatically be organised in ways that also impact others. Surely you understand this basic principle?

So if a trans woman declares that having to use the male facilities negatively affects him - it doesn't follow that society must therefore automatically be organised in ways that also impact others?

I don't know, Lia exposed himself to his female teammates in the women's locker rooms and showers. That's not equivalent to rape on the spectrum of sexual misdemeanours, but I would say it was on the spectrum.

Don't be silly.

Real women should put up and shut up and accept that the world doesn't revolve around them.

Special trans women should be given everything they want, wrapped in a beautiful rainbow ribbon.

And that, my friend, is how we know they are men.

I have no doubt there are quite a few celebrities who promoted trans rights because they hadn't thought it through, and essentially saw it as an extension of gay rights. Then, when cases like Lia Thomas and Isla Bryson hit the news, they privately thought, "...oh. Maybe the women I called fascists actually had a point." But they were so vociferous in criticising GC women that now they don't know how to backtrack.

(Before anyone accuses me of lumping Lia Thomas in with a rapist - I'm not saying Thomas is anywhere near as bad as Bryson. But they both brought a lot of visibility to the consequences of pretending sex doesn't exist, and they both peaked a lot of people.)

So is that the same for transpeople then? You’re saying that transpeople complaining about feeling excluded should just accept society won’t bend to their will abd let them access spaces designated for the opposite sex?

Most people don't agree with this

Apart from anything else, here in the earthly realm, a space can't be simultaneously mixed sex and single sex.

I love that you've just admitted you disagree with science and reality.

There are 2 sexes, male and female. There are however many religions and belief systems, and if people wish to believe that they are a different, other sex, and if they wish to have different spaces for people identifying as this different sex, they are of course free to campaign for this.
That, however, doesn't change biology. So no discussion can ever sensibly be based on the premiss that there is a third sex that has to use female rights.
It's rather akin to the idea of teaching creationism under the auspices of 'science'.
Of course people have a right to believe in creationism and reject evolution. However, one is based on a belief system and one is based on science. No discussion about creationism 'versus' evolution can be had if we pretend that they are simply different opinions based on the same premiss. One is based on religion and one on science.

Hail Mulvaneys 😂

She cracks me up

Indeed.

Society shouldn't be organised around the clear wish of a majority of people to have single sex spaces, but it should be organised around how a tiny minority of people claim to perceive themselves.

Because that makes total sense.

The thing is Tandora, you have this habit of seeming to use the same words as the rest of us for page after page, so it's not clear what the disagreement is, then you do this Aleister Crowley type thing of saying "I'm using these common words with an esoteric meaning that you muggles don't understand", but you don't tell us what that esoteric meaning is.

This makes it rather difficult to have an exchange of views.

I think what you mean is that it's very important to have female spaces that are billed as "single sex", but it's much more important that male people with a certain philosophical belief should be able to access these "female" "single sex" spaces on their own say so.

Most people don't agree with this. It might be more useful to recognise that yours is the minority view, and think about how you might convince people that your view is the correct one.

Just because you as an individual declares that something negatively affects you - it doesn't follow that society must therefore automatically be organised in ways that also impact others.

Jeez, the irony and lack of awareness here!

Your mob believes the female sex don't exist, that our rights aren't sex-based and that every single thing our foremother feminists (rest their souls) fought for was.... all for nothing.

That's true - this is a quote from India WIlloughby

'There are no “sex-based rights” in the UK - Suffragettes rightly got rid of them.'

Didn't she write a book about feminism and then claim to have developed complex PTSD as a result of actual feminists writing unflattering reviews of it?

Laurie has got a lot of mileage out of being a feminist pundit, for someone who claims not to be a woman (except when it suits her).

My understanding is based on millennia of history. It's based on educated, on experience. It is not ignorance or prejudice to say that sex matters and the female sex are the oppressed sex and rape survivors like me need female only spaces.

It is ignoring millennia of history, of females lived experience to deny sex is real and matters and the female sex need safety, dignity and privacy away from the male sex. To deny this, show you are deeply ill-informed, ignorant and prejudiced. And misogynistic. Males are the oppressors. Females are the oppressed. Female spaces exist because males are a threat. It is ignorance to not understand this.

No, it's not my opinion. It's a fact.

Any idea @Tandora ?

But a clear majority of women in the UK want female only spaces.

For some reason you want society to be organised in a way that benefits a small number of trans identifying men at the expense of a majority of women and girls.

Why?

I understand that is your opinion.

I disagree with it entirely.

So no idea about human reproduction then?

Funny how much easier it is for men to ignore the role of each sex in reproduction than it is for women. I wonder why that might be?