'He has a point, but he's too blunt.' JKR

Another thread down the drain.

There's no need for such an overreaction. There are still plenty of interesting and thoughtful posts on here.

Yes, derailers are annoying. But people can engage (or not) with whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.

This is exactly what i look like

"They want it all couched in fluffy language and manners so they don't have to confront the real world.

It rocks their entire world and their entire privilege for this to be pointed out."

Most definitely RTB

How often have we seen this on FWR. Time and time again, we are told - you are so extreme! You are not moderate! There HAS to be a way to work this out! There HAS to be a compromise!

And after you explain why there can be no compromise because that leaves huge safeguarding holes, we are then told that our language is the issue! How we should be ashamed of being so very disrespectful!

And then we point out just how disrespectful it is to female people to have to change our language and how it is disrespectful that we have to adopt our language for each and every person's specific tailored need. Then we get told that we are the problem. Not the person who demands that they are treated as if they are not what they materially are, but what they demand to be recognised as.

It is a sign of people who have not, or maybe cannot, think about this from the position of female people's needs. It is also a sign of someone who might rely more on their own feeling like someone who is kind and thoughtful being recognised by others rather than having their own ethical barometer.

In a way, they give outsiders the power to reward them rather than having thought deeply through all the issues presented and understood the ramifications of each aspect and knowing that in some instances there are no compromises.

This constant refrain of 'case by case' or 'there is a compromise, you just won't accept it', is generally a signal to me that little research and active discussion from all angles has occurred in that person's mind.

Are you seriously admitting that the whole point of your movement was just to get people to live by the rules you set for them regardless of how they feel about them? You do understand that is the definition of authoritarianism, don't you?

... and exactly what JKR has just said. That once you remove all the forced language, and you are at last able to be as blunt as you feel? Job done.

Dude like seriously this doesn't even make any fucking sense. Butch lesbians are females why would anyone tell them they are a man?

But a lesbian by definition is a female homosexual. Are you saying butch lesbians are men??? How homophobic.

No, you originally said "Like Trump who unflinchingly uses the 'we are winning' con even in the face of obvious losing & growing disinterest,"

And I gave you evidence that public opinion is actually changing in our favor, and that the majority of the public, even American liberals, don't agree with any of it. Then you ignored it and said "how do you really know" and made the point that actions speak louder than words or feelings.

Now obviously I could counter this post with a list of a whole slew of concrete wins for our side, the Supreme Court ruling and recent actions at the BBC just to name a few.

But here's the interesting point. You basically tried to make the initial argument that your side is "winning" bc the majority of the public actually believe and support trans ideology. I gave you concrete evidence that not only is that not the case but also that support is going down, not up, as trans ideology has been forced into our lives and taken hold of our institutions. And your counter-argument is that well actually that doesn't matter what matters is how people actually act in regards to trans ideology?? And that as long as they don't act as they feel that your side is still winning?

Didn't you then just literally make our point for us? That all this time you never really cared how we felt about your nonsense as long as we kept it to ourselves and still went along with and acted how you said we should act? Bc that's what we've been complaining about all along, is the demand we ACT against what we believe but instead in accordance with your beliefs under threats of cancelation, violence, etc. Are you seriously admitting that the whole point of your movement was just to get people to live by the rules you set for them regardless of how they feel about them? You do understand that is the definition of authoritarianism, don't you?

Excellently expressed message as she always writes so eloquently.

They may shoot Glinner the messenger for his language used (whilst laughing at the same bluntness in his comedy) but the message is still the same.

Yes, AGP is far from victimless. It is part of the 'hidden harms' that polite society wishes no one to mention.

I was deleted on here for replying to someone who said that AGP was a victimless crime, with the words 'it's far from victimless.'

Progress indeed!

@Datun There IS no solution other than the one we've got.

Quite.
What's that phrase that's always being flung at us? 🤔
Oh yes. "Facts hurt your feelings".

Yes, not only do we seem to be permitted to call a man a man, it's no longer an automatic deletion for calling a cult a cult.

I think a lot of responses are about an inability to deal with certain issues and subjects, rather than about acceptance.

It's driven by wanting the world to be perfect rather than acknowledging it's imperfections.

This is why you have a privilege elite leading the charge on it.

Unless you have a solution that makes this 100% workable and watertight and DOESN'T involve expecting women and girls to just be kind?

And that's why they're not actually coming up with anything.

They're just bloody bleating about it.

It seems to me that it's mostly the rider that says if you pass 100% seamlessly you'll upset people of your own sex.

Which, on the face of it, looks as though they have absolutely nowhere to go to the toilet.

Well hello disabled people. Hello a woman with a push chair and two little kids.

And hello women who are unable to go to a mix sexed toilet.

We're not all King Charles who gets followed around by a flunky with a toilet seat.

I mean, it's irritating enough, that suddenly this is oh so special cohort are incapable of planning a journey using an app that tells them where there are gender neutral facilities.

But, and way more importantly, what is their alternative solution then?

Oh, they don't have one.

Well just get on with it then. Because this is a truly, truly pointless waste of time.

There IS no solution other than the one we've got.

Julie Bindel did a series of podcasts about how captured social services treated families with children who had become caught up. At the end she spoke to a young lesbian woman who had thankfully desisted and escaped but had been subjected to lesbophobia by her girl friend and her girlfriends mother when she was younger. It took the form of them constantly saying "oh you do that just like a man would", or "that's how a man would think", which pushed her and pushed her into thinking she must of course really be a man. She came to realise that both her girlfriend and her girlfriends mother were very uncomfortable with the girlfriends sexuality, didn't really want to the girlfriend to be a lesbian and were saying all these things about being like a man to deal with their own problem.

Or rather not deal with it, sweep it under the carpet and pass it on to another young lesbian causing her and her family a lot of distress. It was quite an eye opener for me, I hadn't even contemplated that angle before because it would never occur to me to tell a girl or young woman, or any woman, that they were doing things like a man.

Anyway going back to Glinner and JKR.

The ultimate problem is people know and recognise Glinner is right because he says it in such a way it's jarring. It shocks them. They don't want to be shown as making really obvious stupid safeguarding fails. It embarrasses them.

They don't want to be jarred into acknowledging this.

They might be willing to be nudged slowly so they can say "oh well it wasn't that obvious, and we are all kind and no one has any dubious agenda". Because they want to live in a nice bubble of happy la la land where no bad things ever happen.

They don't want to engage with the idea that bad people exist and we have to consider safeguarding at all times because people you come across might not be so harmless.

They don't want to engage with the idea that they may have been targeted as a object for voeuyerism or that their daughter's / mothers may have been targeted.

They want it all couched in fluffy language and manners so they don't have to confront the real world.

It rocks their entire world and their entire privilege for this to be pointed out.

Just this week, I've had a friend show a photo of an old friend in his 50s now dressed as a woman and how they bonded over this friend's son who has done the same. And his (male) mate go 'yeah it's great no one cares anymore'.

The trouble with pointing out how this isn't true is you have to say "well he's a private school educated man who has a wife and kids who it's probably massively had an impact on but they can't speak out because of all the issues of being expected to just cope regardless of the psychological impact on them. And you'll then have to examine your own privilege and sexism about this. And furthermore your complete lack of consideration for how it affects vulnerable women in certain situations, how there is unfortunately a disproportionate number of sex offenders who are trans that we just can't pretend don't exist. And the fact that you might be crowing about how great it is his friend has done this 'without judgement', but you have two teenage daughters who I damn well know you wouldn't be happy being next to this fully intact bloke in a communal swimming pool changing room. Because I know you well enough to know you are protective of them as you are a good person. Being inclusive is great until you actually consider who this really impacts and how and why so many people like me don't confront you because they know it will end up in an almighty row and upset you both in the process."

Honestly after a pint it wasn't the time to start on that particular conversation, so I just picked up my phone and frantically swore at DH about what sexist wankers they were being and how tone deaf they are because they want to look right on and cos they don't want to deal with the reality of it all.

The worse bit is I know that the first guy is struggling with it all more than he's letting on - it's 100% a front and I know that going head on rather than softly saying "mate it's ok to love your son still, but yeah I get it's not much fun when someone turns out to be not such a great person and it's difficult to accept his lack of respect women and the fact he's hanging out in incel circles which you are fully aware of. This isn't your fault, you are not responsible for your adult sons life choices. You've done your best, but he has to make his own mistakes and that's ok".

Much like you can't go head on if a friend's son has turned out to be a drug addict and made a bunch of poor life choices.

There's ways to handle it well and ways to handle it badly. You have to pick your moments to drip drip the message unfortunately.

Glinner is the person who has the row rather than understanding social relationships are complex. JKR understands this.

Quite.

It's pinking shears, carousel, hatstand.

Maybe the ehrc guidance should say toilets for women should be for people with bows on their heads.

Like the ones they put on baby girls so you know they're a girl.

Obviously there is no other way to tell someone's sex except for a fashion accessory is there?

Lesbophobia is a crucial tenant of many transactivists unfortunately.

It's not a bug it's a feature.

If it's not telling women, men can be lesbians too and expecting them to 'try dick' it's telling butch lesbians they will be mistaken as men as a way to guilt and coerce women into accepting men into female spaces.

Lesbian have ALWAYS been on the front like of this, and it's why the original founders of Stonewall eventually snapped and formed the LGBAlliance because of this lack of respect for lesbians and this rampant lesbophobia.

It's abusive and manipulative and should be labelled as exactly what it is.

Butch lesbians don't look or sound like men if you pause for half a second.

It's not offensive, it's just not true. As 99.9% of people know.

So you'd look like the dick trying to offend people by saying it.

Saying a trans women is a man also isn't offensive it's just a fact.

It is also a fact that some men get upset by this fact, but reality upsetting people isn't really our problem to sort.

Oh I am sure that we could predict just which link would be pasted to defend that women are being asked if they are in the correct single sex space for them.

And remember, I have posted just what is considered violence against a person under the hate crime descriptions. It really doesn’t take much to reach that bar according to the CPS. That needs to be changed now that NC has clarified that under court conditions. And now that Webberley brought that to repeatedly to our attention in those interviews.

That okay, men can't be women if they rape someone or in a woman's prison, or alright then, not in sport, or fair enough, not if they're teaching in a girls school, but all toilets, yes absolutely. And changing rooms. Okay, not toilets in a school, and yes, obviously not changing rooms at work, but, um other changing rooms, certain changing rooms, what about toilets in a bar??
Or, or or, but, but, but.

This absolutely nails it for me. I'm reminded of posters who say on here "well, I don't agree that trans women should participate in women's sports. Oh, and not be in women's hospital wards obviously. Or rape support groups of course. But in XYZ situation they really are women"

No! No they're not!

Unless you have a solution that makes this 100% workable and watertight and DOESN'T involve expecting women and girls to just be kind?

People have, at least in the past, called gender nonconforming women "men" (and gender nonconforming boys "girls") as deliberate insults. This relies of course on an accurate understanding of their actual sex, and is based in sexism. This is a whole different matter from getting someone's sex wrong by mistake, or correctly sexing someone who wants to be seen as the opposite sex.

It's quite a bizarre, illogical leap.

"It's not offensive to call a man a man, therefore it's not offensive to call a woman a man."

Who in their right mind would think that's a logical argument?

But to answer your question, I think that poster is the one who can't tell the difference between the sexes if they're not wearing the 'correctly sexed' clothing and exhibiting other presentation cues which indicate their sex. He has a variation of prosopagnosia, but to do with sex rather than faces.