Yes shed, I am not sure how many times it has to be delivered to Waheymum.

If this man has admitted that he uses the ‘women’s loads’ why is she contradicting her friend’s admission?

Why is there this complete disconnect between video evidence and what we are being told.

Without waheymum coming on here to talk about waheymum's friend I wouldn't have been aware of the existence of video footage. Photos and videos of that friend have been seen many more times than they would have done had waheymum not brought it to the attention of this thread.

I've screenshot the video with the transcript for you. The transcript is the words he said. They are shown on the right hand side of the picture, bolded for you.

“My friend says that she does not use women's spaces.”

This is a great example of the mental contortions that this coerced and philosophical application of the English language causes.

Reading this, an uninformed reader will immediately take the view that the friend is female and of course, that female should be using women’s spaces. A reader would think it is contriversial that a female person is NOT expected to be using ‘women’s spaces’.

Compare that to :

My friend says that he does not use women's spaces.

This by contrast is a non-controversial statement.

Then compare :

My friend says that he does use women's spaces.

Someone reading this would immediately be alerted that there is an issue.

It is not respectful to others or society in general to contort language to suit a group’s philosophical belief about themselves.

I get that you've a lot of comments to keep up with, so thank you for responding.

But I was under the impression that your friend said that he DOES use women's spaces.

And what about all the other men? The ones in women's changing rooms, women's prisons, and so on?

It's a bit hard to keep up with all the comments! My friend says that she does not use women's spaces.

I note that @Waheymum hasn't responded to my observation a few pages back that it's a bit rich to complain that a man didn't 'consent' to a filmed discussion with him being put on YT, while being happy for women not to consent to men using women's spaces, but have this state of affairs forced on them anyway.

And from watching the video it seems that wahey’s friend said something about the signage and opened discussion because the video starts after that discussion started.

There seems to be many contradictions between what wahey said/says happens and what is documented. including the ‘I use women’s loads’ contradicts the statement he never uses female single sex provisions.

There is a disconnect from the truth in the posts. Either from what Wahey has been told or in the telling to us from the very first post demonising KJK based on very clearly false information.

To me, I see the potential here where some people might be inclined through accepting those language changes and believing someone’s purely subjective reality claims that contradict material facts to extend that to believe everything else that someone claims without any closer investigation.

Whereas to me, if I understand that someone is telling me the impossible is absolutely possible, using individualised philosophically driven belief that directly contradicts material reality to district that material reality, I am not about to take anything else they say as being true without further analysis.

TL/DR : If a man is lying about being female, I am not about to trust anything else they say without verification.

If someone doesn’t believe that a person can change sex, why is it respectful for them to accede to a demand from an individual’s personal identity demands to contradict the established English language conventions?

Language is sex based. Not gender based. Just like single sex provisions are sex based and not gender based.

There is also an issue that there is direct harm caused to female people when male people are referred to as female people. There are individual safeguarding issues where if someone is referring to a male person as ‘she’ in a conversation then the other people in the conversation are receiving the message that person being referred to is female when they are not. This preconditions or reinforces them to make decisions based on another person’s language believing that description to be accurate.

Even here on this thread you have referred to your friend as ‘she’ which leads people to believe that ‘she’ is female if they didn’t read your other posts. Even then, some
people will receive the signal to their brain that this is a female person every time you use the word ‘she’ or ‘her’. Because we are people communicating in a language that has strict rules about pronoun usage.

Just because a group of people declare that they seek to destabilise the language through what amounts to force (because there is no societal consensus despite some people believing there is) doesn’t mean that the meanings have actually changed. It does mean that a group has coercively repurposed words to suit themselves and have used emotionally manipulative tactics to convince some other people to allow them.

I don’t believe there is anything ‘respectful’ in a male person demanding to be treated as if their subjective reality is the universal reality when there is no fucking way that it is materially real. That male person’s subjective reality is based on philosophical belief and theory and not on materially real and proven concepts.

A group of men have gained significant policy changes also by using some people’s need to believe that it is ‘respectful’ to use that demanded language. They have publicly on documents and video footage said that because society must think they are female due to language being used, it is cruel that policy and law treat them as if they are male. How is that action one of respect?

Using demanded wrong sex language for a person is not harmless either on an individual or a collective basis. It is disrespectful for a group of male people to have ever used female language to describe themselves in the first place.

for turtles and toseland

💐💐💐💐

I am so sorry, these discussions must be very upsetting. Or make you very angry.

It must be unbearable every time these idiots spout their, "I've only ever been assaulted or threatened by men that identify as men" line 💔

It is as imbecilic as, "I've never been sexually assaulted by a doctor so I don't see why women should be allowed to discriminate against men and ask for a female chaperone".

If any man wanted to go into a women's space to harm a woman or multiple women, I don't think he'd need to dress as a woman to do so: he'd just walk in.

We always hear this argument but I think it's a load of bollocks tbh. If a paedo fancies watching the girls gymnastics team getting undressed he's probs not going to get away with just strolling into the ladies changing room at his local leisure centre. However, it's a different matter if he can just utter the magic five words "I identify as a woman".

How often this would likely happen is completely irrelevant to the question of whether we should facilitate the possibility of it happening. Like, I'm not going to play Russian Roulette just because the last ten players didn't get their brains blown out.

I don't really care about all the 'reasons' why they should be able to/the challenges they face etc if the end result is that it becomes my problem. If they're that scared of using the men's changing room then they can just dress like a normal bloke. I'd prefer that to having to open women's facilities to all men just to keep a few transwomen happy.

Might sound harsh but it's their problem not ours so it shouldn't be us that takes the hit.

That's on four occasions as a child starting when I was five.

I've only ever been assaulted or harrassed by men-who say-they-are-women in ladies loos, never had an issue with anyone else.

From the video on X that I linked, he was standing close to the Edge of the Matrix guy, near to but not at the bus stop. The Edge of the Matrix guy turned to him and they had a conversation. This was while Kellie-Jay was standing near to both of them, where she had been interviewing someone else.

Kellie-Jay heard their conversation and, when the big fella moved closer to the bus stop while they were speaking, she stepped closer to talk to him.

x.com/judge148/status/1981375479618642085

There are several videos on YouTube of what what was happening outside the Tribunal that day so they can be checked for accuracy. My memory might well be unreliable.

Playlist of Kellie-Jay Keen's videos:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXZ4DUvk41vHR0HWIyGXzj0h7fg8SqI2x

Edge of the Matrix's videos:
https://www.youtube.com/@edgeofthematrix/search?query=darlington

Darlington Nurses Tribunal
Montage of video and photos by Astitchinthesky

A small number of individual transactivists, rather than a group, turned up and stood near the bus stop at different times. Maybe three or four in total? This chap seemed to be one of them and it was not obvious at first that he was waiting for a bus. He seemed to be more interested in what was happening outside the Tribunal.

One woman had a placard and was also interviewed. I can't remember what she said except that she claimed to be non-binary and that sex is a social construct. Bizarrely, she also claimed to be a research biologist at Newcastle University and gave plenty of details about her work so I think it was (strange but) true. She was interviewed by Dawn Furness for quite a long time and I spoke to her as well. Her spiel was similar to Waheymum's but I don't think that they are the same person.

With the exception of a crazy, wild-eyed man who ran over from the bus stop and looked like he was going to attack Kellie-Jay, all the individual transactivists, including the giant in red, were friendly and happy to talk to us.

Waheymum is framing things as though the big fella was bullied or coerced into being interviewed against his will but that is not what it was like at all. There were several "citizen journalists" wandering about with microphones and cameras interviewing people and at least one TV crew (GBNews, maybe Sky were there as well?).

It was a very different atmosphere to the one we are more used to when hordes of screaming transactivists turn up to hurl abuse and make a huge racket. It was all very laid back and amiable and we all parted on very good terms after everything was over.

So now that your initial claims have proven to be untrue you are goung a different root. Your friend was a willing participant in the exchange.

HUGE coincidence that he just happy be outside the tribunal though. And an even bigger coincidence that he happens to identify as a woman. Lord knows how KJK got so lucky as to approach this bloke (with no provocation on his part) only to discover that he identifies as a transwoman because there is no way she could have guessed that from his appearance.

It's not respectful to lie to someone. It is not respectful to gaslight women to ignore our lived experience as the oppressed sex to let the oppressor class identify into our oppression and use us as props, cosplays in their fetish. That is cruelty to women. You wouldn't tell an African American they should call Rachel Dolezal a black woman. You wouldn't do it with the black race or any other oppressed group.

If any man wanted to go into a women's space to harm a woman or multiple women, I don't think he'd need to dress as a woman to do so: he'd just walk in.

And with self ID, that is ALL they have to do! And you enabling it makes it EASIER. We strengthen safeguards, we don't throw our hands in the air, give up and allow all men to enter! Lastly, it's about privacy and dignity away from the male gaze, not just safety.

So have the courage and decency to answer the question @Waheymum ; did he lie, or did you?

Indeed. It's depressing.

This awful self abasement that some women seem to indulge in is shocking.

It is like feminism never happened and they have regressed to a mentality that women are mere chattels, born to do men's bidding.

it really is not women's purpose to use their places of sanctuary, safety and dignity in order to validate men's feelings.

I know I'm quoting myself here.

But for the love of bloody God.

The only reason we have to have our own spaces is because of the way men behave. And now all these women fucking tripping over themselves to actually make other women use those spaces for the very men who make them necessary in the first place.

As concepts go, it's bloody horrifying.

Use your brain, have some self-respect and respect for other women and stop pandering to men.

I said exactly the same thing, without having read your post @POWNewcastleEastWallsend

This awful self abasement that some women seem to indulge in is shocking.

Seriously. You want women to respect men who are violating their boundaries?? Where is your fucking respect for women?? Seriously where the fuck is it?

Could you, for just one bloody second, try and drag your eyes off men and their demands and think about the women involved in this?

Women who are utterly incapable of sharing their intimate space with men.

Intimate spaces for women are designed to exclude men. Entirely deliberately. For the very reason that they need the safety, comfort, and dignity of being amongst their own sex when they are vulnerable.

Getting undressed, going to the toilet, morning sickness, having a miscarriage on the toilet, adjusting clothing after a period flood or leaking breasts.

And now you're supporting that the very spaces where women can at last be free of the male gaze should be accessed by men everywhere.

Because of course it isn't just your mate, is it!!

It's all and any man.

You're so focused on the man in this, you actually believe that women and their spaces should be repurposed to accommodate them. To the detriment of the women whose space it bloody it is.

For the love of God, and this is the second time I've had to say it this week, have some bloody self-respect. And some respect for your own sex.

Try rid yourself of the notion, at the most basic level, that it really is not women's purpose to use their places of sanctuary, safety and dignity in order to validate men's feelings. Ffs

Mmmm . . . someone does not like something I said in my previous reply to Waheymum. Possibly how I characterised men who are "dressed as women" and/or claim to be women? Although Waheymum says that a lot of them are mentally ill and those posts have not been deleted, so I am not sure 🤔

I will try again, leaving out those bits . . .

If any man wanted to go into a women's space to harm a woman or multiple women, I don't think he'd need to dress as a woman to do so

If you want to deal in stereotypes about what people wear, is this man who goes into women's spaces "dressed as a woman"?

Not that it would matter if he was wearing a rah-rah skirt, fishnets, fake tits and high heels (rather like another man scaring women out of their wits in the same area) - he is still a man and should not be going into women's spaces.

You do not have the right to consent to his presence on behalf of other women. The fact that you think that you think that you have that right demonstrates extreme entitlement. You are not the boss of other women any more than that man is.

If you care so much about the safety of this man, go with him into The Gents. You have already made the point that a man does not have to dress up as a woman to go into The Ladies in order to harm women. So, by your logic, you will both be safer in The Gents because the men in there are not the ones who want to go into The Ladies in order to harm women.

I am not serious about encouraging you to invade men's single-sex spaces, they deserve privacy too. Just exposing the illogicality of your boilerplate transactivist arguments.

Use your brain, have some self-respect and respect for other women and stop pandering to men.