Giggle v Tickle Friday 15th May 2pm AEST

Oh yay! Which paper ?

Brilliant!

More updates from Australia - the protest in London made the paper, and the caption used the phrase "pro-woman".

YY

While I don't disagree regarding sweeping conclusions, your point is completely irrelevant as I made no such sweeping conclusions about entire populations, groups or systems.

OK @Gretel346 you have convinced me. My radical feminist view and critical view of the social construct of gender means that I am an agent of the Patriarchy.

Happy now?

As a side observation, the last time I saw someone on here who churned out endless turgid word salad without being troubled by facts or reason, it was a weapon grade antisemite who told us all that we were insufficiently clever, middle class and London-dwelling (yes really) to understand their very intelligent and nuanced arguments as to why everything you don't like is caused by Jews. This genius couldn't grasp why an ambulance service funded and run by the Jewish community (and serving everyone) existed only in places with a sizeable Jewish community (but they knew it was the Jews' fault). I don't know if they also thought women can have penises and men don't pose significant risk, but they were definitely in that wheelhouse of reason.

Anyway, I can't wait for the next instalment. It's going to be a real zinger. We may have to wait until the full moon for the peak brilliance though. Currently in the first quarter.

All these anti-feminist posters sound identical. They all sound like they've taken a doctoral thesis and ran it through some robot-type thing like ChatGPT, swallowed it and posted the result. They lack the ability to communicate like a normal human being. They're such a cliche.

Ahhh. But does it all sound any more accurate in points being made than when we were faced with the fallacy accusations with wiki links that also never quite fit? Not really.

Uncanny, eh. It serves as a great way to have posters repeat everything already discussed extensively though doesn’t it?

The ‘disrupter’ of discussion.

Nominated for MN rebuttal of the year so far. 😆

Toddlers are cute, though.

What you do not understand is that this language was designed at university in order to compare and contrast different texts. Texts being writing, books, films, TV programmes, yada yada yada.

No matter how many big words you use to try and obscufate, and to make yourself look like some educated higher up and to cast those who come back to basic words as thickos, I was writing that sort of guff about books, movies, newspapers, adverts blah blah blah 25 years ago. I was in the first tranche of university students that studied Media Studies using the tools that had been used to study the written text for decades. It is all based on Post Modern Queer Theory.

But no words make a man into a woman. No words make men who say they are women into some sort of victim of the patriarchy over the women and girls whose boundaries they are stomping all over.

If you want to use your 'much bigger than anyone else' intellect, tell us how men can change into women, what changes are manifest in this change and at what point the change is complete.

It does sound astoundingly like howse, who insisted he had a foolproof way for telling people's gender that related to whether they cry or did childcare, iirc

Absolute pillock, but amusing to see what they come up with - like my toddler arguing why she doesnt actually need to clean her teeth.

Stop trying to "sound clever", and you'll come across as so much more mature and convincing (and confident in your own stance).

He won't sound any more convincing because on the few occasions that he is making a coherent point (as in, not this: "Why can't women in Afghanistan just identify as men, then?" "Oh, so you want us to get rid of equality protections here, do you, fascist???") he is still talking the same old nonsense everyone honest and sensible never accepted at all abandoned around 2021; maybe last year in terms of the Transman Gotcha after the SC clarified that one. I'm actually surprised we haven't had DSDs and gender neutral toilets at home yet.

But he would sound more confident and mature and yes, it would be much less embarrassing. He's obviously going to run this to 1000 posts so he could at least do that on the way.

It’s like when Kirrin Medcalf used ‘yourselves’ in her letter to GCC.

Just cringey as fuck. 😬

Gretel, I've resisted saying this for so long, but reading the above? I'm going there.

By trying so hard to sound erudite, you're misusing words and losing control of sentences and ideas, and other posters can see this. We can usually work out your meaning, but it's is undermining your posts (and leading to some secondary embarrassment).

If it's all a conscious strategy to obscure weaknesses in arguments, kudos! And if English isn't your mother tongue, more serious kudos (I really mean this; I have wondered).

Otherwise, though - back away from the thesaurus, slow down, and focus on fluency and clarity. Stop trying to "sound clever", and you'll come across as so much more mature and convincing (and confident in your own stance).

There is that too.

Of course, it takes some pretty disconnected thinking to think that the existence and experience of female people with transgender identities diminishes the inherent misogynistic behaviour and misogynistic concept of male people demanding that their claim
to be female is treated as if that claim is based on material reality.

Considering the number female people with transgender identities reporting male trans people sexually abusing them and other abusive acts, it would seem absurd to think that the experience of those female people diminish the misogynistic nature that seems to be unaffected by male people’s identity claims.

Protest today outside the Australian High Commission https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5530898-london-protest-in-solidarity-with-sall-grover-on-23-may?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

A lot of women assume a transgender identity to try to escape misogyny and sexist stereotypes (it probably isn't conscious). An extreme form of "not like other girls".

There is something disconnected in believing that female people who have transgender identities somehow remove the inherent misogyny from the actions of the group of male people with transgender identities. If anything, listening to the accounts of so many female people with transgender identities about how appallingly they are treated by male people with transgender identities reinforces that inherent misogyny.

The issue around the access for female people who have chosen to take testosterone to make extreme modifications to their body is one that is still based in safeguarding. It is all part of the same argument that is legitimate and valid.

Male body cues can cause distress to some female people. There are also some female people who will not be able to correctly identify a female person’s sex category if they have chosen to take testosterone. Often those female people without the ability to correctly identify another female person’s sex due to effects of testosterone to make cosmetic changes are very vulnerable. Therefore those female people’s needs have to be considered too.

Just a reminder that some female people who have made the decision to change their appearance with testosterone have already come to the board to tell us that they understand the issue. They have come up with solutions so that they don’t cause female people distress. They also don’t want to use female single sex provisions for their own reasons and they don’t use male single sex provisions.

The political leveraging of the needs of female people with transgender identities by those who demand male people over the age of 8-10 years old should access female single sex spaces is nothing new.

Any alternative measures that suggest female people should use other provisions if needed is still part of safeguarding female people.

“Because social, political, and economic hierarchies like class structures, racial stratification & patriarchy systematically favour those at the top while disenfranchising marginalised groups where unequal protection & resource distribution eventuate…& we are seeing that in real time with trans people as they aren't considered to be deserving of acknowledgment let alone equal rights due to hierarchal structures.”

Because social, political, and economic hierarchies like class structures, racial stratification & patriarchy systematically favour those at the top while disenfranchising marginalised groups where unequal protection & resource distribution eventuate…& we are seeing that in real time with trans female people as they aren't considered to be deserving of acknowledgment let alone equal rights due to hierarchal structures.

All this framing of colonisation and patriarchy seems to miss out that it was feminists who first started to raise the alarm about the safeguarding issues for female people as being negatively impacted by allowing male inclusion. Even Germaine Greer was highlighting this as an issue a long time ago. I also know that there were women’s groups deeply concerned about the change in the Act in 2013.

When women in Australia are being fined for using accurate language to identify a person’s sex category and are shown political advertisements on their media such as the ‘the unsaid says a lot’, having political terms such as ‘anti-trans’ used in national media, the messaging is chilling. They stay silent.

Then their silence is used as a means to dismiss the issue as being not of interest, of being a cultural import, and so on. That is an abuse tactic.

So this discussion about hierarchical structures being used to remove safeguarding measures for female people now just contributes to that abuse.

It is a form of DARVO to remove the safeguarding measures available to female people, to remove the words and means they need to define themselves and to then shame them into remaining silent, then claim no complaints means that it is not an significant issue and that any complaints are now due to outside cultural influences and that if it really was an issue, women would be discussing it.

This pattern is classic DARVO tactics.

No one finds transmen “inconvenient” or denies they exist (in that we understand that there are women who think they are men).
They don’t “disprove” anything any more than the existence of a few female CEOs disproves that business at the executive level is dominated by men.
It is true that “gender critical” individuals are concerned that young women who feel distressed by their bodies - as young women always have done, for good reasons - have increasingly been using transgender identities to escape this distress, to the significant detriment of their physical and mental health. This is extremely concerning.
It’s also true that transmen put themselves at risk when they access men’s spaces. The recent horrific rape of a young woman on a male mental health ward is an example of that. Transwomen, of course, are a risk to women in what are supposed to be single sec spaces, and there is plenty of evidence of their crimes. Women, however they identify, are at risk from men.