Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

According to reality.

You never left Kansas Toto.

House!

According to your beliefs.

Sadly, I believe that some of us have been saying that since February. For a while all we got was ‘that is your belief’ type answers.

It has been fingers in the ear saying ‘I can’t hear you’ type interaction now on many fronts since February. I don’t believe I have seen any poster post anything that hasn’t been covered or said in essence over the past few weeks.

Rinse and repeat

This is your am dram again.

Not curious toy. Not enemy. Just a man.

That's it.

If I say something that is agreeable to the FWR hive mind, I am told I am reasonable. When I do not, I return to the status of curious toy or arch enemy.

You use the words Objectively and Subjectively deliberately the wrong way round because that's 'trans'.

What do you think 'objectively ' means?

Subjectively, in this space, you call me a man. This is because you have taken ownership of the word woman under gender critical beliefs and define it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs and removes trans women, specifically. Gender critical people take ownership of other words as well, such as 'consent.'

In the previous thread, I defined 'woman' based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Equality Act. It's not my personal definition; it's the law here. I also suggested that you relocate back to Canada, as they appear to define woman to include transwomen. However, you said your husband couldn't move right now and that you weren't considering it for the future

Other women here have also applied the definition under UK equality law. If you're in Britain, that's the proper definition. You're the one who uses a different, and as far as I can see, idiosyncratic and either poorly defined or poorly explained, definition of woman. I don't understand your definition of consent either.

This is your belief. Many others do not share it.

Your belief that you are a woman does not constitute a meaningful reality for anyone else.

And - I want this to be very clear - should you agitate to be recognised as a woman in society and in law you would, have no doubt about this, be actively agitating to have your beliefs override the beliefs, self knowledge and legal and social identity of many many women.

This is because you have taken ownership of the word woman under gender critical beliefs and define it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs and removes trans women, specifically. Gender critical people take ownership of other words as well, such as 'consent.'

< Snorts >

Dude, they have been in the dictionaries for decades with the same meaning we use. Even Shakespeare used them as we do. You are the odd one out mate.

I have no idea of the sex of any anonymous poster, but from what you say, you are only a woman if you change the meaning of 'woman' to mean something that excludes many people who are human and female.

I suppose it doesn't really matter what word we use for humans who are female, but we do need a word.

Why shouldn't we keep 'woman'?

Why can't you find a new word?

Of course consent requires law enforcement. That’s why there are laws against rape, for one.

You could try clarity and see how we do....

I didn't call you anything in that post. I said what you say is sexist. And it is. Not one thing about your identity, so your response isn't relevant nor does it address what I said at all.

Objectively, I am a woman. I live life every day as I have for decades.

Subjectively, in this space, you call me a man. This is because you have taken ownership of the word woman under gender critical beliefs and define it in such a way as it reinforces your beliefs and removes trans women, specifically. Gender critical people take ownership of other words as well, such as 'consent.'

There is no situation in gender critical space where I or my words will be understood in any other way but 'sexist.' You are presenting the option of 'clarity' in bad faith. I have no agency here.

No, it's because you are incredibly sexist. If we are misinterpreting your words as such, you'll have to write more clearly.

As currently I could stand on the moon without my specs and see them as sexist.

This entire thread is here because my words are twisted in bad faith and presented back at me as something I have not said.

Seriously? Read the post I replied to. My reply isn't an attack on you and does not deserve that accusatory rant.

That aside, no, your "literal presence" is not "antithetical to gender critical beliefs", it's your sexist statements and actions that we take exception to.

Oh, and BTW, Feminism itself is an ideology. It's the belief that men and women are of equal value and capability, and that the only fair way for society to be organised is one that allows female bodied people to have equal status, value, agency and authority to male. And one I happen to agree with.

Gender Critical Feminism isn't separate to that, it's just the part of Feminism that critiques and challenges the ways that beliefs that purely social constructs of gender are actually innate qualities of men or women disadvantage women.

The thing is, they don't define 'trans woman' either. It all just comes down to what you put on your driving license.

This is how Darren Agee Merager, of Wi Spa fame and a registered sex offender, described himself.

"I’m very neutral, like non-binary, although I don’t like that word. I’m legally female. But I have facial hair. I have a penis. I have no breasts. I don’t have a feminine voice. I don’t wear makeup or dress up like a female. So imagine you’re a grocery store [clerk] and you’re bagging my groceries and you say, “Excuse me, sir . . . ” I mean, am I supposed to be offended? That’d be ridiculous. How would this person know? But technically, for legal terms, I am she/her. I put “female” on my driver’s license. But I’ve had to struggle my whole life fitting into traditional society."

Look no further than California to understand why women in the UK insist that the law must clearly define sex.

There is nothing I can say on FWR that isn't immediately recontextualised and attacked as antithetical to gender critical beliefs. My literal presence is antithetical to gender critical beliefs. That isn't feminism, it is ideology.

"A lot of Britons still don't consent...". As a 64 year old lesbian who hasn't conformed to gender since she was 15 I'm here to tell you this is absolute rubbish. I've looked at the very least androgynous and sometimes pretty butch for all of those nearly 50 years, and the only time a woman has taken issue with my perfectly legal presence in the ladies' toilets was an awfully long time ago when I still had narrow hips as well as short hair and jeans, and she took issue with what she thought was a male in a female space. As soon as two reassuringly soprano words had fallen out of my mouth she apologised profusely, mortified, I think, by her "rudeness". I told her then (40 years ago..OMG!) what I'd tell her now, that I'd rather she asked than let me make her uncomfortable.

Without wishing to side with PPW, I think I see where he is coming from on this point.

Consent isn't applicable when it comes to who else enters a public space you're in, even a loo, even when it's single sex and it's a man.

So yes he is technically right that he doesn't need consent to go in a public women's loo, because no-one needs anyone's consent to do that.

None of the above means I would agree with him being in the women's loo, but it's not an issue of consent.