STOP MIS GENDERING ME JUST SAY SHE

This type of unhinged bloke exactly epitomises WHY women don’t say anything when men turn up in women’s changing rooms and toilets. We don’t accept them. We don’t think they pass. We are afraid of confrontation.

@DetectiveDoucheI'd be interested to know what info/posts shifted your view?

Anyone who is willing to look into this with anything other than a completely deaf and blind mind soon realises how insane the world has become. It's frightening to see that women are treated as unimportant. Then you discover some of your friends are total bigots.

Theer is nothing progressive about gender ideology, quite the opposite. It wants to force gender stereotypes on both sexes, it wants to tell same sex attracted people to have sex with the other sex. It's deeply homophobic and misogynistic. It feels like going back to the 1950s but with even less regard for women as men were supposed to protect women and children then!

And still, the BBC report on Trans Pride (which to be fair, puts the law, and what women are fighting for in there), does not explain central misunderstood points (that Douche also didn't know):

1. We are allowed, in certain ways, in law to discriminate the against trans identifying people - male trans people aren't allowed to be treated as if they were women - they aren't allowed in places set aside for women and girls.

2. Trans identifying men claim they are being unlawfully discriminated against, but only if they have been treated differently to other MEN.

3. It's not discrimination or harassment to say that men can't become women or that transwomen are men.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgv1v084j0o

All those smiley men in that picture - good for you, be happy. I hope no-one ever threatens you or stops you getting a job (unless it's a job set aside for women, like a counsellor in a rape crisis service for women). But you aren't women.

Sorry you thought you could change sex. Sorry you thought you could do whatever you wanted, but that's on Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, Press for Change and all the media who failed to tell you the truth, not us women. Oh, and also you for not listening to us, but then some of you are absolute misogynists who really enjoy power over women, so that would make sense.

Thousands might have attended but either nobody bothered to count them or they did count & found the numbers embarrassingly lower than last year so preferred not to publicise the fact.

The BBC has asked organisers for the number of people in attendance. The Metropolitan Police said it did not have that data.

https://x.com/mrmennotweets/status/2081048279240847863?s=46

Another sign for those who wish to believe that both sides are as bad as each other and that feminists are just as bad as the male people who demand that their subjective reality that is not reflective of material reality is treated as being materially real.

For those without twitter, Menno videoed this sign at Pride ‘90% of pigs in the UK are gassed to death, but terfs still exist’.

All because some feminists took organisations to court and got the laws around legitimate discrimination that the laws of the UK allowed clarified. And women had to do this because organisations such as stonewall had been telling the UK organisations who paid for advice, the interpretation of the law as they wanted it to be not as it was. Because also an extreme transgender rights activist was involved in writing the EHRC’s guidance for the EA 2010 the first time around.

Sorry I am quoting myself, but I missed out a word in point 2)

1. It should read: Trans identifying men CAN claim they are being unlawfully discriminated against, but only if they have been treated differently to other MEN.

On the topic of university discussion. I remember being very surprised by the early Peter Boghossian videos which he did at uni campuses.

https://m.youtube.com/@drpeterboghossian?ra=m

There were some universities that contacted security or senior academics to get him off the campus because some people claimed he was causing them harm.

Don’t let’s forget the Jo Pheonix employment tribunal with the Open University.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5558078-jo-phoenix-the-ou-are-still-causing-problems

And the constant attempts to drown out any organised film viewings (Edinburgh) or debates (Cambridge and Oxford) that have been organised to prevent feminist speaking events to happen at universities.

It really does revolve around knowing the difference between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination.

And this is where so much of the discussion by some people, particularly ill-informed activists on media, fail in their arguments. They view any discrimination as wrong and immoral. However. for equitable outcomes to deliver equality in opportunity, discrimination has always been a tool for positive outcomes when some groups need it. That is where legitimate discrimination is used.

Sex segregation is part of legitimate discrimination used to allow female people to be safe and to have privacy and dignity.

Allowing one group of male people to access female single sex provisions (above about 8-10 years old) and not the rest of the male population is an example of illegitimate discrimination. Because the basis for exclusion is sex and every person belongs to one sex category or the other and cannot change sex category.

Also if you want to see just where universities have been, look at Evergreen, mainly filmed by Benjamin Boyce during his time there and the insanity that ensued just because a man just went to work one day, same as any other day.

Benjamin did a recent 'watch along' with his wife on you tube if you want to take one section at a time. The Boyce of Reason. Take a seat and make yourself a drink.

Also, this thread is not appearing in active.

Interesting which ones they restrict and which ones they don't.

This is so true and so many people are ready to get up in arms and be righteously opposed to any form of “discrimination” against any “minority” or “community” or of course anyone who they have identified as belonging to a legally protected category (which is of course everyone as we all have a sex, religious beliefs or lack of them, etc.).

But another problem is that I don’t think a lot of these people (the woke left, bandwagon-hopping but ill-informed diversity officers, well-meaning but short on critical thinking teachers/journalists etc) are using “discrimination” to mean what it actually means. They think it means being mean to someone or not agreeing with them or not sticking up for them.

But most people if you walked them through it do understand and support the concept of legal, necessary discrimination in almost all contexts. Age and disability and weight categories for sports, age checks for buying alcohol or getting your pension, height requirements for rides, ID checks/documents to make sure someone really is a police officer or security guard and not an impostor, Rachel Dolezal being forced to leave her role in a black activism organisation when it was revealed she wasn’t black. No one is bleating about “inclusion” and the evils of “gatekeeping” in these situations. Everyone gets the need for categories that some people are left out of.

I think the problem is more that when a particular characteristic becomes a sacred caste that you can signal your virtue by supporting, all sensible considerations go out the window in the rush to not be seen as a bad person/institution.

@RedToothBrush you’ve expressed what I’ve felt on many occasions about how the aim of being told to use wrong sex pronouns, even in the absence of the person in question, is a subtle power play designed to force my submission to gender ideology. For that reason alone, I see them as harmful.

I've talked about how wrong sex pronouns massively affect family dynamics - partners, parents, children, siblings which declare themselves trans disrupt and harm the identities and power and agency of those closest to them with these type of demands. It's unspoken, but the mental stress on relatives is enormous. Many end up with mental health issues of their own. But it's so taboo no one talks about it. They cease to manner. They are invisible. They are secondary to the demands of the trans family member. All their feelings and internal conflicts are not just irrelevant they are bigoted. They are bad people for even thinking of their relative as they were. Their entire history is damned and prejudiced.

Really good posts on the common misunderstandings over discrimination from @Helleofabore and @WhatterySquash here @DetectiveDouche

But another problem is that I don’t think a lot of these people [...] are using “discrimination” to mean what it actually means. They think it means being mean to someone or not agreeing with them or not sticking up for them.

Great point. Linda Blade had a great example on their similar unthinking use of "inclusion" in an interview a few years back, about men in women's sports.

Reposting my transcription from an old thread.

I say, "Paul, I'm reading your policy here. Can you please explain to me what is going on here? How you came into this conclusion that this should be correct? How this doesn't hurt women?"

And all he could tell me was, "we have a value of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion." And he just kept he just kept spewing that out like "Inshallah", and I just kept saying, "But, Paul, stop," I said, "stop. Don't you understand that if you include a male body in a woman's sport, you're exclusive not inclusive. You exclude. Don't you understand it's not safe, it's not equitable, it's not diverse. You're actually making sure that sport is only male. How are you... what are you even saying?"

"No, we believe in Equity, Diversity, Inclusion."

2

’Discrimination’ is a word loaded with emotional reactions. And a lot of the time, rightly so.

It is important for any discussion about the needs of female people though to make sure the two types are acknowledged. I think what happens is that some people, usually through academic discussion on social media by people with influence, forget the entirety of the word’s use and they then conflate legitimate and illegitimate.

We have seen the outcome of that type of discussion in posts on FWR for years.

And @Helleofabore comment here is worth repeating given just how many posters come by with their one ‘you’re all mean’ comments (sometimes dressed up in a more vitriolic tone ‘you’re all despicable bigots’) whilst being oblivious to how their authoritarian demand to ‘right think’ is actually being ‘mean’.

It is becoming quite clear that some people who believe they are the kind ones demand others accept the dissonance that they choose to ignore and they do this in their belief that they are kind and respectful. When did it become kind and respectful to expect others to comply with demands to treat someone’s personalised belief in their subjective reality as if it is material reality?

Which is a shame because there’s been an amazing discussion over the past 10 pages in particular. I appreciate Detective repeatedly coming back when many other ‘bekind’ posters have not because it’s resulted in all these great thought provoking posts.

Hopefully the comments have given her and any lurkers food for thought as to why many women on these threads do not believe that men (‘some trans’) should ever be treated as the ‘gender they wish to/feel they are’ in terms of accessing female spaces, including podiums, hospital wards, toilets, prison estates, discussion groups, lesbian dating sites, changing rooms, awards, political short lists etc etc etc.

DH has always been pretty supportive of my position but has upset me at times.

There were things happening which he refused to believe were real. He'd turn around and say it was exaggerated, never happened or were pure propaganda that was twisted. He questioned sources and reliability of information.

I always said to him this was so disrespectful to me given my education. I always checked and always did due diligence about what I was reading and whilst it wasn't from the trusted sources the stories were excellent in detail and journalistic integrity and this has always stood out to me. As well as reasons why they were rejected by mainstream media.

Something was going on and my own journalist instincts kicked in about the sheer number, where they were coming from and who was writing them. It wasn't nutjob groups with over zealous individuals. It wasn't written in overly emotional wording. It wasn't over the top. It was incredibly sensible women stating things which seemed implausible and had everything to lose from doing it.

And this total lack of willingness to even consider the possibility that there was a real problem and truth which was in line with my own personal experience which he was not only well aware of but had been, at times, on the recieving end of really annoyed me.

But this falls into a habit of human behaviour: one that shattered for me as a teen.

The 'nothing that bad could possibly happen to me, because I live in a nice world' bubble. You are trained not to believe all manner of terrible things could happen - and this protects us as humans from becoming gibbering wrecks. But there's also plenty of people who have ultimately survived all manner of situations because they could see something was off and reacted before others did - they realised it wasn't unwarranted anxiety but a legitimate concern. I do think it's very difficult to tell the difference at times.

In the run up to COVID there was a bunch of posters here who said "hmm this one isn't just a daily mail 'everyone is going die of cancer next week' type headline". There was a clear pattern of problem, escalation, out of control state before it got taken seriously by most people. There were people who panicked and blew it up out context too. But theres this firm group of level headers who logiked in a way that was sensible and that's what you look for. Authenticity and level headedness. The ones that don't emote too much.

This is also why Graham Linehan and Caroline Farrow in particular, have had issues. They fail 'the sensibles' test. Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix and JKRowling all pass. It's the measured language and the way they argue in a robust but clear way.

TRAs hate it. They used the propaganda techniques of blowing up emotions and guilt to push through ideas and The Sensibles cut through that and show it's lack of substance.

But back to my original point. I almost had to convince and show the difference to DH over a very long period. No I haven't lost my mind and entered a conspiracy theory world. I was identifying a major issue that had been deliberately allowed to develop without accountability and scrutiny. Aka a scandal.

I guess he only really started to take it seriously when Newsnight started to cover the Tavistock. He needed the heavyweight journalism and reputation to see what I was seeing (and note the Newsnight journalists also used their instincts to take seriously). At that point he started to realise all these little incidents which mirrored the ones we'd personally had weren't so isolated or out of the ordinary. And indeed many women and children were experiencing far worse because activists had been encouraged and allowed to get out of control without any accountability.

It took him a long time to get over "it's bollocks it's in The Fail" mentality and bias. He just didn't WANT to acknowledge it because it shattered his own world view. One where he wanted to believe that all trans people were just vulnerable and were otherwise nice and completely reasonable, despite what he'd seen with his own eyes.

It's like he's been trailing me in realising the scale of the problem for years. Even though he partly got it. What hurt is he'd rather believe I was crazy and hysterical than take my concerns seriously. That has stayed with me - he knew better even though it was my area of expertise so to speak.

When last year we were sat on hay bails and two tittering men with beards sat down to listen to a talk on women in the outdoors and I whispered to him what was about to happen - a grab to intimidate and silence women and ruin something really important in the sport he loved and had been trained to recognise in terms of how women respond differently to coaching techniques due to skill, confidence and strength differences, I think that's probably been the last bit of the wool falling from his eyes.

He had recognised there's were extremists and nutjob activists who were dominating discourse well before that point. But that point was it colliding with his world, his values and experience and was a sort of normal everyday almost incidious pissing to mark territory and power over women in a fashion and on a topic which has well established creditials as being a legitimate need and a legitimate problem.

My point is even if people see it partly, they often don't want to see it in full because it exposes how dark and deeply it extends and how complicit they themselves have almost been in it for not questioning more sooner and being trusting of those trusted establishments and organisations. It's seeing things and people to value and respect behaviour in a way that's been totally unprofessional, unthinking and lacking in appropriate due diligence. And that's really hard.

It's a smashing of innocence. An innocence that people want to hold onto dearly and believe that something bad isn't happening.

If something bad is happening it challenges you to do something about it. It requires effort. And apathy is also a driver because people don't want confrontation or to do anything. They'd rather just go along with it and hope it goes away.

MN became home to the sensibles. It recognised the integrity. It questioned the stories and filtered crazy from concerning. It raises accountability issues and safeguarding issues.

But most of all it was a space where people facing these real life experiences first hand ended up gathering and exchanging notes. And that's the biggest misconception and mistakes the ploppers make.

They almost, without fail, say "well if you knew and cared about transpeople in your real life, you'd think / do differently".

They bring their prejudices here. It's easy to dismiss us as extremists, right wing nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, aging dinosaurs who don't like change, to characterise us as not understanding the rights and the law, to make out we are hysterical and to dismiss us as angry menopausal women who just hate all men.

The problem is, we are none of those. We are the sensibles. We talk in a way that cuts through the nonsense. It's hated because we get it, because we are educated and because we have our own valid life experiences. We are hated for being articulate and being able to cut through arguments that are so momentumally weak and flawed, it causes embarrassment on the part of the arguer to be challenged so easily and be unable to come up with a credible response other than 'well that's what I was told I should believe'.

It takes time for people facing this to come to terms with it, even if they have one foot through the door. It's hard to see the world as it is, rather than through the lens of a potential perfect utopia of progressive thinking where everyone is accepted for who they are without any issues. It's hard to notice the unintended consequences of this thinking. It's hard to see the dark undercurrents and dark side of humans exploiting other humans for their own power and kicks. Because that means we have to challenge our own lives and how we have been blinkered to something so widespread and been part of the problem from our lack of willingness to listen to the troubles of others who really don't have a voice. We want to believe were listening to the most vulnerable and it comes as a shock that we may have been duped and mislead and actively controlled into closing our ears to those who don't have advocacy and agency from institutions. We thought we were being nice when really we were being staggeringly naive to the point that not everyone is nice.

DH now thinks it's a social cult with mass support which needs to be dealt with and challenged properly. But it took a long time to get here. He no longer thinks I've been reading too much bullshit online and doesn't patronise my integrity. It's not been easy.

So interesting about your DH RedToothBrush - I think the whole thing has revealed to so very many women that so many men, even their partners, find it pretty easy to dismiss a woman's POV and intelligent understanding of a situation and how it affects us, and what Galileo called "humble reasoning" in the face of authority, on the part of the "sensibles".

I separated from my ex around 2015 before it became so mainstream but he soon became a veritable flag-waving he/him (he's an academic) and did a lot of public ally-signalling. I was relieved I was no longer with him and kind of unsurprised as he's always been a bit of a classic self-satisfied wokebro unthinking misogynist.

So I avoided talking to him about it until we needed to discuss it recently in relation to our DC (one with classic risk factors and very on board with GI, one not on board and having arguments with ex about it). To my amazement we had a reasonable and sensible conversation and ex openly opined that many of the young trans-IDing people he encounters at work are troubled and misguidedly seeing trans as a solution. I also asked him if he personally would see a trans-IDing person as the opposite sex for the purposes of dating and he laughed and said no of course not!

A few years ago I would have been massively shut down by him on this as I was on any other subject we disagreed on. Now he's had time to catch up, being an intelligent person with reasoning capacity he can see some of the issues and his cognitive dissonance has been forced to collapse. However, he's still signalling - perhaps reasonably for fear of losing his job or general ostracism.

What people say to me personally is often very different to what they say to others tbh.

They know my circumstances or that I'm ultra reasonable about politics and can have difficult conversations without being a twat.

I've had people in my life (who I wouldn't call friends or family but people I've had to deal with) who have had unpalatable views. But I know them to otherwise be good people and I don't dismiss this either.

Once a conversation is opened up, people will say things in 'safe company' and that a really important factor in this to recognise.

Wonderful post @RedToothBrush 👏👏👏

I'm sorry that you and @WhatterySquash experienced that with your DH too It does change things in a perceptible way that some of our DHs were so willing to believe we were crazy rather than believe our judgement that something was very, very wrong, even if hopefully most of them will catch up in the end.

Edited to add an @ to WhatterySquash. FWIW I don't know if my exDH gets it now, he didn't when I was married to him. It was one of the (many) reasons I left.

Absolutely this. It’s deeply destabilising.

Loved your post red. My DH is on board now but took a while.

A really moving post, RedToothBrush. And spot-on.