Naughty!!........😂

Just to say that reading every one of @SingleSexSpacesInSchools superbly-argued responses to Gretel's posts today has been both an education and a deep pleasure.

😂

Perfect!

So, if you are a British trans woman, you would do yourself a great favour if you moved to mainland Europe. You will be welcomed and cherished (for the most part).

Good luck with the Visa application to all who wish to apply.

This will not get through customs. Just saying. Unless they wrap it in kitchen roll and hide it in a trug under some cleaning products and mops.

Like @FlirtsWithRhinos I can't help thinking that a lot of this stuff is now automated. Either that or some people have a great deal of deal of time on their hands. Especially when the TRA introduces the issue and presents their position as ever so reasonable, even handed and compassionate. Later on, the more incoherent and hardline stuff suggests the presence of a flesh and blood human being, because AI software generally has better spelling and grammar these days. So I suspect a hybrid model. Some of it's automated, but the posters occasionally write something of their own and in their intemperate haste don't run it through the AI enhanced grammar checker. This would explain the rather primary school-ish didactic, condescending tone, when we're told for the umpteenth time that (of course) scientists agree that sex is a spectrum, is complicated and is too difficult for us to understand.

Fit but we know it

Just.... ewwww! 😬

Sorry Bridget!

She gave it a male name as it was being offensive to her ovaries. Dp also wasn't allowed his appendix to take home. As a teenager just coming round from anesthetic, apparently he was quite rude about this. His parents had to apologise. A lot.

Well, I was having a late lunch break. <sigh> don't think I want the rest of it now...

Or are very proud to retain.

Well obviously we are the Feminist Identified Transphobes. FITS. 😂

The one thing you can't reasonably call MumsNet posters is prudish. I'll take old myself (alas!) and even ugly when I'm in a temper but we're mostly mothers and we've all been down in the trenches with shit, blood, piss, sperm and most other bodily products. We discuss them in language that's often explicit and the humour can be, well, Rabelaisian. Who doesn't have affectionate memories of the penis beaker thread, the long-running sweary threads, and the (wholly undeserved) reputation of CentreParcs?

And yet there are some plain factual words that describe gender reassignment processes that we are forbidden to use on MumsNet because a few people decided trans people would find them too offensive. We are not the prudes on this topic.

That’s nice dear. Run along now.

I wonder if because they're special, they're allowed that? My friend wasn't allowed to take her cyst home despite it having had a name for several months before they got round to removing it. She was most peeved as she fancied Cyril (name changed to protect the innocent) in a jar on her mantelpiece.

😂 the parts they now carry in a jar.

'...Everything else is personality...'

or, lack of...

Exactly. Paris Lees famously wanted to be treated like a piece of meat. Quite happy to say it out loud, as if it's completely normal for a 'woman' to want that.

The women they want to be is an entire constructed, pornified fantasy in their own heads.

And yes, actual women are just a bloody inconvenience getting in the way of being treated like that fantasy.

That's why they get annoyed. Not because they want to be us, but because we're preventing them from being a sexualised parody of us.

Gretel, I have read the rest of your posts - I should have just one bundled up response - The remaining posts still do not supply the missing principle; they repeat the same diversions in different forms.

An absence of a referendum or a large, visible campaign is not evidence of consent. Women may disagree quietly, especially where disagreement is branded hateful, fascist or harassment. Rights to privacy, dignity and safety do not depend on winning a popularity contest. Nor must women choose between addressing domestic violence and retaining single-sex provision; feminism can do both.

Dismissing evidence because it appears in a Murdoch-owned outlet is a genetic fallacy. Challenge the data, question or methodology, not merely the proprietor. Evidence from reports, research and individual cases does not become false because you dislike one publisher.

Single-sex rules are not “body policing”. They classify by sex, not by femininity, appearance or conformity to stereotypes. No intimate inspection is required. In fact, self-identification creates more appearance-based uncertainty, whereas a sex-based rule treats masculine women as women and feminine men as men.

“Harm dictates access” also concedes the principle you keep denying: sometimes male people should be excluded from female provision. You already acknowledge female-only provision in prisons, refuges, sport and hospitals. Trans women are male, and self-identification does not remove sex as a relevant group-level safeguarding criterion. Risk management never requires every member of a higher-risk class to be dangerous before a boundary is legitimate. Privacy and dignity matter too; a cubicle door does not turn the surrounding communal facility into a sexless space.

Harassment concerns conduct, not the accurate recognition of sex. Saying that a male person is male does not dictate his personality or prevent him living freely. Demanding that women redefine themselves, deny material reality and surrender female boundaries to validate a male person’s identity is the imposition here.

Finally, “right wing”, “fascist”, “elitist”, laughter, attacks on campaigners and criticism of one witness are not answers, they in fact clearly show you up for having no ideas or counter arguments at all. You might as well say "But you all smell".

The central question remains untouched: why should a male person’s self-description override female people’s sex-based rights? Nothing in your remaining posts answers it.

Well true, I guess, they want to be a new better type of women, as in that old article.

Good luck with that, chaps.

Agree, they don’t want to be actual women, they see us as entirely inferior beings.

What a woman is is not “in the eye of the beholder”. A woman is an adult human female. That is a material sex class, not a personality type, an outfit or a status bestowed by an observer.

Individuality does not require everyone else to pretend categories have no boundaries. A male person is free to dress, live and identify as they wish; that does not make him female or entitle him to female-only provision.

Calling an objective definition “fascist” reverses reality. It is authoritarian to demand that women abandon ordinary language and sex-based boundaries, then smear them for refusing. Female people need a stable word for themselves because their rights, risks and reproductive lives are sex-based.

Nobody is denying individuality. We are denying that one person’s self-description rewrites everybody else’s rights.

I don't think they do want to be us.

They want to be an imaginary woman that lives in their heads that actually has very little to with the reality of being female other than tits, but with a whole extra load of being pretty and taken care of and fussed over and desired and perhaps degraded sexually.

So they hate us because we represent the ugly parts of womanhood that spoil their fantasy, and they hate us because we say no to them and make them explain what they mean when they claim to be women.

A pity it's a fail for you on that.

"Information cannot argue with a closed mind." A quote from an inimitable sketch by the wonderful Nichols and May, which seems totally appropriate here. s

In the UK The Times employs a number of excellent columnists who cover the whole contested issue around sex and gender. Just because it is a Murdoch owned paper does not mean what those columnists say can be brushed aside as you try to do. No single point on the left-right political spectrum has all the truth on any issue. Only the terminally closedminded could think that.