Thoughts on this tweet?

In every instance he himself would be included in the 'let me into women's spaces' argument.

Society should not be writing policy based on one man's desires to get into female spaces.

It would be much easier to just say no to men, no? Him included.

Some more bangers from Wu -

Speaking to a detransitioned woman.

Appropriating a female health condition by claiming that his inverted penis skin would atrophy without oestrogen.

Claiming that pretty women are nice to trans women because they aren't threatened by them.

Just one example of his regular claim that female trans people are the problem

Admitting to being bisexual years ago. These days he pretends to be a HSTS so no one can accuse him of AGP.

All this sounds pretty reasonable to me.

So long as you aren't berating others for calling men, men. You're free to be as kind as you please, of course.

100%

'Be kind to men, and women can go whistle', is the unabridged statement.

'Men who want to use women's spaces because they are afraid of men' should be listened to, and the rules can change to accomodate them.

'Women who want to have women only spaces because they are afraid of men' are just bigots who should reframe their trauma, and the rules set up to protect them can be disregarded

Op, on the assumption that you're still reading and I hope you are. Would you read this? It's by a Mumsnetter, funnily enough.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

There are lots of reasons why feminists object to the wrong pronouns, and this explains it very well.

Thanks @Whatchamacallitt .

I remember this one too.

For those not on twitter, this supposed moderate man stated very clearly:

”I am not going to use a third toilet for some bigot. It’s insane.”

This shines a huge fucking beacon on statements such as

”Women’s feelings and safety matter”.

This man is only interested in validating his identity. There is not one skerrick of understanding of what female people need… despite his empty efforts to make himself appear to be ‘moderate’.

To those who believe that there are ‘some’ male people who should bypass female people’s consent and be treated as if they were female, do you see it yet?

What is it about these male people’s actions and behaviour towards female people who reject their subjective reality that is not sending red flags in regard to their intention to ignore female people’s consent ?

Why shouldn’t this act of ignoring female people’s lack of consent be described as predatory behaviour ?

Why though?

You have yet to say why any person should be pressured in anyway to act as if an individual’s self constructed and subjective reality should be treated as if it is material reality when it is not. Why should any person be pressured to act that way by people who deem it is as being ‘kind’ and ‘respectful’ when it is only kindness and respect going one direction. That is, to the person who is demanding society acts as if their subjective reality is material reality.

How is that respectful?

Sure. Judge away!

Well, it's because after many of years of working with children, I will always come down on the side of safeguarding. Women and girls need to know who the men are in order to keep themselves safe. Someone on another thread said something very wise. We should always put safeguarding first. Then respect is second and kindness third.
Pronouns describe sex, not gender. I would imagine that any decent person, trans or otherwise, would not want to step over safeguarding boundaries, even if it means that they have to sometimes feel a twinge of disappointment in how they are being addressed or referred to.

A shorter answer to your question is that I doubt that many of the more aggressive trans-identified males would settle for being referred to as anything other than she/her.

I agree too; nobody else here will. Argue among yourselves.

✅ Yes, most children are being overmedicalized. But rare true trans children deserve help or they psychologically shatter

Depends what you mean by "help". I agree they need help to understand there's nothing wrong with being a boy who likes dolls, or a girl who likes football.

✅ No, trans women do not belong in professional sports. But it’s hateful to call them men.

It's not hateful to call a man a man. This is how we ended up here: it became taboo to point out that people like Lia Thomas and Veronica Ivy are male. People would point out that women have a right to their own sport categories, and TRAs and their allies would pretend to be confused, saying, "But trans women are women, so why would they play on the men's team?"

✅ Trans women are not automatically women. But with hard work and medical intervention, most of us can have fulfilling lives where people perceive us as women.

I don't think it's true that they'll be perceived as women. Does anyone really see Caitlyn Jenner on TV and believe they're watching a woman? Honestly? And Caitlyn is mega-rich and has had more facial feminisation surgery than the average person can dream of, and has access to expensive vocal training. Realistically, only a small percentage of male humans will be able to pass as female.

✅ Self-ID must end. Women’s feelings and safety matter, so if you cannot use the ladies non-disruptively - don’t.

✅ If you can’t understand why women should never see a penis in a locker room, you’re mentally still a man.

✅ We need research to figure out what is happening with this explosion of non-binary identities. They are not trans, and it’s medical malpractice to give them transsexual healthcare.

I agree with all of these.

✅ You have to do the work to be percieved as a woman. Far left politics cannot do this work for you.

This goes back to what I said earlier: very few TIMs are going to be perceived as women. Look at Lia Thomas, for example: is there any amount of "work" he can do that will actually make people's brains register him as female?

I don't quite understand what you mean. I've reread the article, and I can't see what 'extract of a sentencing' might actually be referring to.

Can you clarify?

Not really as it still requires effort and lies aswell as being grammatically incorrect language.
They/them implies that you are talking about more than 1 person because they are correctly uses for multiple people not for a singular person.
Your so called middle ground still requires me to mangle the English language and use mental effort to deny the reality that my eyes and ears see and hear just because someone else doesn't like hearing the truth.
So please can you explain how that would be the middle ground as im still having my speach and thoughts compelled so im not gaining anything back and a transperson is still getting to demand compelled speach and thought and is not giving up anything.
Look i get it you are trying to find a middle ground but a true middle ground would involve transpeople accepting that nobody else needs to see or think of them as anything but the biological sex they were born as and that we have the right to use accurate language when speaking about them and that they do not belong in any single sex space, group or or position set aside for someone of the opposite sex and for the rest of us to continue to accept that some people dress differently and like to think of themselves as something that they can never be.
I have 1 question for you to think about, which other acts of religious observance would you advocate that non believers be compelled to participate in and if the answer is none why is trans pronouns different?

Yes, that one gets even worse (Sonia Sodha = SS, Brianna Wu = BW) -

SS - The answer is third, gender neutral spaces. Always was, always has been. This is in the EHRC Code of Practice. The issue is that isn’t enough for activists as - in relation to toilets, anyway- this is more about identity validation than safety. There really isn’t an issue here.

BW - I am not going to use a third toilet for some bigot. It’s insane.

SS - Thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully.

BW - Thank you for illustrating mine.

SS - You’re welcome. Your expectation to use female-only spaces is unreasonable: they don’t exist to validate your identity. Part of being an adult is understanding that other people have needs and rights, too.

BW - Sonia, you’re not the center of the universe. Normal women do not notice or care if I’m in the ladies. Your bigotry and hate does not to define public policy. I grew up with whites that didn’t want blacks to live on their side of the town too. You are exactly like them. I’ve been married to a man for 18 years and I could not have less sexual interest in you.
[Complete with narcissistic selfie to prove how feminine]

SS - Grow up, Brianna.

BW - You grow up Sonia. You’re not a little girl. You are safe sharing the ladies with Trans women, and there’s no excuse to be a frothing ugly bigot.

SS - “Frothing ugly bigot.” Classy.

BW - Your bigotry is ugly.

SS - Your abuse is very male-pattern. It’s a good illustration of why most British women aren’t on board with men identifying into female-only spaces.

Thanks.

That really is a great example of the type of interactions I have seen Wu engage in over the years.

He has never been ‘moderate’. He is abusive.

Wu is abusive yet we are told it is unkind to use correct sex language when referring to him. He is abusive yet I remember other male people who understand the negative impacts of these male people competing in female sport, demanding to be in female prisons and how that is the continuation of the oppression of female people get effectively abusive in the name of ‘kindness’ (kindness in Wu’s direction ) because others used correct sex language about Wu.

This is what those who use words such as ‘kind’ and ‘respectful’ when it comes to demands of language fail to recognise. They fail to ever articulate how it is ever kindness that other people are being emotionally manipulated to use that language. Their only focus is on that individual that they have personally judged to be worthy of the reward.

And if others fail to live up to that person’s self perceived level of kindness and respect, they are considered unkind and disrespectful, and they are worthy of censure.

I remember when the term ‘ultras’ was coined.

“The issue of pronouns is becoming absolutist on BOTH sides. Stonewall demands even bearded rapists be called "she", GC ultras refuse to call any trans woman "she". I reject both positions. I never call male sex offenders she/her. But I will be courteous to those who respect women”

https://x.com/victoriapeckham/status/1753740142156595471?s=12

This was in defence of her use of pronouns for Debbie Hayton. Who is another man who some people consider ‘moderate’ while he still was using female single sex provisions and actually shaped policy about segregating toilets and changing rooms in schools by ‘gender’ which effectively abolished single sex provisioning. A man who told us here in FWR that breast size of female people set the power hierarchy of female people. And who I saw get abusive towards male people with transgender identities on FWR who called out his use of female a
provisions and language demand.

The use of ultras was to emotionally manipulate others and punish them for not fulfilling Turner’s personal ideals about kindness. We have seen others do this same thing over and over.

However, nowhere near as much since Naomi Cunningham asked for and was granted the permission to use accurate sex based language in the Sandie Peggie case. Since then, very few feminists have repeated that ‘ultra’ term in an attempt to designate themselves as the ‘kind’ and ‘respectful’ ones.

There are several events that caused support for that demanded language to crumble in the UK. Sturgeon’s rapist gender admission. Sport also added to the pushback, particularly the discussion about seeing boxers who had failed female sex screening tests punching female boxers in the face and winning gold medals.

We also had the Wadhwa interviews which highlighted that some people supported censure of rape victims receiving support being not just ‘censured’ but re-educated to use a male person’s demanded language. This combined with women being threatened in court if they didn’t call their rapists ‘she’ and use ‘her’ in reference to their rapists. That was also then clarified that rape victims should not have to do this.

The list continues to grow of when women don’t have to use this compelled language. But this shows the logic fail as mentioned upthread.

No female person has female sex based language removed if they are the worst criminals in the world. Yet, male people are being given the reward of language for good behaviour.

Wu even acknowledges this with that list. Points 2, both 3s (that was a typo on my part as one should have been a four) and also 6 are all about rewarding male people for what Wu considers are the criteria deserving of the reward of being treated as if a male can be female.

Which is a direct act of misogyny to demand male people be able to shape the very definition of words that reference female people while attempting to redefine the concept of female as well.

I consider it an act of misogynistic gaslighting. Yet, some people consider allowing it an act of kindness and respect.

So you agree with the dismantling of women’s sex based rights?

Because that is what Wu is arguing for.

For those who need reminding of what Wu is saying.

1 Yes, most children are being overmedicalized. But rare true trans children deserve help or they psychologically shatter

2 a) No, trans women do not belong in professional sports.
b) But it’s hateful to call them men.

3 Trans women are not automatically women. But with hard work and medical intervention, most of us can have fulfilling lives where people perceive us as women.

4 Self-ID must end. Women’s feelings and safety matter, so if you cannot use the ladies non-disruptively - don’t.

5 If you can’t understand why women should never see a penis in a locker room, you’re mentally still a man.

6 We need research to figure out what is happening with this explosion of non-binary identities. They are not trans, and it’s medical malpractice to give them transsexual healthcare.

7 You have to do the work to be percieved as a woman. Far left politics cannot do this work for you.

number 1 is unevidenced, and research has proven that it is not possible to decide which child will persist with their identity.

Number 2, not only still allows a great deal of harm to female people when male people enter even grass roots female sports categories, but has b) the emotionally manipulative language demand. This is a deliberate pairing of issues because it is sport where the division gained the public attention. So, it is also one of the topics that language demand dissonance really shows through.

Number 3 isn’t just asking that people with transgender identities be not discriminated against. It is also demanding that some, especially Wu, are treated as female. Since when was it not misogynistic to consider that any male person who paid enough (and not just in cash) could claim to be female in any way, something they are never going to be?

In fact, when did society reward an individual who paid what they considered a high enough price get to be treated materially as if they were something they will never materially be on a permanent basis? Just because they provided whatever the correct currency (emotional toil, intellectual toil or cash) to persuade society to do this?

No. 4 starts out fine but then quickly twists into more of that reward scenario. In this instance, it is also an abuser’s charter. A person who successfully avoids detection while causing harm is to be rewarded.

Number 5, also sounds fine, yet it is not fine at all on deeper consideration. Wu focuses on penises being the issue. It is not. It is ‘male people’. With or without a penis. What is the difference between a male person who elects to remove their penis electively for identity affirmation versus one who had their penis removed due to treatment for cancer or injury? Should either be in a female single sex provision? No. It is not based on the body part. Safeguarding decisions are not only based on risk of physical harm.

Number 6 is also superficially fine. However, Wu is gate keeping here. And still believes children should be medicalised. (Anyone remember that tweet about Hunter Schafer?)

7 refers to that reward notion again.

Adding this as I think it is appropriate here.

NAOMI CUNNINGHAM ON PRONOUNS AND WHY SHE NO LONGER USES INCORRECT SEX PRONOUNS

This thread, by the way, was in answer to beccajiggens posting:

"Deliberately misgendering trans people in such aggressive ways is conduct unbecoming of a barrister. Again.
@ barstandards"

(my edit to remove auto formatting, but the barstandards was a tag on twitter, intended to bring Naomi's post to the attention of the regulation board)
Naomi's answer:

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2079302831215902930?s=20

" Because I am a dissenter from gender ideology, the pronouns I use are almost invariably determined by the sex, not the gender identity, of the person I am referring to.

I understand that some people think my choice in this is unkind, or rude. I might have thought that myself a few years ago.

I no longer think that, for a number of reasons.

The first is that courtesy is freely given. A "courtesy" demanded with menaces loses its quality as such, and becomes a gesture of submission to bullies.

The second is about truth. If I say "she" of a man, I am implying that he is female. Men aren't female, so I am saying something untrue.

We all tell polite lies sometimes when it doesn't matter much. I think back when I was willing to tell this one, I thought it didn't matter much.

I know better now. What I know now is that many of the men who want to be referred to by feminine pronouns also want everyone to be forced to treat them for all purposes as if they were women, to the detriment of actual women's privacy, dignity and safety.

I think it matters a lot that we should be able to say "no" to those men, and to explain in plain words why we say no (because they are men).

The third is about clarity. Even if everyone knows in theory that the man we're all referring to as "she" is a man really, referring to him as "she" is confusing.

Clarity is fundamental to my job as an advocate: I need to be able to put my arguments as clearly and vividly as possible.

The fourth and perhaps the most important is about what's known to propagandists, advertisers and psychologists as the "repetition effect." People will believe almost any lie, however obviously untrue, if you repeat it often enough.

Lies don't get much more obviously untrue than "trans women are women."

It is repeated like a mantra by trans activists and those who see themselves (or want to be seen) as "allies."

But this lie has a superpower. The superpower is pronouns.

The near-universal compliance with "preferred pronouns," even by many of those who dissent in other ways from gender ideology, means that the lie is repeated with almost every utterance about a man who says he is a woman (or a woman who says she is a man).

And it's repeated not as an assertion, but insidiously, subliminally, by the use of little grammar-words that are normally handled on autopilot and barely registered by either speaker or listener.

It's brilliant propaganda. It's especially brilliant that so many dissenters have been induced to reinforce the lie in this way.

I'm not prepared to.

end/ "

Hateful is an emotive, subjective term. Why is it "hateful" to call a spade a spade? Transwomen are men.