"We" can always tell

The username rang a bell. Ignoring the Joe Jackson song, the 1996 film explains a lot.

Everyone here acknowledges there is a problem with male violence. (Well, almost everyone)

No it was a bit weird trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

This not replying isn’t go well, is it?

Of course!

Women's rights are very important to me, as is the space FWR allows to analyse the inherent sexism within Genderism.

I notice who posts and what they say, both here and on the regular "FWR is so awful" "I know" threads that pop up from time to time trying to pessurise MN to muzzle or ban Gender Critical Feminist discourse.

It's probably an ND thing, I do remember details and see patterns about things I focus on. It seems to be an innate quality and I am actually paid quite well for it. I do tend to forget many people don't have the same ability (I get that feedback at work as well)

It was exactly what it appeared to be, a statement of fact. Neither compliment nor insult, just fact.

I recognise your username, I know your views, so I know you would not respect me because of my views anyway, regardless of what I may or may not say on this specific thread about this specific scenario.

It's not a complicated statement. You've put more effort into finding ways to misunderstand it than it would have taken you to just take it at face value. 😂

Genderism in a nutshell really. Dance everywhere except the simple and obvious place, because the simple and obvious place is the last place they want to have to go.

Like an anti Occam's razor.

How is a list of women killed by men - 'these kind of lists' - different from any other kind of list of people who are in a certain category, like 'pedestrians killed in RTAs' or 'women with osteoporosis' or 'residents of Westport with children under 5'

If someone was mistakenly listed as having children under 5 when in fact their kids were in their teens, their name would be removed from the list not because they were deemed 'unworthy', but because they did not belong to the category being listed.

Is there something wrong with restricting lists of people to the people who are being listed?

You recognise my name because you direct messaged me.

Why would you object to a list focusing on women? Especially for something this grave.

Heads up. MN have replied to your thread on Site Stuff.
Probably not the response you were after.

Not so, you sent me a dm asking if I also posted elsewhere, I said I didn't. All amicable.

I meant the words used in your username, rather than you as a poster, who, sorry, I had completely forgotten.

So you looked 😆

Well of course, i wasn't going to accuse you of lying if you hadn't. It was merely a misrepresentation of the interaction on your part. But yes, I did check as I had forgotten it, given it was a trivial if polite question and answer.

GC women don't threaten rape and murder towards transpeople. The violence and vileness is entirely one sided.

Exactly. Women say no. And the abuse, threats and violence is in return.

Also diverted attention from my actual questions:

Different believes no one should be "questioning the sex of a dead petlrson"

I totally agree in front of greiving relatives, or in a nasty way, of course not.

But Never? Why not?

And for how long is that prohibition in place?

Whose interests are served by making sex unsayable?

Any other meaningful questions one can no longer ask?

(Someone needs to tell the archaeologists for a start!)

You have evidence that people on MN went off site to harass someone?

do you really think that evidence comes into the equation? 😂

if evidence were needed on both sides of the discussion here, there would only be one side - that of truth and reality... those against such an approach don't like to have to use evidence - they like to change the meanings of words / they like to pretend / claim injustice and harassment - evidence is an obstruction to their arguments!

Was that the fox killers wife or another one?

I assumed the poster was referring to this, below.

For "beaten up" read "shouted, approached and touched on shoulder".
None of which should have happened, of course.
But I wonder why the poster wrote "beaten up"?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/12/ive-been-spat-on-gender-non-conforming-women-tell-of-toilet-abuse-in-aftermath-of-supreme-court-ruling

Because words are literal violence. Or something.

Because they heard it from someone...or read something that someone else said about it...or didn't check the original source...or believed a rumour...or repeated it without thinking...and got it wrong....

The irony

No-one should be questioning the sex of any trans person either, but lots of people do. They are of course the sex they have always been, the sex observed at birth except in a small number of people with ambiguous genitalia because of a handful of specific DSDs.