Ian Huntley ! This is wrong...

[HJWT]

I just don't have words

Verbeena I still have no idea what your parameters are for “accepting” that a biologically male person is actually a woman.

You don’t think Huntley is a woman. (You don’t even think he’s a human being but unfortunately he very definitely is, like all the other human beings throughout history who have committed truly vile crimes. You don’t stop being a human being just because you do something evil; it’s simple biological, physical reality, not a value judgement.)

Anyway. How do you define who is a “transwoman” you deem worthy of “acceptance as a woman”? What exact criteria do they have to meet for you to say, “yes, come on in to women only spaces, you’re one of us,”? And how would you police/enforce those criteria? How do we as a society recognise and enforce those parameters?

What about transwomen who aren't "unhinged activists?" why do they get their name said over and over or called they?

I don't remember mentioning the names of any transwomen who aren't unhinged activists (or rapists, et cetera) on here.

It's not like they have anything much to do with the discussion. We are talking about males who want to invade our spaces.

this monster is flouting our laws to move to what it equates to be a softer prison

The problem is, he isn't 'flouting our laws'. 'Flout' means 'openly disregard (a rule, law, or convention).'.
Huntley is trying to take advantage (as White and others have already done) of the current convention that men can self-identify as transwomen and therefore are women and must be treated as women, called 'she', allowed into female spaces. This seems to have become the rule and could become the law.

This is the extreme position. Huntley shows the absurdity and danger of self-ID especially when coupled with the widened 'trans umbrella'. 'Acceptance without exception' is the extreme position - anyone who says that must accept Huntley too.

I will use they on here, although I would prefer to use he

There you go then,that was my point. No matter what transwomen do, they're always men because - men.
Fine. But that was my point all along but it gets said that it never happens.

errol Huntley is trying to take advantage (as White and others have already done) of the current convention that men can self-identify as transwomen and therefore are women and must be treated as women, called 'she', allowed into female spaces.

Yeah, and I don't think anyone (including myself) doesn't have any concerns at all around self ID.

Fine. But that was my point all along but it gets said that it never happens.

No, it's said that it does happen. Because it's necessary to say transwomen are men, in order to talk about the implications.

This isn't a game nor a school common room where we are poking fun at somebody for a laugh.

In order to maintain women's rights, it has to be acknowledged that the people who are currently conflicting with women are not women. Surely you see that.

More the question, is why are people trying to position this as extreme?

It's a very good question.

Please try and debate properly with actual points and arguments.

She doesn't have any.

When such a form of words is used, almost as a throwaway, it creates a subconscious impression in the reader. If the person says as the point of the sentence ‘blah is extremism’ then the reader starts to argue back. But if the person uses that stance as the start of another argument then the mind unconsciously accepts the starting premise.

Linking pairs of words in this way links the concepts and the reader carries that forth because it’s sort of snuck in under the radar.

So I would like to challenge that rhetorical device. I put it to you that not wanting males in female spaces is in not way extremist but actually entirely reasonable.

All this. Excellent post.

Yeah, and I don't think anyone (including myself) doesn't have any concerns at all around self ID.

Maybe focus on that then, the important stuff , not bloody pronouns. The non-extreme trans people (such as those who wrote the letter in the Times yesterday) seem not to get very hung up on 'misgendering'.

What about transwomen who aren't "unhinged activists?" why do they get their name said over and over or called they?

Example?

eresh She doesn't have any

you know damn well why I don't answer all questions, you're usually one of the ones lolzing or being obtuse and not seeing what's actually said.

datun This isn't a game nor a school common room where we are poking fun at somebody for a laugh.

You come across as so reasonable in this post, but you liiterally did exactly that in the thread a couple of days ago.
People including myself say something, you lolz, put down any points as being nonsense or virtually head pat them and/or start talking about types of biscuits or cups of tea/coffee.
Playschool nonsense to anyone who refuses to think that all transwomen should be banished.

But who are the “transwomen” that you think should be accepted as women, Verbeena? I still don’t know how we recognise this group of people. What are the defining characteristics of the kind of transwomen you believe actually are women?

I know you don’t think Huntley is a woman. But I don’t know on what grounds. Is it the fact he’s committed horrific crimes? Is one of your parameters “no male who has committed violent/sexual crimes can be a transwoman”?

Absolute rubbish Verbeena. In 1000 posts I gave one lolz. Which appears to be giving you a disproportionate amount of angst.

The tea was a gif posted by someone else. And banished?

But who are the “transwomen” that you think should be accepted as women, Verbeena?

No point answering, as some obviously have a problem with not only self ID but all transwomen too.
Not setting myself up for a ha moment.

datun Absolute rubbish Verbeena. In 1000 posts I gave one lolz. Which appears to be giving you a disproportionate amount of angst

You gave one lolz, yes.
How about the what you don't understand, got it now? good? don't do it again?
Tea? Bigot. posts.
To name but only a few.

You do realise people can read that thread, don't you?

(And If you don't want people getting exasperated with your faux self flagellation, don't do it.)

datun You do realise people can read that thread, don't you?

I do, yes. You see what you see best.

It's Daily Mail crap designed to get you frothing at the mouth with little regard for the facts. Do yourself a big favour and block the daily mail and other tabloid newspaper websites on your web browser.
I think you'll feel a lot less anger, bitterness and resentment towards the world if you do .

lilymarie It's Daily Mail crap designed to get you frothing at the mouth with little regard for the facts

Agree with that, the Daily Mail sure know how to do that!

Verbeena No point answering, as some obviously have a problem with not only self ID but all transwomen too.
Not setting myself up for a ha moment.

I’m just trying to understand. You say you don’t agree with self ID. Which is good. But you do believe some “transwomen” should be accepted as women.

Given that some males will inevitably try to take advantage of any rules around any males in female spaces, what do you think should be the criteria for allowing some of those males in? You see that there has to be a way this is administered, yes, if you don’t support pure self ID?

I just want to know how you think this “test”, for want of a better word, would be administered, and by whom? How will it function, practically, in society?

Talking I’m just trying to understand

Maybe you are. Maybe you're a reasonable genuinely interested in both sides like rufus seems to be. I dunno, not seen you as much as some of the prevalents.
A few on here have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what others have to say though.
They'll make that clear enough if I answer all the questions instead of just some.

I just want to know how you think this “test”, for want of a better word, would be administered, and by whom? How will it function, practically, in society?

So how about an answer to this, Verbeena?