Ian Huntley ! This is wrong...

[HJWT]

I just don't have words

You are wilfully misinterpreting here.
You said not all of us are saying no to all transwomen as they'll always be a man

Are you saying that you acknowledge they will always be a man but you will include them anyway
Or
That at some point they stop being a man and become a woman?

And bowl has really been looking for it

Ok, if you believe that biologically transwomen are Male, but you don’t want to exclude all transwomen from female spaces, can I ask:

Why?
And
Do you think all spaces should be mixed sex? If yes, why and if no, why because that contradicts your ‘inclusiveness.’

Basically: what exactly does a man have to do to get into women’s spaces and it be ok?

I have! I’ve flipped back through the thread and looked. If you’ve snswered and I’ve missed it - which is possible, I’m very tired - just give me the time of the post.

Yes, really, and the fact that you can't believe it is a) tediously symptomatic and b) your loss, ultimately.

Oh I'm sure you're a great loss to GC feminism.

I’m very tired - just give me the time of the post.

There is literally no POINT. You only see what you want to. And twist everything.

I’m not aware of a clear answer as to why my stance is extreme. If someone could point me towards the time of the post that answers I can stop asking

It's upthread near the start, not specific to you but it SAYS what was extreme as someone else was asking too.
If you can't see it, well then you can''t see it.

I’m very tired - just give me the time of the post

There is literally no POINT. You only see what you want to. And twist everything

datun - why link to just that bit? I said that bit as there is no point, I said that after all the what's so extreme bit? and I was actually answering!
I've repeatedly said it. What's the point again? You can't see what's under your nose.

First page v?

2nd?

Im not invested enough in this to look for myself but i think bowl just doesnt have the energy!!

I've repeatedly said it. What's the point again? You can't see what's under your nose.

Lolz.

think it was starcrossed seahorse who was asking as she couldn't see anything anyone who had said as extreme?

It's all there, and in other parts of the thread too. I have said so, repeatedly. I'm not doing it again. It's there but you won't see as to some it's not an extreme position. Even though it is.

bowl has just had a new baby, verbena. She's knackered. Could you just link to your answer, to save her energy.

I can see the problem with self ID. It's not a good idea. Seeing as extreme position is no penises in our spaces, why do they want no transwomen in there at all? If the offending "bits" are no more?

This is what I can see near the start. This?

I want to understand the mindset that says ‘I know these are men, but I think some of them should be in with the women.’

Despite data that shows that post transition males retain Male patterns and rates of violent offending.

Oh I'm sure you're a great loss to GC feminism.

I'm not talking about me. I'm suggesting that it might be detrimental to your cause that you refuse to countenance the possibility that the FWR boards might be repulsive.

sorry, just to clarify I have no idea why the top bit of that was bolded as that was me, oops!

Should have bolded this bit was just the predictable datun Lolz

I'm not talking about me. I'm suggesting that it might be detrimental to your cause that you refuse to countenance the possibility that the FWR boards might be repulsive.

Repulsive.

🤣🤣🤣
Honestly, genuinely, that made me laugh out loud.

datun bowl has just had a new baby, verbena. She's knackered.

Eh? Nope, no new baby here. So not exactly sure what you're on about there.
I've told you why not wanting any transwomen at all and to stay away is extreme.
Seeing as that's your stance though, you won't see it as extreme, will you, so not much point saying it all yet again.

datun Honestly, genuinely, that made me laugh out loud

Well it would, wouldn't it.

bowl has had the baby

Its called ramikin...or something

Ramikin bowl the third

He’s a cutie but not a big fan of sleeping.,

I will let this lie - I think you won’t answer why the ‘no men in women’s spaces’ stance is extreme. And I can ask but I can’t demand - you don’t have to answer anything anyone asks.

I also wanted to pick up on it because it’s a rhetorical device I keep seeing - I’m sure it has a name but I can’t bring it to mind (I just poured milk into the teapot... im not at my sharpest.)

Is that how you spell ramikin?

Eh? Nope, no new baby here. So not exactly sure what you're on about there.

bowl has. Re-read.

Sorry, just re-read that and you meant bowl has just had a new baby. Sorry. Still, what's that got to do with anything? Does having a baby mean you can't see extremism when it's staring you in the face?