The dictionary definition of woman is a hate crime now. AIBU or is this political correctness gone mad.

[DJLippy]

Feminists across the UK have "defaced" statues by dressing them in T-shirts containing the dictionary definition of the word woman .More details here.
makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/mmnblog/a-womans-place-is-in-the-resisters-midnight-t-shirt-protest-sparks-outrage

Trans rights groups are calling this a hate crime. I hate to sound like such an old fogie but this it sounds like political correctness gone mad! How is this offensive? What's so offensive about the word woman I don't understand!

even with consent, anaesthesia and sterile procedures, FGM is FGM

I think there would be a case under UK law that surgery to a woman's genitals, for purposes of gender re assignment or whatever you want to call it is FGM

I do wonder if it's something so perfevtky fine. If there's nothing controversial abkut it at all , why is it given names that don't really describe what it is.

Top surgery.
Bottom surgery

Reassignment surgery

Would people still be so keen to go through witg it if we used nore accurate terminology

Karen White was put in a women's jail and continued to offend. Doesn't matter what the general public think if our institutions believe otherwise. That's the point.

even with consent, anaesthesia and sterile procedures, FGM is FGM

Well, technically so is circumcision. But I don't think a transman having surgery is anywhere close to somebody being forcibly mutilated.

You could say that punching somebody in the face is punching somebody in the face, but a boxing match isn't the same as somebody assaulting an unwilling victim.

Well, technically so is circumcision. But I don't think a transman having surgery is anywhere close to somebody being forcibly mutilated

Except many are troubled youngsters who are ever increasingly isolated and spending hours watching YouTubers. Certain people on Twitter encouraging them to up and leave and join a new glitter family.

We aren't even allowed to mention the high rates of asd in these children who are so young and wanting these major surgeries

You don't have to be pinned down and anesthetized kicking and screaming for it to not entirely be a free choice

Karen White was put in a women's jail and continued to offend. Doesn't matter what the general public think if our institutions believe otherwise. That's the point.

But harsh as this sounds, it's still a relatively small scale issue at this point in time, hence the general lack of awareness.

Another issue is where you draw the line between the rights of offender and potential victim. For example, would you consider it reasonable to enforce sanctions on black people buying guns/knives given the statistics on violent crime?

There arguably needs to be consistency between how we treat protected/marginal groups else people will just cite prejudice as they already are. We generally don't take away privileges from ethnic groups that display greater threat to other groups, or try to segregate them (I'm not saying we should btw and I'm not for self-ID, but there needs to be consistency).

To clarify, I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to argue that men shouldn't be house with women due to risk. It's just that it's hard to apply thi argument in only some specific circumstances.

Like how it'd be reasonable to sack somebody for repeated underperformance at work, but unreasonable if it was only applied to certain groups/individuals.

I really don't know what the solution is.

But harsh as this sounds, it's still a relatively small scale issue at this point in time, hence the general lack of awareness

What else is possibly not known is that one of the men behind the policies in prisons the allowed for the likes of Karen white to end up in a woman's prison despite a history of being a danger to women, was caught out having thousands of child abuse photos on his computer.

A policy is one thing. But again it's not always a group of people teying to do their best. It is instead part of an agenda that strips women of even their basic rights

To clarify, I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to argue that men shouldn't be house with women due to risk. It's just that it's hard to apply thi argument in only some specific circumstances.

It's not just about relative risk. It's also about the privacy and dignity and feelings of women and girls. Why are these trumped by male feelings?

A policy is one thing. But again it's not always a group of people teying to do their best. It is instead part of an agenda that strips women of even their basic rights.

I don't honestly believe that this is the agenda of our government though, even if one senior official was found to have reprehensible sexual deviations.

I think that the government is between a rock and a hard place in regard to the slippery slope that is identity politics and unpopular as my opinion may be I think that 3rd wave feminism played a fairly large part in opening up this can of worms (the TRAs have adopted many of the same tactics).

It's not just about relative risk. It's also about the privacy and dignity and feelings of women and girls. Why are these trumped by male feelings?

I speculate that many people don't see it as between men and women, which is a natural perspective for feminists who are focused on sex/gender. I think many people just see trans people as a marginalised group like homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc.

*A fairly large part in opening this can of worms ( TRAs have adopted many of the same tactics )
I agree with you. Opposite sides of the same extreme coin.

Bold fail, was meant to quote

It's a difficult situation for sure!

To give a clumsy analogy, I think feminists are in a similar predicament to the individual who has loudly proclaimed themselves to be a stoic pacifist who would never resort to violence, but then finds themself in a situation where physical self defence might actually be justified (but is contrary to their ethos).

The trans lobby have almost stolen the identity politics rulebook and it's hard to push back without being seen as a 'bigot' or not being inclusive etc.

So forest
Do you believe it's purely coincidence that those who have been influential in drawing up policies that feminists have tried so hard to point out to relevant people are say guarding nightmares, have all turned out to be, less than savoury characters

David Challoner
Aimee challoner
Jess bradley
The prison guy...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3440219-Scottish-sex-offender-prison-official-Sunday-Times-story?pg=1&order=

Here's the thread about the prison thing.

Trans people are a much smaller minority and really they will be pissing in the wind if they think most people are going to stop using the word 'woman' minute traditional sense

Advertisers and companies are already calling women 'menstruators', 'bleeders'; NHS guidance calls pregnant women 'pregnant people'. People are so scared of using the term 'women' when they talk about things to do with women, else they get blackmailed by TRAs who are picking them off one by one.

It is fucking insane.

But harsh as this sounds, it's still a relatively small scale issue at this point in time, hence the general lack of awareness.

How many women being raped by men in jail does it take for you to consider it worth being enough of a problem to be worried about?

I agree with you. Opposite sides of the same extreme coin.

Don't be so disingenuous, there's nothing extreme about women saying, very clearly, no, we have rights, and we're going to talk about them. There's nothing extreme about saying that woman is a distinct class which doesn't include males.

Would you like me to catalogue the violent threats, lies, silencing and bullying transactivists use?

I didn't say there was nothing extreme talking about rights at all.
I said there's extremists at both ends.

Who are the feminist extremists trying to take rights away from Trans people ?

Do people really still think this is some kind of pick and mix station, where we can choose to have only the nice elements?

Boy are you mistaken.

It is all of it, without exception, from the "nice" ones to the child rapists and sexual predators. No exception, no question, 100% acceptance. They are all women, and will be counted and logged and recorded as such - from work to politics to sports to health to population to crime.

We already have police forces being used on a request basis to check our thoughts for compliance to this orthodoxy, against people who don't even live in their force area FFS.

You are either 100% unquestioningly, absolutely, entirely agree with every statement said and demand made and will go to bat when they need a human shield; or you are a vile transphobe who needs to die in a fire.

They are your choices, not this nicey-nicey picky-choosy happy world several pp seem to think women are saying no to.

Trans activists talk about feminists who believe men can’t become women making them feel “unsafe” - but I know of no cases where a gender critical feminist has physically attacked a trans activist (or threatened to), but TRAs have physically attacked and intimidated women and threaten to “punch them in the ovaries” etc.

Gender critical feminists are not extremists, we just don’t want the word women (and by implication women’s spaces) to include men.

I said there's extremists at both ends.

OK - how about you catalogue all the violence, threats (death and/or rape) doxxing; smear campaigns, unnecessary medicalisation, and general violent/masked demonstrations that you say the "extremist" GC women have done.

I can make a start on the list for the TRA community's actions and we'll compare notes?

Still waiting for some specific, actual and real life examples of rights being taken away from a trans person. One will be sufficient.

No one is taking rights away from transpeople, in fact self ID will take more rights away from people with gender disphoria than anything GC campaigners are asking for.
It will remove mental health services for Transexuals completely.