Not to like censorship...

[Greenfairydust]

I am going to start this thread saying that I am not gender critical in any way.

But I am really concerned that threads are being deleted on the forum because they are discussing the Nike/DM controversy.

I disagree with gender critical feminists but I 100% support their right to discuss their concerns openly and this gives people like me a chance to put a counter-argument.

Censorship is never the answer.

It's not just censorship, but the censoring of censorship - superinjunctions for example. That mysteriously only ever seem to protect men.

I suspect quite a few MN posters would be more than happy with censorship when and if it suited them.

Please stop with the both sides thing.

One side has refused to debate, engaged in violence, noisily and aggressively protested anytime women gather to discuss their rights and is busy informing gender confused children that adults want to kill them.

The other side (GC side) has formulated coherent arguements, is engaging with the legislative process and is peacefully and lawfully meeting to discuss our rights and experiences despite the fact we need a police presence to do so.

I have spent more than 5 years trying to work out what I've missed, the answer is nothing, gender ideology is a violent, authoritarian mens rights movement.

Nike could have chosen other dudes to advertise their bras

But this debate isn’t about what one individual chooses to say or do to keep a relationship with another individual. It’s about massive social policy changes that affect the basic human rights of half the population. I think facts do matter in that case. Especially when those facts include the increased risk of harm and assault to that half.

What a lot of nonsense.

When stupid ideas are aired openly, they lose credibility.

Your post is a perfect case in point.

I agree, the facts are important. In terms of the facts about biological sex, the GC "side" has already won hands down.

So why has the rest of the world not got on board already? Because the facts are not enough. There are huge issues of fear, anxiety, trust etc on both sides. (No point arguing about who has more to fear - that's a dead end.) Without addressing the emotional issues, all the repetition of facts is just shouting into the wind.

The fact is any male can claim to be a woman to gain access to women's safe places . Just because they say they are a woman.
No debate is needed on how wrong that is!

@pickledandpuzzled I See 'Dudes in dresses prancing around' as a rational description of what DM was doing (except the dresses bit).

But it's the rest of the quote that is the problem for me. 'Pretending to be girls'. Trans women believe they are women, it's not make-believe.

DM is pretending to be a girl.

He knows he was born male, 26 years ago.
He's behaving what he thinks is 'like a girl' because he thinks that's what it takes.

He didn't behave like that 370 days ago. He has changed his behaviour to look like someone else. That's pretending. He's actually an actor. I mean actually an actual actor. Someone who pretends for a living.

Although obviously it actually is make-believe. Facts are important. Also, the majority of transwoman know they're not actually women.

Maybe this sort of thing has something to do with it......

https://youtube.com/shorts/AtVLjtlvMQ4?feature=share

Riley Gaines assaulted by trans activists just a few days ago.
Kelly Jay Keen and several other women assaulted by TRA's in New Zealand just a couple of weeks ago.
Moira Deeming threatened with expulsion from the Victoria liberal party for speaking publicly about women's rights.
A school shooting followed by threats of further violence at a Trans Day of Vengeance
These are just the high profile cases from the last month.

Women needing police protection to speak in public.
Lesbians unable to hold private meetings without protesters trying to disrupt.
Rosie Duffield unable to go to the Labour party conference bese of threats made against her.
JKR having enough rape and death threats to wall paper her house.
Women doxxed or reported to employers and losing their jobs.
Vexatious complaints made about women to police forcing us to crowd fund defence lawyers and then charges are dropped because there is no case.

I can do this all day and all the way back to 2017.

The GC case has not yet won because there has been a deliberate attempt to keep many of the issues out of the news so this is new to many women, women have felt isolated and afraid of violence and politicians have been spineless.

Women are united and aware now and we will not let women's rights be taken away.

'Both sides' is the new mantra being pushed because the reality is that, on one hand, women's rallies are being disrupted by masked thugs screaming threats and smacking 70 year old women in the face, venues where women are meeting to discuss women's issues are being threatened and surrounded by protesters banging on the windows and door, women meeting to watch a film are being spat on, female athletes are surrounded by a baying crowd demanding money in order for her to be able to go home, and signs threatening to decapitate women are held in front of smirking, fawning elected representatives.

Whereas, on the other hand, women are writing politely to their elected representatives, signing petitions, making signs, chalking slates, writing poetry and (gasp) indulging in haberdashery.

'Both sides' is a nonsense. It's a tactic to minimise the last decade of no debate, no platforming, doxxing, rape and death threats and now the increasingly desperate escalating violence shown by those who are absolutely incensed that women have dared to say no.