Trans/pride flag in children's stickers

[timeforacoffeebreak]

This was included in a pack of squishmallow stickers... why???
AIBU or is this totally wrong ??

I agree it's a particularly shitty position to push this onto young sportswomen to sort. I have seen the appalling abuse Riley Gaines has faced in trying to stand up for her rights. It's fucking grim to see women treated like this. She is one of the bravest souls out there.

This might help

For reader's benefit because I don't think some posters who declare that 'there are extremes on both sides' are even willing to read the flaws in their own arguments.

This is what has been recently happening to women and girls who have tried to enact changes to protect female sports after their sporting federations allowed male athletes to compete in their events. Remember, these are sporting women and girls active in their sports or recently were before leaving because of this, just being the change they want to see. This is why empty platitudes such as repeating mantras and declaring 'both sides are extreme' is, in fact, harmful.

April Hutchinson - Canadian Powerlifting Union says it has recommended that Hutchinson be suspended for two years, which she said was for 'speaking publicly about the unfairness of biological males being allowed to taunt female competitors and loot their winnings.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12720841/Canadian-Powerlifting-Union-suspend-female-transgender.html

The women who were team mates for Lia Thomas who declared that they were uncomfortable with Thomas being in the change rooms and felt that Thomas' inclusion on the female team was unfair were told that if they spoke out they may lose their scholarships.

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/penn-swimmers-cannot-express-opinions-on-lia-thomas-athletes-shut-down-by-school/

Selina Soule - has been abused by extreme trans activists and sexist men for speaking out about being beaten by male athletes where she and others lost their chances at scholarships.

https://www.iwf.org/2020/06/26/high-school-runner-who-lost-to-transgender-athletes-will-compete-in-college/

Riley Gaines - placed equal fifth in a swimming race with Lia Thomas and has received a great deal of abuse for stating that Thomas should never have been allowed to compete. This year at SF university she was attacked and intimidated by a crowd where she and security staff had to stay locked in a room for hours until the SF police came to help them out. This is just one incident, there have been others.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/04/21/riley-gaines-sfsu-growing-attack-free-speech-college-campuses/11695771002/

Sharron Davies - British Olympian has lost sponsorship and paid opportunities and receives abuse.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042401/SHARRON-DAVIES-Fighting-transgender-bullies-left-brink-financial-ruin.html

Mara Yamauchi - British Olympian is in a very similar situation to Sharron.

I can keep listing these examples of very brave women who are absolutely trying to be the change they want to see. And if anyone is interested, I will keep going.

However, empty platitudes really don't stand up to the fucking reality that women and girls who even politely word their complaints and their queries and ask for changes are abused and face losses. This is the reality.

And that US university women's team who were told by their university and coaches that the transwoman might commit suicide if they didn't let them join the team. This is not women and girls' problem to sort, and putting it on the young sports people themselves is especially cowardly.

I am just reposting this on the final page.

Again, I wonder if readers have realised yet that these questions never get answered or even acknowledged. I asked this back on page 24 five days ago.

Nothing. Not one poster who has been on this thread admonishing women who declare that there are issues and that ignoring those issues is causing harm or posters who have declared that women speak too bluntly, or FFS even fucking swear, or attacked posters for supposedly being 'transphobic' and 'hateful' has even attempted to answer this.

Readers, do you see it yet?

There is harm in dismissing the political movement that has been supported by this brand in putting this political symbol for the movement on a children's sticker. And the dismissal we have seen with 'it is a children's sticker and the children won't understand it' is a fucking weak dismissal of the harm being caused widely - from safeguarding to sports to medical treatments.

But hey, apparently readers you need to see only very polite discussions to be encouraged to go and research further. You don't have the capacity to realise there is an issue that you can go and research if women's voices are too strident - sounds like fucking misogyny right there!

And apparently, feminist discussion is extreme enough for it to be dismissed with ' both sides are extreme' rhetoric while posters refuse to engage with the realities of their very own position.

You fail to read and understand what I was saying.

You fail to read and understand what I was saying.

I read it but I don't get it. What are you saying? Hellebore is saying that women are suffering and being punished for doing what you want them to do, for trying to "be the change" to womens' and girls' sports. What did I miss?

Are you saying that what you do is so good for girls that it compensates for also letting boys - a few boys, the right boys - play in girls sports? A few boys who can win over girls just because they are boys? What is the point of having a prize for girls and a prize for boys if one sex can take both prizes?

All this ‘true’ trans women nonsense has got to stop.

No man has a secret woman essence that makes them ‘really’ a woman. Some men might feel deeply troubled by their male body (which deserves compassion) and some men might feel sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as women (which, imo, doesn’t deserve so much compassion). But both of these categories are men who want, to a greater or lesser extent, to be women. You can add a third strand - men who will willingly pretend to be women in order to abuse women. They still fall into the same default group - men with issues. None of them can secretly be women either in some quintessential way or by undergoing surgery.

It’s nonsense to start talking about ‘nuance’ in this way. There is no nuance. A person’s sexed body is what makes them a man or a woman. So whilst it may be unfortunate that a man wants to be a woman, there can be no sense, even, in which he feels like one. Because there is no ‘feeling like’ a woman; there is only being one, which is a material reality measured by actual, biological facts.

Jeez, this is exhausting.

No. I don’t believe I have failed to understand what you are saying I that post or what you have posted through this thread.

please explain though what I have missed in this quote.

“Life is nuanced. I don't believe trans women are a danger. I believe dangerous men are a danger and, sometimes, they will use what ever methods are in front of them to rape and abuse. I believe the trans women who have raped and abused women would have done so whether they were calling themselves women or not.”

Exactly what part of this quote and this quote below have I ‘failed’ to grasp.

“Allowing trans woman access to women's spaces hasn't increased attacks on women in women's only spaces. Whether they've been attacked by men or women. Which is why what ever their gender is recorded as doesn't matter.”

Please be very clear so all reading can understand what I have failed to read and understand?

Do you or do you not support any male person entering a female single sex space if they say they are a woman?

Do you, personally, believe that women and girls have faced increased harm with male people accessing female single sex spaces? How have I misunderstood what you have posted? You stated no women or girls have had increased ‘attacks’ with the inclusion of male people in female single sex spaces. Which is false. Just because you choose to parse it as those women and girls may have been attacked any way because ‘those males’ would have done those attacks anyway doesn’t mean that those attacks actually would have happened at all.

Now that would be absolutely fucking dismissive of the situation. That those male people had better access because society has been told not to question those male people’s presence in female single sex spaces. If you don’t choose to understand the logic of forcing additional risk through telling women and girls to not question these male people’s presence then there is little discussion to be had.

That you somehow think that those male trans people would have raped anyway regardless of their gender status? No fucking shit Sherlock? No fucking kidding!!! That is the entire fucking point.

Again, how many additional incidents where women and girls are abused or harmed because ANY male person now can demand access to female single spaces will it take for you to say, ok, no more male people over about 8 because it is a safeguarding loophole and allows male people to harm female people. How many?

Rather than tell me I have misunderstood, explain how?

I believe the trans women who have raped and abused women would have done so whether they were calling themselves women or not.

Well I doubt anyone disagrees with you there.

So why are we giving them carte blanche to infiltrate women's spaces? Isn't that a deliberate and appalling act of harm towards women?

I identify as having a PhD.

I believe the trans women who have raped and abused women would have done so whether they were calling themselves women or not

For* those still reading along, this argument has been regularly used by some activists to dismiss safeguarding needs. It follows the “those people were going to abuse and rape anyway, laws and policies aren’t going to stop them.” often followed by ‘it is not able to be policed anyway, so why bother. (Sound familiar?)*” and often followed again by a “are you going to insist on genital inspections at the door” style of dismissal of the needs of women and children.

Sometimes, you also see the denouncement of ‘there have been no increases in attacks on women and children’.

This is like a script you see in discussions and debates of arguments extreme trans activists use that is then mindlessly copied by people who don’t seem to be able to critically evaluate what they read and go and find evidence and produce it to support their argument.

Here are some of the tactics that you might see.

The ‘not many / no increase’ argument :

This is similar in nature to the arguments used by extreme trans activists to include males in female sports categories. The ones that go : “no [male people who are trans] have won medals at the Olympics, all this fuss is just silly, [male people who are trans] will never ‘dominate’ women’s sports, this is just hysteria”. This also relies on portraying women raising alarms and issues as ‘extreme’.

The ‘no issue’ argument:

This is a blunt denial that there are safety issues allowing male people over about 8 into
female single sex spaces. It may look like ‘there is no safety issues letting this group in, they need safety too’ or simply be some other blunt denial. Often accompanied by a personal appeal.

This may be “I have no issues / I do this all the time / I have lovely male friends / I just want to pee “. This type of argument is a ‘nothing to see here, move along’ or ‘women arguing about this are so extreme’ style argument.

The ‘they are going to do it anyway’ defence:

This tactic is chilling in its dismissiveness when applied to safety. It relies on people feeling powerless to stop this happening so they stop discussing it. It may also come with “right now this is not ‘illegal’ anyway”, or another twist is “rape is illegal now, so if you get raped in the toilet by someone report it”.

As I have said, it completely ignores the removal of the framework women and girls had established that they could raise the alarm at someone male being in that space. That is completely removed now. Even social pressure used to provide some protection. Or a bystander could raise an alarm from the outside on seeing someone enter that was male. Again, all these immediate potential actions have been publicly communicated as being transphobic and that society should not even raise a micro insulting eyebrow at any male person entering a female single sex space.

One you see in sport is the “Phelps” argument or the “sport is never fair” fallacy. It goes like “the people who win at sport have biological advantages anyway, why can’t these male people with biological advantages compete as female”.

It is similar to the ‘women do it too’ argument. Yes, women attack other women; but those attacking women are on average the same physically as the people they are attacking and so the risk of death is reduced (obvs without a weapon) and no penises are involved and a woman has a greater chance to get away from a woman attacker.

The “Phelps” argument ignores the fact that a person may have a distinctive set of physical advantage over the other competitors, but it is not considered an advantage that cannot be beaten by a person within that category who has a different set of advantages. Phelps was beaten by another competitor they didn’t have insurmountable advantage.

Whereas male puberty gives all males advantages female people simply don’t have. From twitch muscles to lung capacity to hand grip strength to skeletal proportions it is hundreds, I believe thousands actually, of advantages that female bodies simply don’t have and are not likely to develop. It is just another false argument.

However, it is relevant to this discussion on male risk in female single sex spaces. ALL male people from puberty have physical advantages over female people. Grip strength is around 160% on average alone meaning a woman could potentially break free of another woman’s grasp, but it is that much more difficult to break away from any man’s grip.

Hence we keep male people out of female single sex spaces.

@Helleofabore

You asked "So, have you got any evidence at all that males who have transitioned in any way have a lower risk of committing sex offences than any other male person in the UK?"

At no point did I say that trans women are at lower risk of committing sex offences. I said that I believe, still, that the problem is predatory men, and whether they were 'identifying' as female or not, they would have found a way to attack and abuse a woman. This isn't about "acceptable numbers", this is about all the energy being spent on shouting about transwomen being a danger, when the actual danger are the men who want to rape. This is my major concern.

There is no legal right preventing men entering women's spaces. Nothing has actually changed. The number of attacks on women in women only spaces hasn't increased - because predatory men will still find a way. Which is why I earlier used the example of a man who pretended to be a plumber to gain access to a womens refuge. A man intent on raping will find a way, what ever that way is.

You say that any number of women being attacked is too many. That it true - but again, I believe these men would have attacked even if they weren't pretending to be a trans woman to get that access. But when the issue of masculine women being abused for using womens toilets is raised on here, it's dismissed as acceptable. My nieces partner is masculine, and she wears loose mens clothing mainly. She has received abuse in ladies toilets on more than one occasion. A woman who had had a double mastectomy and had cropped hair due to chemo received abuse for using womens toilets. Do you find that acceptable?

As I have said multiple times, I believe there is a middle ground that can be found that keeps everyone safe. And we need to find a way to allow those conversations to happen.

All of these arguments come down to the same core point.

That women's safety, dignity and opportunities are less important than a whim in a man's head.

No more or less than that.

I genuinely didn't understand the strength of the misogyny in this world until all this kicked off. I'm still in shock tbh.

Of course things have changed @justteanbiscuits

One example :

Universities have put up posters telling women that they should not call out or even look at males in women's facilities.

That was NOT the case when I was at university.

You know this and still deny the risk has increased?

Complete nonsense.

Yes. You have tried to tell women they are extreme, that they are wrong for spending time pointing out that ALL male people should be excluded from female single sex spaces. While now acknowledging male people with a trans identity are no less a risk of committing sex offences.

And you are still dismissing that there have been attacks on girls and women in toilets by this group of males because you are doing it using ‘those attacks would have happened anyway’

How about you answer the direct question: do you support males with trans identities accessing female single sex spaces?

Do you? Or don’t you? Be clear.

I will address your question to me in a bit. I am running while typing and that requires a longer answer. Ie. I am not ignoring you at all.

It is up to us as parents to educate our children. I explain to my children that boys are boys and girls are girls and you cannot change this biological fact. Some people like to pretend they are a different sex to what they are, but they can't actually change their sex. Noone can. A man can wear a dress and call himself Sue, but he his sex will always be male.

This argument is so tiring and so disingenuous that men are just going to rape and enter women's facilities anyway so it does not matter.

With this logic, why don't you stop locking your doors and closing your windows because burglars will come in anyway? But you won't. Because small things like social norms and signs and locks still work to a large extent. And you know it.

But suddenly when it comes to the safety of women that all does not matters because some men have feelings.

Yes. But it seems raising these issues and pointing out what is happening and how gets us labelled ‘extreme’ and ‘wasting our energy’. Yeah. Fuck that.

This is like posters coming on and declaring there is a ‘middle ground’ and Mn feminists are not doing it and when pressed you discover the middle ground is EXACTLY what we have all be doing especially off line
AND that that MIDDLE GROUND is the solutions we have all campaigned for and been rejected.

But the posters declaring ‘middle ground’ really want to say is ‘I am not like YOU hysterical, nasty, energy wasting, hateful women… I am kind and tolerant and compassionate because I say so and I scold women who are blunt and speak clearly and point out the flaws in ‘middle ground’.

it is a replay of posting styles we see constantly. No.. no.. you are hysterical hateful extreme women but I, I strive for a magical undiscovered middle ground.

It's interesting how often the argument comes back to bathrooms while ignoring prisons, changing rooms, women's refuges, lesbian dating spaces, etc.

Quite, Irish international prop Tadhg Furlong weighs 125kg (there are currently a few French props weighing in at over 130kg. Lucy Packer, the current England scrum half weighs 55kg. If Tadhg decided to 'trans' and continue his rugby career playing with and against women I wonder how long the Lucy Packers of this world would be willing to risk serious injury trying to tackle people literally more then twice the size of them. Thankfully World Rugby banned transwomen from playing against biological women after a two year review that cited 39 independent peer reviewed studies that concluded that there was 30% increase in the chance of serious injury. Even then, despite the report, TRAs were screaming transphobia, serious injury it seems is not enough of an excuse in the quest to validate some mens feelings.

And also, with regards to the bathroom situation, if TIM don't feel safe in men's bathrooms, then why is this appalling male behaviour not being tackled?

This problem has zero to do with women. We did not cause this. So why are we being expected to put ourselves at greater risk to act as a shield? Why are we being asked to compensate for shitty male behaviour?

Universities have put up posters telling women that they should not call out or even look at males in women's facilities.

And my daughter like others has said it took precisely one trranswoman in the loos at uni to convert them instantly to seeing why that was a bad idea and a backward step for women in practice, despite having gone along with Being Kind in theory.

They do feel sorry for (some) transwomen. But own parachute first. Women need safety, and privacy, and ease of mind. (Transwomen need to find those things too, but elsewhere; like other male people.)

No, I don't shout at or flinch from women in the loos with mastectomies, women with short hair, tall women or gravelly voiced women or butch women. They just don't ping the male radar. A very few beardie transmen have made me look twice.

“the issue of masculine women being abused for using womens toilets is raised on here, it's dismissed as acceptable. My nieces partner is masculine, and she wears loose mens clothing mainly. She has received abuse in ladies toilets on more than one occasion. A woman who had had a double mastectomy and had cropped hair due to chemo received abuse for using womens toilets. Do you find that acceptable?”

No. I don’t find it acceptable. Shall we start a ‘female people only to use this toilet and if you are male, don’t use it so that all female people feel safe so they don’t question other people’s presence who are female’ campaign? Ok. Oh… yeah…. That would be deemed transphobic and unkind and may even get us interviewed by the police or arrested for hate if we publicise it.

So justtea, still nothing to see here? Still a fucking ‘middle ground’? Do you think I am exaggerating, go and see the police interview transcript for the lesbian interviewed last week and banned from her football club.

It is also a disproportionate argument you are using. And readers have already seen this with the ‘gender rights are just like the LGB equality rights arguments’. It is a disproportionate fallacy you are now using even if it is unintentional.

Female people entering female single sex spaces are NOT SAFEGUARDING RISKS!! And I grew up being asked if I was in the wrong toilet so I have direct experience as to just how fucking disproportionate this argument is.

How dare you weaponise gender non-conforming women and girls to attempt to ‘Whatabout’ and continue to dismiss people’s arguments. It seems you hide behind ambiguity while repeating ‘Transwomen are women’ to deflect any accusation you might be like the blunt and extreme views as you wish to our posts and arguments as.

Your posts are full of logical fallacies, falsehoods and dishonest comparisons and premises. Perhaps you have lifted them from somewhere else and never once given them deep thought as to where they ultimately have large weakenesses. Yet you continue to dismiss your very own dismissal of evidence of women’s and girl’s attacks with you attempted twists of logic.

If I had time, I would post the current MOJ stats for female sex offence convictions. These have increased at the fastest rate ever! The fucking evidence is everywhere.

But that is ok, you just keep telling yourself your falsehoods and then attempt to portray others as those who are intolerant, lacking compassion and extreme. Go well. We will still continue to point out the gaping flaws in your posts as we have done before.