To say that just because someone is opposed to " Trans Acceptance Without Exception" it doesn't mean that they are GC or Feminist.

[TooBigForMyBoots]

And it's important to understand the difference?

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Radical Feminist POV. Gender is abstract. A societal construct that can be accepted, rejected or adapted throughout life. Gender is different to biological sex which is scientifically binary and immutable so Gender is not really important and not a stable basis for law.

Some oppose Trans Rights Activism from a Feminist POV. Gender might have a biological component. Fine with gender ideology long as biological women's rights, security and single sex spaces are safe with no encroachment from males.

Some oppose Trans Activism because it goes against their religious beliefs. It does not make them GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because they believe in stereotypical gender roles. Men should be men and women should be women. This is not GC or Feminist.

Some oppose it because of misogyny. They hate women. They hate men pretending to be women because it debases men. This is not GC or feminist.

Am i being Unreasonable to say that just because someone is opposed to TRA "acceptance without exception", it doesnt mean they are Gender Critical or feminists. And we need to understand the difference.

I've said before that some feminists need to be a bit more careful who their friends are and who they approvingly retweet. Mary Harrington and Louise Perry come to mind here.

I have no fucking idea what you are on about; those words strung together are meaningless waffle.

If you spoke plainly e.g I believe a person born with a penis or vagina can do x or shag y folk I would understand what your on about and be able to say “aye fair enough” or “naw your aff yer heid”.

Why do you say that? Do you know nothing about friendship?

Every time these supposed activists focus on starmer or stupid phrases like “adult human female” or whatever other shibboleth is being touted libs of tik tok , Chris Rufo, various other (to you all) behind the scene paid rightist agitators lean back snd smile. Job well done!

pikkumyy77 is absolutely correct here. The phrase "what is a woman" wasn't even a thing before Matt Walsh's documentary. Now it's everywhere. This isn't a happy accident. The Rolling Stone article below is an interesting read.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/trans-hate-follower-count-matt-walsh-1234770675/

Those laughing hardest here spun the pernicious and stubborn lie: At least the Tories know what a woman is.

IMO it is one of the most damaging lies they ever told.

I can assure you that the phrase ‘what is a woman?’ predates Matt Walsh. You seem rather misinformed. Maybe it is the media you get your information from.

Was one of those deleted posts from ubiquity an answer to when Starmer clarified that ‘biological sex’ most certainly doesn’t include the group of male people with GRCs that he has said should be treated as if they are female people?

Did I miss the evidence we have all been asking for on numerous threads where people mindlessly post those sentences as some
kind of hope? Or has it been ignored because that bit of historical context is highly inconvenient and shows just how fucked language has become and that any statement, even of one or two sentences, now requires a glossary to ensure that communication is clear and precise and doesn’t unintentionally include groups in the statement that should not be included.

The fact that Starmer is a legal practitioner and knows precise language will mean he is held to account means everytime he leaves the message obscured he can string voters along.

Unless he clarifies who is legally considered a ‘biological woman’ that statement being posted on this thread multiple times as a gotcha means nothing.

Obviously didn’t make myself clear enough there: I’m not talking particularly about who someone is friends with in the literal sense; I’m talking about the people they approvingly quote and retweet etc. when discussing their work as a feminist. Like, men who spend their time leering gleefully about women “hitting the wall” and all that kind of thing.

You are incorrect. Many of us have been asking that question for years before Matt Walsh.

It’s not really an interesting read. It labels anything that’s not completely pro trans as Anti trans, including objecting to biological males in female spaces. It won’t let me read it again, but it even dismisses the notion that women and girls are at risk of being attacked in females spaces, failing to point out that’s exactly what has happened, and saying that is Anti trans. It’s not.

It also says that Matt Walsh has pushed the issue mainstream. No he hasn’t. TRAs have pushed it main stream. Many women have been concerned for many years.

It says that other people are trying to separate the trans community from the gay community. No stonewall did that when they decided trans rights were to be placed above anyone else on the community. Stonewall did more to turn many lesbians away than anyone who is GC or even any trans could.

There are only 2 things I find interesting in that article.

1 Matt Walsh isn’t someone I follow and am interested in. He brings nothing new to this debate. He is asking some of the questions that women have been asking for years. That doesn’t mean we are aligned on everything.
2 That article says that him speaking on this issue has made him famous.

These points are interesting, to me, because Rolling Stone and many people seem to only think these questions have been asked, since a man is asking them. It’s escaped so many people’s attention that women have been asking these questions for years before Matt Walsh appeared.

and then, how are we in a place where a man can become really famous for asking ‘what is a woman?’ How have we got to a place where a man making a film asking people to define what a woman so controversial, it made the presenter so famous?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that if women had been listened to in the first place, hadn’t been shouted down, accused of literal violence , threatened into shutting up, had their jobs and livelihoods put at risk and so on people like Matt Walsh wouldn’t have got famous for asking a simple question.

@Helleofabore

I can assure you that the phrase ‘what is a woman?’ predates Matt Walsh. You seem rather misinformed. Maybe it is the media you get your information from.

Okay, catchphrase, then. Better? A phrase that is suddenly very popular, repeated by every witless RW pundit and, suddenly, asked in parliaments across the world. Why is it so?

@Wadermellone

*It’s not really an interesting read. It labels anything that’s not completely pro trans as Anti trans, including objecting to biological males in female spaces. It won’t let me read it again, but it even dismisses the notion that women and girls are at risk of being attacked in females spaces, failing to point out that’s exactly what has happened, and saying that is Anti trans. It’s not.

It also says that Matt Walsh has pushed the issue mainstream. No he hasn’t. TRAs have pushed it main stream. Many women have been concerned for many years.*

It's interesting to me that you seem to have ignored the gigantic section about internet impressions and reach. It is by using this that MW, the Daily Wire and their aligned group of Twitter and YouTube shills pushed the issue mainstream. The article didn't go into trans rights - or the lack of women's rights - at all as you seem to imply. It primarily discussed Walsh's approach and how he used the Internet to do so.

I am not implying it. I am saying it.

It uses the label Anti trans for anything that’s not pro trans. Any concerns such as males in women’s bathrooms comes under Anti trans. The article implies that’s not a real concern. It absolutely does go into trans rights and women’s rights.

By positioning this is issue as something that’s not a real concern and a FR talking point for attention, without mentioning it’s actually a very real issue and happens, then are discussing women’s rights. It’s not balanced and they are dismissing the issues.

I get that you may not be able to see the nuance. But it absolutely positions its stance on trans rights and women’s rights.

I didn’t miss it. I disagree Matt Walsh pushed the issue mainstream. And if he did that’s more of a concern. TRAs have been trying to get women to accept them in their spaces for years. Plenty of women have been resisting it. TRAs brought this to mainstream attention. Matt Walsh may have piggy backed on that.

I will ask the question again. It’s interesting you didn’t read it. Or read it and ignored it. Why aren’t you asking why it took a man with (in my opinion) questionable values, to draw attention to the massive holes is the TWAW stance.

If women had actually been listened to there wouldn’t be space for Matt Walsh to pick up the issue.

What happened to women who got attention for speaking on this issue?

Only if you are US based maybe. Posie Parker started with the woman definition in 2018. The usage of the definition and the question what is a woman has been snowballing from there ever since in European countries. The US is just lagging behind and Matt Walsh has jumped on the bandwagon, probably to increase his presence and fame outside of the US.

I know I do not like the fact Matt Walsh got famous with this, whilst he is not an ally to women at all, and very intelligent women who have the stats, the knowledge and the evidence of harm to women by self id completely ignored.
It just shows how society, men and women, are programmed to completely downplay and ignore what women say and listen to men.

@Wadermellone

I will ask the question again. It’s interesting you didn’t read it. Or read it and ignored it. Why aren’t you asking why it took a man with (in my opinion) questionable values, to draw attention to the massive holes is the TWAW stance.

It made him prominent due to the fact the rest of the RW group retweeted him. Over and over. And people on those feeds retweeted, and on it goes. It could have been a woman, but in this case it was a provocative man. That helped, I suppose. I'm saying a massive media machine surrounds Walsh. This machine feeds on metadata. Any time keywords he has elevated is tweeted, retweeted or mentioned (such as "what is a woman") it is notified and perhaps re-tweeted again - and again. Like it or not, we're all part of this machine.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly. Read and learn from Wadermellone

Just out of interest DrBalenciaga - what is a woman?

Who said we aren’t part of the media machine?

Your original point was that ‘what is a woman’ wasn’t a thing until Matt Walsh. It was.

Because TRAs were already taking away women’s spaces and women’s safety. The media machine was pushing a narrative that TWAW and to say anything other than that made you the worst scum of the earth. That not accepting that many you could be threatened, with physical violence, rape, murder. The result of the media machine meant that lesbians were being slowly pushed out of spaces for the gay community. People like my adult daughter, because she didn’t want to date people who have or ever have had a penis.

Women were already asking the question ‘what is a woman’, because (as of yet) no TRAs can actually answer it.

The fact that Matt Walsh, came along and picked it up changes nothing. The issue are the same. Some media may be pushing that narrative. Plenty of media is pushing the TRA narrative. But there’s no issue with that?

Transwomen being vulnerable in toilets, rape centres and what not is a biological male issue. They are at risk from men. That doesn’t mean women have to make themselves more vulnerable to accommodate trans women, by letting biological men into our spaces. But no one listened.

The whole TRAs argument is massively flawed. if Matt Walsh is the one that drew attention to it, that proves the problem. Women weren’t listened to on a women’s issue.

Men who feel like women had their needs prioritised over womens safety and women were ignored. The media kept pushing the same narrative. Until a RW commentator picked up. That’s the problem.

It shouldn’t even have got the stage where Matt Walsh was saying something controversial. If the RW people were able to jump in on this, it’s because people were prioritising men’s feelings over women’s safety.

Women don’t now have to ignore this issue, because a RW commentator jumped on it. We can still, disagree with a lot of his value. We can see it’s an opportunity. But it’s not one he invented. He didn’t create the space for it. And the fact that he is there doesn’t change the problem for women.

If your problem is with Matt Walsh and how he got more famous, why isn’t your issue with why that gap was there in the first place.

Of the irony of being told “what is a woman? Wasn’t a thing until a man said it” by someone clearly deaf to all the women asking that question fir yonks before Matt Walsh had a clue about any of it

it’s just like the men on Twitter who suddenly discovered Isla Bryson or lia Thomas who then spent ages tweeting variations of “god women why haven’t you been doing something about this?”

one of the reasons everyone knows TW are men is because they get listened too

one of the reasons everyone knows TW are men is because they get listened to

The difference is stark isn't it?

I’m talking about the people they approvingly quote and retweet etc. when discussing their work as a feminist. Like, men who spend their time leering gleefully about women “hitting the wall” and all that kind of thing.

Are you talking about these people liking these exact tweets? Can you give some examples of what you mean?

And again, you are not correct. For someone so proud of what they read and someone so derisive of others you really are throwing out misinformation everywhere. It says a great deal about your own prejudice around this issue.

Women stated asking that question well before the last UK general election. I know I asked any person who door knocked in that lead up and I had Tory, LD and labour on my doorstep. And I think you will find UK media found it was topical even then.

Jo Swinson 2019

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7778611/amp/SARAH-VINE-Jo-Swinson-woman-betraying-women-swapping-principles-populism.html

Oh… weren’t you one of the posters so derisive of the Daily Mail? Oh dear. Wouldn’t want to cause any posters head to explode or whatever ridiculous thing that might happen in reading the DM.

Here is a YouTube link to the original footage. And no, I haven’t looked up who the channel belongs to. You can and you can make your own decision about whether you watch it or not.

And ‘Anna’ who asked the question, I said this then but I will say it again “awesome job!”

Well I really wish no one had to ask what a woman is!

We didn't have to until a bunch of males over reached and claimed to be one.

And as for the GRC making some men legal women, it's all a fine mess. The only people who benefit are the males and the people who lose out are women who've had to make way for them or worse been harmed as a result.

@Helleofabore

Oh… weren’t you one of the posters so derisive of the Daily Mail? Oh dear. Wouldn’t want to cause any posters head to explode or whatever ridiculous thing that might happen in reading the DM.

What? Do you have me confused with someone else?

The whole TRAs argument is massively flawed. if Matt Walsh is the one that drew attention to it, that proves the problem. Women weren’t listened to on a women’s issue.

Men who feel like women had their needs prioritised over womens safety and women were ignored. The media kept pushing the same narrative. Until a RW commentator picked up. That’s the problem.

It shouldn’t even have got the stage where Matt Walsh was saying something controversial. If the RW people were able to jump in on this, it’s because people were prioritising men’s feelings over women’s safety.

Women don’t now have to ignore this issue, because a RW commentator jumped on it. We can still, disagree with a lot of his value. We can see it’s an opportunity. But it’s not one he invented. He didn’t create the space for it. And the fact that he is there doesn’t change the problem for women.

This. People on this thread are astonishingly ignorant of what women in the UK have done that precedes Matt Walsh speaking about it. It shows they are sexist and have an American centric view of the world. There's a reason TRAs call the U.K. "TERF Island".

Also, it's hardly an unusual fucking question to ask, given that no witless LW pundit can answer it.