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.

As I said paranoia is never a helpful basis for making your mind up about something.

ubiquity · Today 12:54

As I said I'm not an expert on her politics or her thinking, but her writing on (very) right wing (and questionable) publications does say something.

I agree, it says that the left and liberal leaning press refuse to by articles by her and other women on the trans subject, so they publish where they are able, in order to get their messages across.

She's not remotely right wing.

Many of you focus on very specific, narrow examples and fixate on potential, hyperbolic scenarios. It's never a good idea to make decisions based on hysterical 'what if' paranoia

What are these 'hyperbolic scenarios' may I ask? Just a few examples would be great.
And can you please stop labelling intelligent women as 'hysterical' - it's sexist bollocks, it really is.

As I said I don't know what her current politics are but lending your voice to a toxic platform that is using it to undermine the cause you are trying to champion is very ill advised.

Which middle ground would this be?

As I said I'm not being pushed into a corner to be questioned with whatever niche scenarios you can come up with.

And the language is pretty goady here on all sides when posters get riled.

Here's a good opinion piece on Labour's suggested middle ground:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/25/labour-gender-recognition-anneliese-dodds

And here is Anneliese Dodds actually spelling out Labour's proposals:

You could at least try to cover up your sexism though @ubiquity

I think the link to the Anneliese Dodds piece wasn't included so here it is again: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories

As I said paranoia is never a helpful basis for making your mind up about something.

It's not paranoia, it's experience.

I have a nice list of all the many reasons I don't trust Labour on this issue. Happy to post it if you like.

And I'm a former Labour member. I have never voted for another party.

So you cannot give us any examples of scenarios but you accuse us of focusing on these scenarios? Eh?

And I have not seen anyone slinging sexist and offensive insults your way on this thread tbf so the whole 'both sides' thing is nonsense.

'Cannot' and 'will not' are two different things. Again, this is going the way of all threads on this topic - toxic bunfight that just moves away from the actual issue.

And I have had plenty of offensive language aimed at me, just now I was called sexist.

Oh, a genderist blustering and insulting and point blank refusing to back up their flimsy ideology with any rational argument or examine their own biases? See my shock.

And I have had plenty of offensive language aimed at me, just now I was called sexist.

How is that "offensive language"? And calling people transphobic or "anti trans" or right wing is not?

Because you used sexist language against women who are challenging you, I asked you not to do this.

I don't think it's helpful to the debate to continue this level of 'tit for tat' bickering - I said that insults are given from both sides of the argument.

How about you lead by example then.

It's in black and white for all to see. I hope that lots of women are reading this thread I really do.

Haven’t read the comments but would also like to propose in addition to the OP that you can be concerned with the specific issue of single sex spaces and still be trans inclusive.

You don’t have to be transphobic and insist on the deliberate straw man argument of “people can’t change sex”, can still appreciate people being trans, and still recognise the conflict of interest and vulnerability the balancing of trans rights and women’s rights causes both demographics.

Both sides….

One side accuses others of being right wing, credulous, lacking critical thinking, hysteria and paranoia (just going from memory, sorry if I missed or added anything)

The other side asks that you avoid sexist language.

Yep. Tit for tat. Definitely

You don’t have to be transphobic and insist on the deliberate straw man argument of “people can’t change sex”

I genuinely do not understand this point. Why is stating a simple fact transphobic?

And I said please.

One side compares posters to vampires….