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 the most recent posts show many of you are completely lacking in accountability for your language and tone which has often been offensive at best and toxic at worst in these threads, while picking on mine. Time for lunch all round I think.

Remarkable, isn't it?

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.

How is maintaining single sex spaces for women that male trans people don't access "trans inclusive"? I'm pretty sure very few trans rights activists would consider it so and that's not what the phrase is commonly understood to mean. At some points this is a zero sum game, because most of the males involved don't want a third space. They want "women's".

😂🤣😂🥲😂

Are you feeling a bit sore? Sending the children to bed for a nap so you can catch your breath?

Yep, guilty as charged, having a bit of fun last night. You gotta admit it was pretty funny if you got to see the clip before it was censored!

As the most recent posts show many of you are completely lacking in accountability for your language and tone which has often been offensive at best and toxic at worst in these threads, while picking on mine. Time for lunch all round I think.

You really do have zero self awareness, don't you?

Actually that's not a bad analogy. See you after nap/mealtime! 🍝

Neither guardian article really says anything. And one clearly points out that the definitions don’t mean a great deal.

There can be single sex space in only some situations ‘where a service wouldn’t be able to be provided otherwise’ means nothing in the name of protecting women.

Biological men will still be allowed in women’s hospital wards, women’s refuges, women’s sports, women of the year award. Because you still provide these services and allow biological men access. Because some women will accept it, some women won’t know, some women won’t speak up.

Reducing being able to get GRC by having one doctor say so isn’t enough. How many other things get diagnosed only by seeing one professional. Are we saying that Isla Bryson wouldn’t have been able to get one doctor to agree he should be allowed a GRC.

Then would rapist Isla Bryson, be allowed in a women’s prison?

and the TWAW side believe that trans women are women, biologically. So once they have a GRC not one is clear and wether than means they will get access to the very few spaces women have. Or not

a quote from the article And Starmer has finally jumped off a splintering fence, while characteristically managing to land not quite on either side of it. sums it up perfectly. He hasn’t done anything at all.

This isn’t middle ground. Middle ground would be providing trans people with their own space and leaving womens spaces alone. Which GC people have been calling for. It’s simply not enough for TRAs.

ubiquity · Today 13:22

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.

If you don't know her politics, it's very easy to see what she writes. I don't see how she is undermining her aim to strengthen and maintain women's rights, what's your logic for saying that?

Would you rather shut her up, than have her reach a wide audience?

'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.

So, you expect us to accept what you say, but won't back it up with examples? Why? Surely you'd like to reinforce your position?

I don’t tend to click on video links but you seem pleased with it so theres that 🙂

I expect it was simply hilarious and we would have all been spitting out our drinks.

Yes. This.

And the framing of the deep scrutiny and analysis of the language used compared to the previous language used and points made by the relevant politicians as ‘paranoia’ is rather fitting for a poster who has spent the entire thread making baseless and ignorant accusations and when called to produce specific evidence cannot.

And even when making ignorant accusations against Julie Bindel admits they are ‘no expert’ but have drawn the conclusion because Julie writes for particular media. Declaring Julie Bindel, Julie fucking Bindel, is a one issue feminist!

Seriously fucking laughing at that.

The absurdity of people who define others by the media they read is all being shown on this thread.

and the TWAW side believe that trans women are women, biologically

This is just not the case but is perpetuated everywhere because it is really the only grounds people can try and cite to justify a broader intolerance of transgenderism.

Who, aside from Twitter trolls and media outlets capitalising on the vitriol, claims to believe that trans women magically become biologically women?

Who, aside from Twitter trolls and media outlets capitalising on the vitriol, claims to believe that trans women magically become biologically women?

Sure. But what other justification could there be for trans people to access opposite sex spaces then? There's a lot of fudging going on.

Oh yes.

Like:
Daily Mail groupthink
the anti trans posters on MN
'one issue' keyboard warriors are waiting like Brides of Dracula for fresh victims

And who knows what was on the deleted posts.

I doubt that you are so unaware of your posting that you would make the the claim in this post and expect to be considered credible again.

McKinnon / Ivy declared they were 'female' when advising the sports committees (including I believe the IOC) and used people's use of pronouns to further justify the righteousness of philosophically including male people in female sports categories.

Let’s see

People who believe transwomen have a place in women’s sport.

The many transwomen who claim they have periods.

The people who believe trans women should be in a female only prisons, hospital wards, refuges and so on

The people who threaten women with rape and murder when then say trans women are not biologically women.

The ones claiming that lesbians have to date them or they are transphobic. Lesbians are same sex attracted not same gender attracted.

Ones that accept ‘women of the year’ the ones that support these ‘winners’.

If they all know they can’t change sex, how does any of the above make sense.

There are many trans people who are opposed to TWAW and speak out in defence of women. We know not all Transwomen believe they change biological sex. But many do.

Who, aside from Twitter trolls and media outlets capitalising on the vitriol, claims to believe that trans women magically become biologically women?

What is the basis for treating males like biological women if you see sex and gender identity as different?

OK following that. If TWaren'tW, how do you solve sports, refuges, toilets, prisons, homeless shelters, changing rooms and caring professions? In all of those biology matters.

Most GC women were happy to #BeKind and socially include people, regardless of gender-presentation. If that's all that's requested, ever, there's no issue. It's only when TWAW for all purposes including those where sex is an issue, that it's untenable.

As an aside, I'm collecting synonyms for 'hysterical/hysteria' that sexist people can use when they don't want their misogyny to be quite so obvious. So far I have; frenzy, hyperbolic, obsessed, paranoid and I'm looking for others.

I hate that powerful, misogynist men are piggybacking women fighting to safeguard their rights. That they're being lauded for it. Or that people think these men are GC.

They're not.

It clearly sets out Labour's sensible and reasonable position on the subject but you're so stuck on 'fight' mode that you refuse to see it. Or you have trouble with reading comprehension.

Reducing being able to get GRC by having one doctor say so isn’t enough. In your opinion.

and the TWAW side believe that trans women are women, biologically. So once they have a GRC not one is clear and wether than means they will get access to the very few spaces women have. Or not This is just silly. So who are this TWAW 'side'? Not Labour, who will most likely soon be doing the decision making.

Maybe spend a bit less time with your GC posse or obsessing over the extreme end of trans activism. They are not going to make the decisions, so chill out.

If only those in the Tory government who know what a woman is had cared enough to stop the TRAs in their party throwing British women under the bus.

Granted IW is on twitter saying this but this a prominent TRA with a media platform and many agree:

https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1559530487680569344?lang=en

Given this shitshow happened under and because of the Tory government. And the GC feminists who first identified the problem for women's safety are left wing. As are many campaigning women, why would you say Rage at the left. Are you a feminist or a RW activist?

Maybe spend a bit less time with your GC posse or obsessing over the extreme end of trans activism. They are not going to make the decisions, so chill out

I would certainly put Dawn Butler, Lisa Nandy, Nadia Whittome, Lloyd Russell-Moyle et al at the extreme end of this 'debate' - they may well be in decision making positions later this year so I don't think women should 'chill out' at all.