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.

Yes she is still a Labour MP? And she has also had an apology.

However, nobody is perfect, and Rosie Duffield is mates with Justin Welby, who, just as an aside, championed Paula Vennells (and was nearly successful) for Bishop of London...

Sorry, Clavinova, but you're not worth my time.

How is that Rosie Duffield's fault? careful with that reach, you'll do yourself a mischief.

To borrow another leaf from your book, you can't.

No, I said sorry outright.

If that's how you want to see it, I don't care either way. You're not worth anyone's time.

Rosie Duffield December 2023;

Starmer hasn’t spoken to me since 2021

Oh sorry Clavinova ubiquity is too important and their time is too precious for the likes of you, apparently.

No, but as is usual in 'debates' like this, I've got several angry GC keyboard warriors peppering me with questions, so I can't satisfy each and every demand.

Oh sorry Clavinova ubiquity is too important and their time is too precious for the likes of you, apparently

I would appear so

You don't want to acknowledge that, do you?

Well, I think we can all see that ubiquity is undertaking this discussion in an entirely good faith, open handed fashion.

You don't think it says anything about people's judgment who they choose to associate with? Jo Bartosch and Julie Bindel, for example, share a platform with that famous feminist Boris Johnson who in turn is bezzie mates with 'grab them by the pussy' Donald Trump. Integrity matters...

As ppl said, desperate

No. I mean media that has been written to deliver a broad spectrum of opinion to readers with a broad spectrum of views. I believe I mentioned this.

Can you tell us specifically which media you feel has been consistently progressive for women that is read by a broad spectrum of people? Which mainstream media outlet is the one we should all be reading?

And do you remember me saying to you that I use the Daily Mail to then find the original source material if it is relevant? And that I do so because it is not behind a paywall?

It really isn’t fucking hard.

Yes you did. Not in your first reply. It got lost.

I get, getting frustrated. But are insulting people again. Telling them they aren’t worth your time.

If you can’t debate this issue without insulting people, either don’t do it. Or accept that people will insult back.

It’s hypocritical to lain that people are insulting you while handing out insults yourself.

media that has been written to deliver a broad spectrum of opinion to readers with a broad spectrum of views You really think this describes the Daily Mail?

Wow. FFS! Do you think that the BBC should ever have a balanced panel of opinion presented? Or do you think media should all be only presenting their political leanings?

What world do you live in?

I'm OK with the tone of this going back and forth from reasonably polite to robust to insulting, it's others complaining that I'm insulting when they are, too.

Do you think that the BBC should ever have a balanced panel of opinion presented?

That's something quite different. And the DM does not have a 'balanced panel of opinion', it opportunistically recruits disgruntled journalists to broaden its appeal - journalists who really should know better.

Yes. Because I read the articles that interest me and leave the articles that don’t interest me. Did you also read where I have said two times that I go and check original sources and believe it or not, usually they have their facts correct. Is it a click bait headline- sure! That is not new.

I don’t know how I survived for 50 years in a world where I didn’t align myself to one particular media outlet and read and listened across a wide range.

So you are ok if I insult you as you have insulted me several times over this thread?

Because you started it, I can insult and you would let it go? Is that the level we are at? Such tit for tat?

And around we go. Again

And Lloyd Russell Moyle literally shared a megaphone and a platform with Sarah Jane Baker, a violent TRA who exhorted his supporters to punch women in the face.

Someone managed to convince a lot of people a man can become a woman by saying he is.

When the Prime Minister of the UK says it, it will convince a lot of people.🤷‍♀️ And lull others into a false sense of security that however mad it sounds, the government can be trusted to safeguard woman.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/theresa-may-plans-to-let-people-change-gender-without-medical-checks