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.

ALL media uses click baiting as a tactic to get more readers/page views. It sells advertising. It's not just the ones disapproved of by posters on this thread.

That was exceptionally rude.

Clav got there before me with this, but what message do we get from Starmer writing in the Sun?

Am I worth your time?! 🙈🤣

Soz, I can't be bothered with this.

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.

And those idiotic SNP politicians gormlessly photographed at a "trans rights" protest in front of someone holding a "decapitate terfs" sign with a cutesy guillotine drawing?

Bye for now! Just remember, shouting in the wind gets you nowhere 👋

Then perhaps stop doing it?

Taking that as a no! 🙈🤣

No answers but there never are any answers or reasoned debate from TRAs.

An inconvenient message? One that makes people’s heads hyperbolically explode?

I notice we didn’t get a suggested source of media coverage that is progressive for women that is read by a wide range of people with a wide range of political views.

I suspect that some people live in their little bubble where only safe opinions are expressed.

No answers but there never are any answers or reasoned debate from TRAs.

Hope any lurkers are getting that loud and clear. I'm sure they are. TRAs don't call MN a radicalisation portal for nothing.

Apparently though eresh we are the ‘extremists’ and we apparently are not those pushing for the best middle ground option that doesn’t continue to harm women and girls. Not like the solutions that do continue to harm women and girls but makes some people feel good. Because they apparently are the middle grounders.

Apparently, women who have spent years discussing the solutions, reading the studies, the academic papers, the government proposals, the law suits, listening to whatever we can fit in, are naive and easily influenced. And those who wish to state that they are ‘nothing like those women’, they are the righteous ones on the right side of history. Yet they only have a superficial understanding of the issues because, well multiple reasons, but also only read the pre vetted media sources that are pure enough and that they supposedly are the ones who are smart enough to read and disseminate information.

And apparently, it is all the Tories fault and Labour would never have made the decisions that the Tories did initially… despite all the evidence to the contrary. But remember …. Women who have followed this discussion, who have researched which governments made the initial policies etc, we apparently are the extremists who are ignorant. The cycle is endless.

The accusations and lecturing and patronising posts as new posts come onto the threads are also to be accepted and never to be pushed back on despite the language used. Because those righteous posters can say any fucking thing they want and expect that others will just be kind and gentle and accept the falsehoods. It is a fucked up cycle.

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

are you actually doing that ‘7 degrees’ game? 😳

And there is no need to be rude to clav

apparently its ok for starmer to do what he has to do to get his words to a wider audience….

and good on him if he is prepared to do that

i do not understand at all why its bad to get your words to a wider audience who may well change their minds about things, how do people learn otherwise

my dad has changed his mind over all sorts of stuff when Ive explained my views on things…should have just said that I wasn’t talking to him about it I suppose

silly

Have any of our recent Tory PMs clarified *who is legally considered a 'biological woman"?

I believe both Boris and Rishi have used the term female and been clear that doesn’t include male people. Both also supported guidance stating this within the EA2010. Why don’t you look it up OP?

And perhaps you could also answer why you think that a Labour government in the past would have not allowed the same mess to occur?

Because I think many of us want to hear you supply evidence for that considering all the labour MPs declaring that rapists should be in female prisons etc.

I'm not patronising you. I am questioning your Rage at the left comment, given the RW Tory government did this and it was LW GC women who spoke out and continue to do so. Along with lots other LW people.

This is how women are written out of history. Demonise them, force team them then ignore them. While RW powerful men who dont care about women are presented as our saviours.

So I'll repeat my original question: are you a feminist or a RW activist?

I've left this thread for ages but just want to butt in this tuppence worth:

The Daily Mail is the second most popular paper (in terms of number of in-print readers) in the country, after the Metro (which is free). By logical definition something so mainstream can't be FAR right, you can't have a huge proportion of the country being far-anything. And if you want to reach a large number of people, writing in the country's most popular paid newspaper is a way of doing it. Someone writing an article in a paper isn't declaring they agree with every article previously written in that paper.

I have no idea what would have happen under Labour.

I know the Tories have been in government for 14 years. In that time they have fucked British women over. The trans shitshow being just one of the ways.

You believe wrong. Boris refused to say that only women have a cervix in a TV interview. Sunak said that a woman is whatever Boris says in a radio interview.

They and their party spin on a sixpence on this issue. At no point have they ever given a biological or legal definition that can be shown to exclude men.

TooBigForMyBoots
I have no idea what would have happened under Labour

Perhaps read Labour's 2017 manifesto - this extract is from the Guardian link you posted this evening;

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has said May would have his support if she scrapped the requirement for trans people to undergo medical tests, and instead allowed them to self-identify their gender, saying legislation could be passed with Labour’s help.

In July, Corbyn said: “Discrimination has gone on too long. The Gender Recognition Act does not allow trans people to self-identify their gender and forces them to undergo invasive medical tests. This is wrong.

“Labour recognised this in our manifesto, pledging to update the act. Theresa May told Pink News that ‘changes need to be made’ but failed to include anything on this in the Conservative manifesto.

“So, I say to her, Labour will help you keep your promise. Bring forward a bill to update the act and improve trans rights and Labour will back you. You can give your MPs and the DUP a free vote and Labour will make it law.”

TooBigForMyBoots
Sunak said that a woman is whatever Boris says in a radio interview...
At no point have they ever given a biological or legal definition that can be shown to exclude men

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-transgender-penis-b2319675.html

Labour have also said before that they wanted to change the Equality Act so the single sex exceptions didn't apply to "trans people". It's in a now deleted video they did for Pink News I think. Maybe in Corbyn's time.

So I'll repeat my original question: are you a feminist or a RW activist?

I'm a feminist. You didn't understand the comment, I was saying that you're complaining to the wrong people here, go and whinge at Labour for making themselves unelectable to women like me. Are you a feminist? You seem more concerned with ideological purity to me. Do get over yourself.

Is this the 'cervix' quote you are talking about

Labour conference: Not right to say only women have a cervix, says Starmer - BBC News

The one from Starmer.

Boris said this in 2022

Biology defines who is a woman, says Boris Johnson (thetimes.co.uk)

plug that into archive dot md or ph.

It is a question that has proved increasingly difficult for Labour politicians to answer: what is a woman?

Boris Johnson has now stepped into the fray, insisting that “biology” is a fundamental factor when distinguishing between a man and woman.
His remarks during prime minister’s questions yesterday appeared to set a deliberate dividing line between himself and Sir Keir Starmer, who has, in contrast, suggested that biological males should also be classed as women if they identify as female.

and

Johnson said: “I think that this is one of those issues that the whole House is coming to realise is one that requires extreme sensitivity, tact, love and care.

“We must recognise that when people want to make a transition in their lives, that they should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect, and we have systems in this country that allow that and have done for a long time, we should be very proud of it.

“I do want to say in addition that I think when it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, that the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.”

Have you missed the work that Kemi has been trying to pull together about clarifying the guidance for the EA to be absolutely clear about the exclusion of males available with the exceptions. I wonder how you have framed Kemi, Minister for Equalities, being absolutely clear about what a woman is and has been seeking ways to make that very clear in the EA2010 as the Tory party not giving a definition.

And OP, can you tell us please just which party was in power who drafted the EA2010? The one that the Tory party is now spending a great deal of effort to get a definitive legal opinion on what can be changed without legislation and what needs to go through due process?

Like other posters, you seem to be far more interested in tribal party alignment than working within whatever government is in power to achieve what is needed. I think it is over simplistic to also lump this all on the Tories. And it is absurd to try the 'I don't know what Labour would do' tactic.

The partisan wrangling on here is silly. The ludicrous trans woo stuff has been global, and would have happened in the UK no matter who was in power. And I say that as someone who is determined to boot the Tories out at the next election - for other reasons, not for this one particularly.