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 tend to agree. I think it would have happened regardless of the party.

This'll get deleted no doubt but before I go to bed I have to say to you: if you think Boris Johnson (!) and Kemi Badenoch give two hoots about women's rights you really are an idiot. Never in the history of UK govts has there been a more toxic, sexist, misogynist, racist, classist, xenophobic, transphobic, anti-migrant, greedy, self-serving, callous and thoroughly incompetent govt on every possible level than this one. Give your head a wobble, really, or at least take it out of the Daily Mail cesspit.

I'm done with this utterly air-headed lunacy.

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.

you can add ‘air-headed’ now @MrsTerryPratchett

This'll get deleted no doubt but before I go to bed I have to say to you

That's nice, dear.

@Helleofabore

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.

I posted on the thread in good faith. I didn't mean to insult anyone, although I accept that my posts may have sounded patronising. But they were never rude and abusive like the replies I received. Unbelievably, I am on the same side as you, but after the hostile, cliquey flak I received, I don't really want to be. I didn't expect kindness. I only expected civil discussion, not to be torn apart with jeers. Do you think that's progression for women?

Not 100% true, the identity politics is very driven by the left, like in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Spain. The right, being the opportunistics people they are, jump on the bandwagon until they get pushback and change their minds. It is not that the center right hate women, as political parties they just don't care enough and will do what gets votes and makes the left look like the bullies they sometimes are.

And as politics gets more and more polarised, it leaves centrists like me without an option.

“if you think Boris Johnson (!) and Kemi Badenoch give two hoots about women's rights you really are an idiot. Never in the history of UK govts has there been a more toxic, sexist, misogynist, racist, classist, xenophobic, transphobic, anti-migrant, greedy, self-serving, callous and thoroughly incompetent govt on every possible level than this one.”

The hyperbole with this is incredible. What? Never in the history of UK governments? Well, I never! Considering I was not born here, but in another country in the Commonwealth which as directly impacted by historic UK governments, I can assure you that your hyperbole is not disguising the ignorance behind that statement.

I will point out that nowhere also have I stated that believe that this current government has a stellar history on women’s rights. I have merely been going through and correctly political ideological poster’s inane adherence to the concept that Labour is any better on this one issue.

This one issue.

Which you and other posters, including the OP, seem to not be able to look outside your tribally sanctioned viewpoint to understand. Labour would not have done any better on this one issue than the Tory government because up until the polls after the fiasco of the Scottish governments reform Act which was going to be pushed through, senior Labour position holders fully supported putting male’s into female prison cells.

An inconvenient fact that seems to be dismissed or ignored. But there it is.

What I and others have maintained is that it is imperative to work with the current UK government to get laws and policies in place to protect women and children. And that this childish narrative that if you read a certain mainstream media outlet, or write articles for them, then you are tainted by all that that media publishes and are anything other than stupid or far right wing is a bizarre and tribal approach to life.

The need at the moment is to have laws and policies prioritise sex over gender identity when sex matters to the outcome.

Yet, it seems to some posters that working with the government of the day to secure this, also then taints women forever.

Nothing you have posted has represented the current situation accurately nor been anything beyond this childish and superficial line of ‘look at those women over there, they are smelly poo poo bums and I am nothing like them’.

Well done.

“Give your head a wobble, really, or at least take it out of the Daily Mail cesspit.”

You also seem to not be able to read posts or to be able to move your thinking away from the track on repeat there. It is remarkable but all you have done is really show that you have nothing but that prejudiced way of thinking. There has been no engagement outside of that but a constant stream of insults.

It becomes pretty clear that you have nothing else.

Not sure what you expected to get out of your posts except to vilify and demonise women who actually are trying to work with the current government as well as the potential future government to achieve changes to protect all female people and children under policy and law. And to vilify and demonise them based not on what they have achieved through their adding their efforts to the campaign of female centred campaign groups, but on the media they read and their efforts to work across the political divide.

Some posters on the very thread, quite possibly more, are active also within those female led campaign groups.

Yet, here you are. Sneering and insulting with nothing else to offer. No evidence that stands up to scrutiny of those with background knowledge. Just the constant insults because why?

“I'm done with this utterly air-headed lunacy.”

The projection is strong with this one.

I’d love to use AI to summarise this conversation. I know it has its own baked in prejudice. Still I’d like a semi independent assessment of the arguments on here.

I know where my sympathies lie, and that will be influencing understanding of what’s been said. I know that works both ways. I did logic at uni briefly, where you summarised arguments with mathematical symbols to see how they held up. But it was years ago and I can’t remember how.

Still…. all I get from the opposing perspective is ‘hysteria, right wing conspiracy, gullible women, attacks, bigots, fools’. Oh and a bit of ‘problem, what problem? You’re imagining it’.

I really don’t get any coherent argument at all.

But I’ve only skimmed- no time for a deep dive.

Still…. all I get from the opposing perspective is ‘hysteria, right wing conspiracy, gullible women, attacks, bigots, fools’. Oh and a bit of ‘problem, what problem? You’re imagining it’.

I really don’t get any coherent argument at all.

But I’ve only skimmed- no time for a deep dive.

No I think that about sums it up.

'if you think Boris Johnson (!) and Kemi Badenoch give two hoots about women's rights you really are an idiot. Never in the history of UK govts has there been a more toxic, sexist, misogynist, racist, classist, xenophobic, transphobic, anti-migrant, greedy, self-serving, callous and thoroughly incompetent govt on every possible level than this one. Give your head a wobble, really, or at least take it out of the Daily Mail cesspit.'

'I'm done with this utterly air-headed lunacy.'

Readers, please do not report this post. It was aimed at me, but also it seems generally aimed at all posters who disagree with this particular poster. But it is an excellent post in what it highlights.

The Tribal nature of an absolutist thinker on purity of political thought vs modern media.

I would prefer those reading along to see this and understand that this is a tactic used by ideologically driven people. In this instance, it is the political party ideology that seems to be the issue. That supposedly people who do not conform to a particular political party ideology 100% are to be vilified and demonised. I don't use those words lightly because it has been shown to be all too true with this particular poster.

And for what? Women reading and writing for the Daily Mail and the Telegraph it seems.

And yet, has there been one post that has stated that the Daily Mail is an 'excellent' paper? Or just that it was a mainstream media source with varied content but that decided to capitalise on a gap in the market. There are no illusions about this paper. Just like some posters have no illusions that either the Tory party nor the Labour party have excelled themselves on this issue.

Yet, any posts pointing out that the carefully curated language used in the recent turn around is at odds with the previous statements. And that those women in and working with women in the Labour party are sending up alarms that the words do not match the current actions within the party at all. That the women within the party are stating clearly that there are no actions to support these statements that some posters are clinging onto.

So, please do not report it. Please let it stand for all to see.

You accept they are patronising and you say you didn’t mean to insult anyone. Yet you did.

And still you continue to then claim to be the victim here. I am glad you didn’t expect kindness, because your posts certainly didn’t seem to come from any place of kindness.

To reflect your own emotive use of language back at you, your posts were hostile and you received a like pushback.

Or do you not think writing ‘Anti-trans is simply one piece of the chessboard, and you are the pawns, sadly.” and “If you re-tweet a post, consider its source: you could be simply aiding the extreme far-right movement gain further momentum.” in your very first two posts was as hostile as what the people disagreeing with you have written.

Do you believe that these statements are ‘civil’ in light of the context of the discussion? Calling feminists ‘pawns’ of media agencies and telling them they are ‘aiding extremists’? Is opening with those statements ‘civil’?

As I posted, are women, who are on the receiving end of posts such as yours and the further posts that indicated that you don’t seem to have any depth of knowledge about the topic but still felt you could issue such censure to, just supposed to be kind and gentle in their push back? You made it clear what you thought of women such as the ones who have pointed out your inaccuracies.

And your reaction to having your posts put into one post to show that hostility in the first two posts and then the continued patronising was to post “Honestly, the bile that is spewed when someone with slightly different opinion to you all is incredible”.

And you don’t believe that this was a ‘hostile’ and ‘rude’ reaction to someone pointing out the nature in your own posts? And now you are claiming that a group of strangers on the internet who disagree with your posts are a ‘clique’. “Jeers”? Ok. I point out though that ‘jeering’ is well after your first couple of posts where you set the tone for the rest of your posts.

Do you see the hypocrisy of this post I am replying to yet? That you seem to want to be allowed to patronise, use emotive language to vilify, and now to name call yet women cannot push back and say ‘no, you are incorrect here and this is why’ or even bluntly say ‘no, fuck off with that patronising attitude’, is hypocritical wouldn’t you say?

Would you please point out where a poster has been abusive towards you? Please read back and cut and paste the posts that have been specifically abusive towards you. I have read back the thread and I must have missed them, I recommend that if someone has abused you, that you report the post and it will be deleted.

Unbelievably, I am on the same side as you, but after the hostile, cliquey flak I received, I don't really want to be.

That's fine, feel free to adopt a quasi religious belief, that no one can make a single rational argument for, that some males have a female soul then, because some women on MN clapped back at your ignorant pontifications. It's entirely up to you.

I've asked this before and I will ask it again, why aren't the Labour Party crystal clear that they will exclude transwomen with or without a GRC from the definition of biological women for the purpose of single sex spaces reserved for women?

In an election year they will have employees scouring the internet looking at voter opinion. They will KNOW that there are women who have concerns about this. They will know that for some women this is a deal breaker.

IF they intend to exclude males with a GRC from female single sex spaces it would be so easy for them to confirm this to secure votes that they could lose on this issue.

At the moment looking at this single issue it seems that the Conservative Party position is clearer, as set out by Kemi Badenoch, that doesn't make me a right wing, bigot, fascist, Daily Mail reading Nazi, it just means I'm a person who has critically evaluated what the 2 main political parties have said about women's rights to single sex spaces at this point in time.

All of the posters sneering and being nasty about this are just doing the typical Labour purity thing.

And in the meantime all we want is guarantees that Labour will do the right thing by vulnerable women, that really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Sorry for the typos. I was typing on my phone.

I used to get the Granuiad or Observer delivered to me every day. I read each page religiously. They once sent the Daily Mail by mistake and I matched round to the newsagent and told them what for and to never ever send that scum to my house again.

These days, I refuse to even click on one of their links, the mission they have decided to get behind in order to obliterate the futures of so many children. Vile people.

So don't come at me with your Daily Mail right wing shite. Ask yourself why you are so invested in their agenda to obliterate the futures of so many children.

Calling people 'pawns of the right' and suggesting PP need to consider their sources in case they advance far right extremism isn't exactly polite!

People bristle when they get the same circular accusations over and over, it all starts to sound like 'women, shush, you're being used by nasty people and you're too stupid to see it'.

If we can't read or write for 'right wing media' and the 'left wing/acceptable' media shut us down and lie about us, what should we do?

You can see it on this thread, Julie B being accused of being a right winger for writing in the DM, when the Guardian purged Hadley Freeman and Suzanne Moore and anyone who won't toe the gender line.

There are women on this thread who've been at this for a long time, reading and researching and working - so suggestions that anyone GC is a gullible idiot who just thinks what the DM tells them is quite insulting.

Yes! I have asked this on different threads too. I expect we know the answer. They are playing all sides and I accept that is typical political strategy. And it is why carefully curated statements (particularly Starmers two or three sentences) that are completely opposite to what women within the party are reporting is happening and what is being supported is not being taken at face value.

Because that face, according to the very active Labour Party women I speak to regularly, is false.

Actually I think the gender critical posts on this thread have been very measured. @nothingcomestonothing ’s use of ‘quite insulting’ at the end of her last post is typically understated.

The hyperbole is coming from somewhere else.

What I would back you up with, is that there are many people here who disagree with you so you probably feel there’s been a pile on. But really if you present an unpopular opinion that you can’t back up in any meaningful way, and throw insults around as you do so, then you will get significant push back.

And lurkers will judge for themselves.

As an aside, I'm always suspicious of someone warning me not to read something. There are many on here effectively saying women shouldn't read the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

Whereas many gender critical^ voices online have said, like Helleofabore above, don't censor the other side of the debate.

We are quite confident that when readers encounter the arguments on both sides, it will only convince them of the reasonableness of the gender critical stance.

^I'm using the phrase gender critical for want of a better one. I don't like the phrase, I prefer "acknowledges reality" or similar

Edit for grammatical error

@Helleofabore I was talking about https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4517255-JHB-asks-Rishi-Sunak-what-is-a-woman

And this
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1501654/Boris-Johnson-GB-News-latest-Conservative-Party-speech-woke-cancel-culture-woman-cervix-vn/amp

Bearing in mind the record swing Labour needs due to the boundary changes, you'd think they'd be trying harder to squeeze every single vote out of the electorate they can.

You know that it was a RW Tory government that inflicted this on British women. You know that left wing GC feminist women alerted us to it. You know that LW women in all parties are fighting it.

So why Rage at the Left rather than at the party in power who are responsible? It's illogical from any POV, its especially illogical from a Feminist POV.

Yes I am a feminist.

@Helleofabore

Do you see the hypocrisy of this post I am replying to yet? That you seem to want to be allowed to patronise, use emotive language to vilify, and now to name call yet women cannot push back and say ‘no, you are incorrect here and this is why’ or even bluntly say ‘no, fuck off with that patronising attitude’, is hypocritical wouldn’t you say?

TLDR to most of your essay. I know what I wrote; I don't need you to copy/paste it back to me. Thanks.

I am also a woman. I can also push back to your arrogance - or is that not allowed in your world? A group of you are particularly rude and pretending you are not is laughable. Just own it.

Pardon?

which party introduced the GRC and the Equality Act?

Clue it was not the Conservatives!

Both of the Acts that have enabled this were introduced by Labour.