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.

Well I don’t know where all the TRAs have been this afternoon, possibly in conference together, but they are all out now.

It's a pissed off at cheating men in sports thread. Tandora thinks women should just take this happening to us without complaint or expressing anger.

Being trans exclusionary has nothing to do with thinking critically about gender and nothing to do with feminism, despite what a lot of loud (self-professed) “gender critical feminists” on this site like to claim.

So being gender-critical is not the same as being trans-exclusionary?
Yes, we might have mentioned that once or twice.

Thanks @OvaHere.

I mean, posters on this thread really didn't like it when I posted some thoughts different to their own. How is that different?

I'll preface this by stating I don't agree with Thomas' participation in female swimming competitions.

The source of this quote is Riley Gaines. Gaines is now a Conservative pundit. That doesn't mean what she says is wrong, but perhaps should be looked at more carefully. (I would do this with all extremes of the spectrum, not just the alt-right). It turns out her story has changed a few times - yes, Thomas was in the locker room, but apparently there was little choice. The below is an original quote from Gaines at the time to a journalist that is significantly less inflammatory.

Why is that?




Sorry, my link didn't work - I'll try again:

www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/riley-gaines-changed-her-story-about-lia-thomas

Maybe because the women on that team were under huge coercive pressure from management, coupled with threats to their place on the team to #bekind about Thomas.

Once she found support perhaps she felt braver to speak the truth in less compromised language.

Other women on the same team have since spoken out after Riley made it possible. I think at least one of them was still scared enough to only be interviewed on a darkened set to obscure her identity.

I don't think it's much of a reach to imagine that a man who lied his way onto the women's swim team and into the female locker room might be motivated to flash his bits once he got in there.

The source of this quote is Riley Gaines. Gaines is now a Conservative pundit. That doesn't mean what she says is wrong, but perhaps should be looked at more carefully.

Why should it be looked at any more "carefully" than a left wing pundit?

I don't think it's much of a reach to imagine that a man who lied his way onto the women's swim team and into the female locker room might be motivated to flash his bits once he got in there.

I've seen other evidence that Thomas isn't someone naive women should be enabling.

I did say in my post "I would do this with all extremes of the spectrum, not just the alt-right)."

I believe her, and I think you are extremely naive.

@OvaHere

Once she found support perhaps she felt braver to speak the truth in less compromised language.

Possibly, or perhaps she's simply making a lot of money out of it. I don't have a problem with that, but that likely what it is. She's found a formula that works - and pays in the environment right now. Let's be honest.

I don't think it's much of a reach to imagine that a man who lied his way onto the women's swim team and into the female locker room might be motivated to flash his bits once he got in there.

Except that isn't what the article - with the original, first quotes from Riley Gaines - said. Did you read it?

What version of her do you believe? The earlier or the later?

Like I said, I'm not comfortable with trans women participation in female sports. I've said earlier in the thread I don't support them in changing rooms - so we all agree there. I do think, globally, we are being manipulated to think this is a greater issue than it actually is. Just a tiny scrape under the surface of this article showed problems with it. How many people would actually take the time to look into it further but just react with outrage? That is where the manipulation lies.

Yeah, you haven't demonstrated anything, just given your opinion. And I don't share it.

That's fine.

It is if you have your very own personal definition of transphobia that doesn’t reflect society’s version and you use that definition to accuse others.

Seems to be.

And yet, it wasn’t that ‘you posted thoughts of your own’. You were, even in your own words, patronising. We went one step further and pointed out just how accusatory your posts were. And you then turned abusive.

Do you feel it is appropriate to patronise and scold a group of women the way your first posts did whether they might agreed with you or not? And if you feel it is not appropriate, why did you do it?

And how did she become a pundit?

By having her whole future ruined by him. She tied in the race but yet he got the place.

I mean, she was actually kidnapped in a university and didn't know if she would get out alive.

I'm sure she'd have just rather have got on with her planned future.

Girls who lose in the USA don't just lose races, they lose scholarships and their entire futures. When they speak out, it is too late for them, they do it for other girls who are coming up behind them.

And yet, the male swimmers had a locker room, did they not? Penises with penises? And Thomas would supposedly have had friends in the male locker room considering that Thomas swam previous meets as a male swimmer.

So, Riley Gaines, as one of the first women to publicly complain was initially taking a careful approach and you feel this makes her dishonest?

Have you considered she carefully worded her statement because she was still at university and felt she would jeopardise her place there if she deviated from that carefully curated position?

Do you think that she also needed to process what happened to her and the others and work through it? Don’t women victims of sexual abuse get to do that?

Or is it that she is a conservative that you are reacting to? Would you prefer that she not talk? That she only talk in the way you wish her to talk so that you are comfortable in sharing her words? That she had a differerent political background? Or what?

You seem to resent that she is conservative speaking about women’s sports and doesn’t have the right credentials.

Have you seen the abuse Martina gets? How about Selina Soule, who was instrumental in the Connecticut court case where males took the scholarship opportunities ? And neither of these women were exposed to male genitalia yet were still at university at the time so had to be so careful in what they said.

I have seen how Riley was treated in her early speaking events, she was abused even then for just speaking out. Do you believe that she would have felt safe to express the full truth of her distress that she was exposed to a male penis ?

Do you believe that women who have been sexually abused should then be shamed as that article you posted has attempted to do? Do you believe that a woman’s declaration of being sexually abused should be treated with such derision and suspicion?

Have any other female swimmers contradicted her account that Thomas exposed Thomas’s penis and that Thomas watched them ? If anything more women have now come out and confirmed. So of course, those women feel more confident in being honest in how they felt now that they have processed it. Do you think they should have remained silent? Or just spoken the way you feel they should have approached it?

Yes. Those female students were very scared about their safety and their being able to finish their degrees.

And one told the world that several of them were getting changed in cupboards. Yet Riley should be disbelieved because obviously when this all happened, there was no threats to the girls from their own universities, from other students, from the public! That article just posted is a victim shaming piece. Who the fuck believed that was appropriate to write in the first fucking place? Just because she is a conservative? Just because she is raising the alarm? Fuck !

So ‘conservative’ is now ‘alt-right’?

Polarisation in action there.

@Helleofabore

It is if you have your very own personal definition of transphobia that doesn’t reflect society’s version and you use that definition to accuse others.

Accuse others of what exactly? Of abuse on this thread, yes. Anything else, no. And I'm allowed to have my own definition of what I'm comfortable with, and you can't police it, just like I can't police what you read and post. Correct?

It's getting that way in certain countries. The US, where the Lia Thomas example is, most certainly.