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 don’t think many women here are particularly, Ubiquity. They just recognise that on this issue Labour has been a shit show and Conservatives seem to be trying.

Very much like the newspapers. Guardian etc have been a shit show, actively persecuting journalists for wrongthink. Daily Mail and the times have been following and publishing stories.

It’s not about loyalty or preference, it’s just plain old observation of who says and does what.

Guardian etc have been a shit show, actively persecuting journalists for wrongthink. Daily Mail and the times have been following and publishing stories.

I don't think that's fair on the Guardian. And I do think the Daily Mail are just cynical and opportunistic in recruiting disgruntled feminist writers whose opinion on this one issue happens to coincide with the DM world view (and that only in the sense that it is anti-trans). A lot of DM content is incredibly sexist (as well as xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant etc etc) and the DM gives a platform to many absolutely awful people, such as Boris Johnson who was endorsing Trump there only a few days ago.

I agree pickled. I used to be a LP member but left when Corbyn appeared and the naked misogyny they have shown since has been so eye opening to me - I found it all the more hurtful as this was 'my' tribe. Now I do not recognise what the party has become. I used to be a Guardian reader too and pretty much the same applies.

https://unherd.com/2020/11/why-i-had-to-leave-the-guardian/

You should read this ubiquity for a start.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/15/trans-backlash-anti-gay-zealotry-section-28-homophobia

And this...

I don't know what you think that proves. The Guardian published SM's GC column, and the language is pretty inflammatory, causing several hundred colleagues to complain about it. But that's not bullying, although SM obviously feels very hard done by in the angry articles she has written since. The Guardian has published opinions on either side, but cannot and should not become a GC foghorn or start an out and out war on this in its pages, no matter how much you might wish that.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/freedom-of-speech/hadley-freeman/#:~:text=The%20reason%3F,claims%20the%20Guardian%20paper%20denies.

Yeah keep sharing but I reiterate what I said above. And the Guardian has certainly not 'cancelled' Hadley Freeman - it published a review of her book only last year.

Well, feel free to ignore.

This is interesting too...

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/09/how-the-guardian-became-the-pravda-of-the-trans-movement/

I meant to add that I would like to think there have been some steps towards that elusive middle ground since the battle lines were drawn a few years ago.

Forgive me if I don't give a lot credence to the opinions of Daily Mail journalist Jo Bartosch, who in that particular hatchet job on philosopher and academic Judith Butler doesn't shy away from incredibly immature language because she clearly communicates at the level of a mardy teen.

If that is true, and I haven't seen much evidence that it is true.

Do you think that women should forgive and forget the left wing media for the way it has treated women?

I used to be an avid guardian reader, they can fuck right off if they think they can win me back without a full apology for the way they have put the interests of males first.

Do you think that women should forgive and forget the left wing media for the way it has treated women? And how is that? The Guardian published not one but several of SM's GC columns. You people keep repeating that but it's likely just another RW media trope you've read and ingested without question.

I used to be an avid guardian reader, they can fuck right off if they think they can win me back without a full apology for the way they have put the interests of males first. Well, as we probably all on this thread agree (as it has become such a bone of contention), language matters. If you are referring to trans women as 'males', I consider that transphobic and it makes clear where you are coming from.

If you are referring to trans women as 'males', I consider that transphobic and it makes clear where you are coming from.

They literally are.
(So rare I can use the word accurately but thanks for the opportunity. I'm literally buzzing ;) )

Yes I put women first ubiquity. Language matters.

Stating basic biological fact (that transwomen are males) is not transphobic. What makes you think that humans can change sex?

I'm not engaging with a mob so I bid you goodnight.

So you aren't able to explain how humans can change sex? Shame.

If you are referring to trans women as 'males', I consider that transphobic

What you're actually saying here is that scientific reality is 'transphobic'. So it's no wonder people are treating this position as utterly ridiculous.

Oh, a "mob". Must be some of that civil rational argument again.

I don't call those males "trans women" as I don't appreciate being lied to and gaslighted, and it's so much easier to avoid when you don't play along and dance to that tune.

philosopher and academic Judith Butler

“If you are referring to trans women as 'males', I consider that transphobic and it makes clear where you are coming from.”

That is all anyone really needs to know. It shows just how absurd some people’s position is. That a group of people consider that people referring to male people as male people is transphobic, thereby removing the clarity of language needed to protect women and children and their rights, has always been ridiculous.

That those people are lecturing women about it needs to be seen by as many people as possible. The more people who see this, the more people will realise that there are significant conflicts between the demands made by these male people and the rights and needs of female people.

I know that the meaning of words has changed but since when was a handful posters a mob