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.

When people aren't entirely engaging in good faith.

fair point

Just to pick up on this.

The fact that most humans on this planet know that transwomen are male doesn't make the ones who are truthful about this a 'mob'.

Interested to hear how you think trans women are not male or that pointing that out is transphobic.?

@Helleofabore

She was still at university when she gave that interview. So, you seem to have missed some pretty significant pieces of information in drawing your 'consideration'. Did you ever consider checking timelines ? No? Just taking that manipulative media at its word? Gosh....

This is my last answer to you. Gaines graduated with a degree in human health sciences and health law. She planned to go to dental school after that, but deferred. So you don't know everything.

I never claimed that the media I posted was neutral. What was of interest was the original quotes from Gaines in the article that have a quite different feel to how she speaks today.

@ItsFunToBeAVampire

This is absolutely not true.
I learned about this in 2017 after some threads on MN (and I consider myself a latecomer by MN standards) and then I investigated and was horrified.
The conservatives have grasped it after it was publicised by mostly left-wing women.

I was referring to the Gaines/Thomas incident.

I don't vote Labour, nevermind worship them. It seems to be becoming a common theme that if you criticise our government you must be a Labour supporter or shill. This is total tosh, considering that most of the UK never voted Tory and atm a lot of people who did support the Tories are disgusted with them and have turned away.

Anyone defending the Tories at this stage is most likely a Tory supporter.🤷‍♀️ There is no defence for what they've done to the country.

As an aside, the last poster who told me not to assume they were a Tory supporter, was a Tory supporter, a Tory party member and a Tory candidate in the last Council Elections. I skim over their posts now as I lost respect for them.

The Tory government has been detrimental to women's rights and a total shitshow on this matter. It happened under their watch and because of them.

I don't vote Tory or Labour so am not swayed by one party or the other. I know that British women's rights resources and circumstances have been been destroyed over the 14 years the Conservatives have been in power.

Do you think women should forgive and forget the Tory government for the way it has treated women @lifeturnsonadime?

Your final answer to me. Why? I am pointing out the factual inconsistencies in the article that you posted.

Did I say what degree she graduated with? No.

Did I point out that she was finishing her course work for her degree, as were the other women, for the months following her race? Yes.

It really is not that hard to think of why her reaction to the sexual abuse she experienced might have changed across that period. The thing is, has her statement of the details changed? No. It has not.

It is her reported reaction that changed.

It might even be her internal reaction that has changed in that time too. And there are several plausible options for that stated change that differ significantly to the reason that you seem to be positioning. Which seems to be either that she has changed her story to make money, or some other negative reason. And it comes across as you making some kind of negative accusation while trying to hide that negative accusation.

Other plausible reasons for the movement in her reported reaction to her sexual abuse could include :

-time needed process what happened to her. She and the other women were indeed victims of sexual abuse despite your personal questioning of this. And she was studying for her finals meaning she needed to not be distracted. She might have received therapy, or she might have at the very least listened to other sexual abuse or sexual assault victims and finally understood what she experienced.
-the fact she was still at university doing her undergraduate degree and feared for her physical safety.
-plus she might have feared for her ability to finish her degree because of what was public already about the Penn female swimmers being threatened with being terminated from their courses.
-other women had not come out as named persons at that stage so she was an isolated identifiable voice.
-the person who interviewed her that provided that transcript was a male with a trans identity so she may have reacted in a way to either dismiss her own discomfort at that stage to not offend or not bring about attack for different reasons including to not cause a very negative article to be written bringing more potential for attacks on her safety and for her abuse.

I can think of other plausible reasons too. As I said, it is not that hard to understand why her reported reaction ‘changed’.

The question is, why are you attributing manipulative intention to a sexual abuse victims feelings of discomfort about the event of her abuse? Because you read about it on a media platform that is heavily invested in discrediting Riley Gaines? Because you wish to join in discrediting her ? Why?

That you came on to correct me with the fact she hasn’t done her dentistry qualifications, but that she graduated with a different degree deflects from the fact that you have now shown that you don’t seem to have spared a thought for a woman’s sexual abuse. In fact, you have effectively dismissed it, whether that was your intention or not.

Again, posting this broken up to make it easier to read.

“I never claimed that the media I posted was neutral. What was of interest was the original quotes from Gaines in the article that have a quite different feel to how she speaks today.”

Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy here?

You came onto this thread to post that women were at risk of being manipulated by media. Through reading content that was published in RW media services. Plus through posting media that was deemed to be RW, thereby giving that media source credibility and ultimately revenue.

Yet you felt it entirely appropriate to post content from a media service with a stated aim that starts with the words ‘anti-trans’ and discussing the aim of discrediting what they view as propaganda.

You did exactly what you have felt so passionately about that you even came to post on this thread.

I understand that you have stated your reason for doing so was that we should see the transcript that supported your claim. Fine. Yet you have lectured us for doing similar. I say similar because I would not be on threads trying to effectively discredit a sexual abuse victims account. It is very dismissive.

That you came on to correct me with the fact she hasn’t done her dentistry qualifications, but that she graduated with a different degree deflects from the fact that you have now shown that you don’t seem to have spared a thought for a woman’s sexual abuse. In fact, you have effectively dismissed it, whether that was your intention or not.

The reason I won’t reply to you any more is I’m tired of defending myself. Yesterday it was even implied I endorse child abuse because of my username! The pile on here is awful. I’m a woman with a viewpoint, too, but I’ve been nothing but slashed to pieces and my words twisted.

The above is an example. I haven’t dismissed her experience at all. You don’t know mine. You’re assuming I don’t care. The opposite is true - I was SA as a teenager and live with it every day. Stop talking down women as you don’t know what they have lived.

I am sorry to hear that you are a sexual abuse survivor.

However, that really doesn’t explain why you cannot acknowledge the hypocrisy of your posting assignedmedia content after lecturing us for so many pages.

And as I acknowledged, your intention might not have been to dismiss what has happened to Riley, but that is the outcome regardless.

You have had plenty of opportunity to clarify your words. Many of us have asked questions that seek to clarify those words. You have chosen instead to attack and to make accusations despite acknowledging that you were patronising us from the start of your posting here.

I don’t believe people are ‘talking down’ to you. Pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts is not ‘talking down’ to you. It is engaging with the very words you have posted here for all to read.

That is the entire point of posting on a public forum, isn’t it? To post your opinion and then discuss it and to defend it if people disagree? Maybe I have completely misunderstood public forums. Are they places where you expect to post your opinion and then have 100% support ?

Stop talking down women as you don’t know what they have lived.

Same. You came onto the thread telling us to be more careful, we were all gullible pawns getting our ideas from the Daily Mail. You've no idea where anyone else got their viewpoint or their lived experience but assume much.

Are we back to the this whole issue was caused by the Tories fallacy again?

i can’t stand the tories, my own personal gripe is what they have done to Sen education and public services, particularly menial health.

But owing to the acts of parliament enacted by Labour that allowed men to be legal women I think it’s simplistic and wrong to suggest that it is the tories that did this to women when it’s clear it would have also happened under Labour and we probably would also have full self ID under them too given previous manifesto pledges.

I can't believe @TooBigForMyBoots didn't vote Labour in the last election. I did before awareness of this gender ideology shit show. Turns out I am more ideologically pure and less responsibly for the 'Tories' than her. Perhaps I should start endless threads about it and hector her.

Two things ubiquity.

1. You clearly have no idea who Jo Bartosch is
2. You clearly have no idea who Judith Butler is 😂

So because I will not vote Labour I am 'defending' the Tories? And probably a Tory supporter even though I have said that I am not?

Ok then. 🙄

Interested to hear how you think trans women are not male or that pointing that out is transphobic.?

The questions that will never be answered.

Someone who says they are a victim of SA as a teen, who chooses a user name who I ONLY KNOW as a result of an ad campaign that included images linked to child sex abuse because of the scandal about those child sex abuse images.

I had never ever heard that name until that point. I don't even know what they sell or do. I'm assuming some sort of fashion item.

So again, if that's the name you choose to go by that is your choice, my point is to not be surprised if people make those associations when they read it.

We are here being accused of being daily mail harpies because a few people link to daily mail articles, and yet we cannot show the double standards when the people accusing us of being 'far right' when we point out some choice user names chosen by people slagging us off.

If links that are posted are fair game, then why not user names?

The problem is, is that you expect to accuse people and not be snapped back at.

Perhaps if you try and work out WHY the left wing media is so silent on the mutilation and sterilisation of gay, lesbian, autistic and kids with registered sex offenders as parents, instead of having a go at people who post links to other media that DOES cover it, you might just work out why Labour is going to shaft the UK the moment it gets elected. The Tories are no better but they chose to let this play out and it went too far and they are unlikely to be able to do anything about it now.

I don't see how Big boots can hold you to that standard without being a massive hypocrite tbf @WaterHound seeing as she supposedly doesn't even vote Labour herself (and then starts multiple threads berating those who do the same or even complain that labour are shit.)

Double standards = being able to call or imply women posting about the need to prioritise sex over gender where sex is important are ‘anti-trans’ and in any way hateful and expecting that those women will not react negatively.

We see this cycle of abuse over and over. And it is abusive.

It is abusive to claim that it is transphobic to use a person’s current sex in discussions about those situations when sex needs to be prioritised. It is abusive behaviour to continue to label women falsely. To call or infer it is ‘anti-trans’. To keep making negative generalisations about MN and allegations of transphobia on the forum based on a personal definition of transphobia. A definition that seems does not reflect how transphobia is interpreted by the law courts and barristers specialising in human rights laws.

And yet, here we are. Stuck in this cycle. Being told that to correctly sex someone is transphobic.

When the bar for transphobia is set so low, it is a tactic designed to silence people. To give some
people the excuse, based on a falsehood, to ‘call out’ hate. To portray opinions that disagree with an ideologically driven belief as worthy of derision, derogation and dismissal.

It also makes those making those accusations feel entitled to claim that push back and rejection is, in turn, abuse.

That more than one dissenting voice is a ‘pile on’. I have watched in the past on other threads where five women saying ‘no. That’s not right’ has been called a ‘pile on’. Hyperbole is very common used to emotionally manipulate those reading and participating in the discussion. Because women posting their opinion on a public forum must be ‘part of a clique’, they are not allowing disagreement, they are bullies are very common accusations from posters who come to a thread and immediately start name calling and accusing women of transphobia, being ‘anti-trans’ and aligning with or being puppets of the far right, RW or alt-right.

The cycle is constant though. It really becomes clear on threads such as this.

That more than one dissenting voice is a ‘pile on’. I have watched in the past on other threads where five women saying ‘no. That’s not right’ has been called a ‘pile on’. Hyperbole is very common used to emotionally manipulate those reading and participating in the discussion. Because women posting their opinion on a public forum must be ‘part of a clique’, they are not allowing disagreement, they are bullies are very common accusations from posters who come to a thread and immediately start name calling and accusing women of transphobia, being ‘anti-trans’ and aligning with or being puppets of the far right, RW or alt-right.

So much hyperbole: 'attacked'; 'bullied'; 'ripped apart'; 'slashed to pieces'; 'mob'. All because posts are disagreed with and robustly challenged. It's utterly ridiculous that any challenge to what's being said is described in such emotive terms.

Disagreement goes both ways, yet you don't see such descriptions of posts / posters from both sides of the disagreement. Why is that, do you think? It's frustrating not to be able to debate without daft accusations being thrown around! (Particularly where hypocrisy re tone and content is also present.)

ubiquity · Yesterday 18:50

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.

Mainly American backroom staff, who complained that they "didn't feel safe working with her," despite having no contact with her and her legally held, entirely reasonable beliefs. She got rid of Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman, because they didn't want them to write article, which didn't grovel slavishly for transw.

Look at their coverage of anything to do with trans, Wi Spa for example. They just lied about it.

The Guardian coverage of the WiSpa incident was rather eye opening.